Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
08-16-2022 Agenda and Packet
A.7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER B.PUBLIC HEARINGS B.1 RSI Marine, 10500 and 10520 Great Plains Boulevard: Consider a Request for Rezoning to Planned Unit Development with Site Plan, Vacation, Consolidation of Lots, and Variances B.2 Avienda: Consider a Request to Amend Planned Unit Development-RC C.GENERAL BUSINESS D.APPROVAL OF MINUTES D.1 Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Dated July 19, 2022 E.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS E.1 City Council Action Update F.CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION G.ADJOURNMENT AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, AUGUST 16, 2022 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m. as outlined in the official by-laws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does not appear to be possible, the Chairperson will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. If a constituent or resident sends an email to staff or the Planning Commission, it must be made part of the public record based on State Statute. If a constituent or resident sends an email to the Mayor and City Council, it is up to each individual City Council member and Mayor if they want it to be made part of the public record or not. There is no State Statute that forces the Mayor or City Council to share that information with the public or be made part of the public record. Under State Statute, staff cannot remove comments or letters provided as part of the public input process. 1 Planning Commission Item August 16, 2022 Item RSI Marine, 10500 and 10520 Great Plains Boulevard: Consider a Request for Rezoning to Planned Unit Development with Site Plan, Vacation, Consolidation of Lots, and Variances File No.Planning Case No. 2022-04A Item No: B.1 Agenda Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Prepared By MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner Applicant Rob Schatzle RSI Marine 1533 3rd Avenue W. Shakopee, MN 55379 Present Zoning Fringe Business District (BF) Land Use Mixed Use Acerage 8.33 Density Floor Area Ratio: .235 2 Applicable Regulations The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving or denying Rezoning 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 Site Plan is limited to whether or not the proposed project complies with Zoning Ordinance requirements. If it meets these standards, the City must then approve the site plan. This is a quasi- judicial decision. The City’s discretion in approving or denying a Variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The City’s discretion in approving or denying a Consolidation of lots 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 consolidation of lots. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving or denying Vacations because the City is determining if rights granted to the City are needed to serve a public interest. SUGGESTED ACTION "The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve a request for Planned Unit Development rezoning, site plan, vacation, consolidation of lots, and variances, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation." SUMMARY RSI Marine is requesting rezoning to Planned Unit Development (PUD) with Site Plan approval for boat storage buildings with a combined square footage of 85,200, vacation of existing drainage and utilities easements, consolidation of lots, and variances from the City’s vehicular area landscaping requirements. BACKGROUND 3 In August of 1996, the City Council approved a site plan for the construction of an 8,152-square foot commercial stable and 12,936-square foot commercial kennel along with conditional use permits allowing multiple buildings on a single lot and permitting the commercial kennel and stable. Variances allowing metal siding for the stable and a pylon sign were also approved at that time. In July of 2005, the property was subdivide to create two separate lots, one for each of the principal buildings. In 2020, a portion of the property became right-of-way as part of the Highway 101 realignment and the western building was removed to make way for a construction staging area. In March of 2022, the City approved a Concept PUD for this property, subject to conditions of approval. In May of 2022, the applicant submitted an application for PUD and Site Plan approval; however, the application was deemed incomplete due to missing stormwater information. DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting the City rezone the parcels currently addressed as 10500 and 10520 Great Plains Boulevard from Fringe Business District (BF) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) and approve a site plan for two 20,000-square foot and two 22,600-square foot buildings which will be used for indoor boat storage. Their proposed site plan will require variances from the City’s vehicular area landscaping requirements. They are also proposing to consolidate the two parcels into one, which will require the vacation of the existing drainage and utilities easements. The applicant has stated that they envision this as a medium-term use, allowing for the improvement and reasonable use of the site until City sewer is available. They believe that once full municipal services are available, the site’s use will shift to include a commercial component and become a true mixed-use development. They have indicated that buildings will utilize high quality finishes, but that the use is not compatible with the City’s façade transparency requirements and they are instead using architectural detailing to provide significant visual relief, as permitted by the City Code. They have explained that the nature of the business does not involve employees being on site, save to store and remove boats, and that there is no public access to the facility. Due to the fact that there are minimal parking areas and large open spaces are required to maneuver trailers, they have stated that installing landscaped islands as required by City Code is not practical. A fence and security gate may be added in the future to aid in site security. Staff believes the proposed PUD ordinance for the development will allow the applicant reasonable use of the parcel until City sewer becomes available, and that once full municipal services are available the uses permitted by the PUD will encourage the property to redevelop as a mixed-use center consistent with the parcel’s land use guidance. The proposed use meets a need for the community, generates minimal traffic, and can meet the majority of the City’s design and landscaping requirements. The variances requested are the result of the unique nature of the use and the practical difficulties the owner would encounter if they were required to meet the relevant standards. Staff is proposing conditions that would require future users without this unique business model to meet the design and landscaping requirements. For these reasons, staff recommends approval of the PUD, Site Plan, Variance, Lot Consolidation, and Vacation. 4 A full discussion can be found in the attached staff report. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve Planned Unit Development rezoning, site plan, vacation, consolidation of lots, and variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopt the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. The list of conditions can be found in the attached staff report. ATTACHMENTS Staff Report PUD Ordinance Findings of Fact and Recommendation Variance Document Site Plan Agreement Application for Development Review Project Narrative Responses to the City of Chanhasssen RSI Marine Storage Site Plan Review Set (06-13-2022) Updated Landscaping Stormwater Narrative Set Storm Sewer Sizing Worksheet Storm Drainage Area Variance Request - Landscaped Islands Engineering Comments Carver County Memo Carver County Attachment Landscaping Affidavit of Mailing 5 CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: August 16, 2022 CC DATE: September 12, 2022 REVIEW DEADLINE: September 13, 2022 CASE #: PC 2022-04A BY: MYW SUMMARY OF REQUEST: RSI Marine is requesting rezoning to Planned Unit Development (PUD) with Site Plan approval for four boat storage buildings with a combined square footage of 85,200, vacation of existing drainage and utilities easements, consolidation of lots, and variances from the City’s vehicular area landscaping requirements. LOCATION:10500 and 10520 Great Plains Boulevard APPLICANT:RSI Marine Rob Schatzle 1533 West 3rd Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 PRESENT ZONING: Fringe Business District (BF) 2040 LAND USE PLAN:Mixed ACREAGE:8.33 acres DENSITY: NA FLOOR AREA RATIO: .235 LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving or denying 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 Site Plan is limited to whether or not the proposed project complies with Zoning Ordinance requirements. If it meets these standards, the City must then approve the site plan. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The City’s discretion in approving or denying a Variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The City’s discretion in approving or denying a Consolidation of lots 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 consolidation of lots. This is a quasi-judicial decision. PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends City Council approve Planned Unit Development rezoning, site plan, vacation, consolidation of lots, and variances, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation.” 6 10500 and 10520 Great Plains Boulevard PUD Rezoning August 16, 2022 Page 2 The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving or denying Vacations because the City is determining if rights granted to the City are needed to serve a public interest. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting the City rezone the parcels currently addressed as 10500 and 10520 Great Plains Boulevard from Fringe Business District (BF) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) and approve a site plan for two 20,000-square foot and two 22,600-square foot buildings which will be used for indoor boat storage. Their proposed site plan will require variances from the City’s vehicular area landscaping requirements. They are also proposing to consolidate the two parcels into one, which will require vacation of the existing drainage and utilities easements. They have stated that they envision this as a medium-term use, allowing for the improvement and reasonable use of the site until City sewer is available. They believe that once full municipal services are available, the site’s use will shift to include a commercial component and become a true mixed-use development. They have indicated that buildings will utilize high quality finishes, but that the use is not compatible with the City’s façade transparency requirements and that they are instead using architectural detailing to provide significant visual relief, as permitted by the City Code. They have explained that the nature of the business does not involve employees being on site, save to store and remove boats, and that there is no public access to the facility. Due to the fact that there are minimal parking areas and large open spaces are required to maneuver trailers, they have stated that installing landscaped islands as required by City Code is not practical. A fence and security gate may be added in the future to aid in site security. Staff believes the proposed PUD ordinance for the development will allow the applicant reasonable use of the parcel until City sewer becomes available, and that once full municipal services are available the uses permitted by the PUD will encourage the property to redevelop as a mixed-use center consistent with the parcel’s land use guidance. The proposed use meets a need for the community, generates minimal traffic, and can meet the majority of the City’s design and landscaping requirements. The variances requested are the result of the unique nature of the use and the practical difficulties the owner would encounter if they were required to meet the relevant standards. Staff is proposing conditions that would require future users without this unique business model to meet the design and landscaping requirements. For these reasons, staff recommends approval of the PUD, Site Plan, Variance, Lot Consolidation, and Vacation. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 19, Article VII, Surface Water Management: States standards required to meet goals and policies of the City’s Surface Water Management Plan. Chapter 20, Article II, Division 2, Amendments: States process for amending the Zoning Code. 7 10500 and 10520 Great Plains Boulevard PUD Rezoning August 16, 2022 Page 3 Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3, Variances: States process and requirements for granting variances. Chapter 20, Article II, Division 6, Site Plan Review: States process and requirements for granting site plan approval. Chapter 20, Article VI: Wetlands: States wetland buffer and setback requirements. Chapter 20, Article VIII: Planned Unit Development District: States expectations and requirements for Planned Unit Developments. Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 7, Design Standards for Commercial, Industrial and Office- Institutional Developments: Stipulates design standards for Commercial, Industrial, and Office- Institutional developments. Chapter 20, Article XXIV, Off-Street Parking and Loading: States parking lot design and space requirements. Chapter 20, Article XXV, Landscaping and Tree Removal: States landscaping and tree preservation standards for developments. Chapter 20, Article XXVI, Signs: States requirements for signage. BACKGROUND In August of 1996, the City Council approved a site plan for the construction of an 8,152-square foot commercial stable and 12,936-square foot commercial kennel along with conditional use permits allowing multiple buildings on a single lot and permitting the commercial kennel and stable. Variances allowing metal siding for the stable and a pylon sign were also approved at this time. In July of 2005, the property was subdivided to create two separate lots, one for each of the principal buildings. In 2020, a portion of the property became right-of-way as part of the Highway 101 realignment and the western building was removed to make way for a construction staging area. In March of 2022, the City approved a Concept PUD for this property, subject to conditions of approval. In May of 2022, the applicant submitted an application for PUD and Site Plan approval; however, the application was deemed incomplete due to missing stormwater information. 8 10500 and 10520 Great Plains Boulevard PUD Rezoning August 16, 2022 Page 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS Site Constraints The parcels are zoned BF with a combined area of 8.33 acres. The property’s existing BF zoning requires a minimum lot area of 20,000 square feet with a minimum lot frontage of 100 feet, a minimum lot death of 150 feet, and maximum lot cover of 40 percent; however, this area is guided for mixed-use development in the City’s 2040 Land Use Plan which requires that the zoning be changed to PUD. A commercial kennel/stable formerly operated on the site. A well, retaining walls, an approximately 7,500-square foot asphalt parking area, an approximately 7,000-square foot gravel driveway, an approximately 8,000-square foot building, and an approximately 360-square foot shed remain from the previous business. Bluff Creek Corridor This property is not located within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. Wetland Protection There is not a wetland located on the property; however, there is a small mange type 2 wetland in the ditch south of the property. As the applicant is proposing to utilize the site’s existing access to Flying Cloud Drive, the proposed development should not impact this wetland; however, the wetland buffer strip and setbacks for this wetland must be maintained. These wetlands have a 20-foot minimum buffer strip, 15-foot accessory structure buffer edge setback, and 30-foot principal structure buffer edge setbacks. This wetland, its buffer, and setbacks should be shown on the grading plan and staked in the field prior to construction. The buffer must be planted with native vegetation as outlined in City Code. Bluff Protection There are no bluffs on the property. The property has numerous steep slopes but none of them meet the City’s definition of a bluff (i.e. a natural topographic features with an elevation change of 25 feet or greater and a slope of 30 percent or greater). The Lower Minnesota River Watershed District (LMRWD) also regulates steep slopes and the applicant will need to verify with the watershed district if the project triggers their Rule F – Steep Slopes. Shoreland Management The property is not located within a shoreland protection district. 9 10500 and 10520 Great Plains Boulevard PUD Rezoning August 16, 2022 Page 5 Floodplain Overlay This property is not within a floodplain. A small section of the ditch south of the property is within the floodplain; however, no portion of the project will take place below the Base Flood Elevation (721’ contour). REZONING TO PUD Analysis The existing zoning of the property, BF, is not consistent with the land use designation of the property, Mixed. The Comprehensive Plan allows less intensive land uses to remain in place until municipal services become available; however, since water is now available to this site, any approval by the City for development of the property must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Surrounding Zoning And Uses The parcels to the east, west, and southeast of the subject parcel are also zoned BF. The other nearby parcels are zoned Agricultural Estate (A2) district. Nearby uses include nonconforming rental housing, a golf driving range, a used car dealership, a storage facility, and large lot residential properties. With the exception of the single-family residences, all of these uses are legal nonconforming, conditional uses, or interim uses. Land Use - Zoning Consistency As noted earlier, the parcels are guided for the Mixed land use category in the City’s 2040 Land Use Plan. The City’s Comprehensive Plan states that PUD zoning is the appropriate zoning for this land use category; thus, the use of PUD zoning, as proposed by the applicant, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s land use designation for these parcels. Justification For Rezoning To PUD Planned Unit Developments (PUD) provide for increased flexibility to develop a site by relaxing most normal zoning district standards, but in exchange for this flexibility they allow the City to 10 10500 and 10520 Great Plains Boulevard PUD Rezoning August 16, 2022 Page 6 require a higher quality and more sensitive development than would occur under traditional zoning. The City Code requires that PUDs encourage the following: 1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. Finding. The applicant’s proposal leaves the area of the steep slopes on the western portion of the property undisturbed. The use of a PUD helps facilitate the consolidation of development to the property’s less environmentally sensitive area since it allow all four buildings to be placed on a single lot. Without PUD zoning, each building would need to be placed on a separate lot and the required streets and setbacks would result in greater disturbance to the site. 2. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels. Finding. The use of PUD zoning allows for reasonable use of the property in the short term while facilitating the long-term development of the parcel as a mixed-use center with a blend of complementary uses. The use of PUD zoning allows for multiple buildings to be placed on a single lot permitting a more efficient and effective use of land and allowing for shared parking and other synergies between uses that minimize the amount of impervious surface required for road and vehicular use areas. 3. High quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. Finding. This area is intended to serve as the City’s southern gateway. For this reason, the PUD ordinance will require that building elevations facing Highway 61 will exceed the City’s minimum design standards. Proposed buildings will be reviewed through the site plan review process and be required to comply with this and all other applicable standards. 4. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city will be encouraged. Finding. The mix of uses permitted by the PUD will create sensitive transitions between the mixed uses permitted near the intersection Highway 101 and Highway 61 and the future high density residential areas to the east of this site. As this corridor and intersection serve as the City’s southern gateway, a thoughtful and smooth transition between uses is critical. 11 10500 and 10520 Great Plains Boulevard PUD Rezoning August 16, 2022 Page 7 5. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Finding. The use of PUD zoning sets up the framework for the property to develop as a true mixed-use district including retail, office, and residential uses once sanitary sewer becomes available to the site, while allowing immediate use of the site as a storage facility. Traditional zoning would not be able to accommodate both the short- and long- term usage of the site in a manner consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, the Comprehensive Plan requires PUD zoning for property’s with a Mixed land use designation. 6. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the City. Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and overall trail plan. Finding. The Comprehensive Park Plan does not propose public lands in this area. The preservation of open space and undisturbed areas on the site is facilitated by the consolidation of development allowed by the use of PUD zoning, particularly the ability to place multiple buildings on a single lot. 7. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD. Finding.Not applicable as part of this development; however, the PUD does permit multi-family housing which will increase the range and type of housing options available within the community. 8. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sitings and the clustering of buildings and land uses. Finding. Energy conservation will be facilitated through permitting the clustering of buildings on a single lot. 9. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate. Finding. Appropriate traffic management techniques will be used. The developer and future site users will be required to use traffic demand management strategies as appropriate, which will be reviewed during the site plan review of projects within the PUD. For the above reasons, staff believes the applicant’s request for rezoning to PUD is justified. The proposed PUD ordinance is provided below: 12 10500 and 10520 Great Plains Boulevard PUD Rezoning August 16, 2022 Page 8 Flying Cloud Center (PUD 2022-04A) A. Intent The purpose of this zoning is to create a Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development (PUD) accommodating a mix of commercial, office, residential, and warehousing uses, with the intention that the warehousing uses be phased out after municipal sewer becomes available. The use of the PUD zoning is to allow for a greater variety of uses consistent with the property’s “Mixed” Land Use guidance and to allow for more flexible design standards in order to ensure a higher quality and more sensitive development. B. Uses The allowed uses in this zoning shall be as listed in this section. If there is a question as to whether or not a use falls under a stated category, the Community Development Director shall make that interpretation. a. The following are Permitted Uses: i. Antennas as regulated by article XXX of the Zoning Code ii. Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation iii. Banks and Financial Institutions iv. Brew pub, subject to the requirements of section 20-968 v. Brewery operated in conjunction with a taproom producing less than 3,500 barrels per year, subject to the requirements of section 20-969 vi. Clinics vii. Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores viii. Electronics and Appliance Stores ix. Food and Beverage Stores x. Gasoline Stations xi. Health and Personal Care Stores xii. Microdistillery operated in conjunction with a cocktail room, subject to the requirements of section 20-967 xiii. Multifamily dwellings 1. Maximum of 46 units xiv. Offices xv. Restaurants xvi. Personal and Laundry Services xvii. Sporting Goods, Hobby, Musical Instrument, and Book Stores xviii. Warehousing and Storage 1. No new warehousing and storage uses shall be permitted for this PUD after municipal sewer becomes available. b. The following are Permitted Accessory Uses: i. Accessory Solar Energy Systems (subject to the requirements of section 20-1093) ii. Garage as part of a multifamily residential development 13 10500 and 10520 Great Plains Boulevard PUD Rezoning August 16, 2022 Page 9 iii. Parking Lots iv. Signs as per allowed in a General Business District 1. Signs must reflect the quality of the development and must be architecturally compatible with the buildings materials and colors v. Temporary outdoor sales and events (subject to the requirements of section 20-964) C. Lot Requirements and Setbacks a. Shall be as specified for the General Business District b. Maximum height is as follows: i. For the principal structure, three stories/35 feet ii. For accessory structures, one story/15 feet D. Design Standards a. This area is part of the City’s southern gateway and as such it is expected that building elevations facing Highway 61 will exceed the minimum standards established by Divisions 7 and 9 of Article XXIII of the City Code. SITE PLAN REVIEW The applicant is proposing two 22,600-square foot and two 20,000-square foot buildings which will be used for indoor boat storage. The applicant has stated that the site will have no outdoor storage or exterior trash receptacles. The applicant has stated that there is minimal need for parking as employees will only be onsite when loading and unloading boats and that the facility will not be open to the public. While the applicant is requesting site plan approval for all four buildings, the project will be built in phases based on cost and utilization. 14 10500 and 10520 Great Plains Boulevard PUD Rezoning August 16, 2022 Page 10 Architectural Compliance Size Portion Placement The buildings will be arranged so that the storage bays face the interior of the development. Due to the proposed use and lack of public access, the buildings will not have a traditional main entryway, nor is it desirable for the building’s entrances to face the public streets. Since the only entries to the buildings are the interior oriented service and overhead doors the City’s entrance requirements do not apply to this development. The City Code also requires that buildings over 40 feet in width be divided into smaller increments through façade articulation. The buildings will use architectural towers, various siding materials and textures, and a two-tone color scheme to achieve articulation along the most visible southern and western elevations. These techniques combined with the proposed landscape plantings meet the intent of the City’s design standards, especially taking into account the constraints imposed by the nature of the use. Material and Detail The buildings will use a relatively small amount of brick for the architectural towers with the bulk of the buildings’ siding being either vertical metal siding with a stucco finish or metal tongue and groove lap siding with a woodgrain finish. The lower portions of the building and 15 10500 and 10520 Great Plains Boulevard PUD Rezoning August 16, 2022 Page 11 areas not covered by siding will be color integrated concrete masonry unit rock face block. Higher quality materials are concentrated along the visible south and west facades, while the much lower visibility north and south are almost entirely comprised of the vertical metal siding. Given the nature of the use, staff believes the proposed materials are of acceptable quality. Color The building will utilize muted browns, grays, and off white colors to help the buildings blend in with the natural landscape. A two-tone color scheme is proposed to help break up the façade; however, there are no sharply contrasting colors and color integrated overhead doors are being utilized instead of white to avoid starkly contrasting colors. The proposed color scheme meets the requirements of the City Code. Height and Roof Design The buildings will be approximately 28.9 feet in height measured from highest grade to the midpoint of the highest gable, and will feature roofs with a 4:12 pitch. The tower portion of the southern building will have a height of approximately 34 feet measured form highest grade to the midpoint of the highest gable. Both the proposed building heights and roof configuration meet the requirements of the City Code, and the applicant has stated that no rooftop equipment is proposed, therefore rooftop screening is not required. The roof will be a medium bronze color metal roof. Façade Transparency The City Code requires that 50 percent of the first floor elevation viewed by the public include transparent elements such as windows or doors; however, it allows for buildings whose function does not readily allow for windows, such as storage buildings, to have reduced fenestration standards so long as sufficient architectural detailing is used. The most visible eastern and southern elevations of the proposed buildings range from between roughly 10 to 17 percent façade transparency. The applicant’s buildings propose using changes in colors, materials, and the presence of architectural towers to create architectural interest to compensate for the reduced façade transparency. Due to the fact that these buildings are unoccupied storage facilities and given the security concerns associated with requiring large ground level windows, the development qualifies for reducing the façade transparency requirements. Staff believes the proposed architectural detailing along the south and west elevations is adequate, especially since the applicant previously responded to staff concerns about the proposed façade transparency by significantly increasing the size of the windows in those elevations. Site Furnishings The nature of the applicant’s proposal, i.e. no permanent employees or public access, makes the inclusion of benches, tables, and chairs impractical and unnecessary. 16 10500 and 10520 Great Plains Boulevard PUD Rezoning August 16, 2022 Page 12 Fence The applicant has indicated that a fence and gate may be added in the future. Any future fence would need to abide by the eight foot height limit, be located outside of the required front yard setback and sight distance triangle. The fence would also need to be located behind the required landscape buffers. A permit would be required prior to the construction of any future fencing. Loading Areas, Refuse Area, Etc. The applicant has stated that no external trash enclosures will be present on the property as the nature of the operation will not generate trash. All storage bays will be oriented towards the interior of the development and will be minimally visible from public streets. Lot Frontage and Parking Location Due to the fact that there will be no permanent employees or public access, the applicant is providing five parking spaces. The location of these spaces meet the City’s requirement that no more than 50 percent of the parking area shall be between the front façade of the principal building and the primary abutting street. ACCESS The preliminary plat abuts and gains access from Carver County right-of-way. Thus, the applicant must coordinate with Carver County regarding any additional considerations and potential conditions associated with easements for the property as well as any requirements associated with ingress/egress and construction activities such as during grading and hauling operations. The applicant will use the existing access to Flying Cloud Drive. Access to the site is currently had from Flying Cloud Drive (CSAH 61) and is located near the eastern property line. Since the property has access from a county road, a turnaround is being proposed as required by Section 20-1122 of the City Code. The preliminary plans indicate that the current access will remain and no additional accesses to the surrounding Carver County rights-of-way are proposed. The development will be required to construct a commercial driveway access in accordance with City standards. Any comments or conditions by Carver County associated with impacts to their rights- of-way must be adhered to and all permits required must be obtained prior to construction activities commencing. Carver County is requiring that the applicant shift the median on Flying Cloud drive west by 60 feet to accommodate truck and trailer left turns into the subject site. The applicant can coordinate with Carver County Public works on the design specifics. An access permit will be required for access to CSAH 61 due to the change in use. 17 10500 and 10520 Great Plains Boulevard PUD Rezoning August 16, 2022 Page 13 EASEMENTS The preliminary plat provided dated December 4, 2018 and produced by James R. Hill, Inc., illustrates typical 10-foot public drainage and utility easements (DUE) along all property lines. Additional public DUEs were also provided over public utilities (only water main at this phase) extending into the property. The location of the additional DUE over the public water main are subject to change upon addressing the conditions associated with the public water main as discussed under the “Sanitary Sewer and Water Main” section of this report Any and all existing easements must be vacated as proposed prior to recording of the final plat. GRADING AND DRAINAGE The existing conditions plan sheet and drainage maps included in the submittal show an existing building near the center of the property with access to Great Plains Boulevard provided by an asphalt parking area and gravel driveway. Stormwater runoff generally flows from north to south down the slope of the site where it enters a drainage swale along Flying Cloud Drive. The drainage swale conveys stormwater from west to east. Stormwater leaves the site by way of an existing 48” culvert under Flying Cloud Drive which conveys the stormwater to the south through stormwater pond Bluff Creek 9-2-1 and into Bluff Creek before ultimately outleting to the Minnesota River. The preliminary plans provided with the submittal show a significant amount of grading. The design steepens the hill on the northeast side of the site to create a flat area conducive for the four proposed buildings with access and parking. The proposed design uses a combination of drainage swales and stormwater infrastructure to collect and convey stormwater into a Best Management Practice (BMP) located on the southwest corner of the property. The design shows stormwater being conveyed from the proposed BMP to the existing swale along Flying Cloud Blvd through an outlet control structure. Any impacts to Carver County’s right-of-way must be approved and permitted by the County prior to construction activities. The overall design of the stormwater infrastructure mimics the flow path of the existing condition and acts to convey stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces through water quality BMPs. The Hydrologic and Hydraulic HydroCAD models show the site is decreasing rates leaving the site for the 2-, 10- and 100-year storm events. Carver County is requesting drainage calculations and data for the proposed development and is requesting that the applicant’s engineer meet with them to confirm the stormwater calculations. They have expressed concern regarding the outlet for the proposed stormwater treatment ponds which is up gradient from the trail below. They have indicated that drainage should be directed further east into the existing ditch rather than to the west side of the development. The proposed drainage must not adversely impact the County right of way and must be compatible with the 18 10500 and 10520 Great Plains Boulevard PUD Rezoning August 16, 2022 Page 14 existing ground in the County right of way. The County will need to review and approve the final grading plans, and a grading permit will be required for grading work within the highway right- of-way. 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 Under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination/State Disposal System (NPDES Construction Permit). The applicant has prepared and submitted a preliminary Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and it generally appears feasible. The SWPPP is a required submittal element for preliminary plat review. No earth disturbing activities may occur until an approved SWPPP is developed. This SWPPP shall be a standalone document consistent with the NPDES Construction Permit and shall contain all required elements as listed in Parts III and IV of the permit. The SWPPP will need to be updated as the plans are finalized, when the contractor and their sub-contractors are identified and as other conditions change. RETAINING WALLS A retaining wall with a maximum height of approximately seven feet is being proposed on the north side of the property as well as a retaining wall with a maximum height of approximately four feet along the east side of the property. The applicant has stated that they will use a modular block gravity retaining wall system and has acknowledged the City’s requirement that permits are required for all walls with engineered designs being required for walls over four feet in height. Portions of the retaining walls are illustrated to be either close to or directly over the eastern property line. Due to the proximity to the property line, staff is concerned that the construction of these walls would require construction activities to occur on the abutting property. If this is the case, the construction of any improvements that impact or require access to abutting properties must have the appropriate right-of-entry agreements and/or temporary construction easements prior to construction operations commencing. LANDSCAPING A PUD is expected to ‘protect… mature trees…’ and ‘reflect higher quality design of…landscaping’. Existing vegetation on the site consists of many pioneer tree species. These types of trees that are the first to populate a site, often after a disturbance. Common species on the site include box elder, 19 10500 and 10520 Great Plains Boulevard PUD Rezoning August 16, 2022 Page 15 Siberian elm, green ash, cottonwood, and hackberry. The applicant is able to save the existing trees along the north property line adjacent to the regional trail corridor which is a mix of hackberry, elm and box elder. While the elm and box elder may not be highly desirable trees, they do provide nesting and habitat for birds and pollinators. Preserving these trees also helps to meet buffer yard requirements for the north property line. The applicant is proposing a native prairie seed mix along the north property line. This location is ideal for a dry prairie seed mix that will work to provide habitat on site, provided that the proper establishment of the seed is followed. Staff recommends that the applicant provide a 3-year prairie management contract to ensure the establishment of the native plants. The applicant is proposing a diverse mix of tree and shrub species but needs to incorporate two additional understory genera in order to meet minimum diversity as required by ordinance so that no genus has more than 10 trees in quantity. Buffer yard plantings are required along the property lines. The landscape plan shows the following proposed landscaping for the site, which does not meet the minimum requirements for 20 10500 and 10520 Great Plains Boulevard PUD Rezoning August 16, 2022 Page 16 buffer yard plantings on the south, west and east sides of the site. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to meet the minimum requirements for buffer yards in these areas. Required plantings Proposed plantings Buffer yard A – North prop. line, Regional Trail, 780’ 7 overstory trees 14 Understory trees 21 Shrubs 19 overstory trees - existing 0 Understory trees 46 Shrubs Buffer yard B – South prop. Line, Hwy 61, 700’ 14 overstory trees 28 understory trees 42 shrubs 11 overstory trees 23 understory trees 25 shrubs Buffer yard B –west prop. line, Hwy 101 Great Plains Blvd, 500’ 10 Overstory trees 20 Understory trees 30 Shrubs 5 Overstory trees 8 Understory trees 20 Shrubs Buffer yard A - East property line, 460’ 4 Overstory trees 9 Understory trees 13 Shrubs 4 Overstory trees 8 Understory trees 12 Shrubs The vehicular use area is required by Code to have landscaping that includes islands or peninsulas for every 6,000 sq. ft. of use area as well as landscaped areas and trees in and around the parking area in order to reduce the overall heat island effect of pavement and improve aesthetics of the site. Minimum requirements for landscaping for the parking lot include 3,090 sq. ft. of landscaped area around the parking lot, five landscaped islands or peninsulas, and 12 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 3,090 sq. ft.0 sq. ft. Trees/parking lot 12 trees 0 trees Landscape islands or peninsulas/parking lot 5 islands/peninsulas 0 islands/peninsulas The applicant has requested a variance from this standard due to the fact that they are only creating five parking stalls and the rest of the vehicular use area needs to be unobstructed to facilitate truck and trailer movements. Since landscaped islands would impede safe and efficient traffic movement on the site, staff supports the variance request to not install landscape islands in the vehicular use area; however, when the use of the site changes and parking is included, then all landscaped islands and/or peninsulas required by Code shall be installed. LIGHTING One LED light along the driveway is proposed to be mounted approximately 10 feet above grade and LED lights in decorative housing will be mounted approximately 10 feet above grade along 21 10500 and 10520 Great Plains Boulevard PUD Rezoning August 16, 2022 Page 17 the building facades fronting the vehicular use area. Details were not provided for the proposed housings; however, both the pole and building mounted lights will need to be shielded with a total cutoff angle equal to or less than 90 degrees. Staff believes the proposed lighting is adequate for the intended use as there is no parking lot or public access to the site. SIGNAGE No signage is planned or being proposed at this time. The PUD will incorporate the requirements of the City’s Sign Code for the General Business (BG) District and require that all signage be architecturally compatible with buildings’ materials and colors. If signage is proposed in the future, it will require a permit and be reviewed for compliance with these standards. MISCELLANEOUS If an HVAC system is required, any and all exterior components will need to be screened from public view, either through the use of materials similar to the building materials or by using heavy landscaping that will be effective in winter. Section 2902.1 of the International Building Code exempts structures that are typically unoccupied from needing to provide restroom facilities. As these buildings will be used for storage and will not have permanent employees on site, the City is waiving the requirement to provide bathrooms. Since no bathrooms are required, a septic system will not need to be installed. Based on Carver County property information there appears to be two parcels abutting the preliminary plat’s eastern property lines that are listed as “Parcel ID: Gap”. It is unclear if these parcels are being considered in the lot combination of the PUD, or if they are being considered a part of the adjacent lot to the west (PID #250361300). Clarification regarding the status of “Parcel ID: Gap” in conjunction with the proposed plat will be required prior to recording of the final plat from either the County or the applicant. The technical details of the final plant will need to be reviewed and approved by the County Surveyor. PARKS In 2005, a Stipulation of Settlement (Court File No. 10-CV-05-48) between PCH Development, LLC and the City of Chanhassen was agreed to regarding the Park Dedication fees and Surface Water Management fees surrounding the subdivision of the “Paws Claws and Hooves Addition” subdivision (Planning Case #2003-04 and the property of this Conceptual PUD). The Park fee was reduced to $2,800. The settlement agreement states, “If all or any part of the property is changed to a different principal use or further subdivided, the property shall be subject to payment of additional Park Dedication and Surface Water Management fees based upon the rates in effect at that time applicable to the proposed use and type of municipal approval requested.” However, as the stipulation was between the property owner and the City and was not required to 22 10500 and 10520 Great Plains Boulevard PUD Rezoning August 16, 2022 Page 18 be memorialized against the property, when the property owner changed from PCH Development, LLC the agreement ceased to be in force. As a result, no Park fees will be required. If the property is subdivided in the future, Park fees will be collected at the rate in affect at the time of platting, minus the $2,800.00 already paid. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT The project site is located within the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District (LMRWD). The proposed development will exceed the one (1) acre of new impervious area and will therefore require permanent stormwater BMPs to be constructed as part of this project and maintained by the owner. The project will be subject to stormwater regulations outlined under LMRWD Rule D including rate, volume, and water quality. Based on the LMRWD’s website, a portion of the site includes Steep Slopes as defined by the LMRWD and will be required to meet LMRWD Rule F. The City of Chanhassen also regulates the design, construction, and maintenance of stormwater infrastructure. Article VII, Chapter 19 of City Code describes the required stormwater management development standards. Section 19-141 states that “these development standards shall be reflected in plans prepared by developers and/or project proposers in the design and layout of site plans, subdivisions and water management features.” These standards include water quality treatment resulting in the removal of 90% total suspended solids (TSS) and 60% total phosphorous (TP), and runoff rate control for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year storm events. A stormwater maintenance agreement and associated operations and maintenance plan is required for all private stormwater BMPs. The LMRWD requires volume control equal to one inch of runoff from impervious surfaces. The site is proposing 2.99 acres of impervious which requires 10,852 cubic feet of volume control. The filtration bench provides 16,921 cubic feet of volume control below the outlet meeting the volume control requirement. The design of the BMP is highly dependent on soil types and infiltration rates of the underlying soils. Soil borings, infiltration testing and an associated geotechnical report will be needed to confirm the design of the stormwater BMP. No geotechnical report was included as part of the reviewed submittal. If the soil borings show onsite soils are conducive to infiltration, the BMP will need to be redesigned to allow for infiltration in line with LMRWD rules. If the soil borings support the current filtration bench design, because the site is providing more volume control than is required, the project will be meeting the water quality rules. A number of comments pertaining to the P8 modeling of the site have been provided to the applicant which should be addressed to confirm the water quality treatment being provided. The Stormwater narrative and supporting hydrologic and hydraulic HydroCAD models were reviewed and found to have a few inconsistencies from the plans provided such as a different amount of proposed impervious, not properly modeling the proposed filtration bench, and not including the overflow from the pond. The current modeling shows the site meets rate control 23 10500 and 10520 Great Plains Boulevard PUD Rezoning August 16, 2022 Page 19 requirements showing a decrease in discharge rates leaving the site from the existing condition to the proposed condition in the 2-, 10- and 100-year storm event. The applicant shall update the hydrologic and hydraulic models based on comments from City staff and provide satisfactory models, and rate analysis confirming compliance with requirements prior to recording the final plat. As noted in Appendix H of the City’s Surface Water Management Plan dated August 2006, the City requires at least three feet of freeboard between a building elevation and adjacent ponding features. The site is currently meeting this freeboard requirement with respect to the proposed BMP HWL elevation of 730.44. Once the HydroCAD models have been updated, it should be confirmed the site is still in compliance with the City’s 3-foot freeboard requirement between the HWL and adjacent buildings. The grading plan shows there is only 0.4 feet of vertical separation between the intermediate EOFs within the driving area and the adjacent buildings proposed first floor elevation. The grading plan should be updated to provide a minimum 1.0 feet of separation between these EOFs and the adjacent buildings as outlined in Chapter 19 of City Code. The City’s water resources engineer reviewed the preliminary plans provided with the submittal. Specific comments regarding the design of stormwater infrastructure and BMPs were provided to the applicant. In 2005, a Stipulation of Settlement (Court File No. 10-CV-05-48) between PCH Development, LLC and the City of Chanhassen was agreed to regarding the Park Dedication fees and Surface Water Management fees surrounding the subdivision of the “Paws Claws and Hooves Addition” subdivision (Planning Case #2003-04 and the property of this Conceptual PUD). The Surface Water Management fee was reduced to $9,900.00 and was paid on July 25, 2005. The settlement agreement states, “If all or any part of the property is changed to a different principal use or further subdivided, the property shall be subject to payment of additional park dedication and surface water management fees based upon the rates in effect at that time applicable to the proposed use and type of municipal approval requested.” However, as the stipulation was between the property owner and the City and was not required to be memorialized against the property, if the property owner changes from PCH Development, LLC no stormwater fees will be required. If the property is subdivided in the future, stormwater fees will be collected at the rate in affect at the time of platting, minus the $9,900.00 already paid. UTILITIES Currently, municipal sanitary sewer and potable water services are not available to the site. During the build-out of the Highway 101 Realignment project, which was substantially completed in 2021, public sanitary sewer mains and water mains were extended along the corridor. However, these newly extended utilities are not fully active nor ready for operation to service properties, as such the site does not have adequate public sanitary and water to fully serve the development’s needs. 24 10500 and 10520 Great Plains Boulevard PUD Rezoning August 16, 2022 Page 20 In 2014, a Highway 61 corridor study was conducted in response to several near and long-term infrastructure projects at the time (e.g. Highway 101 Realignment, CSAH 61 reconstruction, flood mitigation projects, etc.) which prompted the City to investigate the feasibility of extending public utilities to the southern portion of the City. The study, known as “County Road 61 Corridor Plan”, conducted by SRF in association with Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc., determined that utility extensions were feasible within the study area. The image below, taken from Figure 3.1 of the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, depicts the City’s existing and planned sanitary sewer in this area (planned water system build-out generally adheres to the same areas and alignments). The proposed development falls within the southcentral region of sanitary subdistrict LB-1 (the Lower Bluff Creek District). The 2014 study estimated costs and fee revenue associated with extending City utilities to the study area, along with estimated utility assessments per acre, which are shown in Tables 1 and 2. 25 10500 and 10520 Great Plains Boulevard PUD Rezoning August 16, 2022 Page 21 With a lack of adequate City utilities in the area, the development will be required to provide private utility services (sanitary sewer and potable water) to adequately meet the needs of the development. The City has agreed to allow the development to tap into the public water main which was extended with the Highway 101 Realignment project, but only to service the development’s fire suppression needs. At this time, there is not sufficient demand along the extended water main to supply water to the quality standards that the City requires for consumption. This is important to note because the preliminary plans provided indicate the existing well on-site is proposed to be abandoned. If the site will have any fixtures requiring the use of water other than for fire suppression needs, a private source of water supply must be used for those fixtures. The preliminary plans indicate a sanitary sewer main to be installed within the development that then connects to the public main extended within the CSAH 61 right-of-way. This connection is not approved as the public sanitary sewer is not active nor ready for operation to service properties. If the applicant desires to construct sanitary sewer services and/or mains to service the future needs of the development, the applicant will be required to concurrently extend the public sanitary sewer main along CSAH 61 right-of-way to the eastern property line and cap the service line to the development. The preliminary plans indicate tapping of the existing public water main for fire suppression needs at the southwest corner of the property. As shown on the preliminary plans this would be infeasible as the water main was housed in a casing at the location, and would be required to be extended further east to facilitate the connection. Regardless, the development will be required to 26 10500 and 10520 Great Plains Boulevard PUD Rezoning August 16, 2022 Page 22 extend the 12” C900 PVC public water main to the eastern property line along CSAH 61 right- of-way. The extension into the site must be along or near the improved private access to allow for reasonable access for future repair and maintenance and of adequate diameter to service the needs of the development. Adequate public drainage and utility easements will be required over the public main as it extends into the site. Private fire laterals can then be tapped from the public main as necessary. The applicant and their engineer shall work with City staff on amending the construction plans, dated May 6, 2022 prepared by Joel G. Cooper, PE with James R. Hill, Inc., to fully satisfy staff concerns. Final construction plans will be subject to review and approval by staff to ensure adherence to the most recent edition of the City’s Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and City Ordinances. The property and potential future properties associated with this developable area will be specially assessed for the extension of the public sanitary sewer when they connect. When the property and potential future properties connect to municipal services they will also be required to pay the utility hook-up fees at the rate in effect at the time of hook-up. Lastly, prior to commencement of any utility work, a copy of all required permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies shall be provided to the City which shall include but is not limited to the Minnesota Department of Health, Carver County, etc. COMPLIANCE TABLE Code Project Building Height 3 stories 1 story 35 feet 34 feet Building Setback N - 50' E - 10'N - 132' E - 75' W - 25' S - 25'W - 190' S –50’ Parking Stalls 48 stalls*5 stalls** Parking Setback N - 50' E - 10'N - 190' E - 30' W - 25' S - 25' W - 60' S - 150' Hard Surface Coverage 70%35.9% Lot Area 20,000 sq. ft.382,855 sq. ft. (8.33 ac.) *Unless applicant demonstrates that due to business model less parking is required. **Due to lack of permanent employees and no public access, staff is comfortable with provided parking. 27 10500 and 10520 Great Plains Boulevard PUD Rezoning August 16, 2022 Page 23 Note: Listed “Code” parking setbacks can be reduced to 10 feet if 100 percent screening is provided at least five feet above the parking lot. This screening must be in the form of berms and landscaping. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends City Council approve Planned Unit Development rezoning, site plan, vacation, consolidation of lots, and variance, subject to the conditions of approval and adopt the Findings of Fact and Recommendation: Planning: 1. Light fixtures must be downcast have a 90 degree cut off as required by Section 20-913 of the City Code. 2. Any proposed signage will require a separate sign permit and must conform to the requirements of the PUD ordinance and City Code. 3. Any future fencing will require a permit and must meet the requirements of the City Code. 4. Approval of the site plan is contingent upon consolidation of the two parcels into a single lot. 5. Retaining walls under four feet in height require a zoning permit. 6. Any future HVAC systems will need to have any and all exterior components screened from public view, either through the use of materials similar to the building materials or by using heavy landscaping that will be effective in winter. Environmental Resources: 1. The applicant shall meet minimum requirements for buffer yards. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the City. 2. The applicant shall provide a 3-year prairie establishment and management plan for the native seed area specified on the landscape plan. 3. When the use of the site changes and parking is included, then all required landscaped islands and/or peninsulas shall be installed. 4. Incorporate two additional tree understory genera to Plant Schedule in order to meet minimum diversity as required by ordinance so that no genus has more than 10 trees in quantity. Fire: 1. Building must have Fire department lock boxes for access. 2. All buildings will require fire sprinkler systems. 3. If fence is added in the future it must have fire department access boxes or gate switches (if electronic). 4. No hazardous material (i.e. gasoline, oil, etc.) may be stored on site. Building: 1. A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction. 28 10500 and 10520 Great Plains Boulevard PUD Rezoning August 16, 2022 Page 24 2. Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. a. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that proposed building meets all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Codep; additional comments or requirements may be required after plan review. b. The building is required to have automatic fire extinguishing systems. c. Structure proximity to property lines (and other buildings) will have an impact on the Code requirements for the proposed buildings, including but not limited to; allowable size, protected openings and fire-resistive construction. These requirements will be addressed when complete building and site plans are submitted. d. Building plans must include a code analysis that contains the following information: Key Plan, Occupancy group, Type of construction, Allowable height and area, Fire sprinklers, Separated or non-separated, Fire resistive elements (Exterior walls, Bearing walls - exterior or interior, Shaft, Incidental use), Occupant load, Exits required (Common path, Travel distance), Minimum plumbing fixture count. 3. Retaining walls (if present), more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction. 4. International Building Code section 2902.1 exception: states that when approved by the building official, buildings or structures that are normally unoccupied, such as picnic shelters, amphitheaters, small transit stop stations, cold storage buildings, utility sheds, warming house, kiosks, concession stands and similar structures, need not be provided with restroom facilities. As these buildings will be used for storage and will not have employees on site, the requirement to provide a bathroom is waived and a septic system does not need to be installed. Park: 1. If the property is subdivided in the future, Park fees will be collected at the rate in affect at the time of platting, minus the $2,800.00 already paid. Engineering: 1. Adequate public drainage and utility easements are required over any publicly owned and maintained water mains and will be subject to review and approval by staff prior to the recording of the final plat. 2. Any existing easements within the final plat area must be vacated prior to recording of the final plat. 3. The two parcels along the development’s eastern property lines listed with Carver County’s property information as “Parcel ID: Gap” will need to be identified appropriately prior to recording of the final plat. 4. Encroachment agreements are required of any proposed improvements within public drainage and utility easements after review and approval by the City Engineer. 5. The construction of any improvements that require access to adjacent properties shall receive a temporary construction easement or right-of-entry prior to issuance of any building permits. 29 10500 and 10520 Great Plains Boulevard PUD Rezoning August 16, 2022 Page 25 6. Retaining walls over four feet in height shall be constructed in accordance with plans prepared by a registered engineer and shall be privately owned and maintained. 7. The development shall construct a commercial driveway access in accordance with the most recent edition of the City’s Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. 8. Any private utility needed to service the development, including sanitary sewer and potable water, will be required to be provided by the developer as the property is not serviced by adequate city utilities. 9. The proposed connection to the public sanitary sewer main is not approved. 10. The proposed water main tap to the public main shall only be used for fire suppression needs for the development. 11. The developer shall extend the 12” C900 PVC public water main to the eastern property line along CSAH 61. 12. The water extension into the site must be along or near the improved private access to allow for reasonable access for future repair and maintenance. 13. The applicant and their Engineer shall work with City staff in amending the construction plans, dated May 6, 2022 prepared by Joel G. Cooper, PE, to fully satisfy all plan review comments. Final construction plans will be subject to review and approval by staff. 14. The property and potential future properties associated with the final plat will be specially assessed for the extension of the public sanitary sewer when they connect. 15. The property and potential future properties associated with the final plat will be required to pay utility hook-up charges at the rate in effect at the time of connection to municipal services. 16. All required permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies including but not limited to the Minnesota Department of Health, Carver County Public, etc. shall be provided to the city prior to issuance of building permits. Water Resources: 1. The applicant shall provide a copy of an approved permit from the LMRWD as part of the building permit submittal to the City. 2. The applicant must submit soil borings and a geotechnical report with the building permit submittal to the City. Any modifications to the current design based on the geotechnical findings will be reviewed with future submittals to confirm compliance with the City’s requirements. 3. The applicant must update the hydrologic and hydraulic models per City comments and submit updated computations and models in their native forms with the building permit submittal to the City. 4. The applicant shall update P8 water quality modeling and resubmit the models in their native form to confirm the City’s water quality rule is met with the building permit submittal to the City. 5. The applicant shall update plans to provide the required freeboard from the proposed buildings and the EOF. 6. The applicant shall update plans to show wetland buffer markers and native vegetation in the wetland buffer area. 30 10500 and 10520 Great Plains Boulevard PUD Rezoning August 16, 2022 Page 26 7. The applicant shall enter into an Operations and Maintenance Agreement for any proposed privately owned stormwater facilities which shall be recorded concurrently with the final plat. 8. If the property is subdivided in the future, stormwater fees will be collected at the rate in affect at the time of platting, minus the $9,900.00 already paid. Carver County: 1. Median on CSAH 61 (Flying Could Drive) must be shifted west 60 feet to accommodate a truck and trailer pull out of the way of traffic when making left turns into the subject site. This improvement shall be made at the expense of the applicant and an excavation permit will be required. Applicant can coordinate with Carver County Public works on design specifics. A plan set shall be developed and signed by a licensed Engineer. 2. Provide drainage calculations and data for proposed development. Drainage should be carried and directed further to the east into the roadside ditch that currently exits instead of to the west side of the development on the steep slopes and directly pointed at the trail embankment. 3. Confirm that proposed drainage will not create an adverse impact to the County right of way. 4. Proposed grading shall tie-in and be compatible with the existing ground in the County right of way. 5. Outlet apron needs to be stabilized per design guidance from MnDOT to minimize the erosion risk. 6. Applicant’s engineering shall meet with Carver County Public Works to confirm the stormwater calculations. 7. Carver County will need to review and approve final grading plans. A grading permit will be required. 8. An access permit will be required for access to CSAH 61 due to the change in use and connection of the site improvements to CSAH 61. A deposit will be required to ensure work within the right of way for a median change project is to County standards. 9. Technical details of final plat, its boundaries and forms will need to be reviewed and approved by the County Surveyor. 10. Prior to any work affecting or on County highways or in County right of way, the applicant shall coordinate plans with the County Engineer and obtain a Utility, Access, or Excavating/Filling/Grading Permit(s) for Carver County Public Works. Final details of locations, grades, and profiles affecting County roads as well as any utility connections will need to be reviewed and approved prior to any permits being issued. 11. Any damages, modifications, or changes incurred on County highways from current or approved conditions will need to be remedied or updated at development expense, including costs incurred by the County. ATTACHMENTS 1. Proposed PUD Ordinance 31 10500 and 10520 Great Plains Boulevard PUD Rezoning August 16, 2022 Page 27 2. Findings of Fact and Recommendation 3. Variance Document 4. Draft Site Plan Agreement 5. Development Review Application 6. Project Narrative 7. Response to City of Chanhassen 8. Site Plan Review Set 9. Updated Landscaping Plan 10. Stormwater Narrative 11. Storm Sewer Sizing Worksheet 12. Storm Drainage Area 13. Variance Request 14. Engineering Memo 15. Carver County Memo 16. Carver County Attachment 17. Landscaping Memo 18. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List g:\plan\2022 planning cases\22-04 10500 and 10520 great plains blvd rez and spa\rsi concept pud staff report.doc 32 Flying Cloud Center (PUD 2022-04A) A. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a Mixed Use PUD accommodating a mix of commercial, office, residential, and warehousing uses with the intention that the warehousing uses be phased out after municipal sewer becomes available. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for a greater variety of uses consistent with the property’s “Mixed” Land Use guidance and to allow for more flexible design standards in order to ensure a higher quality and more sensitive development. B. Uses The allowed uses in in this zone shall be as listed in this section. If there is a question as to whether or not a use falls under a stated category, the Community Development Director shall make that interpretation. a. The following are Permitted Uses i. Antennas as regulated by article XXX of the zoning code. ii. Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation iii. Banks and Financial Institutions iv. Brew pub, subject to the requirements of section 20-968. v. Brewery operated in conjunction with a taproom producing less than 3,500 barrels per year, subject to the requirements of section 20-969. vi. Clinics vii. Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores viii. Electronics and Appliance Stores ix. Food and Beverage Stores x. Gasoline Stations xi. Health and Personal Care Stores xii. Microdistillery operated in conjunction with a cocktail room, subject to the requirements of section 20-967. xiii. Multifamily dwellings 1. Maximum of 46 units xiv. Offices xv. Restaurants xvi. Personal and Laundry Services xvii. Sporting Goods, Hobby, Musical Instrument, and Book Stores xviii. Warehousing and Storage 1. No new warehousing and storage uses shall be permitted for this PUD after municipal sewer becomes available. b. The following are Permitted Accessory Uses i. Accessory Solar Energy Systems (subject to the requirements of section 20-1093). ii. Garage as part of a multifamily residential development. 33 iii. Parking Lots iv. Signs as per allowed in a General Business District 1. Signs must reflect the quality of the development and must be architecturally compatible with the buildings materials and colors. v. Temporary outdoor sales and events (subject to the requirements of section 20-964) C. Lot Requirements and Setbacks a. Shall be as specified for the General Business District. b. Maximum height is as follows: i. For the principal structure, three stories/35 feet. ii. For accessory structures, one story/15 feet. D. Design Standards a. This area is part of the City’s southern gateway and as such it is expected that building elevations facing Highway 61 will exceed the minimum standards established by Divisions 7 and 9 of Article XXIII of the City Code. 34 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of RSI Marine for rezoning to Planned Unit Development, Site Plan Review, Vacation, Consolidation of Lots, and Variance. On August 16, 2022, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule meeting to consider the application of RSI Marine for rezoning to Planned Unit Development (PUD), site plan review, vacation, consolidation of lots, and variance for the property located at 10500 and 15200 Great Plains Boulevard. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed site plan 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 Fringe Business District, BF. 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Mixed Uses. 3.The legal description of the property is: See Exhibit A 4. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Findings Section 20-501: 1) Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. Finding. The applicant’s proposal leaves the area of the steep slopes on the western portion of the property undisturbed. The use of a PUD helps facilitate the consolidation of development to the property’s less environmentally sensitive area since it allow all four buildings to be placed on a single lot. Without PUD zoning, each building would need to be placed on a separate lot and the required streets and setbacks would result in greater disturbance to the site. 2) More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels. Finding. The use of PUD zoning allows for reasonable use of the property in the short term while facilitating the long-term development of the parcel as a mixed-use center with a blend of complementary uses. The use of PUD zoning allows for multiple buildings to be placed on a single lot permitting a more efficient and effective use of land 35 2 and allowing for shared parking and other synergies between uses that minimize the amount of impervious surface required for road and vehicular use areas. 3) High quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. Finding. This area is intended to serve as the City’s southern gateway. For this reason, the PUD ordinance will require that building elevations facing Highway 61 will exceed the City’s minimum design standards. Proposed buildings will be reviewed through the site plan review process and be required to comply with standard and all other applicable standards. 4) Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city will be encouraged. Finding. The mix of uses permitted by the PUD will create sensitive transitions between the mixed uses permitted near the intersection Highway 101 and Highway 61 and the future high density residential areas to the east of this site. As this corridor and intersection serve as the City’s southern gateway, a thoughtful and smooth transition between uses is critical. 5) Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Finding. The use of PUD zoning sets up the framework for the property to develop as a true mixed-use district including retail, office, and residential uses once sanitary sewer becomes available to the site, while allowing immediate use of the site as a storage facility. Traditional zoning would not be able to accommodate both the short- and long- term usage of the site in a manner consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, the Comprehensive Plan requires PUD zoning for properties with a Mixed land use designation. 6) Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the City. Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and overall trail plan. Finding. The Comprehensive Park Plan does not propose public lands in this area. The preservation of open space and undisturbed areas on the site is facilitated by the consolidation of development allowed by the use of PUD zoning, particularly the ability to place multiple buildings on a single lot. 7) Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD. Finding.Not applicable as part of this development; however, the PUD does permit multi-family housing which will increase the range and type of housing options available within the community. 36 3 8) Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sitings and the clustering of buildings and land uses. Finding. Energy conservation will be facilitated through permitting the clustering of buildings on a single lot. 9) Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate. Finding. Appropriate traffic management techniques will be used. The developer and future site users will be required to use traffic demand management strategies as appropriate, which will be reviewed during the site plan review of projects within the PUD. 5.Site Plan Findings Section 20-110: 1) 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.Subject to the conditions of approval, the proposed site plan is consistent with the requirements and goals of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, official road mapping, and other plans. 2) Is consistent with Chapter 20, Article II, Division 6; Finding.Subject to the conditions of approval, the proposed site plan meets the requirements of Chapter 20, Article, Division 6. It facilitates the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan, improves the City’s tax base, does not negatively impact surrounding land uses, has minimal impact on traffic, and enhances and preserves the natural and built environment. 3) 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 areas; Finding.Subject to the conditions of approval, the proposed site plan minimizes the impact on sites natural state by clustering buildings to minimize the required tree and soil removal. The proposed site plan’s grading and appearance is in keeping with the general appearance of the area. 4) 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; 37 4 Finding.Subject to the conditions of approval, the proposed development selected architecture and colors which help minimize the visual impact of the buildings on the site, as does the applicant’s decision to place buildings significantly behind the minimum required front yard setback. The buildings have an integrated color scheme and design and future phases will blend seamlessly with the development’s first phase. 5) Creates a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; Finding.The placement of the buildings and vehicular use areas are logical and consistent with the intended use of the site. b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping; Finding.Subject to the conditions of approval and approval of the requested vehicular use area landscaping variance, the proposed open spaces and landscaping is adequate. c. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and Finding.Subject to the conditions of approval, the proposed materials, textures, colors and details are appropriate for the proposed use and are compatible with the general area. d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. Finding.The location and design of the proposed vehicular use areas and associated accesses are appropriate for the proposed use and are expected to provide safe and efficient circulation within as well as to and from the site. 6) 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.Subject to the conditions of approval, the proposed site plan protects adjacent and neighboring properties by adequately managing drainage, buffers, viewscape, and other elements of design with the potential to impact neighboring land uses. 38 5 6.Variance Findings Section 20-58: 1) Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Finding: The intent of the City’s vehicular use area landscaping standards is to create a visual buffer and to reduce the urban heat island effect created by large unshaded expanses of asphalt. The standards are designed to balance these needs with the need for accommodating safe and efficient vehicle circulation. In this case the proposed buffer yards and building locations provide a visual buffer, but no internal landscaping is proposed to break up the unshaded expanses of asphalt. The applicant is requesting a variance from this standard due to the fact that no actual parking areas are proposed and an unobstructed expanse is required to allow for the turning movements required by vehicles towing trailers. Since the justification for the variance request is the need to allow for safe and efficient vehicle movements, the requested variance is consistent with the intent of the Chapter. 2) When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties" as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: The configuration of the vehicular use area is reasonable as it is necessitated by the nature of the applicant’s business which is a permitted use in the area; however, the required configuration of the drive aisles is not permitted by the City Code’s vehicular area landscaping standards. 3) That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The variance is being requested to allow for the safe and efficient circulation of traffic, and is not solely based upon economic considerations. 4) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding:The site’s topography encourages the clustered development of the site which has resulted in a central, consolidated vehicular use area which due to the nature of the use cannot meet the required vehicular use landscaping standards. 5) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The vehicular use areas is screened by the placement of the buildings and required buffer yards. Additionally, the interior of the site is not open to the general public. For these reasons, the requested variance from the landscape standards will not alter the essential character of the locality. 39 6 6) Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 7. The planning report #2022-04A dated August 8, 2022, prepared by MacKenzie Young- Walters, et al, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the rezoning to Planned Unit Development, site plan, vacation, consolidation of lots, and variance subject to the conditions of the staff report. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 16 th day of August, 2022. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY:___________________________________ Mark von Oven, Chairman 40 7 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1, Block 1, Paws Claws and Hooves Addition, Carver County, Minnesota, Excepting Parcel 1C and Parcel 1D as shown on Carver County Right of Way Plat No. 29, Carver County, Minnesota. And Lot 2, Block 1, Paws Claws and Hooves Addition, Carver County, Minnesota, Excepting Parcel 1A and Parcel 1B as shown on Carver County Right of Way Plat No. 29, Carver County, Minnesota. g:\plan\2022 planning cases\22-04a 10500 and 10520 great plains blvd\7-15-22 submittal for 8-16-22 pc meeting\findings of fact rsi.docx 41 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 2022-04A 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a variance from the required vehicular use landscape standards. 2. Property. The variance is for a property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as: Lot 1, Block 1, Paws Claws and Hooves Addition, Carver County, Minnesota, Excepting Parcel 1C and Parcel 1D as shown on Carver County Right of Way Plat No. 29, Carver County, Minnesota. And Lot 2, Block 1, Paws Claws and Hooves Addition, Carver County, Minnesota, Excepting Parcel 1A and Parcel 1B as shown on Carver County Right of Way Plat No. 29, Carver County, Minnesota. 3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. When the use of the site changes and parking is included, then all required landscaped islands and/or peninsulas shall be installed. 4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse. 42 2 Dated: August 16, 2022 CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Elise Ryan, Mayor (SEAL) AND: Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2022 by Elise Ryan, Mayor, and Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 g:\plan\2022 planning cases\22-04a 10500 and 10520 great plains blvd\7-15-22 submittal for 8-16-22 pc meeting\variance document 22-04a.docx 43 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN SITE PLAN AGREEMENT #2022-04A RSI MARINE SPECIAL PROVISIONS AGREEMENT dated ____________, by and between the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation, (the "City"), and RSI Marine & Motor Sports, LLC, (the "Developer"). 1.Request for Site Plan Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a site plan forfour single story storage buildings with a combined size of 85,200 square feet, rezoning to Planned Unit Development, vacation of existing drainage and utilities easements, consolidation of lots, and variances from the City’s vehicular area landscaping requirements (referred to in this Agreement as the "project"). The land located in Carver County, Minnesota, is legally described as: Lot 1, Block 1, Paws Claws and Hooves Addition, Carver County, Minnesota, Excepting Parcel 1C and Parcel 1D as shown on Carver County Right of Way Plat No. 29, Carver County, Minnesota. And Lot 2, Block 1, Paws Claws and Hooves Addition, Carver County, Minnesota, Excepting Parcel 1A and Parcel 1B as shown on Carver County Right of Way Plat No. 29, Carver County, Minnesota. 2.Conditions of Site Plan Approval. The City hereby approves the site plan on condition that the Developer enters into this Agreement and furnish the security required by it. 3.Development Plans. The project shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the following plans. The plans shall not be attached to this Contract. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Agreement, the written terms shall control. The plans are: Plan A-Site Plan prepared by James R. Hill, Inc., dated May 6, 2022. Plan B-Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plans prepared byJames R. Hill, Inc., dated May 6, 2022. Plan C-Landscaping Plan prepared byJames R. Hill, Inc., dated May 6, 2022. 44 2 Plan D - Architectural Plans prepared byGries Architectural Group Inc., dated May 6, 2022. 4.Time of Performance. The Developer shall install all required screening and landscaping by September 12, 2023. The Developer mayrequest an extension of time from the City. If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the security posted by the Developer to reflect cost increases and the extended completion date. 5.Security. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Agreement, the Developer shall furnish the City with a letter of credit from a bank, cash escrow, or equivalent ("security") for $____ (erosion control, grading, landscaping, and stormwater improvements). If the Developer requests a Certificate of Occupancy prior to the installation of site improvements, then the developer shall provide to the City with a letter of credit or cash escrow in an amount sufficient to insure the installation of said improvements. PROCEDURES FOR LETTER OF CREDIT REDUCTION a. Requests for reductions of Letters of Credit must be submitted to the City in writing by the Developer or his Engineer. b. Partial lien waivers totaling the amount of the requested reduction shall accompany each such request. c. Any reduction shall be subject to City approval. 6.Notices.Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer at the following address: RSI Marine. Attn: Rob Schatzle 1533 3rd Avenue W. Shakopee, MN 55379 Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Manager, or mailed to the City in care of the City Manager at the following address: Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Boulevard, P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317, Telephone (952) 227-1100. 7.Other Special Conditions. City Council approves a site plan for four single-story storage buildings with a combined size of 85,200 square feet, rezoning to Planned Unit Development, vacation of existing drainage and utilities easements, consolidation of lots, and variances from the City’s vehicular area landscaping requirements subject to the following conditions: Planning: 1. Light fixtures must be downcast and have a 90 degree cut off as required by Section 20- 913 of the City Code. 2. Any proposed signage will require a separate sign permit and must conform to the requirements of the PUD ordinance and City Code. 45 3 3. Any future fencing will require a permit and must meet the requirements of the City Code. 4. Approval of the site plan is contingent upon consolidation of the two parcels into a single lot. 5. Retaining walls under four feet in height require a zoning permit. 6. Any future HVAC systems will need to have any and all exterior components screened from public view, either through the use of materials similar to the building materials or by using heavy landscaping that will be effective in winter. Environmental Resources: 1. The applicant shall meet minimum requirements for buffer yards. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the City. 2. The applicant shall provide a 3-year prairie establishment and management plan for the native seed area specified on the landscape plan. 3. When the use of the site changes and parking is included, then all required landscaped islands and/or peninsulas be installed. 4. Incorporate two additional tree understory genera into Plant Schedule in order to meet minimum diversity as required by ordinance so that no genus has more than 10 trees in quantity. Fire: 1. Building must have Fire department lock boxes for access. 2. All buildings will require fire sprinkler systems. 3. If a fence is added in the future, it must have Fire department access boxes or gate switches (if electronic). 4. No hazardous material (i.e. gasoline, oil, etc.) may be stored on site. Building: 1. A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction. 2. Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 1. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that proposed building meets all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code, additional comments or requirements may be required after plan review. 2. The building is required to have automatic fire extinguishing systems. 3. Structure proximity to property lines (and other buildings) will have an impact on the Code requirements for the proposed buildings, including but not limited to: allowable size, protected openings and fire-resistive construction. These requirements will be addressed when complete building and site plans are submitted. 4. Building plans must include a Code analysis that contains the following information: Key plan, Occupancy group, Type of construction, Allowable height and area, Fire sprinklers, Separated or non-separated, Fire resistive elements (Exterior walls, Bearing walls - exterior or interior, Shaft, Incidental use), Occupant load, Exits required (Common path, Travel distance), Minimum plumbing fixture count. 3. Retaining walls (if present) more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction. 46 4 4. International Building Code Section 2902.1 exception: states that when approved by the building official, buildings or structures that are normally unoccupied, such as picnic shelters, amphitheaters, small transit stop stations, cold storage buildings, utility sheds, warming house, kiosks, concession stands and similar structures, need not be provided with restroom facilities. As these buildings will be used for storage and will not have employees on site, the requirement to provide a bathroom is waived and a septic system does not need to be installed. Parks: 1. If the property is subdivided in the future, Park fees will be collected at the rate in affect at the time of platting, minus the $2,800.00 already paid. Engineering: 1. Adequate public drainage and utility easements are required over any publicly owned and maintained water mains and will be subject to review and approval by staff prior to the recording of the final plat. 2. Any existing easements within the final plat area must be vacated prior to recording of the final plat. 3. The two parcels along the development’s eastern property lines listed with Carver County’s property information as “Parcel ID: Gap” will need to be identified appropriately prior to recording of the final plat. 4. Encroachment agreements are required of any proposed improvements within public drainage and utility easements after review and approval by the City Engineer. 5. The construction of any improvements that require access to adjacent properties shall receive a temporary construction easement or right-of-entry prior to issuance of any building permits. 6. Retaining walls over 4 feet in height shall be constructed in accordance with plans prepared by a registered engineer and shall be privately owned and maintained. 7. The development shall construct a commercial driveway access in accordance with the most recent edition of the City’s Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. 8. Any private utility needs to service the development, including sanitary sewer and potable water, will be required to be provided by the developer as the property is not serviced by adequate city utilities. 9. The proposed connection to the public sanitary sewer main is not approved. 10. The proposed water main tap to the public main shall only be used for fire suppression needs for the development. 11. The developer shall extend the 12” C900 PVC public watermain to the eastern property line along CSAH 61. 12. The water extension into the site must be along or near the improved private access to allow for reasonable access for future repair and maintenance. 13. The applicant and their Engineer shall work with City staff in amending the construction plans, dated May 6, 2022 prepared by Joel G. Cooper, PE to fully satisfy all plan review comments. Final construction plans will be subject to review and approval by staff. 14. The property and potential future properties associated with the final plat will be specially assessed for the extension of the public sanitary sewer when they connect. 15. The property and potential future properties associated with the final plat will be required to pay utility hook-up charges at the rate in effect at the time of connection to municipal services. 47 5 16. All required permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies including but not limited to the Minnesota Department of Health, Carver County Public, etc. shall be provided to the city prior to issuance of building permits. Water Resources: 1. The applicant shall provide a copy of an approved permit from the LMRWD as part of the building permit submittal to the City. 2. The applicant must submit soil borings and a geotechnical report with the building permit submittal to the City. Any modifications to the current design based on the geotechnical findings will be reviewed with future submittals to confirm compliance with the City’s requirements. 3. The applicant must update the Hydrologic and Hydraulic models per City comments and submit updated computations and models in their native forms with the building permit submittal to the City. 4. The applicant shall update P8 water quality modeling and resubmit the models in their native form to confirm the City’s water quality rule is met with the building permit submittal to the City. 5. The applicant shall update plans to provide the required freeboard from the proposed buildings and the EOF. 6. The applicant shall update plans to show wetland buffer markers and native vegetation in the wetland buffer area. 7. The applicant shall enter into an Operations and Maintenance Agreement for any proposed privately owned stormwater facilities which shall be recorded concurrently with the final plat. 8. If the property is subdivided in the future, stormwater fees will be collected at the rate in affect at the time of platting, minus the $9,900.00 already paid. Carver County: 1. Median on CSAH 61 (Flying Could Drive) must be shifted west 60 feet to accommodate a truck and trailer pull out of the way of traffic when making left turns into the subject site. This improvement shall be made at the expense of the applicant and an excavation permit will be required. Applicant can coordinate with Carver County Public works on design specifics. A plan set shall be developed and signed by a licensed Engineer. 2. Provide drainage calculations and data for proposed development. Drainage should be carried and directed further to the east into the roadside ditch that currently exits instead of to the west side of the development on the steep slopes and directly pointed at the trail embankment. 3. Confirm that proposed drainage will not create an adverse impact to the County right of way. 4. Proposed grading shall tie-in and be compatible with the existing ground in the County right of way. 5. Outlet apron needs to be stabilized per design guidance from MnDOT to minimize the erosion risk. 6. Applicant’s engineering shall meet with Carver County Public Works to confirm the stormwater calculations. 48 6 7. Carver County will need to review and approve final grading plans. A grading permit will be required. 8. An access permit will be required for access to CSAH 61 due to the change in use and connection of the site improvements to CSAH 61. A deposit will be required to ensure work within the right of way for median change project is to County standards. 9. Technical details of final plat, its boundaries and forms will need to be reviewed and approved by the County Surveyor. 10. Prior to any work affecting or on County highways or in County right of way, the applicant shall coordinate plans with the County Engineer and obtain a Utility, Access, or Excavating/Filling/Grading Permit(s) for Carver County Public Works. Final details of locations, grades, and profiles affecting County roads as well as any utility connections will need to be reviewed and approved prior to any permits being issued. 11. Any damages, modifications, or changes incurred on County highways from current or approved conditions will need to be remedied or updated at development expense, including costs incurred by the County. 8.General Conditions. The general conditions of this Agreement are attached as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein. 9.Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Elise Ryan, Mayor AND: Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20___, by Elise Ryan, Mayor, and by Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. __________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC 49 7 DEVELOPER: BY: Its: Rob Schatzle STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _____________, 20___ by Rob Schatzle. __________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P. O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 50 8 ( CITY OF CHANHASSEN SITE PLAN AGREEMENT EXHIBIT "A" GENERAL CONDITION 1.Right to Proceed. Within the site plan area, the Developer may not grade or otherwise disturb the earth, remove trees, construct improvements, or any buildings until all the following conditions have been satisfied: 1) thissite plan agreement has been fully executed by both parties and filed with the City Clerk, 2) the necessary security and fees have been received by the City, and 3) the City has issued a building permit in reliance on the foregoing conditions having been satisfied. 2.Maintenance of site. The site shall be maintained in accordance with the approved site plan. Plants and ground cover required as a condition of site plan approval which die shall be promptly replaced. 3.License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and contractors a license to enter the site to perform all work and inspections deemed appropriate by the City in conjunction with site plan development. 4.Erosion Control. Before the site is rough graded, and before any building permits are issued, the erosion control plan, Plan B, shall be implemented, inspected, and approved by the City. The City may impose additional erosion control requirements if they would be beneficial. All areas disturbed by the excavation and backfilling operations shall be reseeded forthwith after the completion of the work in that area. Except as otherwise provided in the erosion control plan, seed shall be certified seed to provide a temporary ground cover as rapidly as possible. All seeded areas shall be fertilized, mulched, and disc anchored as necessary for seed retention. The parties recognize that time is of the essence in controlling erosion. If the Developer does not comply with the erosion control plan and schedule or supplementary instructions received from the City, the City may take such action as it deems appropriate to control erosion at the Developer's expense. The City will endeavor to notify the Developer in advance of any proposed action, but failure of the City to do so will not affect the Developer's and City's rights or obligations hereunder. No development will be allowed and no building permits will be issued unless there is full compliance with the erosion control requirements. Erosion control shall be maintained until vegetative cover has been restored. After the site has been stabilized to where, in the opinion of the City, there is no longer a need for erosion control, the City will authorize removal of the erosion control measures. 5.Clean up. The Developer shall maintain a neat and orderly work site and shall daily clean, on and off site, dirt and debris, including blowables, from streets and the surrounding area that has resulted from construction work by the Developer, its agents or assigns. 6.Warranty. All trees, grass, and sod required in the approved Landscaping Plan, Plan C, shall be warranted to be alive, of good quality, and disease free at the time of planting. All trees shall be warranted for twelve (12) months from the time of planting. The Developer or his contractor(s) shall post a letter of credit or cash escrowto the City to secure the warranties at the time of final acceptance. 7.Responsibility for Costs. A. The Developer shall hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from claims made 51 9 by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from site plan approval and development. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers and employees for all costs, damages, or expenses which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims, including attorneys' fees. B. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this Permit, including engineering and attorneys' fees. C. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City for obligations incurred under this Permit within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the City may halt all development work and construction. Bills not paid within thirty (30) days shall accrue interest at the rate of 8% per year. 8.Developer's Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer is first given written notice of the work in default, not less than four (4) days in advance. This Contract is a license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a Court order for permission to enter the land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost in whole or in part. 9.Miscellaneous. A. Construction Trailers. Placement of on-site construction trailers and temporary job site offices shall be approved by the CityEngineer. Trailers shall be removed from the subject property within thirty (30) days following the issuance of a certificate of occupancy unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. B. Postal Service. The Developer shall provide for the maintenance of postal service in accordance with the local Postmaster's request. C. Third Parties. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this Agreement. D. Breach of Contract. Breach of the terms of this Agreement by the Developer shall be grounds for denial of building permits. E. Severability. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph, or phrase of this Agreement is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Contract. F. Occupancy. Unless approved in writing by the City Engineer, no one may occupy a building for which a building permit is issued on either a temporary or permanent basis until the streets needed for access have been paved with a bituminous surface and the utilities tested and approved by the city. G. Waivers/Amendments. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Contract. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Contract shall not be a waiver or release. H. Recording. This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to the property. I. Remedies. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, express or implied, now or hereafter arising, available to City, at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to time as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a 52 10 waiver of the right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy. J. Construction Hours. The normal construction hours under this contract shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on weekdays, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, with no such activity allowed on Sundays or any recognized legal holidays. Construction activities in conjunction with new developments and city improvement projects, including but not limited to grading, utility installation and paving, requiring the use of heavy equipment shall be permitted between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on any weekday and 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No such activity is permitted on Sundays or public holidays. Operation of all internal combustion engines used for construction or dewatering purposes beyond the normal working hours will require City Council approval. K. Soil Treatment Systems. If soil treatment systems are required, the Developer shall clearly identify in the field and protect from alteration, unless suitable alternative sites are first provided, the two soil treatment sites identified during the site plan process for each lot. This shall be done prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit. Any violation/disturbance of these sites shall render them as unacceptable and replacement sites will need to be located for each violated site in order to obtain a building permit. L. Compliance with Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations. In the development of the site plan, the Developer shall comply with all laws, ordinances, and regulations of the following authorities: 1.City of Chanhassen; 2.State of Minnesota, its agencies, departments and commissions; 3.United States Army Corps of Engineers; 4.Watershed District; 5.Metropolitan Government, its agencies, departments and commissions. M. Proof of Title. Upon request, the Developer shall furnish the City with evidence satisfactory to the City that it has the authority of the fee owners and contract for deed purchasers too enter into this Development Contract. N. Soil Conditions. The Developer acknowledges that the City makes no representations or warranties as to the condition of the soils on the property or its fitness for construction of the improvements or any other purpose for which the Developer may make use of such property. The Developer further agrees that it will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its governing body members, officers, and employees from any claims or actions arising out of the presence, if any, of hazardous wastes or pollutants on the property, unless hazardous wastes or pollutants were caused to be there by the City. O. Soil Correction. The Developer shall be responsible for soil correction work on the property. The City makes no representation to the Developer concerning the nature of suitability of soils nor the cost of correcting any unsuitable soil conditions which may exist. 53 11 CONSENT Owners of all or part of the subject property, the development of which is governed by the foregoing Site Plan Agreement, affirm and consent to the provisions thereof and agree to be bound by the provisions as the same may apply to that portion of the subject property owned by them. Dated this ____ day of _____________, 20___ By__________________________ _______________________________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ____________, 20___, by _________________________________. _________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P. O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 54 12 MORTGAGE HOLDER CONSENT TO SITE PLAN AGREEMENT , which holds a mortgage on the subject property, the development of which is governed by the foregoing Site Plan Agreement, agrees that the Site Plan Agreement shall remain in full force and effect even if it forecloses on its mortgage. Dated this day of , 20___. (Name and title) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20___, by (name, title and company) . NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 55 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Plannrng Division - 7700 Market Boulevard Mailing Address - P.O. Box 147. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone (952) ?27 -1100 tFax. (9521227-1110 Submrtlal Date A--oq /14 CITY OT CIIAI'IIIASSIN APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PC Date cc oate ?l (Refer lo lha approptiate Application Checklist lot rcquired sobmiftal inlomalion lhat l,r,ust accompany this application) E Comprehensive Plan Amendment. ................. E Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers ! Conditional Use Permit (CUP) n Single-FamilyResidence n Att others................ E Subdivision (SUB) E Create 3 lots or less E Create over 3 lots ....... . ......( tors) ! Metes & Bounds (2 lots) E Consolidate Lots............ . ... 1<e,rOt Un ,intitrl $600 $100 $325 s425 sTso A s 100$500 as150 ns[,,|,ilhl s100 ! lnterim Use Permit (lUP) ! ln conjunction with Single-Family Residence.. $325 n A others...... .. .... .. $425 D Rezoning (REZ) El Planned Unit Development (PUD) . E Minor Amendment to existing PUD E Lot Line Ad,iustment............. .E Fr"riLt l--.. -. (lncludes $450 escrow for attorney costs). 'Additional egcrow may be requited for other applications through the developmenl contract. Vacataon of Easements/Right-of-way (VAC) (Addational lecordlng fees may apply) Vanance (VAR) .. ..... Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) I Single-FamilyResidence ! Att others 5300 $200 $150 $275 $100 $500 E A[ others...... E Sign Plan Review... fl site Plan Review (SPR) tA ! Administrative .. -................ t...... (_ thousand square feet) 'lnclude number of CllSlDq employees 'lnc'lde number of 4ql4 employees E Resrdential Orstflcts..... ... .. . Plus $5 per dwelling unit (- Commercial/lndustrial Districts' ..... .. . $500 Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet ot ouiroin! areJ--- U zoning APpeal D Zonlng Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) !qIE: When multiple appllcations are p.ocessed concur.eotly' the approp.iate fee shall be charged for each application. E Notification Sign {c,ty ro instattand remove) " $200 ! Property Owners' LiSt with in 500' lcrty to generate afler pre-app[caton meetrig) . "" '53peraddress(- addresses) ...... .......... s500 units) plv)E Escrow for Recording Documents (check all that n Conditional Use Permit E vacation I Metes & Bounds Subdivision (3 docs.) lnterim Use Permit E Variance D Easements (- easements) S50 Per document fl Site Plan Agreement E Wetland Alterataon Permit a f] Deeds TOTAL FEE:t Description of Proposal: Construction ot cold siorage building and entrance otf of Flying Cloud drive with required site imProvements Property Address or Location 1 O52O GREAT PLAIN BLVD Legal Description Lot 1&2 of Paws & Hooves Addition Parcel # 8.3 3 Wetlands Present?E ves nuo Requested ZoningFringe Business District (BF)Planned Unit Development (PUD) Present Land Use Designation Commercial vacant Total Acreage. Present Zoning Section 1: Application Type (check all that apply) Section 2: Required lnformation ECnecf box if separate narrative is attached Existing Use of Property ...$300 1lrclzz tl,ulr-6o.oayReviewDare qf 4 ZZ- Requested Land Use Designation:Select One 56 Section 3: Proparty Ownor and Appllcant lnformatlon APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OUIINER: ln signing this applEation, l, as applksnl represent to have obtained authonzation from the property owne, to file this application I agree to be bound by conditions of aPproval, subject ooly to the right to obiecl at the hearings on the application or during the appeal penod lf lhis application has not been slgned by the property owner, I have attaahed separaie documentation of full legal capacity to file the apdi€alion This application shoulrt-be irocesseO in my name and I am the party whorn the City should contact regarding any mattet p€rtaining to this application I will keep misetf infonned of the deadiines for submission of material and the progress ol 6is applbation l furiher untterstand th;t additional te€s may be charged tor consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authonza$on to proceed with the studi I cerlit that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correcl. Name Address' Name RSI Marine Address 1533 3rd Ave W Cityistate/Zip Emaill Shakopee rob@rsima com Sign City/State/Zip Email: Signature: PROJECT ENGINEER (if aPPlicable) James R Hill.lnc Address 2999 w county road 42 fl1OO City/Stat€r'Zp Bumsvill€. mn 55306 Email igcooper@irhinc.com . Rob Scfiatzl€ (es2) 23$2084 (612) 839-9990 5t5t22 . Joel G Coop€r (952) 89G6044 (612) s0&e$0 Contact Phone: PROPERTY OlilNER: ln signing this application, l, as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do, authorize the filing of this ai'plidtion. I understand thatconditions of approval are binding and agree lo be bound by those condtions, subjeit only to ih; right to object at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will ke€P mysetf informed ot the deadtines for submission of materialind the progrestof his application. I turther understand that a(Hitional tees may be charged for consulting Ees, leasibility studies. etc. wilh an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. icertify that the information and exhibits submitted are lrue and correc't Contact Phone: Cell: Fax: Dato Cell Fax: Date Cell Fax This application must be compleled in full and musl b€ accompanied by all infonnalion and plans required by ,ootiJ[t" Cit, Ortinance provisions. Before filing this application, refer to the appoPrbte A0d*xtion Checklist "Ii "oneryiir' tne ptanning Depaturcnt to determine the specific ordinance and applicable Procedural requiremenE and fees. A determination of completeness of the application shall be.made within 15 business days of applioation submittal. A ;-iti,; ;;G;;pptication oeficiencies ahall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days ot applbation. Contract Phona: Section4: Notificalion lnfotmation I Mail€d Pap€r CoPy n Maabd Paper copy fl Mailed Paper CoPY E tvtaiteo Paper copy INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICAI{T: Complete all necessary. device-TRtNrFdRM anAAelrver to city along witfi required form fields. then sebct SAVE FORH to save a copy to your docurEnts and payment SUBMIT FORM b send a digital SAVE FOR PRINT FORrrt SUBTTT FORi' ! Property Owner Vra. E Email E Appli:anl Vra: Ll Email fl Engineer Vra: Ll Email D Otre* Vra U Emdl Vlrho Bhould receive coPios of staft T.potts?'O'ift.r Cont ct lrlo E{on: Nam6: Addressl Email: Name copy to the ctty for Procesing 57 RSI MARINE BOAT STORAGE FACILITIES 1. Project Narrative. The project will consist of design and construction of (4) single story boat and watercraft storage facilities. The project is intended to be built in multiple phases, cost and utilization will determine the quantity of buildings to be built in phase 1. All buildings will be submitted for proper building permitting prior to construction. The proposed buildings are designed to maximize future flexibility. Multiple overhead doors are utilized to load and unload boats as well as allow future partitioning of the spaces. The buildings are not intended to be occupied except for loading and unloading of stored units. There are no Full-Time employees and no public access, meaning there is no need for parking on this site. 2. Project Design. a. The building exteriors are designed to be in conformance with the City of Chanhassen chapter 20, Article XXIII design requirements. Earth tone colors have been selected to blend with the natural landscape. Architectural brick tower corner elements will be utilized on the southern and west elevations to create building articulation and hold the corners of the main highway gateway district. Tower elements will have a hipped metal roof feature element. The main building utilizes color integrated CMU rock face block. Wood grain longboard lap siding and architectural insulated metal wall panels. The architectural insulated metal panel will have a stucco finish appearance. These various materials and textures create additional façade articulations. We have incorporated a two-tone color scheme to aid in breaking up the facades and avoiding monolithic exterior elevations. Color integrated overhead doors are utilized to blend with the building colors. This is in lieu of white overheads, to avoid such strong contrast i n building colors. The roof will be standing seam metal roof with color tones to match the building. We have selected a 4:12 roof pitch which was the recommended minimum pitch listed in the city guidelines. 58 3. Landscaping a. The site will be landscaped in accordance with city requirements. Additional landscape beds and groupings have been added to the south and west elevations to assist in the appearance of building articulations. b. The site usage does not necessitate the need for parking, so this helps reduc e the amount of required asphalt paving and thus reduces heat island effect. c. Foundation plantings on the outward facing building facades has been provided. 4. Retaining Wall a. Retaining wall locations and heights are indicated on civil plans. The design and engineering team anticipates on utilizing a gravity retaining wall system (Similar to RECON wall systems). All retaining walls over 4 feet will be fully engineered prior to installation. 5. Fencing and Gates a. The owner would like to maintain the option to add in security fencing and entry gates. NO gates would exceed 8 feet in height and any installed gates and fencing would be installed outside the required front yard setbacks. 6. Signs a. No building or site signage is being requested at this time. Should any signage be proposed for future use a full sign submittal package will be prepared for City review and approval. 7. Traffic Generation and Parking a. The site will have minimal traffic throughout the year. More traffic will be seen in the spring and fall as boats and watercraft are either being removed or placed into storage. There are no employees that will be working on this site and no public traffic to this site or the facilities. The site is unoccupied except for loading and unloading of the units into storage. Because of the site being unoccupied and no public access parking is not a necessity. 8. Lighting a. New exterior site and building lighting is being proposed. All new lighting will be decorative LED with housing colors to match the building materials. Please refer to submitted photometric plan for additional information. 59 9. Dumpster enclosure a. No dumpster enclosure is being proposed for the site. The buildings are unoccupied storage and site operations will not produce trash. 10. Hazardous Materials a. No Hazardous materials will be stored on-site. 11. Rooftop Equipment and Screening a. No Rooftop equipment is being proposed for the buildings. No Rooftop screening will be required as there is no rooftop equipment. Any heating for the building will be through interior Gas Fired Units or Furnaces. No AC equipment will be installed at this time. Should AC units be installed in the future they would be ground mounted and screened with landscaping. 60 RESPONSES TO CITY OF CHANHASSEN Planning: 1. The buildings must meet the requirements of Chapter 20, Article XXlll, Division 7 Design Standards for commercial, industrial, and office- institutional developments". Of particular importance: a. The south and west elevations must be articulated either through the use of facade modulation- stepping back/ forward or extending a portion of the fagade and/or vertical division using different textures or materials. Provided, refer to elevations. b. The south and west elevations must include architectural detailing to facilitate the reduction of the City' s facade transparency requirement, as outlined in section 20- 1068. Provided, refer to elevations. Tilt-up concrete panels must be grid or brick like in appearance. Provided, refer to elevations. d. Accent materials ( metal, glass block, spandrel glass, etc.) are limited to 15 percent of the building' s facade. Provided, refer to elevations Flat roofs should be defined with an ornamental parapet or cornice. Roof is sloped 4:12 which meets the requirements of the code. 2. A complete site plan application will be required concurrent with the request to rezone to Planned Unit Development ( PUD). Application has been submitted' 3. A complete variance request for the use of holding tanks will be required concurrent with the requesttorezonetoPlannedUnitDevelopment(PUD).Variancehasbeensubmitted' 4. An expanded narrative should be provided addressing the proposed use of the site. The narrative should address business model, number of employees present, parking needs, expected traffic generation and other similar elements Refer to expanded narrative 5,Proposedfenceandgateshallnotexceedeightfeetinheisht,shallbelocatedoutsideof required front yard setbacks and sight triangle if not of an open design' and shall be located behind required landscape buffers. Fencing will meet these requirements c e 5. A proposed sign plan shall be provided as part of the site plan application' We are not requesting any signage at this time. 61 8. lnformation on the heights and materials shall be provided for the proposed retaining walls. lnformation is added to civil. Full engineering drawings of retaining wall will be provided based on pla nning approval. Landscaping: 1. Must include existing trees and woods on existing conditions sheet and update the canopy coverage calculations. The trees are located on the existing conditions exhibit. a. Must meet or exceed required replacement tree planting for the site' 2. Must submit a tree inventory for the site. We have submitted a tree inventory with tree preservation 3. Staff recommends use of no- mow turf grass or prairie mix in place of the proposed sod areas to promote a sustainable landscape design for the site. We are ok with no mow tur[. 4. Must meet the buffer yard plantings as required by section 20- 7L76(tl' 5. Must include foundation plantings on the outward facing sides ofthe buildings. 6, Staff recommends that the applicant propose an alternative to the required vehicular use area landscaping requirements that meets the intent of the ordinance by providing environmental benefits and/ or reducing the heat island effect caused by large expanses of asphalt' A parking island was added. The remainder of asphalt is drive lane and does not accommodate parking islands. A variance is being applied for' Engineering: 1 Existing easements must be vacated prior to recording the final plat' The existing easements will be vacated prlor to recording final plat The existing easements have been described for the vacation' Ten- foot public drainage and utility easements will be required along all property lines' The final plat has a perimeter 10' easement for public drainage and utilities' Publicdrainageandutilityeasementswillberequiredoverpublicutilitieswithdimensions adequate to properly repair and maintain the utility( i'e water main)' The final plat has utility easements over the proposed public utilities' 2 3 7. A proposed lighting plan shall be provided as part ofthe site plan application. Lighting photometric ptan is included in the drawing package. 62 4. Status ofthe two parcels abutting the preliminary plat' s western property lines listed as Parcel lD: Gap" must be resolved prior to recording of the final plat. The property gap will be resolved. 5. Applicant must coordinate all right- of-way activity with Carver County, including considerations and conditions associated with easements for the property as well as requirements associated with ingress/ egress and construction activities such as grading and hauling operations. We will obtain Carver County permits for construction activities and ingress/egress. 5. A turnaround should be included meeting the requirements of section 20- 1122. The turnaround must facilitate the turning movement of the largest anticipated design vehicle for the site or the City' s largest fire trunk, whichever is greater. A turnaround for the fire truck is provided at the end of the drive between the buildings with a 48' radius. 7. Existing Conditions Survey: a. Topographic data 100 feet beyond the property boundary. We have added topographic to go 100 feet beyond the property line. b. lllustration of existing features that would impact the site' s ingress/ egress ( e. g. the full extents of Flying Cloud Drive which includes the median near the site' s entrance). We have included the existing improved FlyinB Cloud improvements. c. Utilities on or adjacent to the property, including location, size and invert elevation of storm sewers, catch basins and manholes; location and size of water mains (including casings) and hydrants; location of gas mains, high pressure lines, fire hydrants, electric and telephone lines, and street liShts. The direction, distance to, and size of such facilities shall be indicated. We have added the adjacent utilities with rims and inverts. d. Sewage treatment systems and associated conveyance systems The existing sanitary sewer has been added e. Existing easements and associated recording document numbers' Existing easements have been included f. Property information within 150 feet of the property' s boundary' We have added adjacent property information within l'50 feet of the boundary' g. Retaining wall elevations. The existing retaining walls are shown h. Show buffer and wetland setbacks for managed type 2 wetland' We are not aware of any wetlands on the property' 8. Retaining walls over four feet in height require an engineered design' A structural engineer will design all retaining walls over 4 feet 9. Retaining walls in easements will require Encroachment Agreements and if any construction or impacts require access to abutting properties, the appropriate right- of-entry agreements and/ or temporary construction easements must be obtained' The retaining walls within the 10'drainage and utility easements will require an EncroachmentASreement.ThewallswillbeconstructedwithoutencroachinSuntoadjacent properties. 63 Water Resources: 1. A permit from the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District( LMRWD) will be required. Staff believes the proposed stormwater will tri8ger LMRWD Rule D. A permit from the Lower Minnesota River Watershed will be obtained prior to construction. 2. Verify with LMRWD if the project will trigger Rule F- Steep Slopes' The site is not located within a steep slope per Lower Minnesota River watershed District maps. 3. Must address water Resources Engineer' s (wRE) comments on stormwater design transmitted via email dated February 4, 2022. a.H&Hmodelsshouldbeupdatedperthesecommentspriortositeplansubmittal. ThestormwaterdesignaddressestherequirementsoftheLowerMinnesotaRiVer WatershedRuleD.andthecity,sstormwaterrequirements.Wehaveincludedthe HydroCAD and P8 models for review for water quality and quantity requirements' 10. No earth disturbing activities may occur until an approved SWPPP is developed. This SWPPP shall be a standalone document consistent with the NPDES Construction Permit and shall contain all required elements as listed in Parts lll and lV of the permit. The SWPPP will need to be updated as the plans are finalized, when the contractor and their sub- contractors are identified and as other conditions change. We will develop a standalone SWPPP and will have a NDPES permit in place prior to any earth moving activitles. 11. The city has preliminarily agreed to allow the development to tap into the public water main which was extended with the Highway 101 Realignment project, but only to service the development' s fire suppression needs. It is understood that the on-site watermain is for fire suppression only and not for domestic use. The site is intended to be utilized for cold storage with no permanent on-site personnel. 12. lf thesitewill have anyfixtures requiringthe use of water other than for fire suppression needs, a private source of water supply must be used for those fixtures. There will be no on-site water usage with the current plan. 13. Water Connection fees will be due at the time potable water is available to the site and will be at the rates in effect at that time. It is understood that the water fees will be paid when portable water is available to the site. 14. The property and potential future properties associated with this developable area will be specially assessed for the extension of the public sanitary sewer when they connect. It is understood there will be connection fees for sanitary sewer when the public sanitary sewer becomes f unctional. 15. The development will be required to extend the public water main to the western property line, and the extension into the site must be along or near the improved private access to allow for reasonable access for future repair and maintenance. The water main has been extended through the property to the eastern property line for future extension of the water system. 64 4. Buildings and parking areas must meet required wetland setbacks. We are not aware of any wetlands onsite. 5. Geotechnical report and infiltration testing to show sequencing of BMP design from infiltration to filtration will likely be required prior to the issuance of building permit. The Geotechnical lnvestigation has been ordered and will be provided when available, the timeline for this is 3 to 4 weeks from today's date. 5. HydroCAD models should be submitted in addition to reports for review by the WRE. The HydroCAD model and P8 model have been submitted for review 7. Stormwater facilities must meet the requirements of section 19- 144 of the City Code. It is our opinion that the stormwater facilities designed for this project are in compliance with the requirements of section 19-144 of the City Code. 8. A stormwater maintenance agreement and associated operations and maintenance plan is required for all private stormwater BMPs. A stormwater maintenance agreement, operations and maintenance plan will be provided. g. lf the property is subdivided in the future, stormwater fees will be collected at the rate in affect at the time of platting, minus the $9, 900.00 already paid U nderstood Pa rk: 1. lf the property is subdivided in the future, Park fees will be collected at the rate in affect at the time of platting, minus the S 2,800.00 already paid. 1. All buildings will require fire sprinkler systems. Buildings will be sprinkled' 2. All buildingswill needafirepanel (oronecentral location panel) to monitorthe fire sprinkler systems. Fire panel will be provided. 3.Firehydrant(s}willberequired.currentlyshowingonpreliminaryutilityplan.HydrantWilIbe provided, refer to plans for locations' 4. Fire access roads/ driveway grading not to exceed 10% in grade Truck turn around was added with appropriate grades. Access to back of buildings is under 350' Fire: 65 MATERIAL INDEX-PLANS,SECTIONS STONE FINISHED LUMBER ROUGH LUMBER PLYWOOD POURED CONCRETE CONCRETE BLOCK FILLED CONCRETE BLOCK FACE BRICK GRAVEL FILL CERAMIC TILE COMPACTED FILL EARTH CONSTRUCT NEW WALL EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN EXISTING WALL TO BE REMOVED BITUMINOUS PAVING ACOUSTIC TILE PRECAST CONCRETE DRYWALL STEEL RIGID INSULATION BATT INSULATION WALL TYPEA1 SECTION CUT SYMBOL (WALL SECTIONS) PLAN DETAIL / ENLARGED PLAN SYMBOL DETAIL CUT SYMBOL REFERENCE SYMBOLS DRAWING SYMBOLS SECTION DESIGNATION (NUMBER FOR CROSS SECTION & LETTER FOR WALL SECTION) DRAWING NUMBER ON WHICH DETAIL APPEARS WINDOW TAG REVISION NUMBER DOOR TAG DRAWING NUMBER ON WHICH SECTION APPEARS DRAWING NUMBER ON WHICH DETAIL APPEARS DETAIL NUMBER DETAIL NUMBER ELEVATION MARK - EXISTING ELEVATION MARK - NEW STAIRWAY DIRECTION INDICATION COLUMN LINE DESIGNATION- NEW0 1 A101 1 A101 1 A101 101 1 W1 UP Name Elevation Name Elevation KEYNOTE MARK - ACCESSORIES KEYNOTE MARK - DEMOLITION NOTES 10'-0" A.F.F.SPOT ELEVATION MARKER ? ? ?KEYNOTE MARK - PLAN NOTES PROJECT DATA GOVERNING AUTHORITY - CITY OF CHANHASSEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CLASS OF CONSTRUCTION III-B OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION MODERATE-HAZARD STORAGE (S-1) LOCAL ZONING AUTHORITY CITY OF CHANHASSEN BUILDING SPRINKLED YES INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE 2015REFERENCED CODE BUILDING AREA: BUILDING A: BUILDING B: BUILDING C: BUILDING D: TOTAL BUILDING SQ. FT.: 20,225 S.F. 22,848 S.F. 22,848 S.F. 86,146 S.F. 20,225 S.F. NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES 0 Reproducing Is Prohibited. Return Upon Request. ©Copyright. This Print/Computer File Gries Architectural Group, Inc. Use Only For Purpose Which Loaned. Copying Or Is The Exclusive Property Of date: job: d. by: rev.:GriesArchitectural Group Inc.500 North Commercial StreetNeenah, Wisconsin 54956Phone: 920-722-2445 Fax: 920-722-6605www.gries.designCITY SUBMITTAL 05/06/20225/6/2022 3:31:37 PMZ:\2022\22-054 RSI Marine Storage\22-054 Revit\22-054_RSI Marine Storage.rvtC-S ZTS 05-06-2022 22-054 ---A NEW STORAGE FACILITY FOR:RSI MARINE STORAGECHANHASSEN, MINNESOTANOTE: ALL TRADES SHALL CROSS REFERENCE ALL CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS FOR COORDINATION AND SCOPE OF WORK. VICINITY PLAN INDICATES PROJECT LOCATION NO SCALE NOTE: THE INTENT AND MEANING OF THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS IS THAT THE CONTRACTOR UNDER THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT SHALL TAKE ALL ACTIONS NECESSARY AND REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ALL LABOR, MATERIALS, SUPPLIES, EQUIPMENT, TRANSPORTATION, FACILITIES AND APPURTENANCES WHICH ARE INDICATED OR REASONABLY IMPLIED BY EACH DRAWING AND EACH SECTION OF THE SPECIFICATIONS, ALL OF WHICH ARE COLLECTIVELY NECESSARY AND REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE DESCRIBED STRUCTURES AND FACILITIES. A NEW STORAGE FACILITY FOR: RSI MARINE STORAGE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA SHEET INDEX 10520 GREAT PLAINS BLVD CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA C-S COVER SHEET CIVIL C-1.0 TITLE SHEET C-1.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS C-1.2 EXISTING/PROPOSED DRAINAGE MAP C-1.3 SITE PLAN C-1.4 FUTURE SITE PLAN C-2.0 PRELIMINARY PLAT C-3.0 PRELIMINARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN C-3.1 EROSION CONTROL DETAILS C-3.2 EROSION CONTROL DETAILS C-3.3 EROSION CONTROL DETAILS C-4.0 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN C-5.0 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN C-6.1 LANDSCAPE PLAN C-6.2 LANDSCAPE PLAN ARCHITECTURAL A-0.1 SITE PLAN PH-1 LIGHTING PHOTOMETRIC A-1.1 OVERALL FLOOR PLAN A-1.2 BUILDING A - FLOOR PLAN A-1.3 BUILDING B - FLOOR PLAN A-1.4 BUILDING C - FLOOR PLAN A-1.5 BUILDING D - FLOOR PLAN A-3.1 DOOR & WINDOW SCHEDULE A-4.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A-4.2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A-4.3 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A-4.4 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A-11.1 RENDERINGS PROJECT LOCATION ARCHITECTURAL GRIES ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC. 500 N. COMMERCIAL STREET NEENAH, WI 54956 PH (920)722-2445 FX (920)722-6605 CONTACT: BRANNIN GRIES, AIA CIVIL JAMES R. HILL, INC. 2999 WEST COUNTY ROAD 42 SUITE #100 BURNSVILLE, MINNESOTA 55306 PH (952) 980-6044 FX (952) 890-6244 CONTACT: JOEL COOPER, PE OWNER RSI MARINE 1533 WEST 3RD AVENUE SHAKOPEE, MN 55379 PH (952) 233-2084 CONTACT: ROB SCHATZLE CONSULTANTS 66 SB-1 llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll∅ ∅ ∅ ∅ ∅ ∅ ∅ ∅ 67 SB-1 68 69 70 71 POINT #NORTHING EASTING DESCRIPTION 284 163489.1035 559006.6578 19 Siberian Elm 2064 163328.4604 559720.9838 10 Box Elder 2109 163647.6438 559266.113 10 Siberian Elm 2110 163682.2953 559333.0147 10 Siberian Elm 2111 163697.7671 559340.1056 10 Box Elder 2112 163704.4823 559353.4803 10 Siberian Elm 2113 163693.4111 559360.3703 10 Siberian Elm 2114 163686.814 559370.5764 13,8 Siberian Elm 2116 163725.1427 559458.4853 25,18 Hackberry 2117 163727.2418 559493.5026 16 Siberian Elm 2121 163781.9982 559676.3746 18,13,9 Hackberry 2122 163774.6774 559674.5879 13,12 Hackberry 2130 163527.6634 559760.2088 19 Box Elder 2131 163483.3705 559758.9706 10 Box Elder 2177 163518.8967 559089.5044 22,20,20 Siberian Elm 2178 163509.981 559096.7367 21 American Elm 2179 163506.6533 559101.5044 17 Siberian Elm 2180 163504.632 559072.3306 20 Siberian Elm 2181 163526.3029 559058.5652 18 Siberian Elm 2182 163501.5306 559047.3181 28,21,16 Siberian Elm 2183 163489.734 559038.2306 17 Siberian Elm 2185 163479.4641 559000.124 26 Siberian Elm 2186 163481.1005 558998.3376 16 Siberian Elm 2187 163493.3669 558977.9876 13 Siberian Elm 2188 163572.0269 558991.8681 16 Siberian Elm 2189 163588.0816 559009.0521 22,21 Siberian Elm POINT #NORTHING EASTING DESCRIPTION 2063 163355.6178 559746.9207 10 Box Elder 2065 163195.2848 559225.6137 10 American Elm 2066 163180.7281 559208.1095 10 American Elm 2067 163271.0412 559253.8932 11 Box Elder 2068 163275.5904 559250.5129 13 Box Elder 2069 163227.3123 559337.0193 10 Box Elder 2070 163241.7047 559335.3185 13 Box Elder 2071 163273.6354 559228.7358 18 Box Elder 2072 163262.9868 559215.0596 18,8 Box Elder 2073 163261.0065 559204.9461 10,10 Box Elder 2074 163267.056 559185.3021 18,15 Box Elder 2075 163256.8953 559187.1263 12 Box Elder 2076 163271.1905 559126.6369 23,23 Box Elder 2077 163241.0974 559128.465 14 Willow 2078 163279.0527 559194.0803 13 Norway Spruce 2079 163276.7633 559219.0094 16 Norway Spruce 2080 163279.8066 559235.2374 14 Norway Spruce 2081 163273.3716 559357.7188 24 Cottonwood 2082 163286.8736 559391.4575 20 Willow 2083 163287.4293 559393.5576 10 Willow 2084 163284.6757 559395.5776 15 Willow 2085 163282.6964 559396.3653 11 Willow 2086 163280.2335 559414.7902 24,19 Willow 2087 163275.4887 559404.0825 10 Willow 2088 163284.0832 559417.8545 10 Box Elder 2089 163284.8677 559422.2367 18 Willow 2090 163462.3939 559529.1046 22 Cottonwood 2091 163463.636 559528.1997 16 Willow 2092 163451.283 559527.5783 22 Cottonwood 2093 163454.5051 559426.4161 10,10 Siberian Elm 2094 163416.2834 559332.9672 15 Cottonwood 2095 163419.1856 559333.1512 13 Cottonwood 2096 163389.5354 559314.7313 10,10,9,9,8 Willow 2097 163510.5306 559288.2999 23,16 Siberian Elm 2098 163526.1398 559295.9915 23,16,11 Siberian Elm 2099 163542.3688 559217.9215 20 Hackberry 2100 163524.6972 559183.2516 33 Siberian Elm 2101 163520.6585 559168.6191 12 Siberian Elm 2102 163565.3894 559226.8401 18,11,11 Siberian Elm 2103 163592.2276 559257.2537 10 Siberian Elm 2104 163597.5324 559300.3117 11 Siberian Elm 2105 163602.3112 559320.8347 12 Siberian Elm 2106 163582.9878 559329.5233 22 Siberian Elm 2107 163645.4854 559330.2428 11 Siberian Elm 2108 163636.1626 559298.9266 10 Siberian Elm 2115 163664.2324 559394.1403 16 Siberian Elm 2118 163723.9662 559504.2211 16 Siberian Elm 2119 163727.9508 559514.5144 16 Siberian Elm 2120 163760.8477 559632.8094 18 Hackberry 2123 163549.6972 559718.6603 12 Box Elder 2124 163542.1207 559725.5924 14 Box Elder 2125 163536.5738 559715.3178 17 Box Elder 2126 163524.4259 559703.9858 21 Box Elder 2127 163507.9459 559708.308 26,13 Box Elder 2128 163505.3951 559701.7135 16 Box Elder 2129 163529.6273 559749.4411 21 Box Elder 2132 163475.986 559750.4401 17 Box Elder 2133 163475.3578 559739.3023 24 Box Elder 2134 163475.2682 559699.2584 17 Box Elder 2135 163481.3072 559674.6335 22 Box Elder 2136 163499.545 559650.6506 14 Siberian Elm 2137 163464.0451 559655.1968 10 Box Elder 2138 163453.0323 559642.9052 11 Box Elder 2139 163444.5842 559650.9688 16 Box Elder 2140 163446.1682 559645.4912 19 Box Elder 2141 163437.6525 559629.3954 12 Box Elder 2142 163423.7391 559626.0053 17 Box Elder 2143 163420.4737 559631.8478 10 Box Elder 2144 163424.4989 559609.5923 11 Box Elder 2145 163429.5294 559588.2944 11,10,8,7 Willow 2146 163402.2477 559623.2356 16 Box Elder 2147 163398.4829 559631.1674 14 Box Elder 2148 163394.0157 559625.397 11 Box Elder 2149 163414.2903 559637.8216 10 Box Elder 2150 163393.2333 559662.8366 21 Hackberry 2151 163362.0785 559672.7099 11 Green Ash 2152 163356.6224 559660.664 18 Green Ash 2153 163358.3436 559687.7352 12 Apple 2154 163390.0879 559687.5186 18,17 Green Ash 2155 163398.6755 559701.5773 12 Box Elder 2156 163405.54 559709.5845 19 Box Elder 2157 163410.3257 559719.3798 17 American Elm 2158 163409.8838 559719.8286 10 American Elm 2159 163409.3412 559716.1495 17 Box Elder 2160 163435.7328 559683.3349 12 Box Elder 2161 163442.5314 559725.2941 23 Box Elder 2162 163468.3259 559724.804 20 Box Elder 2163 163427.3785 559738.5248 20 American Elm 2164 163414.7486 559744.3545 16 Box Elder 2165 163404.2404 559728.2712 19 Box Elder 2166 163413.3113 559752.3512 27 Box Elder 2167 163355.6654 559685.0331 16 Box Elder 2168 163336.8508 559678.7985 12 Red Cedar 2169 163336.7448 559675.9334 10 Red Cedar 2170 163339.3436 559636.4676 22 Siberian Elm 2171 163331.9105 559624.7012 10 Box Elder 2172 163336.0342 559620.981 11 Red Cedar 2173 163315.0956 559619.9223 11 Box Elder 2174 163323.759 559614.341 10 Box Elder 2175 163319.3361 559595.6051 10 Box Elder 2176 163553.0233 559139.7664 14 Siberian Elm 72 BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE SOUTHEASTLINE OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, PAWS CLAWS ANDHOOVES ADDITION WHICH IS ASSUMED TOHAVE A BEARING OF S 71°41'29" W.DENOTES FOUND OPEN 1/2 INCH IRON MONUMENTDENOTES SET 1/2 INCH BY 14 INCH IRON MONUMENTWITH CAP MARKED R.L.S. NO. 47481DENOTES FOUND JUDICIAL LANDMARKERDENOTES FOUND RIGHT OF WAY MONUMENTDENOTES CARVER COUNTY MONUMENTDRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS BEING10 FEET IN WIDTH, UNLESS OTHERWISEINDICATED, ADJOINING LOT LINES, ANDBEING 10 FEET IN WIDTH, UNLESSOTHERWISE INDICATED, ADJOINING RIGHTOF WAY LINES, AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT.DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTSARE SHOWN THUS:VICINITY MAPDRAWN BYDATEREVISIONSPL011CAD FILESS.GZJPROJECT NO.SHEET 1 OF 1PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONRSI MARINE ST. 0ICHAEL 0INNESOTA PRELIMINARY PLAT FORPCH Development, LLC WEST C.R. S8ITE 1 B8RNSVILLE 0N PHONE . . PKDPSWRQ#MUKLQF.FRP PLANNERS EN*INEERS S8RVEYORS ZZZ.MUKLQF.FRP James R. Hill, Inc.Lot 1, BLock 1, PAWS CLAWS AND HOOVES ADDITION, Carver County, Minnesota,Excepting Parcel 1C and Parcel 1D as shown on CARVER COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY PLATNO. 29, Carver County, Minnesota.andLot 2, BLock 1, PAWS CLAWS AND HOOVES ADDITION, Carver County, Minnesota,Excepting Parcel 1A and Parcel 1B as shown on CARVER COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY PLATNO. 29, Carver County, Minnesota.73 SB-1 llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll74 ESTIMATED EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL QUANTITIES RSI MARINE - CHANHASSEN, MN TYPE OF PROJECT: COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT TYPE OF WORK: Mass Grading, Utility and Street Construction, Paving. Subsequently, Joint Trench and Home construction will occur. TOTAL PLATTED AREA: 8.33 AC TOTAL DISTURBED AREA: 6.55 AC PROPOSED (DESIGN) IMPERVIOUS AREA:2.99 AC SPECIAL WATERS: The site is NOT within a 1-mile radius of a special or impaired water. CONSTRUCTION PHASING The project is expected to be constructed in three phases, with mass grading occurring during one construction season. Mass grading is anticipated to be completed within 4 weeks from commencement of work. Utility and street construction is anticipated to be completed within 4 weeks from commencement of work. POTENTIONAL FOR EROSION AND DISCHARGE OF SEDIMENT As the site will be stripped of topsoil and vegetation for a period of several weeks during construction, the potential for erosion will increase. The overall gradients on the site are relatively low. The street subcut will serve as temporary sediment basins during construction. The project is primarily cut, and therefore perimeter erosion will flow inward towards the project. The risk of discharge of sediment off of the site is low, due to the grade orientation and design. The highest potential for discharge off the site is from the street entrance. Contractor will be required to manage completion of 3:1 slopes such that soil exposure is minimized. After excavation and embankments are completed, slopes shall be re-spread with topsoil, the slope grades certified, and erosion blanket installed as per the plan. Contractor shall coordinate these steps to be carried out in a timely manner. EROSION CONTROL BMPs The construction plans anticipate the use of, but are not limited to, the following Erosion Control BMPs: 1.Perimeter delineation to minimize disturbed areas 2.Temporary Rock Construction Entrance 3.Temporary straw mulch as needed. 4.Seed and mulch/sod 5.Erosion Control Blanket 6.Minimize active or disturbed work areas 7.Horizontal slope grading 8.Turf Reinforcement Mat SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPs The construction plans anticipate the use of, but are not limited to, the following Sediment Control BMPs 1.Sediment traps constructed in street subcut 2.Rock filter dikes in street subcut 3.Utilize permanent stormwater basin as Temporary Sediment Basin 4.Silt Fence at project perimeter or toe of slopes 5.Inlet protection on existing catch basins 6.Inlet protection on existing culverts 7.Inlet protection after utility construction 8.Linear control along back of new curb and gutter (sod, bioroll, or silt fence) 9.Routine street sweeping adjacent to construction entrance. 10.Ditch checks Refer to plans for designated locations of BMPs, details and implementation notes. BASIN AND TRAP DEWATERING BMPs Should the need arise for basin or trap dewatering, contractor shall utilize a floating skimmer pump intake, such that the water is drawn from the surface of the basin. Pumped effluent shall not be discharged into Surface Waters in a turbid state. Turbid effluent shall be filtered with mechanical devices, chemical filtering, or a combination thereof, to a state of 50 NTUs or less. STABILZATION BMPs The construction plans anticipate the use of, but are not limited to, the following Stabilization BMPs: 1.After lot pads are grade certified, permanent seed and mulch can be applied, generally from the front of the building pad, extending to the rear of the lot (areas where no further utility construction is anticipated.) 2.After 3:1 slopes on lots are certified, permanent seed and erosion control blanket can be applied. 3.Rip rap at pipe outfalls 4.Permanent seed and erosion control blanket on basin slopes after grade certified. 5.After curbs are backfilled, apply permanent seed and mulch to remaining building pads and boulevard area not already stabilized. 6.Sod placement, as appropriate. POLLUTION CONTROL BMPs 1.Fueling: A fixed fueling station is not anticipated. Contractor will be required to implement BMPs for onsite re-fueling of equipment. 2.Concrete Washout: A suggested washout area will be specified on the plan. The developer has the ability to adjust location or to provide alternative washout containment. 3.There is not an anticipated need for storing chemicals, paints, solvents or other potentially toxic or hazardous materials on site. SEED & MULCH SPECIFICATIONS Seed placed for permanent cover or final stabilization requires 6” minimum topsoil cover. Exception: Infiltration basins - see basin details for soil type). Multiple site visits will be required to accommodate permanent or temporary stabilization as required during the phases of construction. (1) General Seed & Mulch A.Seed: MNDOT 25-141 at a rate of 59 lb/acre B.Fertilzer: Type 3 slow release 10-10-10 at a rate of 200 lb/acre C.Mulch: MNDOT Type 1 at a rate of 2 tons/acre (2)Temporary Cover Crop (Ponding/Infiltration/Adjacent Slope Areas) A.Seed: MNDOT 21-112 at a rate of 100 lb/acre B.Fertilzer: Type 3 slow release 10-10-10 at a rate of 200 lb/acre C.Mulch: MNDOT Type 3 at a rate of 2 tons/acre (3)Hydro-Seeding (Stockpile) A.Seed: MNDOT 22-111 Seed & Type Hydraulic Mulch at a rate of 10 lb/1000 gal B.Fertilzer: Type 3 slow release 10-10-10 at a rate of 50 lb/1000 gal C.Mulch: Type Hydraulic Mulch at a rate of 350 lb/1000 gal D.Water: 875 gal/1000 gal E.Apply at 6000 gal of Slurry per acre (4) Stormwater Basins (Aquatic Bench up to HWL) A.Seed: MNDOT 33-261 at a rate of 14.5 lb/acre B.Fertilzer: Type 3 slow release 10-10-10 at a rate of 200 lb/acre C.Mulch: MNDOT Type 3 at a rate of 2 tons/acre INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BMPs Routine Inspection 1.Rock Entrance - Inspect weekly. If rock becomes filled with sediment and tracked material to the extent the purpose ceases to function, remove the contaminated rock and replace with new rock. 2.Silt fence - Inspect weekly, particularly for damaged sections, breaches, down-gradient areas, flow concentration points, scour areas and sections adjacent to sensitive areas. Where capacity is filled to more than 50% of depth, sediment shall be removed to restore capture capacity. 3.Sediment traps and basins - Inspect weekly. Where capacity is filled to more than 50% of depth, sediment shall be removed to restore capture capacity within 72 hours of discovery. 4.Inlet Protection - Inspect weekly or more frequently as needed after multiple rainfalls less than 0.5”. Verify intake capacity is not compromised. Where capacity is filled to more than 50% of depth, sediment shall be removed to restore capture capacity. 5.Inspect other site specific BMP's on a weekly basis minimum. Rain Event Inspection - Mandatory, within 24 hours after a rain event 0.5” or greater. Complete all items associated with Routine Inspection. Furthermore, inspect site for breaches, failures, scours and gullying. Take corrective actions as necessary to restore functionality to the BMP's. If a given situation is discovered to be prone to repetitive failure, advise the Engineer and Contractor for SWPPP and BMP amendments. ADDITIONAL SWPPP NOTES 1.All Erosion and Sediment Control facilities shall be maintained by the contractor during the construction operations. Any temporary facilities which are to be removed as called for on these plans and specifications shall be removed by the contractor at the time directed by the engineer. The contractor shall then restore the subsequently disturbed areas in accordance with these plans and specifications. 2.Wherever practical and feasible, the contractor shall protect and preserve existing natural trees, grass and other vegetative cover in effort to provide natural buffering and filtering of runoff. 3.Contractor shall be adaptable in adjusting construction schedules in anticipation of weather forecasts of precipitation, in order to minimize risk of erosion and sediment transport. 4.It is the responsibility of the contractor to keep public streets, travel ways, parking lots and trails utilized for ingress to and egress from the construction site free of dirt, sediment and debris, resulting from construction activity. Cost for this shall be considered incidental to the contract. 5.Adequate control of dust shall be maintained by the contractor. Cost for dust control shall be considered incidental to the contract. ADDITIONAL SWPPP NOTES (continued) 6. Perimeter controls shall not be removed until final stabilization of areas draining toward the control devices. 7. When temperatures do not exceed 40 degrees F, areas that require seed and mulch stabilization shall be dormant seeded. Application rate shall be two times the normal rate. No dormant seeding shall be done on ice or snow greater than 2” in depth. 8. Any areas that were seeded that do not achieve 70% coverage shall be reseeded at the contractor's expense, where coverage limitation is caused by lack of seed germination and growth. MPCA STORMWATER PERMIT - RESPONSIBILITY The Contractor will be required to become the Permittee for the project, until final stabilization and transfer of responsibility is completed. Transfer of responsibility shall be completed with the Permit Modification Form. OWNER: ROB SCHATZLE - RSI MARINE - 952-233-2084 PERMITTEE: TBD OPERATOR(S): TBD OTHER CONTACTS ENGINEER: JOEL G. COOPER, P.E., - James R. Hill, Inc. - 952-890-6044 TRAINING REQUIREMENTS JOEL G. COOPER, P.E. DESIGN OF CONSTRUCTION SWPPP (CERTIFICATION(2020-2023)) UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA INSTRUCTOR: JOHN CHAPMAN LGU CONTACT: CHARLES HOWLEY - CHANHASSEN - 652-227-1169 MPCA COMPLIANCE: JOSH NORMAN - MPCA - 651-757-2389 The Contractor shall follow the implementation sequence as described on these plans. Amendments shall be made as site conditions change. Amendments shall be proposed by contractor and reviewed by the engineer. All BMP's selected and implemented shall be appropriate for the time of year, the current site conditions and for the estimated duration of use. These plans shall be considered part of the project SWPPP. A copy of the SWPPP shall remain on site throughout active construction. 75 1.1 Permit Coverage. [Minn. R. 7090] 1.2 This permit is required for construction activity that results in land disturbance of equal to or greater than one (1) acre or if a project is part of a common plan of development or sale that ultimately will disturb greater than one (1) acre, and authorizes, subject to the terms and conditions of this permit, the discharge of stormwater associated with construction activity. [Minn. R. 7090] 1.3 Construction activity covered by this permit cannot commence until coverage under this permit is effective as described in item 3.3 through 3.4 or, if applicable, until the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has issued an individual National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)/State Disposal System (SDS) construction stormwater permit for the project. [Minn. R. 7090] 1.4 This permit covers all areas of the State of Minnesota except land wholly within the boundaries of a federally recognized Indian Reservation owned by a tribe or a tribal member or land held in trust by the federal government for a tribe or tribal member. [Minn. R. 7090] 1.5 Coverage under this permit is not required when all stormwater from construction activity is routed directly to and treated by a "treatment works," as defined in Minn. Stat. Sect. 115.01, subd. 21, operated under an individual NPDES/SDS permit with a Total Suspended Solids (TSS) effluent limit. [Minn. R. 7090] 1.6 This permit covers ongoing projects covered under any previous construction stormwater permit that are not complete on the issuance date of this permit. Permittees must either remain in compliance with the previous permit and terminate coverage within 18 months of the issuance date of this permit or comply with this permit, including updating the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), within the 18- month period. Permittees of previously permitted projects are not required to incorporate any additional requirements regarding the permanent stormwater treatment system included in this reissued permit. [Minn. R. 7090] 1.7 Coverage for projects that extend beyond the expiration date of this permit remains effective for a grace period covering project completion and Notice of Termination (NOT) submittal. If Permittees cannot complete projects during the grace period, the MPCA will extend coverage under the next permit and permittees must comply with the requirements of the new permit including updating the SWPPP. Permittees are not required to follow changes to the permanent stormwater treatment section of the next permit. [Minn. R. 7090] 2.1 Prohibitions and Limitations of Coverage. [Minn. R. 7090] 2.2 The owner must develop a complete and accurate SWPPP that complies with item 5.2 prior to submitting the application for coverage and starting construction activity. Failure to prepare a SWPPP prior to submitting the application may result in permit revocation. [Minn. R. 7090] 2.3 This permit prohibits discharges of any material other than stormwater treated in compliance with this permit and discharges from dewatering or basin draining activities in accordance with Section 10. Prohibited discharges include, but are not limited to, wastewater from washout of concrete, stucco, paint, form release oils, curing compounds and other construction materials, fuels, oils, or other pollutants used in vehicle and equipment operation and maintenance, soaps or solvents used in vehicle and equipment washing and maintenance, and other hazardous substances or wastes. [Minn. R. 7090] 2.4 This permit does not authorize stormwater discharges related to the placement of fill into waters of the state requiring local, state or federal authorizations (such as U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permits, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Public Waters Work permits or local governmental unit (LGU) Wetland Conservation Act replacement plans or determinations). [Minn. R. 7090] 2.5 This permit does not authorize stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity except for construction activity. Permittees must obtain coverage for discharges associated with industrial activity under a separate NPDES/SDS permit once day-to-day operational activities commence even if construction is ongoing. [Minn. R. 7090] 2.6 This permit does not authorize discharges from non-point source agricultural and silvicultural activities excluded from NPDES permit requirements under 40 CFR pt. 122.3(e). [Minn. R. 7090] 2.7 This permit does not authorize stormwater discharges to Prohibited, Restricted, Special or Impaired waters unless permittees follow the additional stormwater requirements in Section 23. [Minn. R. 7090] 2.8 This permit does not replace or satisfy any environmental review requirements including those under the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act or the National Environmental Policy Act. The owner must verify completion of any environmental review required by law, including any required Environmental Assessment Work Sheets or Environmental Impact Statements, Federal environmental review, or other required review prior to applying for coverage under this permit. If any part of your common plan of development or sale requires environmental review, coverage under this permit cannot be obtained until such environmental review is complete. [Minn. R. 7090] 2.9 This permit does not replace or satisfy any review requirements for discharges adversely impacting State or Federally designated endangered or threatened species or a designated critical habitat. The owner must comply with the National Historic Preservation Act and conduct all required review and coordination related to historic preservation, including significant anthropological sites and any burial sites, with the Minnesota Historic Preservation Officer. [Minn. R. 7090] 2.10 This permit does not authorize discharges to wetlands unless the permittee complies with the requirements in Section 22. [Minn. R. 7090] 3.1 Application and Coverage Effective Date. [Minn. R. 7090] 3.2 The owner and operator must submit a complete and accurate on-line application with the appropriate fee to the MPCA for each project that disturbs one (1) or more acres of land or for a common plan of development or sale that will ultimately disturb one (1) or more acres. [Minn. R. 7090] 3.3 For projects or common plans of development or sale that disturb less than 50 acres or do not discharge stormwater within 1 mile (aerial radius measurement) of a special or impaired water, permittees do not need to submit the SWPPP with the application. Permit coverage for these projects is effective upon application and completing the payment process. [Minn. R. 7090] 3.4 For certain projects or common plans of development or sale disturbing 50 acres or more, the complete SWPPP must be included with the application and submitted at least 30 days before the start of construction activity. This applies if there is a discharge point on the project within one mile (aerial radius measurement) of, and flows to, a special water listed in item 23.3 through 23.6 or an impaired water as described in item 23.7. Permit coverage for these projects is effective upon submitting the application and complete SWPPP, completing the payment process and receiving a determination from the MPCA that the review of the SWPPP is complete. The determination may take longer than 30 days if the SWPPP is incomplete. If the MPCA fails to contact the permittees within 30 days of application receipt, coverage is effective 30 days after completing the payment process. [Minn. R. 7090] 3.5 The application requires listing all persons meeting the definition of owner and operator as permittees. The owner is responsible for compliance with all terms and conditions of this permit. The operator is responsible for compliance with Sections 3, 4, 6-22, 24 and applicable requirements for construction activity in Section 23. [Minn. R. 7090] 3.6 Permittees will receive coverage notification in a manner determined by the MPCA. [Minn. R. 7090] 3.7 For construction projects where the owner or operator changes (e.g., an original developer sells portions of the property to various homebuilders or sells the entire site to a new owner), the current owner and the new owner or operator must submit a complete permit modification form provided by the MPCA. The current owner and the new owner or operator must submit the form prior to the new owner or operator commencing construction activity or no later than 30 days after taking ownership of the property. [Minn. R. 7090] 3.8 For construction projects where the owner or operator changes, the current owner must provide a SWPPP to the new owner and operator that specifically addresses the remaining construction activity. The new owner or operator can implement the original SWPPP, modify the SWPPP, or develop a new SWPPP. Permittees must ensure their activities do not render another party's erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs ineffective. [Minn. R. 7090] 4.1 Termination of Coverage. [Minn. R. 7090] 4.2 Permittees must submit a NOT within 30 days after all termination conditions listed in Section 13 are complete. [Minn. R. 7090] 4.3 Permittees must submit a NOT within 30 days after selling or otherwise legally transferring the entire site, including permit responsibility for roads (e.g., street sweeping) and stormwater infrastructure final clean out, or transferring portions of a site to another party. The permittees' coverage under this permit terminates at midnight on the submission date of the NOT. [Minn. R. 7090] 4.4 Permittees may terminate permit coverage prior to completion of all construction activity if they meet all of the following conditions: a. construction activity has ceased for at least 90 days; and b. at least 90 percent (by area) of all originally proposed construction activity has been completed and permanent cover has been established on those areas; and c. on areas where construction activity is not complete, permanent cover has been established; and d. the site complies with item 13.3 through 13.7. After permit coverage is terminated under this item, any subsequent development on the remaining portions of the site will require permit coverage if the subsequent development itself or as part of the remaining common plan of development or sale will result in land disturbing activities of one (1) or more acres in size. [Minn. R. 7090] 4.5 Permittees may terminate coverage upon MPCA approval after submitting information documenting the owner cancelled the project. [Minn. R. 7090] 5.1 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Content. [Minn. R. 7090] 5.2 The owner must develop a SWPPP. The SWPPP must include items 5.3 through 5.26. [Minn. R. 7090] 5.3 The SWPPP must incorporate specific Best Management Practices (BMP) used to comply with the requirements of this permit. [Minn. R. 7090] 5.4 The SWPPP must include a narrative describing the timing for installation of all erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs and a description of the permanent stormwater treatment systems. [Minn. R. 7090] 5.5 The SWPPP must include the location and type of all temporary and permanent erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs along with procedures used to establish additional temporary BMPs as necessary for the site conditions during construction. Standard details and/or specifications for BMPs must be included in the final plans and specifications for the project. [Minn. R. 7090] 5.6 The SWPPP must include the calculations and other information used for the design of temporary sediment basins and any of the permanent stormwater treatment systems required in Section 15. [Minn. R. 7090] 5.7 The SWPPP must include estimated quantities anticipated at the start of the project for the life of the project for all erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs (e.g., linear feet of silt fence or square feet of erosion control blanket). [Minn. R. 7090] 5.8 The SWPPP must include the number of acres of impervious surface for both pre- and post-construction. [Minn. R. 7090] 5.9 The SWPPP must include a site map with existing and final grades, including drainage area boundaries, directions of flow and all discharge points where stormwater is leaving the site or entering a surface water. The site map must indicate the areas of steep slopes. The site map must also include impervious surfaces, soil types and locations of potential pollutant-generating activities as identified in Section 12. [Minn. R. 7090] 5.10 The SWPPP must include a map of all surface waters, existing wetlands, and stormwater ponds or basins that can be identified on maps such as United States Geological Survey 7.5 minute quadrangle maps, the National Wetland Inventory map or equivalent maps and are within one mile (aerial radius measurement) from the project boundaries that will receive stormwater from the construction site, during or after construction. The SWPPP must identify if the surface waters are special or impaired waters. [Minn. R. 7090] 5.11 The SWPPP must include a site map showing construction activity areas that are adjacent to and drain to Public Waters for which the DNR has promulgated "work in water restrictions" during specified fish spawning time frames. [Minn. R. 7090] 5.12 Permittees must identify locations of 50' buffer zones as required in item 9.17 and 100' permanent buffer zones as required in item 23.11, on plan sheets in the SWPPP. [Minn. R. 7090] 5.13 If permittees determine compliance with the following requirements is infeasible, they must document the determination in the SWPPP: a. temporary sediment basins as described in Section 14; and b. for linear projects, if the permanent stormwater treatment system cannot be constructed within the right-of-way, a reasonable attempt must be made to obtain additional right-of-way (item 15.9); and c. buffer zones as described in item 9.17 and item 23.11. [Minn. R. 7090] 5.14 If permittees determine that a temporary sediment basin is infeasible as described in item 14.10, the SWPPP must describe the alternative BMPs used. [Minn. R. 7090] 5.15 Where systems cannot meet the full volume reduction requirement on site, (e.g., the site has infiltration prohibitions, see item 16.14 through item 16.21) the permittee must document the reasons in the SWPPP. [Minn. R. 7090] 5.16 The SWPPP must include any stormwater mitigation measures proposed to be part of the final project in any environmental review document, endangered species review, archeological or other required local, state or federal review conducted for the project. For purposes of this permit, mitigation measures means actions necessary to avoid, minimize, or mitigate for impacts related to erosion prevention, sediment control, the permanent stormwater treatment system, pollution prevention management measures and discharges associated with the project's construction activity. [Minn. R. 7090] 5.17 The SWPPP must describe the methods used for permanent cover of all exposed soil areas. [Minn. R. 7090] 5.18 Permittees must identify the locations of areas where construction will be phased to minimize the duration of exposed soil areas in the SWPPP. [Minn. R. 7090] 5.19 For projects with a discharge point on the project within one (1) mile (aerial radius measurement) of and which flows to an impaired water, permittees must identify the impaired water(s), and any United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)-approved Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the pollutant(s) or stressor(s) described in item 23.7. Permittees' identification must include those TMDLs approved at any time prior to permit application submittal and are still in effect. [Minn. R. 7090] 5.20 Permittees must document in the SWPPP, all trained individuals identified in item 21.2. Documentation must include: a. names of personnel required to be trained; and b. dates of training and name of instructor(s) and entity providing training; and c. content of training course. If permittees do not know the names of the individuals at the time of application, the permittees must ensure they document training before construction activity commences. [Minn. R. 7090] 5.21 The SWPPP must identify a person knowledgeable and experienced in the application of erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs who will coordinate with all contractors, subcontractors, and operators on-site to oversee the implementation of the SWPPP. [Minn. R. 7090] 5.22 The SWPPP must describe any specific chemicals and chemical treatment systems used for enhancing the sedimentation process and how it achieves compliance with item 9.18. [Minn. R. 7090] 5.23 The SWPPP must identify the person(s), organizations, or entities responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of permanent stormwater treatment systems. [Minn. R. 7090] 5.24 The SWPPP must describe methods to minimize soil compaction and preserve topsoil. Minimizing soil compaction is not required where the function of a specific area dictates compaction. [Minn. R. 7090] 5.25 The SWPPP must include any site assessments for groundwater or soil contamination required in item 16.15. [Minn. R. 7090] 5.26 The SWPPP must account for the following factors in designing temporary erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs: a. the expected amount, frequency, intensity, and duration of precipitation; and b. the nature of stormwater runoff and run-on at the site, including factors such as expected flow from impervious surfaces, slopes, and site drainage features; and c. the stormwater volume, velocity, and peak flowrates to minimize discharge of pollutants in stormwater and to minimize channel and streambank erosion and scour in the immediate vicinity of discharge points; and d. the range of soil particle sizes expected to be present. [Minn. R. 7090] 6.1 SWPPP Amendments. [Minn. R. 7090] 6.2 One of the individuals described in item 21.2.a or item 21.2.b or another qualified individual must complete all SWPPP changes. Changes involving the use of a less stringent BMP must include a justification describing how the replacement BMP is effective for the site characteristics. [Minn. R. 7090] 6.3 Permittees must amend the SWPPP to include additional or modified BMPs as necessary to correct problems identified or address situations whenever there is a change in design, construction, operation, maintenance, weather or seasonal conditions having a significant effect on the discharge of pollutants to surface waters or groundwater. [Minn. R. 7090] 6.4 Permittees must amend the SWPPP to include additional or modified BMPs as necessary to correct problems identified or address situations whenever inspections or investigations by the site owner or operator, USEPA or MPCA officials indicate the SWPPP is not effective in eliminating or significantly minimizing the discharge of pollutants to surface waters or groundwater or the discharges are causing water quality standard exceedances (e.g., nuisance conditions as defined in Minn. R. 7050.0210, subp. 2) or the SWPPP is not consistent with the objectives of a USEPA approved TMDL. [Minn. R. 7050.0210] 7.1 BMP Selection and Installation. [Minn. R. 7090] 7.2 Permittees must select, install, and maintain the BMPs identified in the SWPPP and in this permit in an appropriate and functional manner and in accordance with relevant manufacturer specifications and accepted engineering practices. [Minn. R. 7090] 8.1 Erosion Prevention Practices. [Minn. R. 7090] 8.2 Before work begins, permittees must delineate the location of areas not to be disturbed. [Minn. R. 7090] 8.3 Permittees must minimize the need for disturbance of portions of the project with steep slopes. When steep slopes must be disturbed, permittees must use techniques such as phasing and stabilization practices designed for steep slopes (e.g., slope draining and terracing). [Minn. R. 7090] 8.4 Permittees must stabilize all exposed soil areas, including stockpiles. Stabilization must be initiated immediately to limit soil erosion when construction activity has permanently or temporarily ceased on any portion of the site and will not resume for a period exceeding 14 calendar days. Stabilization must be completed no later than 14 calendar days after the construction activity has ceased. Stabilization is not required on constructed base components of roads, parking lots and similar surfaces. Stabilization is not required on temporary stockpiles without significant silt, clay or organic components (e.g., clean aggregate stockpiles, demolition concrete stockpiles, sand stockpiles) but permittees must provide sediment controls at the base of the stockpile. [Minn. R. 7090] 8.5 For Public Waters that the Minnesota DNR has promulgated "work in water restrictions" during specified fish spawning time frames, permittees must complete stabilization of all exposed soil areas within 200 feet of the water's edge, and that drain to these waters, within 24 hours during the restriction period. [Minn. R. 7090] 8.6 Permittees must stabilize the normal wetted perimeter of the last 200 linear feet of temporary or permanent drainage ditches or swales that drain water from the site within 24 hours after connecting to a surface water or property edge. Permittees must complete stabilization of remaining portions of temporary or permanent ditches or swales within 14 calendar days after connecting to a surface water or property edge and construction in that portion of the ditch temporarily or permanently ceases. [Minn. R. 7090] 8.7 Temporary or permanent ditches or swales being used as a sediment containment system during construction (with properly designed rock-ditch checks, bio rolls, silt dikes, etc.) do not need to be stabilized. Permittees must stabilize these areas within 24 hours after their use as a sediment containment system ceases. [Minn. R. 7090] 8.8 Permittees must not use mulch, hydromulch, tackifier, polyacrylamide or similar erosion prevention practices within any portion of the normal wetted perimeter of a temporary or permanent drainage ditch or swale section with a continuous slope of greater than 2 percent. [Minn. R. 7090] 8.9 Permittees must provide temporary or permanent energy dissipation at all pipe outlets within 24 hours after connection to a surface water or permanent stormwater treatment system. [Minn. R. 7090] 8.10 Permittees must not disturb more land (i.e., phasing) than can be effectively inspected and maintained in accordance with Section 11. [Minn. R. 7090] 9.1 Sediment Control Practices. [Minn. R. 7090] 9.2 Permittees must establish sediment control BMPs on all downgradient perimeters of the site and downgradient areas of the site that drain to any surface water, including curb and gutter systems. Permittees must locate sediment control practices upgradient of any buffer zones. Permittees must install sediment control practices before any upgradient land-disturbing activities begin and must keep the sediment control practices in place until they establish permanent cover. [Minn. R. 7090] 9.3 If downgradient sediment controls are overloaded, based on frequent failure or excessive maintenance requirements, permittees must install additional upgradient sediment control practices or redundant BMPs to eliminate the overloading and amend the SWPPP to identify these additional practices as required in item 6.3. [Minn. R. 7090] 9.4 Temporary or permanent drainage ditches and sediment basins designed as part of a sediment containment system (e.g., ditches with rock-check dams) require sediment control practices only as appropriate for site conditions. [Minn. R. 7090] 9.5 A floating silt curtain placed in the water is not a sediment control BMP to satisfy item 9.2 except when working on a shoreline or below the waterline. Immediately after the short term construction activity (e.g., installation of rip rap along the shoreline) in that area is complete, permittees must install an upland perimeter control practice if exposed soils still drain to a surface water. [Minn. R. 7090] 9.6 Permittees must re-install all sediment control practices adjusted or removed to accommodate short-term activities such as clearing or grubbing, or passage of vehicles, immediately after the short-term activity is completed. Permittees must re-install sediment control practices before the next precipitation event even if the short-term activity is not complete. [Minn. R. 7090] 9.7 Permittees must protect all storm drain inlets using appropriate BMPs during construction until they establish permanent cover on all areas with potential for discharging to the inlet. [Minn. R. 7090] 9.8 Permittees may remove inlet protection for a particular inlet if a specific safety concern (e.g. street flooding/freezing) is identified by the permittees or the jurisdictional authority (e.g., city/county/township/Minnesota Department of Transportation engineer). Permittees must document the need for removal in the SWPPP. [Minn. R. 7090] 9.9 Permittees must provide silt fence or other effective sediment controls at the base of stockpiles on the downgradient perimeter. [Minn. R. 7090] 9.10 Permittees must locate stockpiles outside of natural buffers or surface waters, including stormwater conveyances such as curb and gutter systems unless there is a bypass in place for the stormwater. [Minn. R. 7090] 9.11 Permittees must install a vehicle tracking BMP to minimize the track out of sediment from the construction site or onto paved roads within the site. [Minn. R. 7090] 9.12 Permittees must use street sweeping if vehicle tracking BMPs are not adequate to prevent sediment tracking onto the street. [Minn. R. 7090] 9.13 Permittees must install temporary sediment basins as required in Section 14. [Minn. R. 7090] 9.14 In any areas of the site where final vegetative stabilization will occur, permittees must restrict vehicle and equipment use to minimize soil compaction. [Minn. R. 7090] 9.15 Permittees must preserve topsoil on the site, unless infeasible. [Minn. R. 7090] 9.16 Permittees must direct discharges from BMPs to vegetated areas unless infeasible. [Minn. R. 7090] 9.17 Permittees must preserve a 50 foot natural buffer or, if a buffer is infeasible on the site, provide redundant (double) perimeter sediment controls when a surface water is located within 50 feet of the project's earth disturbances and stormwater flows to the surface water. Permittees must install perimeter sediment controls at least 5 feet apart unless limited by lack of available space. Natural buffers are not required adjacent to road ditches, judicial ditches, county ditches, stormwater conveyance channels, storm drain inlets, and sediment basins. If preserving the buffer is infeasible, permittees must document the reasons in the SWPPP. Sheet piling is a redundant perimeter control if installed in a manner that retains all stormwater. [Minn. R. 7090] 9.18 Permittees must use polymers, flocculants, or other sedimentation treatment chemicals in accordance with accepted engineering practices, dosing specifications and sediment removal design specifications provided by the manufacturer or supplier. The permittees must use conventional erosion and sediment controls prior to chemical addition and must direct treated stormwater to a sediment control system for filtration or settlement of the floc prior to discharge. [Minn. R. 7090] 10.1 Dewatering and Basin Draining. [Minn. R. 7090] 10.2 Permittees must discharge turbid or sediment-laden waters related to dewatering or basin draining (e.g., pumped discharges, trench/ditch cuts for drainage) to a temporary or permanent sediment basin on the project site unless infeasible. Permittees may dewater to surface waters if they visually check to ensure adequate treatment has been obtained and nuisance conditions (see Minn. R. 7050.0210, subp. 2) will not result from the discharge. If permittees cannot discharge the water to a sedimentation basin prior to entering a surface water, permittees must treat it with appropriate BMPs such that the discharge does not adversely affect the surface water or downstream properties. [Minn. R. 7050.0210] 10.3 If permittees must discharge water containing oil or grease, they must use an oil-water separator or suitable filtration device (e.g., cartridge filters, absorbents pads) prior to discharge. [Minn. R. 7090] 10.4 Permittees must discharge all water from dewatering or basin-draining activities in a manner that does not cause erosion or scour in the immediate vicinity of discharge points or inundation of wetlands in the immediate vicinity of discharge points that causes significant adverse impact to the wetland. [Minn. R. 7090] 10.5 If permittees use filters with backwash water, they must haul the backwash water away for disposal, return the backwash water to the beginning of the treatment process, or incorporate the backwash water into the site in a manner that does not cause erosion. [Minn. R. 7090] 11.1 Inspections and Maintenance. [Minn. R. 7090] 11.2 Permittees must ensure a trained person, as identified in item 21.2.b, will inspect the entire construction site at least once every seven (7) days during active construction and within 24 hours after a rainfall event greater than 1/2 inch in 24 hours. [Minn. R. 7090] 11.3 Permittees must inspect and maintain all permanent stormwater treatment BMPs. [Minn. R. 7090] 11.4 Permittees must inspect all erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs and Pollution Prevention Management Measures to ensure integrity and effectiveness. Permittees must repair, replace or supplement all nonfunctional BMPs with functional BMPs by the end of the next business day after discovery unless another time frame is specified in item 11.5 or 11.6. Permittees may take additional time if field conditions prevent access to the area. [Minn. R. 7090] 11.5 During each inspection, permittees must inspect surface waters, including drainage ditches and conveyance systems but not curb and gutter systems, for evidence of erosion and sediment deposition. Permittees must remove all deltas and sediment deposited in surface waters, including drainage ways, catch basins, and other drainage systems and restabilize the areas where sediment removal results in exposed soil. Permittees must complete removal and stabilization within seven (7) calendar days of discovery unless precluded by legal, regulatory, or physical access constraints. Permittees must use all reasonable efforts to obtain access. If precluded, removal and stabilization must take place within seven (7) days of obtaining access. Permittees are responsible for contacting all local, regional, state and federal authorities and receiving any applicable permits, prior to conducting any work in surface waters. [Minn. R. 7090] 11.6 Permittees must inspect construction site vehicle exit locations, streets and curb and gutter systems within and adjacent to the project for sedimentation from erosion or tracked sediment from vehicles. Permittees must remove sediment from all paved surfaces within one (1) calendar day of discovery or, if applicable, within a shorter time to avoid a safety hazard to users of public streets. [Minn. R. 7090] 11.7 Permittees must repair, replace or supplement all perimeter control devices when they become nonfunctional or the sediment reaches 1/2 of the height of the device. [Minn. R. 7090] 11.8 Permittees must drain temporary and permanent sedimentation basins and remove the sediment when the depth of sediment collected in the basin reaches 1/2 the storage volume. [Minn. R. 7090] 11.9 Permittees must ensure that at least one individual present on the site (or available to the project site in three (3) calendar days) is trained in the job duties described in item 21.2.b. [Minn. R. 7090] 11.10 Permittees may adjust the inspection schedule described in item 11.2 as follows: a. inspections of areas with permanent cover can be reduced to once per month, even if construction activity continues on other portions of the site; or b. where sites have permanent cover on all exposed soil and no construction activity is occurring anywhere on the site, inspections can be reduced to once per month and, after 12 months, may be suspended completely until construction activity resumes. The MPCA may require inspections to resume if conditions warrant; or c. where construction activity has been suspended due to frozen ground conditions, inspections may be suspended. Inspections must resume within 24 hours of runoff occurring, or upon resuming construction, whichever comes first. [Minn. R. 7090] 11.11 Permittees must record all inspections and maintenance activities within 24 hours of being conducted and these records must be retained with the SWPPP. These records must include: a. date and time of inspections; and b. name of persons conducting inspections; and c. accurate findings of inspections, including the specific location where corrective actions are needed; and d. corrective actions taken (including dates, times, and party completing maintenance activities); and e. date of all rainfall events greater than 1/2 inches in 24 hours, and the amount of rainfall for each event. Permittees must obtain rainfall amounts by either a properly maintained rain gauge installed onsite, a weather station that is within one (1) mile of your location, or a weather reporting system that provides site specific rainfall data from radar summaries; and f. if permittees observe a discharge during the inspection, they must record and should photograph and describe the location of the discharge (i.e., color, odor, settled or suspended solids, oil sheen, and other obvious indicators of pollutants); and g. any amendments to the SWPPP proposed as a result of the inspection must be documented as required in Section 6 within seven (7) calendar days. [Minn. R. 7090] 12.1 Pollution Prevention Management Measures. [Minn. R. 7090] 12.2 Permittees must place building products and landscape materials under cover (e.g., plastic sheeting or temporary roofs) or protect them by similarly effective means designed to minimize contact with stormwater. Permittees are not required to cover or protect products which are either not a source of contamination to stormwater or are designed to be exposed to stormwater. [Minn. R. 7090] 12.3 Permittees must place pesticides, fertilizers and treatment chemicals under cover (e.g., plastic sheeting or temporary roofs) or protect them by similarly effective means designed to minimize contact with stormwater. [Minn. R. 7090] 12.4 Permittees must store hazardous materials and toxic waste, (including oil, diesel fuel, gasoline, hydraulic fluids, paint solvents, petroleum-based products, wood preservatives, additives, curing compounds, and acids) in sealed containers to prevent spills, leaks or other discharge. Storage and disposal of hazardous waste materials must be in compliance with Minn. R. ch. 7045 including secondary containment as applicable. [Minn. R. 7090] 12.5 Permittees must properly store, collect and dispose solid waste in compliance with Minn. R. ch. 7035. [Minn. R. 7035] 12.6 Permittees must position portable toilets so they are secure and will not tip or be knocked over. Permittees must properly dispose sanitary waste in accordance with Minn. R. ch. 7041. [Minn. R. 7041] 12.7 Permittees must take reasonable steps to prevent the discharge of spilled or leaked chemicals, including fuel, from any area where chemicals or fuel will be loaded or unloaded including the use of drip pans or absorbents unless infeasible. Permittees must ensure adequate supplies are available at all times to clean up discharged materials and that an appropriate disposal method is available for recovered spilled materials. Permittees must report and clean up spills immediately as required by Minn. Stat. 115.061, using dry clean up measures where possible. [Minn. Stat. 115.061] 12.8 Permittees must limit vehicle exterior washing and equipment to a defined area of the site. Permittees must contain runoff from the washing area in a sediment basin or other similarly effective controls and must dispose waste from the washing activity properly. Permittees must properly use and store soaps, detergents, or solvents. [Minn. R. 7090] 12.9 Permittees must provide effective containment for all liquid and solid wastes generated by washout operations (e.g., concrete, stucco, paint, form release oils, curing compounds and other construction materials) related to the construction activity. Permittees must prevent liquid and solid washout wastes from contacting the ground and must design the containment so it does not result in runoff from the washout operations or areas. Permittees must properly dispose liquid and solid wastes in compliance with MPCA rules. Permittees must install a sign indicating the location of the washout facility. [Minn. R. 7035, Minn. R. 7090] 13.1 Permit Termination Conditions. [Minn. R. 7090] 13.2 Permittees must complete all construction activity and must install permanent cover over all areas prior to submitting the NOT. Vegetative cover must consist of a uniform perennial vegetation with a density of 70 percent of its expected final growth. Vegetation is not required where the function of a specific area dictates no vegetation, such as impervious surfaces or the base of a sand filter. [Minn. R. 7090] 13.3 Permittees must clean the permanent stormwater treatment system of any accumulated sediment and must ensure the system meets all applicable requirements in Section 15 through 19 and is operating as designed. [Minn. R. 7090] 13.4 Permittees must remove all sediment from conveyance systems prior to submitting the NOT. [Minn. R. 7090] 13.5 Permittees must remove all temporary synthetic erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs prior to submitting the NOT. Permittees may leave BMPs designed to decompose on-site in place. [Minn. R. 7090] 13.6 For residential construction only, permit coverage terminates on individual lots if the structures are finished and temporary erosion prevention and downgradient perimeter control is complete, the residence sells to the homeowner, and the permittee distributes the MPCA's "Homeowner Fact Sheet" to the homeowner. [Minn. R. 7090] 13.7 For construction projects on agricultural land (e.g., pipelines across cropland), permittees must return the disturbed land to its preconstruction agricultural use prior to submitting the NOT. [Minn. R. 7090] 14.1 Temporary Sediment Basins. [Minn. R. 7090] 14.2 Where ten (10) or more acres of disturbed soil drain to a common location, permittees must provide a temporary sediment basin to provide treatment of the runoff before it leaves the construction site or enters surface waters. Permittees may convert a temporary sediment basin to a permanent basin after construction is complete. The temporary basin is no longer required when permanent cover has reduced the acreage of disturbed soil to less than ten (10) acres draining to a common location. [Minn. R. 7090] 14.3 The temporary basin must provide live storage for a calculated volume of runoff from a two (2)-year, 24- hour storm from each acre drained to the basin or 1,800 cubic feet of live storage per acre drained, whichever is greater. [Minn. R. 7090] 14.4 Where permittees have not calculated the two (2)-year, 24-hour storm runoff amount, the temporary basin must provide 3,600 cubic feet of live storage per acre of the basins' drainage area. [Minn. R. 7090] 14.5 Permittees must design basin outlets to prevent short-circuiting and the discharge of floating debris. [Minn. R. 7090] 14.6 Permittees must design the outlet structure to withdraw water from the surface to minimize the discharge of pollutants. Permittees may temporarily suspend the use of a surface withdrawal mechanism during frozen conditions. The basin must include a stabilized emergency overflow to prevent failure of pond integrity. [Minn. R. 7090] 14.7 Permittees must provide energy dissipation for the basin outlet within 24 hours after connection to a surface water. [Minn. R. 7090] 14.8 Permittees must locate temporary basins outside of surface waters and any buffer zone required in item 23.11. [Minn. R. 7090] 14.9 Permittees must construct the temporary basins prior to disturbing 10 or more acres of soil draining to a common location. [Minn. R. 7090] 14.10 Where a temporary sediment basin meeting the requirements of item 14.3 through 14.9 is infeasible, permittees must install effective sediment controls such as smaller sediment basins and/or sediment traps, silt fences, vegetative buffer strips or any appropriate combination of measures as dictated by individual site conditions. In determining whether installing a sediment basin is infeasible, permittees must consider public safety and may consider factors such as site soils, slope, and available area on-site. Permittees must document this determination of infeasibility in the SWPPP. [Minn. R. 7090] 15.1 Permanent Stormwater Treatment System. [Minn. R. 7090] 15.2 Permittees must design the project so all stormwater discharged from the project during and after construction activities does not cause a violation of state water quality standards, including nuisance conditions, erosion in receiving channels or on downslope properties, or a significant adverse impact to wetlands caused by inundation or decrease of flow. [Minn. R. 7090] 15.3 Permittees must design and construct a permanent stormwater treatment system to treat the water quality volume if the project's ultimate development replaces vegetation and/or other pervious surfaces creating a net increase of one (1) or more acres of cumulative impervious surface. [Minn. R. 7090] 15.4 Permittees must calculate the water quality volume as one (1) inch times the net increase of impervious surfaces created by the project. [Minn. R. 7090] 15.5 Permittees must first consider volume reduction practices on-site (e.g., infiltration or other) when designing the permanent stormwater treatment system. If this permit prohibits infiltration as described in item 16.14 through item 16.21, permittees may consider a wet sedimentation basin, filtration basin or regional pond. This permit does not consider wet sedimentation basins and filtration systems to be volume reduction practices. [Minn. R. 7090] 15.6 For projects where the full volume reduction requirement cannot be met on-site, (e.g., the site has infiltration prohibitions), permittees must document the reasons in the SWPPP. [Minn. R. 7090] 15.7 Permittees must discharge the water quality volume to a permanent stormwater treatment system prior to discharge to a surface water. For purposes of this item, surface waters do not include man-made drainage systems that convey stormwater to a permanent stormwater treatment system. [Minn. R. 7090] 15.8 Where the proximity to bedrock precludes the installation of any of the permanent stormwater treatment practices required by Sections 15 through 19, permittees must install other treatment such as grassed swales, smaller ponds, or grit chambers, prior to the discharge of stormwater to surface waters. [Minn. R. 7090] 15.9 For linear projects where permittees cannot treat the entire water quality volume within the existing rightof-way, permittees must make a reasonable attempt to obtain additional right-of-way, easement or other permission for stormwater treatment during the project planning process. Documentation of these attempts must be in the SWPPP. Permittees must still consider volume reduction practices first as described in item 15.5. If permittees cannot obtain additional right-of-way, easement or other permission, they must maximize the treatment of the water quality volume prior to discharge to surface waters. [Minn. R. 7090] 16.1 Infiltration Systems. [Minn. R. 7090] 16.2 Infiltration options include, but are not limited to: infiltration basins, infiltration trenches, rainwater gardens, bioretention areas without underdrains, swales with impermeable check dams, and natural depressions. If permittees utilize an infiltration system to meet the requirements of this permit, they must incorporate the design parameters in item 16.3 through item 16.21. Permittees must follow the infiltration prohibition in item 16.14 anytime an infiltration system is designed, including those not required by this permit. [Minn. R. 7090] 16.3 Permittees must design infiltration systems such that pre-existing hydrologic conditions of wetlands in the vicinity are not impacted (e.g., inundation or breaching a perched water table supporting a wetland). [Minn. R. 7090] 16.4 Permittees must not excavate infiltration systems to final grade, or within three (3) feet of final grade, until the contributing drainage area has been constructed and fully stabilized unless they provide rigorous erosion prevention and sediment controls (e.g., diversion berms) to keep sediment and runoff completely away from the infiltration area. [Minn. R. 7090] 16.5 When excavating an infiltration system to within three (3) feet of final grade, permittees must stake off and mark the area so heavy construction vehicles or equipment do not compact the soil in the infiltration area. [Minn. R. 7090] 16.6 Permittees must use a pretreatment device such as a vegetated filter strip, forebay, or water quality inlet (e.g., grit chamber) to remove solids, floating materials, and oil and grease from the runoff, to the maximum extent practicable, before the system routes stormwater to the infiltration system. [Minn. R. 7090] 16.7 Permittees must design infiltration systems to provide a water quality volume (calculated as an instantaneous volume) of one (1) inch of runoff, or one (1) inch minus the volume of stormwater treated by another system on the site, from the net increase of impervious surfaces created by the project. [Minn. R. 7090] 16.8 Permittees must design the infiltration system to discharge all stormwater (including stormwater in excess of the water quality volume) routed to the system through the uppermost soil surface or engineered media surface within 48 hours. Permittees must route additional flows that cannot infiltrate within 48 hours to bypass the system through a stabilized discharge point. [Minn. R. 7090] 16.9 Permittees must provide a means to visually verify the infiltration system is discharging through the soil surface or filter media surface within 48 hours or less. [Minn. R. 7090] 16.10 Permittees must provide at least one soil boring, test pit or infiltrometer test in the location of the infiltration practice for determining infiltration rates. [Minn. R. 7090] 16.11 For design purposes, permittees must divide field measured infiltration rates by 2 as a safety factor or permittees can use soil-boring results with the infiltration rate chart in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual to determine design infiltration rates. When soil borings indicate type A soils, permittees should perform field measurements to verify the rate is not above 8.3 inches per hour. This permit prohibits infiltration if the field measured infiltration rate is above 8.3 inches per hour. [Minn. R. 7090] 16.12 Permittees must employ appropriate on-site testing ensure a minimum of three (3) feet of separation from the seasonally saturated soils (or from bedrock) and the bottom of the proposed infiltration system. [Minn. R. 7090] 16.13 Permittees must design a maintenance access, typically eight (8) feet wide, for the infiltration system. [Minn. R. 7090] 16.14 This permit prohibits permittees from constructing infiltration systems that receive runoff from vehicle fueling and maintenance areas including construction of infiltration systems not required by this permit. [Minn. R. 7090] 16.15 This permit prohibits permittees from constructing infiltration systems where infiltrating stormwater may mobilize high levels of contaminants in soil or groundwater. Permittees must either complete the MPCA's contamination screening checklist or conduct their own assessment to determine the suitability for infiltration. Permittees must retain the checklist or assessment with the SWPPP. For more information and to access the MPCA's "contamination screening checklist" see the Minnesota Stormwater Manual. [Minn. R. 7090] 16.16 This permit prohibits permittees from constructing infiltration systems in areas where soil infiltration rates are field measured at more than 8.3 inches per hour unless they amend soils to slow the infiltration rate below 8.3 inches per hour. [Minn. R. 7090] 16.17 This permit prohibits permittees from constructing infiltration systems in areas with less than three (3) feet of separation distance from the bottom of the infiltration system to the elevation of the seasonally saturated soils or the top of bedrock. [Minn. R. 7090] 16.18 This permit prohibits permittees from constructing infiltration systems in areas of predominately Hydrologic Soil Group type D soils (clay). [Minn. R. 7090] 16.19 This permit prohibits permittees from constructing infiltration systems within a Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA) as defined in Minn. R. 4720.5100, subp. 13, if the system will be located: a. in an Emergency Response Area (ERA) within a DWSMA classified as having high or very high vulnerability as defined by the Minnesota Department of Health; or b. in an ERA within a DWSMA classified as moderate vulnerability unless a regulated MS4 Permittee performed or approved a higher level of engineering review sufficient to provide a functioning treatment system and to prevent adverse impacts to groundwater; or c. outside of an ERA within a DWSMA classified as having high or very high vulnerability, unless a regulated MS4 Permittee performed or approved a higher level of engineering review sufficient to provide a functioning treatment system and to prevent adverse impacts to groundwater. See "higher level of engineering review" in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual for more information. [Minn. R. 7090] 16.20 This permit prohibits permittees from constructing infiltration systems in areas within 1,000 feet upgradient or 100 feet downgradient of active karst features. [Minn. R. 7090] 16.21 This permit prohibits permittees from constructing infiltration systems in areas that receive runoff from the following industrial facilities not authorized to infiltrate stormwater under the NPDES stormwater permit for industrial activities: automobile salvage yards; scrap recycling and waste recycling facilities; hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities; or air transportation facilities that conduct deicing activities. [Minn. R. 7090] 17.1 Filtration Systems. [Minn. R. 7090] 17.2 Filtration options include, but are not limited to: sand filters with underdrains, biofiltration areas, swales using underdrains with impermeable check dams and underground sand filters. If permittees utilize a filtration system to meet the permanent stormwater treatment requirements of this permit, they must comply with items 17.3 through 17.11. [Minn. R. 7090] 17.3 Permittees must not install filter media until they construct and fully stabilize the contributing drainage area unless they provide rigorous erosion prevention and sediment controls (e.g., diversion berms) to keep sediment and runoff completely away from the filtration area. [Minn. R. 7090] 17.4 Permittees must design filtration systems to remove at least 80 percent of TSS. [Minn. R. 7090] 17.5 Permittees must use a pretreatment device such as a vegetated filter strip, small sedimentation basin, water quality inlet, forebay or hydrodynamic separator to remove settleable solids, floating materials, and oils and grease from the runoff, to the maximum extent practicable, before runoff enters the filtration system. [Minn. R. 7090] 17.6 Permittees must design filtration systems to treat a water quality volume (calculated as an instantaneous volume) of one (1) inch of runoff, or one (1) inch minus the volume of stormwater treated by another system on the site, from the net increase of impervious surfaces created by the project. [Minn. R. 7090] 17.7 Permittees must design the filtration system to discharge all stormwater (including stormwater in excess of the water quality volume) routed to the system through the uppermost soil surface or engineered media surface within 48 hours. Additional flows that the system cannot filter within 48 hours must bypass the system or discharge through an emergency overflow. [Minn. R. 7090] 17.8 Permittees must design the filtration system to provide a means to visually verify the system is discharging through the soil surface or filter media within 48 hours. [Minn. R. 7090] 17.9 Permittees must employ appropriate on-site testing to ensure a minimum of three (3) feet of separation between the seasonally saturated soils (or from bedrock) and the bottom of the proposed filtration system. [Minn. R. 7090] 17.10 Permittees must ensure that filtration systems with less than three (3) feet of separation between seasonally saturated soils or from bedrock are constructed with an impermeable liner. [Minn. R. 7090] 17.11 The permittees must design a maintenance access, typically eight (8) feet wide, for the filtration system. [Minn. R. 7090] 18.1 Wet Sedimentation Basin. [Minn. R. 7090] 18.2 Permittees using a wet sedimentation basin to meet the permanent stormwater treatment requirements of this permit must incorporate the design parameters in item 18.3 through 18.10. [Minn. R. 7090] 18.3 Permittees must design the basin to have a permanent volume of 1,800 cubic feet of storage below the outlet pipe for each acre that drains to the basin. The basin's permanent volume must reach a minimum depth of at least three (3) feet and must have no depth greater than 10 feet. Permittees must configure the basin to minimize scour or resuspension of solids. [Minn. R. 7090] 18.4 Permittees must design the basin to provide live storage for a water quality volume (calculated as an instantaneous volume) of one (1) inch of runoff, or one (1) inch minus the volume of stormwater treated by another system on the site, from the net increase in impervious surfaces created by the project. [Minn.R. 7090] 18.5 Permittees must design basin outlets so the water quality volume discharges at no more than 5.66 cubic feet per second (cfs) per acre of surface area of the basin. [Minn. R. 7090] 18.6 Permittees must design basin outlets to prevent short-circuiting and the discharge of floating debris. Basin outlets must have energy dissipation. [Minn. R. 7090] 18.7 Permittees must design the basin to include a stabilized emergency overflow to accommodate storm events in excess of the basin's hydraulic design. [Minn. R. 7090] 18.8 Permittees must design a maintenance access, typically eight (8) feet wide, for the basin. [Minn. R. 7090] 18.9 Permittees must locate basins outside of surface waters and any buffer zone required in item 23.11. Permittees must design basins to avoid draining water from wetlands unless the impact to the wetland complies with the requirements of Section 22. [Minn. R. 7090] 18.10 Permittees must design basins using an impermeable liner if located within active karst terrain. [Minn. R.7090] 19.1 Regional Wet Sedimentation Basins. [Minn. R. 7090] 19.2 When the entire water quality volume cannot be retained onsite, permittees can use or create regional wet sedimentation basins provided they are constructed basins, not a natural wetland or water body, (wetlands used as regional basins must be mitigated for, see Section 22). The owner must ensure the regional basin conforms to all requirements for a wet sedimentation basin as described in items 18.3 through 18.10 and must be large enough to account for the entire area that drains to the regional basin. Permittees must verify that the regional basin will discharge at no more than 5.66 cfs per acre of surface area of the basin and must provide a live storage volume of one inch times all the impervious area draining to the basin. Permittees cannot significantly degrade waterways between the project and the regional basin. The owner must obtain written authorization from the applicable LGU or private entity that owns and maintains the regional basin. [Minn. R. 7090] 20.1 SWPPP Availability. [Minn. R. 7090] 20.2 Permittees must keep the SWPPP, including all changes to it, and inspections and maintenance records at the site during normal working hours by permittees who have operational control of that portion of the site. [Minn. R. 7090] 21.1 Training Requirements. [Minn. R. 7090] 21.2 Permittees must ensure all of the following individuals receive training and the content and extent of the training is commensurate with the individual's job duties and responsibilities with regard to activities covered under this permit: a. Individuals preparing the SWPPP for the project. b. Individuals overseeing implementation of, revising and/or amending the SWPPP and individuals performing inspections for the project. One of these individuals must be available for an onsite inspection within 72 hours upon request by the MPCA. c. Individuals performing or supervising the installation, maintenance and repair of BMPs. [Minn. R. 7090] 21.3 Permittees must ensure individuals identified in Section 21 receive training from local, state, federal agencies, professional organizations, or other entities with expertise in erosion prevention, sediment control, permanent stormwater treatment and the Minnesota NPDES/SDS Construction Stormwater permit. Permittees must ensure these individuals attend a refresher-training course every three (3) years.[Minn. R. 7090] 22.1 Requirements for Discharges to Wetlands. [Minn. R. 7050.0186] 22.2 If the project has any discharges with the potential for significant adverse impacts to a wetland, (e.g., conversion of a natural wetland to a stormwater pond) permittees must demonstrate that the wetland mitigative sequence has been followed in accordance with items 22.3 or 22.4. [Minn. R. 7050.0186] 22.3 If the potential adverse impacts to a wetland on a specific project site are addressed by permits or other approvals from an official statewide program (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 program, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, or the State of Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act) that are issued specifically for the project and project site, permittees may use the permit or other determination issued by these agencies to show the potential adverse impacts are addressed. For purposes of this permit, deminimus actions are determinations by the permitting agency that address the project impacts, whereas a non-jurisdictional determination does not address project impacts. [Minn. R. 7090] 22.4 If there are impacts from the project not addressed in one of the permits or other determinations discussed in item 22.3 (e.g., permanent inundation or flooding of the wetland, significant degradation of water quality, excavation, filling, draining), permittees must minimize all adverse impacts to wetlands by utilizing appropriate measures. Permittees must use measures based on the nature of the wetland, its vegetative community types and the established hydrology. These measures include in order of preference: a. avoid all significant adverse impacts to wetlands from the project and post-project discharge; b. minimize any unavoidable impacts from the project and post-project discharge; c. provide compensatory mitigation when the permittees determine(s) that there is no reasonable and practicable alternative to having a significant adverse impact on a wetland. For compensatory mitigation, wetland restoration or creation must be of the same type, size and whenever reasonable and practicable in the same watershed as the impacted wetland. [Minn. R. 7050.0186] 23.1 Additional Requirements for Discharges to Special (Prohibited, Restricted, Other) and Impaired Waters. [Minn. R. 7090] 23.2 The BMPs identified for each special or impaired water are required for those areas of the project draining to a discharge point on the project that is within one mile (aerial radius measurement) of special or impaired water and flows to that special or impaired water. [Minn. R. 7090] 23.3 Discharges to the following special waters identified as Prohibited in Minn. R. 7050.0035 Subp. 3 must incorporate the BMPs outlined in items 23.9, 23.10, 23.11, 23.13 and 23.14: a. Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness; Voyageurs National Park; Kettle River from the site of the former dam at Sandstone to its confluence with the Saint Croix River; Rum River from Ogechie Lake spillway to the northernmost confluence with Lake Onamia. b. Those portions of Lake Superior North of latitude 47 degrees, 57 minutes, 13 seconds, East of Hat Point, South of the Minnesota-Ontario boundary, and West of the Minnesota-Michigan boundary; c. Scientific and Natural Areas identified as in Minn. R. 7050.0335 Subp. 3: Boot Lake, Anoka County; Kettle River in sections 15, 22, 23, T 41 N, R 20, Pine County; Pennington Bog, Beltrami County; Purvis Lake-Ober Foundation, Saint Louis County; waters within the borders of Itasca Wilderness Sanctuary, Clearwater County; Wolsfeld Woods, Hennepin County; Green Water Lake, Becker County; Blackdog Preserve, Dakota County; Prairie Bush Clover, Jackson County; Black Lake Bog, Pine County; Pembina Trail Preserve, Polk County; and Falls Creek, Washington County. [Minn. R. 7050.0335, Subp. 3] 23.4 Discharges to the following special waters identified as Restricted must incorporate the BMPs outlined in items 23.9, 23.10 and 23.11: a. Lake Superior, except those portions identified as prohibited in item 23.3.b; b. Mississippi River in those portions from Lake Itasca to the southerly boundary of Morrison County that are included in the Mississippi Headwaters Board comprehensive plan dated February 12, 1981; c. Scenic or Recreational River Segments: Saint Croix River, entire length; Cannon River from northern city limits of Faribault to its confluence with the Mississippi River; North Fork of the Crow River from Lake Koronis outlet to the Meeker-Wright county line; Kettle River from north Pine County line to the site of the former dam at Sandstone; Minnesota River from Lac que Parle dam to Redwood County State Aid Highway 11; Mississippi River from County State Aid Highway 7 bridge in Saint Cloud to northwestern city limits of Anoka; and Rum River from State Highway 27 bridge in Onamia to Madison and Rice streets in Anoka; d. Lake Trout Lakes identified in Minn. R. 7050.0335 including lake trout lakes inside the boundaries of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and Voyageurs National Park; e. Calcareous Fens listed in Minn. R. 7050.0335, Subp. 1. [Minn. R. 7050.0335, Subp. 1] 23.5 Discharges to the Trout Lakes (other special water) identified in Minn. R. 6264.0050, subp. 2 must incorporate the BMPs outlined in items 23.9, 23.10 and 23.11. [Minn. R. 6264.0050, Subp. 2] 23.6 Discharges to the Trout Streams (other special water) listed in Minn. R. 6264.0050, subp. 4 must incorporate the BMPs outlined in items 23.9, 23.10, 23.11 and 23.12. [Minn. R. 6264.0050, Subp. 4] 23.7 Discharges to impaired waters or a water with an USEPA approved TMDL for any of the impairments listed in this item must incorporate the BMPs outlined in items 23.9 and 23.10. Impaired waters are waters identified as impaired under section 303 (d) of the federal Clean Water Act for phosphorus (nutrient eutrophication biological indicators), turbidity, TSS, dissolved oxygen or aquatic biota (fish bioassessment, aquatic plant bioassessment and aquatic macroinvertebrate bioassessment). Terms used for the pollutants or stressors in this item are subject to change. The MPCA will list terminology changes on its construction stormwater website. [Minn. R. 7090] 23.8 Where the additional BMPs in this Section conflict with requirements elsewhere in this permit, items 23.9 through 23.14 take precedence. [Minn. R. 7090] 23.9 Permittees must immediately initiate stabilization of exposed soil areas, as described in item 8.4, and complete the stabilization within seven (7) calendar days after the construction activity in that portion of the site temporarily or permanently ceases. [Minn. R. 7090] 23.10 Permittees must provide a temporary sediment basin as described in Section 14 for common drainage locations that serve an area with five (5) or more acres disturbed at one time. [Minn. R. 7090] 23.11 Permittees must include an undisturbed buffer zone of not less than 100 linear feet from a special water (not including tributaries) and must maintain this buffer zone at all times, both during construction and as a permanent feature post construction, except where a water crossing or other encroachment is necessary to complete the project. Permittees must fully document the circumstance and reasons the buffer encroachment is necessary in the SWPPP and include restoration activities. This permit allows replacement of existing impervious surface within the buffer. Permittees must minimize all potential water quality, scenic and other environmental impacts of these exceptions by the use of additional or redundant (double) BMPs and must document this in the SWPPP for the project. [Minn. R. 7090] 23.12 Permittees must design the permanent stormwater treatment system so the discharge from the project minimizes any increase in the temperature of trout streams resulting from the one (1) and two (2) year 24- hour precipitation events. This includes all tributaries of designated trout streams located within the same Public Land Survey System (PLSS) Section. Permittees must incorporate one or more of the following measures, in order of preference: a. Provide stormwater infiltration or other volume reduction practices as described in item 15.4 and 15.5, to reduce runoff. Infiltration systems must discharge all stormwater routed to the system within 24 hours. b. Provide stormwater filtration as described in Section 17. Filtration systems must discharge all stormwater routed to the system within 24 hours. c. Minimize the discharge from connected impervious surfaces by discharging to vegetated areas, or grass swales, and through the use of other non-structural controls. d. If ponding is used, the design must include an appropriate combination of measures such as shading, vegetated swale discharges or constructed wetland treatment cells that limit temperature increases. The pond must be designed as a dry pond and should draw down in 24 hours or less. e. Other methods that minimize any increase in the temperature of the trout stream. [Minn. R. 7090] 23.13 Permittees must conduct routine site inspections once every three (3) days as described in item 11.2 for projects that discharge to prohibited waters. [Minn. R. 7090] 23.14 If discharges to prohibited waters cannot provide volume reduction equal to one (1) inch times the net increase of impervious surfaces as required in item 15.4 and 15.5, permittees must develop a permanent stormwater treatment system design that will result in no net increase of TSS or phosphorus to the prohibited water. Permittees must keep the plan in the SWPPP for the project. [Minn. R. 7090] 24.1 General Provisions. [Minn. R. 7090] 24.2 If the MPCA determines that an individual permit would more appropriately regulate the construction activity, the MPCA may require an individual permit to continue the construction activity. Coverage under this general permit will remain in effect until the MPCA issues an individual permit. [Minn. R. 7001.0210,Subp. 6] 24.3 If the permittee cannot meet the terms and conditions of this general permit, an owner may request an individual permit, in accordance with Minn. R. 7001.0210 subp. 6. [Minn. R. 7001.0210, Subp. 6] 24.4 Any interested person may petition the MPCA to require an individual NPDES/SDS permit in accordance with 40 CFR 122.28(b)(3). [40 CFR 122.29(b)(3)] 24.5 Permittees must make the SWPPP, including all inspection reports, maintenance records, training records and other information required by this permit, available to federal, state, and local officials within three (3) days upon request for the duration of the permit and for three (3) years following the NOT. [Minn. R.7090] 24.6 Permittees may not assign or transfer this permit except when the transfer occurs in accordance with the applicable requirements of item 3.7 and 3.8. [Minn. R. 7090] 24.7 Nothing in this permit must be construed to relieve the permittees from civil or criminal penalties for noncompliance with the terms and conditions provided herein. Nothing in this permit must be construed to preclude the initiation of any legal action or relieve the permittees from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to which the permittees is/are or may be subject to under Section 311 of the Clean Water Act and Minn. Stat. Sect. 115 and 116, as amended. Permittees are not liable for permit requirements for activities occurring on those portions of a site where the permit has been transferred to another party as required in item 3.7 or the permittees have submitted the NOT as required in Section 4. [Minn. R. 7090] 24.8 The provisions of this permit are severable. If any provision of this permit or the application of any provision of this permit to any circumstances is held invalid, the application of such provision to other circumstances, and the remainder of this permit must not be affected thereby. [Minn. R. 7090] 24.9 The permittees must comply with the provisions of Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3 and Minn. R. 7001.1090, subp. 1(A), 1(B), 1(C), 1(H), 1(I), 1(J), 1(K), and 1(L). [Minn. R. 7090] 24.10 The permittees must allow access as provided in 40 CFR 122.41(i) and Minn. Stat. Sect. 115.04. The permittees must allow representatives of the MPCA or any member, employee or agent thereof, when authorized by it, upon presentation of credentials, to enter upon any property, public or private, for the purpose of obtaining information or examination of records or conducting surveys or investigations. [40 CFR 122.41(i)] 24.11 For the purposes of Minn. R. 7090 and other documents that reference specific sections of this permit, "Stormwater Discharge Design Requirements" corresponds to Sections 5, 6 and 14 through 21; "Construction Activity Requirements" corresponds to Sections 7 through 13; and "Appendix A" corresponds to Sections 22 and 23. [Minn. R. 7090] 76 77 78 SB-1 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 PARKING AREA PHASE I BUILDING 100' x 200' PHASE I BUILDING 100' x 200' PHASE I BUILDING PHASE I BUILDING 100' x 225' 100' x 225' BUILDING B BUILDING A BUILDING D BUILDING C F L Y I N G C L O U D S D R I V EGREAT PLAINS BLVDDETENTION PONDReproducing Is Prohibited. Return Upon Request. ©Copyright. This Print/Computer File Gries Architectural Group, Inc. Use Only For Purpose Which Loaned. Copying Or Is The Exclusive Property Of date: job: d. by: rev.:GriesArchitectural Group Inc.500 North Commercial StreetNeenah, Wisconsin 54956Phone: 920-722-2445 Fax: 920-722-6605www.gries.designCITY SUBMITTAL 05/06/20227/5/2022 8:53:33 AMZ:\2022\22-054 RSI Marine Storage\22-054 Revit\22-054_RSI Marine Storage.rvtA-0.1 BJK, ZTS 05-06-2022 22-054A NEW STORAGE FACILITY FOR:RSI MARINE STORAGECHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA1" = 50'-0"A-0.1 1 SITE PLAN 86 87 A-1.2 1 A-1.3 1 A-1.4 1 A-1.5 1100'-9 1/8"226'-8 3/4"79'-11 1/4"100'-9 1/8"31'-6 3/4"226'-8 3/4" 200'-8 3/4"200'-8 3/4"31'-6 3/4"100'-9 1/8"100'-9 1/8"25'-0"24'-0"BUILDING ABUILDING B BUILDING CBUILDING D Reproducing Is Prohibited. Return Upon Request. ©Copyright. This Print/Computer File Gries Architectural Group, Inc. Use Only For Purpose Which Loaned. Copying Or Is The Exclusive Property Of date: job: d. by: rev.:GriesArchitectural Group Inc.500 North Commercial StreetNeenah, Wisconsin 54956Phone: 920-722-2445 Fax: 920-722-6605www.gries.designCITY SUBMITTAL 05/06/20225/6/2022 1:09:39 PMZ:\2022\22-054 RSI Marine Storage\22-054 Revit\22-054_RSI Marine Storage.rvtA-1.1 05-06-2022 22-054A NEW STORAGE FACILITY FOR:RSI MARINE STORAGECHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA1/16" = 1'-0"A-1.1 1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN- OVERALL 88 A101A100 A102 A103 A104 A105 A106 A107 A108 3'-4 3/4" 3'-4" 1'-4" 22'-0" 10'-0" 16'-0" 10'-0" 16'-0" 10'-0" 16'-0" 10'-0" 16'-0" 10'-0" 16'-0" 10'-0" 22'-0" 1'-4"3'-4"3'-4 3/4" 33'-10"6"25'-6"6"25'-6"6"25'-6"6"25'-6"6"25'-6"6"33'-10"98'-2 3/8"200'-1 1/2" A A A A A A 4'-9" 6" 4'-9"4'-9" 6" 4'-9"4'-9" 6" 4'-9"4'-9" 6" 4'-9"4'-9" 6" 4'-9"4'-9" 6" 4'-9"100'-5 1/2"25'-0"24'-0"2'-0"2'-0" 24'-0 3/4"153'-0 3/4"78'-2 1/8"27'-0 3/4" 16'-0" 10'-0" 16'-0" 10'-0" 16'-0" 10'-0" 16'-0" 10'-0" 16'-0" 10'-0" 16'-0" 4'-0 3/4" A109 A110 A111 A112 A113 A114 Reproducing Is Prohibited. Return Upon Request. ©Copyright. This Print/Computer File Gries Architectural Group, Inc. Use Only For Purpose Which Loaned. Copying Or Is The Exclusive Property Of date: job: d. by: rev.:GriesArchitectural Group Inc.500 North Commercial StreetNeenah, Wisconsin 54956Phone: 920-722-2445 Fax: 920-722-6605www.gries.designCITY SUBMITTAL 05/06/20225/6/2022 1:09:41 PMZ:\2022\22-054 RSI Marine Storage\22-054 Revit\22-054_RSI Marine Storage.rvtA-1.2 Author 05-06-2022 22-054 12/19/08A NEW STORAGE FACILITY FOR:RSI MARINE STORAGECHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA1/8" = 1'-0"A-1.2 1 BUILDING A - FLOOR PLAN 89 B100 B101 B102 B103 B104 B105 B106 B107 B108 A A A A A A 4'-0 3/4" 16'-0" 10'-0" 16'-0" 10'-0" 16'-0" 10'-0" 16'-0" 10'-0" 16'-0" 10'-0" 16'-0" 27'-0 3/4" 25'-0"24'-0 3/4"153'-0 3/4"24'-0"78'-5 3/4"1'-8 3/8"2'-0"200'-5 1/8" 3'-8 3/8" 3'-4" 1'-4" 22'-0" 10'-0" 16'-0" 10'-0" 16'-0" 10'-0" 16'-0" 10'-0" 16'-0" 10'-0" 16'-0" 10'-0" 22'-0" 1'-4" 3'-4" 3'-4 3/4" 4'-9" 6" 4'-9"4'-9" 6" 4'-9"4'-9" 6" 4'-9"4'-9" 6" 4'-9"4'-9" 6" 4'-9"4'-9" 6" 4'-9" 33'-10" 6" 25'-6" 6" 25'-6" 6" 25'-6" 6" 25'-6" 6" 25'-6" 6" 33'-10"98'-2 3/8"14'-2 1/8"16'-0"12'-0"16'-0"12'-0"8'-0"3 5/8"B109 B110 B111 B112 B113 B114B117B116B115 Reproducing Is Prohibited. Return Upon Request. ©Copyright. This Print/Computer File Gries Architectural Group, Inc. Use Only For Purpose Which Loaned. Copying Or Is The Exclusive Property Of date: job: d. by: rev.:GriesArchitectural Group Inc.500 North Commercial StreetNeenah, Wisconsin 54956Phone: 920-722-2445 Fax: 920-722-6605www.gries.designCITY SUBMITTAL 05/06/20225/6/2022 1:09:42 PMZ:\2022\22-054 RSI Marine Storage\22-054 Revit\22-054_RSI Marine Storage.rvtA-1.3 Author 05-06-2022 22-054 05/03/22A NEW STORAGE FACILITY FOR:RSI MARINE STORAGECHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA1/8" = 1'-0"A-1.3 1 BUILDING B - FLOOR PLAN 90 C100C101C102C103C104C105C106C107C108C109226'-1 1/2"27'-0 3/4" 16'-0" 10'-0" 16'-0" 10'-0" 16'-0" 10'-0" 16'-0" 10'-0" 16'-0" 10'-0" 16'-0" 10'-0" 16'-0" 27'-0 3/4"100'-5 1/2"33'-10"6"25'-6"6"25'-6"6"25'-6"6"25'-6"6"25'-6"6"25'-6"6"33'-10"98'-6"4'-9"6"4'-9"4'-9"6"4'-9"4'-9"6"4'-9"4'-9"6"4'-9"4'-9"6"4'-9"4'-9"6"4'-9"4'-9"6"4'-9"3'-4 3/4" 3'-4" 1'-4" 22'-0" 10'-0" 16'-0" 10'-0" 16'-0" 10'-0" 16'-0" 10'-0" 16'-0" 10'-0" 16'-0" 10'-0" 16'-0" 10'-0" 22'-0" 1'-4" 3'-4" 3'-4 3/4"226'-1 1/2"AAAAAAAC110C111C112C113C114C115C116Reproducing Is Prohibited. Return Upon Request.©Copyright. This Print/Computer FileGries Architectural Group, Inc.Use Only For Purpose Which Loaned. Copying OrIs The Exclusive Property Ofdate:job:d. by:rev.:GriesArchitectural Group Inc.500 North Commercial StreetNeenah, Wisconsin 54956Phone: 920-722-2445 Fax: 920-722-6605www.gries.designCITY SUBMITTAL 05/06/20225/6/2022 1:09:43 PMZ:\2022\22-054 RSI Marine Storage\22-054 Revit\22-054_RSI Marine Storage.rvtA-1.4Author05-06-202222-05405/03/22A NEW STORAGE FACILITY FOR:RSI MARINE STORAGECHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA1/8" = 1'-0"A-1.41BUILDING C - FLOOR PLAN 91 D100D101D102D103D104D105D106D107D108D1093'-8 3/8" 3'-4" 1'-4" 22'-0" 10'-0" 16'-0" 10'-0" 16'-0" 10'-0" 16'-0" 10'-0" 16'-0" 10'-0" 16'-0" 10'-0" 16'-0" 10'-0" 22'-0" 1'-4" 3'-4" 3'-4 3/4"4'-9"6"4'-9"4'-9"6"4'-9"4'-9"6"4'-9"4'-9"6"4'-9"4'-9"6"4'-9"4'-9"6"4'-9"4'-9"6"4'-9"33'-10"6"25'-6"6"25'-6"6"25'-6"6"25'-6"6"25'-6"6"25'-6"6"33'-10"98'-6"AAAAAAA14'-2 1/8" 16'-0" 12'-0" 16'-0" 12'-0" 16'-0" 14'-7"100'-9 1/8"226'-5 1/8"27'-4 3/8" 16'-0" 10'-0" 16'-0" 10'-0" 16'-0" 10'-0" 16'-0" 10'-0" 16'-0" 10'-0" 16'-0" 10'-0" 16'-0" 27'-0 3/4"D116D115D114D113D112D111D110D117D118D119Reproducing Is Prohibited. Return Upon Request.©Copyright. This Print/Computer FileGries Architectural Group, Inc.Use Only For Purpose Which Loaned. Copying OrIs The Exclusive Property Ofdate:job:d. by:rev.:GriesArchitectural Group Inc.500 North Commercial StreetNeenah, Wisconsin 54956Phone: 920-722-2445 Fax: 920-722-6605www.gries.designCITY SUBMITTAL 05/06/20225/6/2022 1:09:44 PMZ:\2022\22-054 RSI Marine Storage\22-054 Revit\22-054_RSI Marine Storage.rvtA-1.5Author05-06-202222-05405/03/22A NEW STORAGE FACILITY FOR:RSI MARINE STORAGECHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA1/8" = 1'-0"A-1.51BUILDING D - FLOOR PLAN 92 HOLLOW METAL (GALVANIZED). PAINTED, INSULATED1" THK., PPG SOLARBAN 60, CLEAR, TEMP. INSULATED GLAZING (STD. NARROW LITE)AOVERHEAD DOORBSEE SCHED.SCHED.SEESEE SCHED.SEE SCHED.HOLLOW METALPAINTED1ALUMINUM, STORE-FRONT FRAME (2"x4 1/2"), CLEAR ANODIZED1" THK., PPG SOLARBAN 60, TEMP. INSULATED GLAZING210'-0" 8'-0"ALUMINUM, STORE-FRONT FRAME (2"x4 1/2"), CLEAR ANODIZED1" THK., PPG SOLARBAN 60, TEMP. INSULATED GLAZING3ALUMINUM, STORE-FRONT FRAME (2"x4 1/2"), CLEAR ANODIZED1" THK., PPG SOLARBAN 60, TEMP. INSULATED GLAZING412'-0" 4'-0"10'-0" 8'-0"18'-0"16'-0"18'-0"SEE SCHED. 2"2"SCHED.SEE2"2" 4'-1" 2" 3'-5" 2"16'-0"2" EQ.2"EQ.2"EQ.2"EQ. 2"2" 4'-1" 2" 3'-5" 2"2" EQ.2"EQ. 2"8'-0"2"3'-8"2"16'-0"2" EQ.2"EQ.2"EQ.2"EQ. 2"GENERAL DOOR & WINDOW NOTES:• VERIFY ALL OPENING DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO FABRICATION OR CONSTRUCTION OF ALL DOORS & FRAMES.• ALL HARDWARE TO BE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (A.D.A.) COMPLIANT.• PROPER EXIT HARDWARE IS REQUIRED ON ALL EXIT AND EXIT ACCESS DOORS. HARDWARE SHALL COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENTS OF IBC SECTION 1008.1.8 THRU 1008.1.9.• ALL FRAMES TO BE FIELD VERIFIED PRIOR TO FABRICATION BY WINDOW SUPPLIER.• ALL GLAZING IN HAZARDOUS IMPACT AREAS SHALL BE SAFETY GLAZING IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 2406.• ALL HOLLOW METAL DOORS/FRAMES SHALL BE WELDED. NO KNOCK DOWN FRAMES PERMITTED.• ALL EXPOSED STEEL LINTELS TO BE PRIMED & PAINTED PER SPECIFICATION.• ALL EXTERIOR HOLLOW METAL EXIT DOORS TO HAVE LATCH GUARDS AND CLOSERS.• ALUMINUM ENTRANCE DOORS SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH CYLINDER LOCK, INTERIOR TURN-LOCK, SURFACE MOUNTED SELF CLOSER AND DOOR STOP.• STANDARD ROUND PUSH/PULLS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. FINISH TO MATCH DOORS.• ALL KEYING SHALL BE COORDINATED AND VERIFIED WITH OWNER AND/OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE.• ALL INTERIOR ALUMINUM FRAMES SHALL HAVE A MAXIMUM 1/8" CAULK JOINT AROUND PERIMETER.6" MTL. STUDS @ 16" O.C.NOTE:ALL EXPOSED C.M.U. OUTSIDE CORNERS @ WALLS, OPENING JAMBS & UNFINISHED SILL SHALL HAVE SQUARE CORNERS, TYP.NOTE:ALL GYP. BOARD SHALL EXTEND TO FULL HEIGHT OF STUD WALL, OR TO BOT. OF GYP. BD. CLG.(REFER TO REFL. CLG. PLANS). ALL GYP. BD. SHALL EXTEND 6" ABOVE HIGHEST ADJACENT CEILING, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. ALL STUDS SHALL BE ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED AS TO MAINTAIN A RIGID WALL ASSEMBLY.5/8"6"5/8"7 1/4"ASTUD & GYP. BD., FULL HT.5/8" QUIET ROCK, EACH SIDENOTE:MTL. STUD SIZES & GUAGES FOR INTERIOR NON-BRG. WALLS:3 5/8", 25 GA., 13'-6" HIGH @ 16" O.C., 11'-9" @ 24" O.C.3 5/8", 22 GA., 15'-3" HIGH @ 16" O.C., 13'-4" @ 24" O.C.3 5/8", 20 GA., 15'-11" HIGH @ 16" O.C., 13'-11" @ 24" O.C.6", 25 GA., 20'-0" HIGH @ 16" O.C., 17'-6" @ 24" O.C.6", 22 GA., 22'-9" HIGH @ 16" O.C., 19'-11" @ 24" O.C.3 5/8", 20 GA., 23'-9" HIGH @ 16" O.C., 20'-9" @ 24" O.C.(THESE STUD HEIGHTS ARE BASED ON HAVING (1) LAYER OF DRYWALL EACH FACE).NOTE:18 GA. STUDS @ DOOR JAMBS.Reproducing Is Prohibited. Return Upon Request.©Copyright. This Print/Computer FileGries Architectural Group, Inc.Use Only For Purpose Which Loaned. Copying OrIs The Exclusive Property Ofdate:job:d. by:rev.:GriesArchitectural Group Inc.500 North Commercial StreetNeenah, Wisconsin 54956Phone: 920-722-2445 Fax: 920-722-6605www.gries.designCITY SUBMITTAL 05/06/20225/6/2022 1:09:47 PMZ:\2022\22-054 RSI Marine Storage\22-054 Revit\22-054_RSI Marine Storage.rvtA-3.1ZTS05-06-202222-054A NEW STORAGE FACILITY FOR:RSI MARINE STORAGECHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA1/4" = 1'-0"DOOR ELEVATIONS1/4" = 1'-0"FRAME ELEVATIONSDOOR SCHEDULEDOORNO.FROMTOHANDDOORFRAMEHRD'W.GROUPFIRERATINGREMARKSOPENINGTYPEMAT'LFINISHTYPEMAT'LFINISHWIDTHHEIGHTFIRST FLOORA100 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE LH 3' - 0" 7' - 0" A H.M. PAINT 1H.M. PAINT --A101 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE OHD 22' - 0" 16' - 0" B ALUM. ANOD. MFR. -- -- --A102 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE OHD 16' - 0" 16' - 0" B ALUM. ANOD. MFR. -- -- --A103 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE OHD 16' - 0" 16' - 0" B ALUM. ANOD. MFR. -- -- --A104 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE OHD 16' - 0" 16' - 0" B ALUM. ANOD. MFR. -- -- --A105 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE OHD 16' - 0" 16' - 0" B ALUM. ANOD. MFR. -- -- --A106 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE OHD 16' - 0" 16' - 0" B ALUM. ANOD. MFR. -- -- --A107 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE OHD 22' - 0" 16' - 0" B ALUM. ANOD. MFR. -- -- --A108 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE RH 3' - 0" 7' - 0" A H.M. PAINT 1H.M. PAINT --A109 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE BL 16' - 0" 8' - 0" -- -- -- 2 ALUM. ANOD. --A110 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE BL 16' - 0" 8' - 0" -- -- -- 2 ALUM. ANOD. --A111 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE BL 16' - 0" 8' - 0" -- -- -- 2 ALUM. ANOD. --A112 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE BL 16' - 0" 8' - 0" -- -- -- 2 ALUM. ANOD. --A113 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE BL 16' - 0" 8' - 0" -- -- -- 2 ALUM. ANOD. --A114 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE BL 16' - 0" 8' - 0" -- -- -- 2 ALUM. ANOD. --B100 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE LH 3' - 0" 7' - 0" A H.M. PAINT 1H.M. PAINT --B101 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE OHD 22' - 0" 16' - 0" B ALUM. ANOD. MFR. -- -- --B102 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE OHD 16' - 0" 16' - 0" B ALUM. ANOD. MFR. -- -- --B103 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE OHD 16' - 0" 16' - 0" B ALUM. ANOD. MFR. -- -- --B104 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE OHD 16' - 0" 16' - 0" B ALUM. ANOD. MFR. -- -- --B105 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE OHD 16' - 0" 16' - 0" B ALUM. ANOD. MFR. -- -- --B106 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE OHD 16' - 0" 16' - 0" B ALUM. ANOD. MFR. -- -- --B107 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE OHD 22' - 0" 16' - 0" B ALUM. ANOD. MFR. -- -- --B108 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE RH 3' - 0" 7' - 0" A H.M. ANOD. 1H.M. PAINT --B109 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE BL 16' - 0" 8' - 0" -- -- -- 2 ALUM. ANOD. --B110 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE BL 16' - 0" 8' - 0" -- -- -- 2 ALUM. ANOD. --B111 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE BL 16' - 0" 8' - 0" -- -- -- 2 ALUM. ANOD. --B112 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE BL 16' - 0" 8' - 0" -- -- -- 2 ALUM. ANOD. --B113 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE BL 16' - 0" 8' - 0" -- -- -- 2 ALUM. ANOD. --B114 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE BL 16' - 0" 8' - 0" -- -- -- 2 ALUM. ANOD. --B115 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE BL 16' - 0" 8' - 0" -- -- -- 2 ALUM. ANOD. --B116 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE BL 16' - 0" 8' - 0" -- -- -- 2 ALUM. ANOD. --B117 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE BL 8' - 0" 8' - 0" -- -- -- 3 ALUM. ANOD. --C100 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE LH 3' - 0" 7' - 0" A H.M. PAINT 1H.M. PAINT --C101 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE OHD 22' - 0" 16' - 0" B ALUM. ANOD. MFR. -- -- --C102 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE OHD 16' - 0" 16' - 0" B ALUM. ANOD. MFR. -- -- --C103 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE OHD 16' - 0" 16' - 0" B ALUM. ANOD. MFR. -- -- --C104 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE OHD 16' - 0" 16' - 0" B ALUM. ANOD. MFR. -- -- --C105 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE OHD 16' - 0" 16' - 0" B ALUM. ANOD. MFR. -- -- --C106 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE OHD 16' - 0" 16' - 0" B ALUM. ANOD. MFR. -- -- --C107 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE OHD 16' - 0" 16' - 0" B ALUM. ANOD. MFR. -- -- --C108 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE OHD 22' - 0" 16' - 0" B ALUM. ANOD. MFR. -- -- --C109 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE RH 3' - 0" 7' - 0" A H.M. PAINT 1H.M. PAINT --C110 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE BL 16' - 0" 4' - 0" -- -- -- 4 ALUM. ANOD. --C111 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE BL 16' - 0" 4' - 0" -- -- -- 4 ALUM. ANOD. --C112 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE BL 16' - 0" 4' - 0" -- -- -- 4 ALUM. ANOD. --C113 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE BL 16' - 0" 4' - 0" -- -- -- 4 ALUM. ANOD. --C114 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE BL 16' - 0" 4' - 0" -- -- -- 4 ALUM. ANOD. --C115 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE BL 16' - 0" 4' - 0" -- -- -- 4 ALUM. ANOD. --C116 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE BL 16' - 0" 4' - 0" -- -- -- 4 ALUM. ANOD. --D100 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE LH 3' - 0" 7' - 0" A H.M. PAINT 1H.M. PAINT --D101 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE OHD 22' - 0" 16' - 0" B ALUM. ANOD. MFR. -- -- --D102 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE OHD 16' - 0" 16' - 0" B ALUM. ANOD. MFR. -- -- --D103 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE OHD 16' - 0" 16' - 0" B ALUM. ANOD. MFR. -- -- --D104 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE OHD 16' - 0" 16' - 0" B ALUM. ANOD. MFR. -- -- --D105 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE OHD 16' - 0" 16' - 0" B ALUM. ANOD. MFR. -- -- --D106 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE OHD 16' - 0" 16' - 0" B ALUM. ANOD. MFR. -- -- --D107 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE OHD 16' - 0" 16' - 0" B ALUM. ANOD. MFR. -- -- --D108 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE OHD 22' - 0" 16' - 0" B ALUM. ANOD. MFR. -- -- --D109 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE RH 3' - 0" 7' - 0" A H.M. PAINT 1H.M. PAINT --D110 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE BL 16' - 0" 4' - 0" -- -- -- 4 ALUM. ANOD. --D111 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE BL 16' - 0" 4' - 0" -- -- -- 4 ALUM. ANOD. --D112 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE BL 16' - 0" 4' - 0" -- -- -- 4 ALUM. ANOD. --D113 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE BL 16' - 0" 4' - 0" -- -- -- 4 ALUM. ANOD. --D114 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE BL 16' - 0" 4' - 0" -- -- -- 4 ALUM. ANOD. --D115 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE BL 16' - 0" 4' - 0" -- -- -- 4 ALUM. ANOD. --D116 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE BL 16' - 0" 4' - 0" -- -- -- 4 ALUM. ANOD. --D117 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE BL 16' - 0" 8' - 0" -- -- -- 2 ALUM. ANOD. --D118 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE BL 16' - 0" 8' - 0" -- -- -- 2 ALUM. ANOD. --D119 EXTERIOR INT. STORAGE BL 16' - 0" 8' - 0" -- -- -- 2 ALUM. ANOD. --1" = 1'-0"INTERIOR WALL TYPES93 MP-1MP-2CMU-1MP-1MP-1MP-1MP-1MP-1MP-1MP-1MP-2MP-2MP-2MP-2MP-2MP-2CMU-1CMU-1CMU-1CMU-1CMU-1CMU-1CMU-1A107A106A105A108A104A103A102A101A10037'-9 3/4"D-1D-2D-2D-2D-2D-2D-2D-2D-1RF-120'-0"BRK-1MP-2CMU-1A109A110A111A112A113A114CW-1CW-1CW-1CW-1CW-1CW-14" 12"4" 12"RF-2RF-130'-0"20'-0"37'-9 3/4"BRK-1CMU-1MP-14" 12"4" 12"4" 12"4" 12"37'-9 3/4"RF-220'-0"30'-0"CMU-1MP-14" 12"4" 12"20'-0"37'-9 3/4"EXTERIOR FINISH KEY NOTESMP-1STONEFACED CMU:MFR: COUNTY MATERIALS CORPORATIONFINISH/COLOR: SPLITFACE/BUFFLOCATION: REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSCMU-1MTL. WALL PANEL:MANUFACTURER: METL SPANMATERIAL: INSULATED METAL PANEL - CF ARCHITECTURAL VERTICAL - 30" WIDE, 2-1/2" THK.COLOR/FINISH: SANDSTONE WITH STUCCO FINISHLOCATION: REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSMATERIAL SUMMARYKEY NOTEMATERIAL SUMMARYKEY NOTECURTAIN WALL:MFR: KAWNEER (BASIS OF DESIGN)STYLE: 1600 CURTAINWALL SYSTEM (MATCH EXIST.), THERMALLY BROKEN (REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS & FRAME ELEVATIONS) REINFORCED MULLIONS AS REQUIRED, VERIFIED AND ENGINEERED BY CURTAINWALL MFR.GLAZING: 1" INSULATED, PPG, SOLARBAN 60, COLOR T.B.D.FINISH/COLOR: CLEAR ANODIZED (CLASS 1)CW-1MP-2BRICK:MFR: COUNTY MATERIALS CORPORATIONFINISH/COLOR: COFFEE BLENDLOCATION: REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSBRK-1D-1DOOR:COLOR/FINISH: SANDSTONE OR COLOR TO MATCH OHDLOCATION: REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSD-2OVERHEAD DOOR:MANUFACTURER: CHI OVERHEAD DOORSCOLOR/FINISH: SANDSTONELOCATION: REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSMTL. WALL PANEL:MANUFACTURER: LONGBOARD INSPIRING FACADESMATERIAL: 6" V-GROOVE, TONGUE & GROOVE LAP SIDINGCOLOR/FINISH: DARK ACACIALOCATION: REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSRF-2ROOFING:MANUFACTURER: METL SPANMATERIAL: CFR ROOF PANEL COLOR/FINISH: TERRACOTTALOCATION: REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSRF-1ROOFING:MANUFACTURER: METL SPANMATERIAL: CFR ROOF PANEL COLOR/FINISH: MEDIUM BRONZELOCATION: REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSReproducing Is Prohibited. Return Upon Request.©Copyright. This Print/Computer FileGries Architectural Group, Inc.Use Only For Purpose Which Loaned. Copying OrIs The Exclusive Property Ofdate:job:d. by:rev.:GriesArchitectural Group Inc.500 North Commercial StreetNeenah, Wisconsin 54956Phone: 920-722-2445 Fax: 920-722-6605www.gries.designCITY SUBMITTAL 05/06/20225/6/2022 1:09:48 PMZ:\2022\22-054 RSI Marine Storage\22-054 Revit\22-054_RSI Marine Storage.rvtA-4.1ZTS05-06-202222-054A NEW STORAGE FACILITY FOR:RSI MARINE STORAGECHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA1/16" = 1'-0"A-4.11BUILDING A - NORTH ELEVATION1/16" = 1'-0"A-4.12BUILDING A - SOUTH ELEVATION1/16" = 1'-0"A-4.13BUILDING A - EAST ELEVATION1/16" = 1'-0"A-4.14BUILDING A - WEST ELEVATIONOPENINGS = 49.5%MP-1= 28.5%MP-2= 16.8%CMU-1 = 5.2%BRK-1 = 17.5%MP-2= 23.8%SF-1 = 17.6%CMU-1 = 41.1%MP-1= 68.7%BRK-1= 23.6%CMU-1= 7.6%MP-1 = 89.5%CMU-1= 10.5%94 EXTERIOR FINISH KEY NOTESMP-1STONEFACED CMU:MFR: COUNTY MATERIALS CORPORATIONFINISH/COLOR: SPLITFACE/BUFFLOCATION: REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSCMU-1MTL. WALL PANEL:MANUFACTURER: METL SPANMATERIAL: INSULATED METAL PANEL - CF ARCHITECTURAL VERTICAL - 30" WIDE, 2-1/2" THK.COLOR/FINISH: SANDSTONE WITH STUCCO FINISHLOCATION: REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSMATERIAL SUMMARYKEY NOTEMATERIAL SUMMARYKEY NOTECURTAIN WALL:MFR: KAWNEER (BASIS OF DESIGN)STYLE: 1600 CURTAINWALL SYSTEM (MATCH EXIST.), THERMALLY BROKEN (REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS & FRAME ELEVATIONS) REINFORCED MULLIONS AS REQUIRED, VERIFIED AND ENGINEERED BY CURTAINWALL MFR.GLAZING: 1" INSULATED, PPG, SOLARBAN 60, COLOR T.B.D.FINISH/COLOR: CLEAR ANODIZED (CLASS 1)CW-1MP-2BRICK:MFR: COUNTY MATERIALS CORPORATIONFINISH/COLOR: COFFEE BLENDLOCATION: REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSBRK-1D-1DOOR:COLOR/FINISH: SANDSTONE OR COLOR TO MATCH OHDLOCATION: REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSD-2OVERHEAD DOOR:MANUFACTURER: CHI OVERHEAD DOORSCOLOR/FINISH: SANDSTONELOCATION: REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSMTL. WALL PANEL:MANUFACTURER: LONGBOARD INSPIRING FACADESMATERIAL: 6" V-GROOVE, TONGUE & GROOVE LAP SIDINGCOLOR/FINISH: DARK ACACIALOCATION: REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSRF-2ROOFING:MANUFACTURER: METL SPANMATERIAL: CFR ROOF PANEL COLOR/FINISH: TERRACOTTALOCATION: REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSRF-1ROOFING:MANUFACTURER: METL SPANMATERIAL: CFR ROOF PANEL COLOR/FINISH: MEDIUM BRONZELOCATION: REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSMP-1CMU-1MP-2MP-1MP-2MP-1MP-2MP-1MP-2MP-1MP-2MP-1MP-2MP-1MP-2CMU-1CMU-1CMU-1CMU-1CMU-1CMU-1CMU-1B108B107B106B105B104B103B102B101B10037'-9 3/4"D-2D-1D-1D-2D-2D-2D-2D-2D-2RF-120'-0"CMU-1MP-2BRK-1B109B110B111B112B113B114CW-1CW-1CW-1CW-1CW-1CW-14" 12"4" 12"RF-1RF-237'-9 3/4"20'-0"30'-0"MP-1CMU-14" 12"4" 12"37'-9 3/4"20'-0"CMU-1MP-2BRK-1B115B116B117CW-1CW-14" 12"4" 12"4" 12"4" 12"RF-220'-0"37'-9 3/4"30'-0"Reproducing Is Prohibited. Return Upon Request.©Copyright. This Print/Computer FileGries Architectural Group, Inc.Use Only For Purpose Which Loaned. Copying OrIs The Exclusive Property Ofdate:job:d. by:rev.:GriesArchitectural Group Inc.500 North Commercial StreetNeenah, Wisconsin 54956Phone: 920-722-2445 Fax: 920-722-6605www.gries.designCITY SUBMITTAL 05/06/20225/6/2022 1:09:50 PMZ:\2022\22-054 RSI Marine Storage\22-054 Revit\22-054_RSI Marine Storage.rvtA-4.2ZTS05-06-202222-054A NEW STORAGE FACILITY FOR:RSI MARINE STORAGECHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA1/16" = 1'-0"A-4.21BUILDING B - NORTH ELEVATION1/16" = 1'-0"A-4.22BUILDING B - SOUTH ELEVATION1/16" = 1'-0"A-4.23BUILDING B - EAST ELEVATION1/16" = 1'-0"A-4.24BUILDING B - WEST ELEVATIONOPENINGS = 49.7%MP-1= 27%MP-2= 16.2%CMU-1 = 7.1%BRK-1 = 17.5%MP-2= 23.8%SF-1 = 17.6%CMU-1 = 41.1%MP-1= 89.5%CMU-1= 10.5%BRK-1= 23.6%MP-1 = 35.2%SF-1= 10.4%CMU-1= 30.8%95 MP-1C110C111C112C113C114C115C116CW-1CW-1CW-1CW-1CW-1CW-1CW-1RF-137'-9 3/4"20'-0"CMU-1MP-1MP-2MP-1MP-2CMU-1MP-1MP-2CMU-1MP-1MP-2CMU-1MP-1MP-2CMU-1MP-1MP-2CMU-1MP-1MP-2CMU-1MP-1MP-2CMU-1MP-1CMU-1C100C101C102C103C104C105C106C107C108C109D-1D-2D-2D-2D-2D-2D-2D-2D-2D-1RF-120'-0"37'-9 3/4"CMU-1MP-14" 12"4" 12"37'-9 3/4"20'-0"CMU-1MP-14" 12"4" 12"37'-9 3/4"20'-0"EXTERIOR FINISH KEY NOTESMP-1STONEFACED CMU:MFR: COUNTY MATERIALS CORPORATIONFINISH/COLOR: SPLITFACE/BUFFLOCATION: REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSCMU-1MTL. WALL PANEL:MANUFACTURER: METL SPANMATERIAL: INSULATED METAL PANEL - CF ARCHITECTURAL VERTICAL - 30" WIDE, 2-1/2" THK.COLOR/FINISH: SANDSTONE WITH STUCCO FINISHLOCATION: REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSMATERIAL SUMMARYKEY NOTEMATERIAL SUMMARYKEY NOTECURTAIN WALL:MFR: KAWNEER (BASIS OF DESIGN)STYLE: 1600 CURTAINWALL SYSTEM (MATCH EXIST.), THERMALLY BROKEN (REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS & FRAME ELEVATIONS) REINFORCED MULLIONS AS REQUIRED, VERIFIED AND ENGINEERED BY CURTAINWALL MFR.GLAZING: 1" INSULATED, PPG, SOLARBAN 60, COLOR T.B.D.FINISH/COLOR: CLEAR ANODIZED (CLASS 1)CW-1MP-2BRICK:MFR: COUNTY MATERIALS CORPORATIONFINISH/COLOR: COFFEE BLENDLOCATION: REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSBRK-1D-1DOOR:COLOR/FINISH: SANDSTONE OR COLOR TO MATCH OHDLOCATION: REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSD-2OVERHEAD DOOR:MANUFACTURER: CHI OVERHEAD DOORSCOLOR/FINISH: SANDSTONELOCATION: REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSMTL. WALL PANEL:MANUFACTURER: LONGBOARD INSPIRING FACADESMATERIAL: 6" V-GROOVE, TONGUE & GROOVE LAP SIDINGCOLOR/FINISH: DARK ACACIALOCATION: REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSRF-2ROOFING:MANUFACTURER: METL SPANMATERIAL: CFR ROOF PANEL COLOR/FINISH: TERRACOTTALOCATION: REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSRF-1ROOFING:MANUFACTURER: METL SPANMATERIAL: CFR ROOF PANEL COLOR/FINISH: MEDIUM BRONZELOCATION: REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSReproducing Is Prohibited. Return Upon Request.©Copyright. This Print/Computer FileGries Architectural Group, Inc.Use Only For Purpose Which Loaned. Copying OrIs The Exclusive Property Ofdate:job:d. by:rev.:GriesArchitectural Group Inc.500 North Commercial StreetNeenah, Wisconsin 54956Phone: 920-722-2445 Fax: 920-722-6605www.gries.designCITY SUBMITTAL 05/06/20225/6/2022 1:09:51 PMZ:\2022\22-054 RSI Marine Storage\22-054 Revit\22-054_RSI Marine Storage.rvtA-4.3ZTS05-06-202222-054A NEW STORAGE FACILITY FOR:RSI MARINE STORAGECHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA1/16" = 1'-0"A-4.31BUILDING C - NORTH ELEVATION1/16" = 1'-0"A-4.32BUILDING C - SOUTH ELEVATION1/16" = 1'-0"A-4.33BUILDING C - EAST ELEVATION1/16" = 1'-0"A-4.34BUILDING C - WEST ELEVATIONOPENINGS = 20.1%MP-1= 27.4%MP-2= 17.4%CMU-1 = 5.1%MP-1= 90.2%SF-1 = 8.8%MP-1= 89.5%CMU-1= 10.5%MP-1 = 89.5%CMU-1= 10.5%96 MP-1D110D111D112D113D114D115D116CW-1CW-1CW-1CW-1CW-1CW-1CW-1RF-137'-9 3/4"20'-0"MP-1MP-2CMU-1MP-1MP-1MP-1MP-1MP-1MP-1MP-1MP-2MP-2MP-2MP-2MP-2MP-2MP-2CMU-1CMU-1CMU-1CMU-1CMU-1CMU-1CMU-1CMU-1D101D102D103D104D105D106D107D108D100D109D-2D-1D-2D-2D-2D-2D-2D-2D-2D-1RF-120'-0"37'-9 3/4"MP-1CMU-14" 12"4" 12"20'-0"37'-9 3/4"MP-2CMU-1D117D118D119CW-1CW-14" 12"4" 12"20'-0"37'-9 3/4"EXTERIOR FINISH KEY NOTESMP-1STONEFACED CMU:MFR: COUNTY MATERIALS CORPORATIONFINISH/COLOR: SPLITFACE/BUFFLOCATION: REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSCMU-1MTL. WALL PANEL:MANUFACTURER: METL SPANMATERIAL: INSULATED METAL PANEL - CF ARCHITECTURAL VERTICAL - 30" WIDE, 2-1/2" THK.COLOR/FINISH: SANDSTONE WITH STUCCO FINISHLOCATION: REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSMATERIAL SUMMARYKEY NOTEMATERIAL SUMMARYKEY NOTECURTAIN WALL:MFR: KAWNEER (BASIS OF DESIGN)STYLE: 1600 CURTAINWALL SYSTEM (MATCH EXIST.), THERMALLY BROKEN (REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS & FRAME ELEVATIONS) REINFORCED MULLIONS AS REQUIRED, VERIFIED AND ENGINEERED BY CURTAINWALL MFR.GLAZING: 1" INSULATED, PPG, SOLARBAN 60, COLOR T.B.D.FINISH/COLOR: CLEAR ANODIZED (CLASS 1)CW-1MP-2BRICK:MFR: COUNTY MATERIALS CORPORATIONFINISH/COLOR: COFFEE BLENDLOCATION: REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSBRK-1D-1DOOR:COLOR/FINISH: SANDSTONE OR COLOR TO MATCH OHDLOCATION: REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSD-2OVERHEAD DOOR:MANUFACTURER: CHI OVERHEAD DOORSCOLOR/FINISH: SANDSTONELOCATION: REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSMTL. WALL PANEL:MANUFACTURER: LONGBOARD INSPIRING FACADESMATERIAL: 6" V-GROOVE, TONGUE & GROOVE LAP SIDINGCOLOR/FINISH: DARK ACACIALOCATION: REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSRF-2ROOFING:MANUFACTURER: METL SPANMATERIAL: CFR ROOF PANEL COLOR/FINISH: TERRACOTTALOCATION: REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSRF-1ROOFING:MANUFACTURER: METL SPANMATERIAL: CFR ROOF PANEL COLOR/FINISH: MEDIUM BRONZELOCATION: REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSReproducing Is Prohibited. Return Upon Request.©Copyright. This Print/Computer FileGries Architectural Group, Inc.Use Only For Purpose Which Loaned. Copying OrIs The Exclusive Property Ofdate:job:d. by:rev.:GriesArchitectural Group Inc.500 North Commercial StreetNeenah, Wisconsin 54956Phone: 920-722-2445 Fax: 920-722-6605www.gries.designCITY SUBMITTAL 05/06/20225/6/2022 1:09:53 PMZ:\2022\22-054 RSI Marine Storage\22-054 Revit\22-054_RSI Marine Storage.rvtA-4.4ZTS05-06-202222-054A NEW STORAGE FACILITY FOR:RSI MARINE STORAGECHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA1/16" = 1'-0"A-4.41BUILDING D - NORTH ELEVATION1/16" = 1'-0"A-4.42BUILDING D - SOUTH ELEVATION1/16" = 1'-0"A-4.43BUILDING D - EAST ELEVATION1/16" = 1'-0"A-4.44BUILDING D - WEST ELEVATIONOPENINGS = 50.1%MP-1= 28%MP-2= 14.9%CMU-1 = 7%MP-2= 90.2%SF-1 = 9.8%MP-1= 89.5%CMU-1= 10.5%MP-2 = 41.1%SF-1= 12.5CMU-1= 46.4%97 Reproducing Is Prohibited. Return Upon Request.©Copyright. This Print/Computer FileGries Architectural Group, Inc.Use Only For Purpose Which Loaned. Copying OrIs The Exclusive Property Ofdate:job:d. by:rev.:GriesArchitectural Group Inc.500 North Commercial StreetNeenah, Wisconsin 54956Phone: 920-722-2445 Fax: 920-722-6605www.gries.designCITY SUBMITTAL 05/06/20225/6/2022 1:09:54 PMZ:\2022\22-054 RSI Marine Storage\22-054 Revit\22-054_RSI Marine Storage.rvtA-11.1ZTS05-06-202222-054A NEW STORAGE FACILITY FOR:RSI MARINE STORAGECHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA98 99 100 RSI MARINE Chanhassen, MN For RSI MARINE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT NARRATIVE & SUMMARY June, 1, 2022 I hereby certify that this plan and report were prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. __________________________ Joel G. Cooper P.E. License No. 18495 101 EXISTING CONDITIONS The RSI site is located at the northeast corner of Flying Cloud Drive and Great Plains Blvd. The existing site was previously constructed with a building and parking lot for an animal daycare and overnight facility. The site has both hydrologic soil groups B and C on-site. The predominate soil group for the site is hydrologic group C. The site drains from north to south and drains to the Flying Cloud Drive ditch along the north side of the road and eventually drains to across the road and to Rice Lake. The site ranges in elevation from 798 on the north side to 726 on the south side. The property is currently sitting empty and not being utilized. The vegetation is a combination of grass and trees. PROPOSED CONDITIONS The site is being proposed to be developed into four (4) buildings of 20,000 square feet each with an access off of Flying Cloud Drive in the southeast corner of the property. The proposed development will collect storm water from the building and drive and direct the stormwater into a stormwater pond in the southwest corner of the property through an on-site storm sewer system. The proposed site has been modeled using HydroCAD with Atlas 14 stormwater events for the 1,2,10 and 100-year events. The proposed and existing stormwater run-off rates for the site are as follows: YEAR EXISTING PROPOSED The infiltration for the site will be provided with a filtration pond adjacent to the stormwater pond. The proposed site will have 2.99 acres or 130,220 square feet of impervious surface. The impervious surface is required to infiltrate the first one inch of stormwater runoff. The proposed infiltration required is 130,220 sq ft x 1 inch/12inch or 10,852 cubic feet. The infiltration volume provided is 16,921 cubic feet. WATER QUALITY We have modeled the site using P8 to determine the pre-development loading for the site and the post-development loading. The following is a summary of the model results: EXISTING PROPOSED TSS 429.2 lbs/yr 20.7 lbs/yr TP 1.8 lbs/yr 0.4 lbs/yr 1 YEAR 5.99 c.f.s. 5.03 c.f.s. 2 YEAR 8.37 c.f.s 6.60 c.f.s 10 YEAR 23.65 c.f.s. 9.75 c.f.s 100 YEAR 45.21 c.f.s. 16.53 c.f.s 102 The TSS and TP for the proposed development is less than the existing site conditions and meets the requirements of the lower Minnesota River Watershed requirements. We have attached the HydroCAD and P8 model for your review. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, James R Hill, Inc. Joel G. Cooper P.E. President 103 1S EX SUBCATCHMENT Routing Diagram for RSI Marine site Chanhassen,Mn 23953 Prepared by JRH INC, Printed 5/6/2022 HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link 104 EXISTING RSI Marine site Chanhassen,Mn 23953 Printed 5/6/2022Prepared by JRH INC Page 2HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area Listing (all nodes) Area (acres) CN Description (subcatchment-numbers) 7.860 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C (1S) 0.410 98 Paved parking, HSG C (1S) 8.270 75 TOTAL AREA 105 EXISTING RSI Marine site Chanhassen,Mn 23953 Printed 5/6/2022Prepared by JRH INC Page 3HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Soil Listing (all nodes) Area (acres) Soil Group Subcatchment Numbers 0.000 HSG A 0.000 HSG B 8.270 HSG C 1S 0.000 HSG D 0.000 Other 8.270 TOTAL AREA 106 EXISTING MSE 24-hr 3 1 year Rainfall=2.50"RSI Marine site Chanhassen,Mn 23953 Printed 5/6/2022Prepared by JRH INC Page 4HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 1S: EX SUBCATCHMENT Runoff = 5.99 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.448 af, Depth= 0.65" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 1 year Rainfall=2.50" Area (ac) CN Description 7.860 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 0.410 98 Paved parking, HSG C 8.270 75 Weighted Average 7.860 95.04% Pervious Area 0.410 4.96% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 13.3 270 0.2000 0.34 Sheet Flow, Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 2.87" 2.7 290 0.0138 1.76 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 0.9 130 0.1080 2.30 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 16.9 690 Total Subcatchment 1S: EX SUBCATCHMENT Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)6 5 4 3 2 1 0 MSE 24-hr 3 1 year Rainfall=2.50" Runoff Area=8.270 ac Runoff Volume=0.448 af Runoff Depth=0.65" Flow Length=690' Tc=16.9 min CN=75 5.99 cfs 107 EXISTING MSE 24-hr 3 2 year Rainfall=2.87"RSI Marine site Chanhassen,Mn 23953 Printed 5/6/2022Prepared by JRH INC Page 5HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 1S: EX SUBCATCHMENT Runoff = 8.37 cfs @ 12.27 hrs, Volume= 0.604 af, Depth= 0.88" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2 year Rainfall=2.87" Area (ac) CN Description 7.860 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 0.410 98 Paved parking, HSG C 8.270 75 Weighted Average 7.860 95.04% Pervious Area 0.410 4.96% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 13.3 270 0.2000 0.34 Sheet Flow, Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 2.87" 2.7 290 0.0138 1.76 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 0.9 130 0.1080 2.30 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 16.9 690 Total Subcatchment 1S: EX SUBCATCHMENT Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 MSE 24-hr 3 2 year Rainfall=2.87" Runoff Area=8.270 ac Runoff Volume=0.604 af Runoff Depth=0.88" Flow Length=690' Tc=16.9 min CN=75 8.37 cfs 108 EXISTING MSE 24-hr 3 10 year Rainfall=4.87"RSI Marine site Chanhassen,Mn 23953 Printed 5/6/2022Prepared by JRH INC Page 6HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 1S: EX SUBCATCHMENT Runoff = 23.65 cfs @ 12.26 hrs, Volume= 1.616 af, Depth= 2.34" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10 year Rainfall=4.87" Area (ac) CN Description 7.860 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 0.410 98 Paved parking, HSG C 8.270 75 Weighted Average 7.860 95.04% Pervious Area 0.410 4.96% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 13.3 270 0.2000 0.34 Sheet Flow, Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 2.87" 2.7 290 0.0138 1.76 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 0.9 130 0.1080 2.30 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 16.9 690 Total Subcatchment 1S: EX SUBCATCHMENT Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 MSE 24-hr 3 10 year Rainfall=4.87" Runoff Area=8.270 ac Runoff Volume=1.616 af Runoff Depth=2.34" Flow Length=690' Tc=16.9 min CN=75 23.65 cfs 109 EXISTING MSE 24-hr 3 100 year Rainfall=7.38"RSI Marine site Chanhassen,Mn 23953 Printed 5/6/2022Prepared by JRH INC Page 7HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 1S: EX SUBCATCHMENT Runoff = 45.21 cfs @ 12.26 hrs, Volume= 3.092 af, Depth= 4.49" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100 year Rainfall=7.38" Area (ac) CN Description 7.860 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 0.410 98 Paved parking, HSG C 8.270 75 Weighted Average 7.860 95.04% Pervious Area 0.410 4.96% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 13.3 270 0.2000 0.34 Sheet Flow, Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 2.87" 2.7 290 0.0138 1.76 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 0.9 130 0.1080 2.30 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 16.9 690 Total Subcatchment 1S: EX SUBCATCHMENT Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 MSE 24-hr 3 100 year Rainfall=7.38" Runoff Area=8.270 ac Runoff Volume=3.092 af Runoff Depth=4.49" Flow Length=690' Tc=16.9 min CN=75 45.21 cfs 110 1S Pond drainage 2S Direct runoff 1P Stormwater pond 3L offsite total Routing Diagram for Proposed RSI Marine site Chanhassen 23953 Prepared by JRH INC, Printed 5/6/2022 HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link 111 PROPOSED Proposed RSI Marine site Chanhassen 23953 Printed 5/6/2022Prepared by JRH INC Page 2HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area Listing (all nodes) Area (acres) CN Description (subcatchment-numbers) 5.470 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C (1S, 2S) 2.790 98 Paved parking, HSG C (1S, 2S) 8.260 82 TOTAL AREA 112 PROPOSED Proposed RSI Marine site Chanhassen 23953 Printed 5/6/2022Prepared by JRH INC Page 3HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Soil Listing (all nodes) Area (acres) Soil Group Subcatchment Numbers 0.000 HSG A 0.000 HSG B 8.260 HSG C 1S, 2S 0.000 HSG D 0.000 Other 8.260 TOTAL AREA 113 PROPOSED MSE 24-hr 3 1 year Rainfall=2.50"Proposed RSI Marine site Chanhassen 23953 Printed 5/6/2022Prepared by JRH INC Page 4HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 1S: Pond drainage Runoff = 9.54 cfs @ 12.25 hrs, Volume= 0.636 af, Depth= 1.06" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 1 year Rainfall=2.50" Area (ac) CN Description 2.660 98 Paved parking, HSG C 4.570 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 7.230 83 Weighted Average 4.570 63.21% Pervious Area 2.660 36.79% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.6 145 0.3300 0.37 Sheet Flow, Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 2.87" 0.9 115 0.0200 2.12 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 7.9 100 0.1000 0.21 Sheet Flow, Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 2.87" 0.4 75 0.0300 3.52 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 15.8 435 Total Subcatchment 1S: Pond drainage Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 MSE 24-hr 3 1 year Rainfall=2.50" Runoff Area=7.230 ac Runoff Volume=0.636 af Runoff Depth=1.06" Flow Length=435' Tc=15.8 min CN=83 9.54 cfs 114 PROPOSED MSE 24-hr 3 1 year Rainfall=2.50"Proposed RSI Marine site Chanhassen 23953 Printed 5/6/2022Prepared by JRH INC Page 5HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 2S: Direct runoff Runoff = 1.03 cfs @ 12.21 hrs, Volume= 0.064 af, Depth= 0.74" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 1 year Rainfall=2.50" Area (ac) CN Description 0.130 98 Paved parking, HSG C 0.900 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 1.030 77 Weighted Average 0.900 87.38% Pervious Area 0.130 12.62% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.3 100 0.0200 0.16 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.87" 1.9 50 0.3300 0.43 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.87" 12.2 150 Total Subcatchment 2S: Direct runoff Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)1 0 MSE 24-hr 3 1 year Rainfall=2.50" Runoff Area=1.030 ac Runoff Volume=0.064 af Runoff Depth=0.74" Flow Length=150' Tc=12.2 min CN=77 1.03 cfs 115 PROPOSED MSE 24-hr 3 1 year Rainfall=2.50"Proposed RSI Marine site Chanhassen 23953 Printed 5/6/2022Prepared by JRH INC Page 6HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 1P: Stormwater pond Inflow Area = 7.230 ac, 36.79% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.06" for 1 year event Inflow = 9.54 cfs @ 12.25 hrs, Volume= 0.636 af Outflow = 4.61 cfs @ 12.49 hrs, Volume= 0.636 af, Atten= 52%, Lag= 14.4 min Primary = 4.61 cfs @ 12.49 hrs, Volume= 0.636 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Starting Elev= 727.50' Surf.Area= 16,171 sf Storage= 16,922 cf Peak Elev= 728.01' @ 12.49 hrs Surf.Area= 16,921 sf Storage= 25,323 cf (8,402 cf above start) Plug-Flow detention time= 318.6 min calculated for 0.248 af (39% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 52.1 min ( 877.3 - 825.2 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 726.00' 82,927 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 726.00 6,391 0 0 727.50 16,171 16,922 16,922 728.00 16,909 8,270 25,192 730.00 20,005 36,914 62,106 731.00 21,638 20,822 82,927 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 724.20'18.0" Round Culvert L= 29.0' RCP, groove end projecting, Ke= 0.200 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 724.20' / 723.95' S= 0.0086 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 1.77 sf #2 Device 1 727.50'4.0' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) #3 Device 2 725.50'18.0" Round Culvert L= 30.0' RCP, mitered to conform to fill, Ke= 0.700 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 725.50' / 725.50' S= 0.0000 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 1.77 sf #4 Device 1 730.50'48.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads Primary OutFlow Max=4.61 cfs @ 12.49 hrs HW=728.01' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert (Passes 4.61 cfs of 17.24 cfs potential flow) 2=Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 4.61 cfs @ 2.33 fps) 3=Culvert (Passes 4.61 cfs of 5.35 cfs potential flow) 4=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 116 PROPOSED MSE 24-hr 3 1 year Rainfall=2.50"Proposed RSI Marine site Chanhassen 23953 Printed 5/6/2022Prepared by JRH INC Page 7HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 1P: Stormwater pond Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=7.230 ac Peak Elev=728.01' Storage=25,323 cf 9.54 cfs 4.61 cfs 117 PROPOSED MSE 24-hr 3 1 year Rainfall=2.50"Proposed RSI Marine site Chanhassen 23953 Printed 5/6/2022Prepared by JRH INC Page 8HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Area-Storage for Pond 1P: Stormwater pond Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 726.00 6,391 0 726.05 6,717 328 726.10 7,043 672 726.15 7,369 1,032 726.20 7,695 1,409 726.25 8,021 1,802 726.30 8,347 2,211 726.35 8,673 2,636 726.40 8,999 3,078 726.45 9,325 3,536 726.50 9,651 4,011 726.55 9,977 4,501 726.60 10,303 5,008 726.65 10,629 5,531 726.70 10,955 6,071 726.75 11,281 6,627 726.80 11,607 7,199 726.85 11,933 7,788 726.90 12,259 8,392 726.95 12,585 9,014 727.00 12,911 9,651 727.05 13,237 10,305 727.10 13,563 10,975 727.15 13,889 11,661 727.20 14,215 12,364 727.25 14,541 13,083 727.30 14,867 13,818 727.35 15,193 14,569 727.40 15,519 15,337 727.45 15,845 16,121 727.50 16,171 16,922 727.55 16,245 17,732 727.60 16,319 18,546 727.65 16,392 19,364 727.70 16,466 20,185 727.75 16,540 21,010 727.80 16,614 21,839 727.85 16,688 22,672 727.90 16,761 23,508 727.95 16,835 24,348 728.00 16,909 25,192 728.05 16,986 26,039 728.10 17,064 26,890 728.15 17,141 27,745 728.20 17,219 28,604 728.25 17,296 29,467 728.30 17,373 30,334 728.35 17,451 31,204 728.40 17,528 32,079 728.45 17,606 32,957 728.50 17,683 33,840 Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 728.55 17,760 34,726 728.60 17,838 35,616 728.65 17,915 36,509 728.70 17,993 37,407 728.75 18,070 38,309 728.80 18,147 39,214 728.85 18,225 40,123 728.90 18,302 41,037 728.95 18,380 41,954 729.00 18,457 42,875 729.05 18,534 43,799 729.10 18,612 44,728 729.15 18,689 45,660 729.20 18,767 46,597 729.25 18,844 47,537 729.30 18,921 48,481 729.35 18,999 49,429 729.40 19,076 50,381 729.45 19,154 51,337 729.50 19,231 52,297 729.55 19,308 53,260 729.60 19,386 54,227 729.65 19,463 55,199 729.70 19,541 56,174 729.75 19,618 57,153 729.80 19,695 58,135 729.85 19,773 59,122 729.90 19,850 60,113 729.95 19,928 61,107 730.00 20,005 62,106 730.05 20,087 63,108 730.10 20,168 64,114 730.15 20,250 65,125 730.20 20,332 66,139 730.25 20,413 67,158 730.30 20,495 68,180 730.35 20,577 69,207 730.40 20,658 70,238 730.45 20,740 71,273 730.50 20,822 72,312 730.55 20,903 73,355 730.60 20,985 74,402 730.65 21,066 75,454 730.70 21,148 76,509 730.75 21,230 77,569 730.80 21,311 78,632 730.85 21,393 79,700 730.90 21,475 80,771 730.95 21,556 81,847 731.00 21,638 82,927 118 PROPOSED MSE 24-hr 3 1 year Rainfall=2.50"Proposed RSI Marine site Chanhassen 23953 Printed 5/6/2022Prepared by JRH INC Page 9HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Link 3L: offsite total Inflow Area = 8.260 ac, 33.78% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.02" for 1 year event Inflow = 5.03 cfs @ 12.46 hrs, Volume= 0.700 af Primary = 5.03 cfs @ 12.46 hrs, Volume= 0.700 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link 3L: offsite total Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=8.260 ac 5.03 cfs 5.03 cfs 119 PROPOSED MSE 24-hr 3 2 year Rainfall=2.87"Proposed RSI Marine site Chanhassen 23953 Printed 5/6/2022Prepared by JRH INC Page 10HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 1S: Pond drainage Runoff = 12.21 cfs @ 12.25 hrs, Volume= 0.809 af, Depth= 1.34" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2 year Rainfall=2.87" Area (ac) CN Description 2.660 98 Paved parking, HSG C 4.570 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 7.230 83 Weighted Average 4.570 63.21% Pervious Area 2.660 36.79% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.6 145 0.3300 0.37 Sheet Flow, Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 2.87" 0.9 115 0.0200 2.12 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 7.9 100 0.1000 0.21 Sheet Flow, Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 2.87" 0.4 75 0.0300 3.52 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 15.8 435 Total Subcatchment 1S: Pond drainage Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 MSE 24-hr 3 2 year Rainfall=2.87" Runoff Area=7.230 ac Runoff Volume=0.809 af Runoff Depth=1.34" Flow Length=435' Tc=15.8 min CN=83 12.21 cfs 120 PROPOSED MSE 24-hr 3 2 year Rainfall=2.87"Proposed RSI Marine site Chanhassen 23953 Printed 5/6/2022Prepared by JRH INC Page 11HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 2S: Direct runoff Runoff = 1.40 cfs @ 12.21 hrs, Volume= 0.084 af, Depth= 0.98" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2 year Rainfall=2.87" Area (ac) CN Description 0.130 98 Paved parking, HSG C 0.900 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 1.030 77 Weighted Average 0.900 87.38% Pervious Area 0.130 12.62% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.3 100 0.0200 0.16 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.87" 1.9 50 0.3300 0.43 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.87" 12.2 150 Total Subcatchment 2S: Direct runoff Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)1 0 MSE 24-hr 3 2 year Rainfall=2.87" Runoff Area=1.030 ac Runoff Volume=0.084 af Runoff Depth=0.98" Flow Length=150' Tc=12.2 min CN=77 1.40 cfs 121 PROPOSED MSE 24-hr 3 2 year Rainfall=2.87"Proposed RSI Marine site Chanhassen 23953 Printed 5/6/2022Prepared by JRH INC Page 12HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 1P: Stormwater pond Inflow Area = 7.230 ac, 36.79% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.34" for 2 year event Inflow = 12.21 cfs @ 12.25 hrs, Volume= 0.809 af Outflow = 5.97 cfs @ 12.48 hrs, Volume= 0.809 af, Atten= 51%, Lag= 14.0 min Primary = 5.97 cfs @ 12.48 hrs, Volume= 0.809 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Starting Elev= 727.50' Surf.Area= 16,171 sf Storage= 16,922 cf Peak Elev= 728.13' @ 12.48 hrs Surf.Area= 17,114 sf Storage= 27,448 cf (10,526 cf above start) Plug-Flow detention time= 241.6 min calculated for 0.420 af (52% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 47.9 min ( 868.1 - 820.1 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 726.00' 82,927 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 726.00 6,391 0 0 727.50 16,171 16,922 16,922 728.00 16,909 8,270 25,192 730.00 20,005 36,914 62,106 731.00 21,638 20,822 82,927 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 724.20'18.0" Round Culvert L= 29.0' RCP, groove end projecting, Ke= 0.200 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 724.20' / 723.95' S= 0.0086 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 1.77 sf #2 Device 1 727.50'4.0' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) #3 Device 2 725.50'18.0" Round Culvert L= 30.0' RCP, mitered to conform to fill, Ke= 0.700 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 725.50' / 725.50' S= 0.0000 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 1.77 sf #4 Device 1 730.50'48.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads Primary OutFlow Max=5.97 cfs @ 12.48 hrs HW=728.13' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert (Passes 5.97 cfs of 17.66 cfs potential flow) 2=Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir (Passes 5.97 cfs of 6.37 cfs potential flow) 3=Culvert (Inlet Controls 5.97 cfs @ 3.38 fps) 4=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 122 PROPOSED MSE 24-hr 3 2 year Rainfall=2.87"Proposed RSI Marine site Chanhassen 23953 Printed 5/6/2022Prepared by JRH INC Page 13HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 1P: Stormwater pond Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=7.230 ac Peak Elev=728.13' Storage=27,448 cf 12.21 cfs 5.97 cfs 123 PROPOSED MSE 24-hr 3 2 year Rainfall=2.87"Proposed RSI Marine site Chanhassen 23953 Printed 5/6/2022Prepared by JRH INC Page 14HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Area-Storage for Pond 1P: Stormwater pond Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 726.00 6,391 0 726.05 6,717 328 726.10 7,043 672 726.15 7,369 1,032 726.20 7,695 1,409 726.25 8,021 1,802 726.30 8,347 2,211 726.35 8,673 2,636 726.40 8,999 3,078 726.45 9,325 3,536 726.50 9,651 4,011 726.55 9,977 4,501 726.60 10,303 5,008 726.65 10,629 5,531 726.70 10,955 6,071 726.75 11,281 6,627 726.80 11,607 7,199 726.85 11,933 7,788 726.90 12,259 8,392 726.95 12,585 9,014 727.00 12,911 9,651 727.05 13,237 10,305 727.10 13,563 10,975 727.15 13,889 11,661 727.20 14,215 12,364 727.25 14,541 13,083 727.30 14,867 13,818 727.35 15,193 14,569 727.40 15,519 15,337 727.45 15,845 16,121 727.50 16,171 16,922 727.55 16,245 17,732 727.60 16,319 18,546 727.65 16,392 19,364 727.70 16,466 20,185 727.75 16,540 21,010 727.80 16,614 21,839 727.85 16,688 22,672 727.90 16,761 23,508 727.95 16,835 24,348 728.00 16,909 25,192 728.05 16,986 26,039 728.10 17,064 26,890 728.15 17,141 27,745 728.20 17,219 28,604 728.25 17,296 29,467 728.30 17,373 30,334 728.35 17,451 31,204 728.40 17,528 32,079 728.45 17,606 32,957 728.50 17,683 33,840 Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 728.55 17,760 34,726 728.60 17,838 35,616 728.65 17,915 36,509 728.70 17,993 37,407 728.75 18,070 38,309 728.80 18,147 39,214 728.85 18,225 40,123 728.90 18,302 41,037 728.95 18,380 41,954 729.00 18,457 42,875 729.05 18,534 43,799 729.10 18,612 44,728 729.15 18,689 45,660 729.20 18,767 46,597 729.25 18,844 47,537 729.30 18,921 48,481 729.35 18,999 49,429 729.40 19,076 50,381 729.45 19,154 51,337 729.50 19,231 52,297 729.55 19,308 53,260 729.60 19,386 54,227 729.65 19,463 55,199 729.70 19,541 56,174 729.75 19,618 57,153 729.80 19,695 58,135 729.85 19,773 59,122 729.90 19,850 60,113 729.95 19,928 61,107 730.00 20,005 62,106 730.05 20,087 63,108 730.10 20,168 64,114 730.15 20,250 65,125 730.20 20,332 66,139 730.25 20,413 67,158 730.30 20,495 68,180 730.35 20,577 69,207 730.40 20,658 70,238 730.45 20,740 71,273 730.50 20,822 72,312 730.55 20,903 73,355 730.60 20,985 74,402 730.65 21,066 75,454 730.70 21,148 76,509 730.75 21,230 77,569 730.80 21,311 78,632 730.85 21,393 79,700 730.90 21,475 80,771 730.95 21,556 81,847 731.00 21,638 82,927 124 PROPOSED MSE 24-hr 3 2 year Rainfall=2.87"Proposed RSI Marine site Chanhassen 23953 Printed 5/6/2022Prepared by JRH INC Page 15HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Link 3L: offsite total Inflow Area = 8.260 ac, 33.78% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.30" for 2 year event Inflow = 6.60 cfs @ 12.38 hrs, Volume= 0.893 af Primary = 6.60 cfs @ 12.38 hrs, Volume= 0.893 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link 3L: offsite total Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=8.260 ac 6.60 cfs 6.60 cfs 125 PROPOSED MSE 24-hr 3 10 year Rainfall=4.27"Proposed RSI Marine site Chanhassen 23953 Printed 5/6/2022Prepared by JRH INC Page 16HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 1S: Pond drainage Runoff = 22.99 cfs @ 12.24 hrs, Volume= 1.520 af, Depth= 2.52" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10 year Rainfall=4.27" Area (ac) CN Description 2.660 98 Paved parking, HSG C 4.570 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 7.230 83 Weighted Average 4.570 63.21% Pervious Area 2.660 36.79% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.6 145 0.3300 0.37 Sheet Flow, Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 2.87" 0.9 115 0.0200 2.12 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 7.9 100 0.1000 0.21 Sheet Flow, Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 2.87" 0.4 75 0.0300 3.52 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 15.8 435 Total Subcatchment 1S: Pond drainage Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 MSE 24-hr 3 10 year Rainfall=4.27" Runoff Area=7.230 ac Runoff Volume=1.520 af Runoff Depth=2.52" Flow Length=435' Tc=15.8 min CN=83 22.99 cfs 126 PROPOSED MSE 24-hr 3 10 year Rainfall=4.27"Proposed RSI Marine site Chanhassen 23953 Printed 5/6/2022Prepared by JRH INC Page 17HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 2S: Direct runoff Runoff = 2.97 cfs @ 12.21 hrs, Volume= 0.174 af, Depth= 2.03" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10 year Rainfall=4.27" Area (ac) CN Description 0.130 98 Paved parking, HSG C 0.900 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 1.030 77 Weighted Average 0.900 87.38% Pervious Area 0.130 12.62% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.3 100 0.0200 0.16 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.87" 1.9 50 0.3300 0.43 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.87" 12.2 150 Total Subcatchment 2S: Direct runoff Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)3 2 1 0 MSE 24-hr 3 10 year Rainfall=4.27" Runoff Area=1.030 ac Runoff Volume=0.174 af Runoff Depth=2.03" Flow Length=150' Tc=12.2 min CN=77 2.97 cfs 127 PROPOSED MSE 24-hr 3 10 year Rainfall=4.27"Proposed RSI Marine site Chanhassen 23953 Printed 5/6/2022Prepared by JRH INC Page 18HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 1P: Stormwater pond Inflow Area = 7.230 ac, 36.79% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.52" for 10 year event Inflow = 22.99 cfs @ 12.24 hrs, Volume= 1.520 af Outflow = 8.53 cfs @ 12.54 hrs, Volume= 1.520 af, Atten= 63%, Lag= 18.1 min Primary = 8.53 cfs @ 12.54 hrs, Volume= 1.520 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Starting Elev= 727.50' Surf.Area= 16,171 sf Storage= 16,922 cf Peak Elev= 728.79' @ 12.54 hrs Surf.Area= 18,131 sf Storage= 39,023 cf (22,102 cf above start) Plug-Flow detention time= 155.5 min calculated for 1.131 af (74% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 45.2 min ( 852.6 - 807.4 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 726.00' 82,927 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 726.00 6,391 0 0 727.50 16,171 16,922 16,922 728.00 16,909 8,270 25,192 730.00 20,005 36,914 62,106 731.00 21,638 20,822 82,927 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 724.20'18.0" Round Culvert L= 29.0' RCP, groove end projecting, Ke= 0.200 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 724.20' / 723.95' S= 0.0086 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 1.77 sf #2 Device 1 727.50'4.0' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) #3 Device 2 725.50'18.0" Round Culvert L= 30.0' RCP, mitered to conform to fill, Ke= 0.700 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 725.50' / 725.50' S= 0.0000 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 1.77 sf #4 Device 1 730.50'48.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads Primary OutFlow Max=8.53 cfs @ 12.54 hrs HW=728.79' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert (Passes 8.53 cfs of 19.70 cfs potential flow) 2=Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir (Passes 8.53 cfs of 17.92 cfs potential flow) 3=Culvert (Inlet Controls 8.53 cfs @ 4.82 fps) 4=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 128 PROPOSED MSE 24-hr 3 10 year Rainfall=4.27"Proposed RSI Marine site Chanhassen 23953 Printed 5/6/2022Prepared by JRH INC Page 19HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 1P: Stormwater pond Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Inflow Area=7.230 ac Peak Elev=728.79' Storage=39,023 cf 22.99 cfs 8.53 cfs 129 PROPOSED MSE 24-hr 3 10 year Rainfall=4.27"Proposed RSI Marine site Chanhassen 23953 Printed 5/6/2022Prepared by JRH INC Page 20HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Area-Storage for Pond 1P: Stormwater pond Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 726.00 6,391 0 726.05 6,717 328 726.10 7,043 672 726.15 7,369 1,032 726.20 7,695 1,409 726.25 8,021 1,802 726.30 8,347 2,211 726.35 8,673 2,636 726.40 8,999 3,078 726.45 9,325 3,536 726.50 9,651 4,011 726.55 9,977 4,501 726.60 10,303 5,008 726.65 10,629 5,531 726.70 10,955 6,071 726.75 11,281 6,627 726.80 11,607 7,199 726.85 11,933 7,788 726.90 12,259 8,392 726.95 12,585 9,014 727.00 12,911 9,651 727.05 13,237 10,305 727.10 13,563 10,975 727.15 13,889 11,661 727.20 14,215 12,364 727.25 14,541 13,083 727.30 14,867 13,818 727.35 15,193 14,569 727.40 15,519 15,337 727.45 15,845 16,121 727.50 16,171 16,922 727.55 16,245 17,732 727.60 16,319 18,546 727.65 16,392 19,364 727.70 16,466 20,185 727.75 16,540 21,010 727.80 16,614 21,839 727.85 16,688 22,672 727.90 16,761 23,508 727.95 16,835 24,348 728.00 16,909 25,192 728.05 16,986 26,039 728.10 17,064 26,890 728.15 17,141 27,745 728.20 17,219 28,604 728.25 17,296 29,467 728.30 17,373 30,334 728.35 17,451 31,204 728.40 17,528 32,079 728.45 17,606 32,957 728.50 17,683 33,840 Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 728.55 17,760 34,726 728.60 17,838 35,616 728.65 17,915 36,509 728.70 17,993 37,407 728.75 18,070 38,309 728.80 18,147 39,214 728.85 18,225 40,123 728.90 18,302 41,037 728.95 18,380 41,954 729.00 18,457 42,875 729.05 18,534 43,799 729.10 18,612 44,728 729.15 18,689 45,660 729.20 18,767 46,597 729.25 18,844 47,537 729.30 18,921 48,481 729.35 18,999 49,429 729.40 19,076 50,381 729.45 19,154 51,337 729.50 19,231 52,297 729.55 19,308 53,260 729.60 19,386 54,227 729.65 19,463 55,199 729.70 19,541 56,174 729.75 19,618 57,153 729.80 19,695 58,135 729.85 19,773 59,122 729.90 19,850 60,113 729.95 19,928 61,107 730.00 20,005 62,106 730.05 20,087 63,108 730.10 20,168 64,114 730.15 20,250 65,125 730.20 20,332 66,139 730.25 20,413 67,158 730.30 20,495 68,180 730.35 20,577 69,207 730.40 20,658 70,238 730.45 20,740 71,273 730.50 20,822 72,312 730.55 20,903 73,355 730.60 20,985 74,402 730.65 21,066 75,454 730.70 21,148 76,509 730.75 21,230 77,569 730.80 21,311 78,632 730.85 21,393 79,700 730.90 21,475 80,771 730.95 21,556 81,847 731.00 21,638 82,927 130 PROPOSED MSE 24-hr 3 10 year Rainfall=4.27"Proposed RSI Marine site Chanhassen 23953 Printed 5/6/2022Prepared by JRH INC Page 21HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Link 3L: offsite total Inflow Area = 8.260 ac, 33.78% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.46" for 10 year event Inflow = 9.75 cfs @ 12.29 hrs, Volume= 1.693 af Primary = 9.75 cfs @ 12.29 hrs, Volume= 1.693 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link 3L: offsite total Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=8.260 ac 9.75 cfs 9.75 cfs 131 PROPOSED MSE 24-hr 3 100 year Rainfall=7.38"Proposed RSI Marine site Chanhassen 23953 Printed 5/6/2022Prepared by JRH INC Page 22HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 1S: Pond drainage Runoff = 47.98 cfs @ 12.24 hrs, Volume= 3.246 af, Depth= 5.39" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100 year Rainfall=7.38" Area (ac) CN Description 2.660 98 Paved parking, HSG C 4.570 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 7.230 83 Weighted Average 4.570 63.21% Pervious Area 2.660 36.79% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.6 145 0.3300 0.37 Sheet Flow, Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 2.87" 0.9 115 0.0200 2.12 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 7.9 100 0.1000 0.21 Sheet Flow, Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 2.87" 0.4 75 0.0300 3.52 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 15.8 435 Total Subcatchment 1S: Pond drainage Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 MSE 24-hr 3 100 year Rainfall=7.38" Runoff Area=7.230 ac Runoff Volume=3.246 af Runoff Depth=5.39" Flow Length=435' Tc=15.8 min CN=83 47.98 cfs 132 PROPOSED MSE 24-hr 3 100 year Rainfall=7.38"Proposed RSI Marine site Chanhassen 23953 Printed 5/6/2022Prepared by JRH INC Page 23HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 2S: Direct runoff Runoff = 6.84 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.404 af, Depth= 4.71" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100 year Rainfall=7.38" Area (ac) CN Description 0.130 98 Paved parking, HSG C 0.900 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 1.030 77 Weighted Average 0.900 87.38% Pervious Area 0.130 12.62% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.3 100 0.0200 0.16 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.87" 1.9 50 0.3300 0.43 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.87" 12.2 150 Total Subcatchment 2S: Direct runoff Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 MSE 24-hr 3 100 year Rainfall=7.38" Runoff Area=1.030 ac Runoff Volume=0.404 af Runoff Depth=4.71" Flow Length=150' Tc=12.2 min CN=77 6.84 cfs 133 PROPOSED MSE 24-hr 3 100 year Rainfall=7.38"Proposed RSI Marine site Chanhassen 23953 Printed 5/6/2022Prepared by JRH INC Page 24HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 1P: Stormwater pond Inflow Area = 7.230 ac, 36.79% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.39" for 100 year event Inflow = 47.98 cfs @ 12.24 hrs, Volume= 3.246 af Outflow = 12.87 cfs @ 12.62 hrs, Volume= 3.246 af, Atten= 73%, Lag= 22.9 min Primary = 12.87 cfs @ 12.62 hrs, Volume= 3.246 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Starting Elev= 727.50' Surf.Area= 16,171 sf Storage= 16,922 cf Peak Elev= 730.44' @ 12.62 hrs Surf.Area= 20,720 sf Storage= 71,021 cf (54,099 cf above start) Plug-Flow detention time= 122.0 min calculated for 2.857 af (88% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 53.2 min ( 845.4 - 792.2 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 726.00' 82,927 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 726.00 6,391 0 0 727.50 16,171 16,922 16,922 728.00 16,909 8,270 25,192 730.00 20,005 36,914 62,106 731.00 21,638 20,822 82,927 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 724.20'18.0" Round Culvert L= 29.0' RCP, groove end projecting, Ke= 0.200 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 724.20' / 723.95' S= 0.0086 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 1.77 sf #2 Device 1 727.50'4.0' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) #3 Device 2 725.50'18.0" Round Culvert L= 30.0' RCP, mitered to conform to fill, Ke= 0.700 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 725.50' / 725.50' S= 0.0000 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 1.77 sf #4 Device 1 730.50'48.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads Primary OutFlow Max=12.87 cfs @ 12.62 hrs HW=730.44' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert (Passes 12.87 cfs of 24.08 cfs potential flow) 2=Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir (Passes 12.87 cfs of 56.19 cfs potential flow) 3=Culvert (Inlet Controls 12.87 cfs @ 7.28 fps) 4=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 134 PROPOSED MSE 24-hr 3 100 year Rainfall=7.38"Proposed RSI Marine site Chanhassen 23953 Printed 5/6/2022Prepared by JRH INC Page 25HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 1P: Stormwater pond Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Inflow Area=7.230 ac Peak Elev=730.44' Storage=71,021 cf 47.98 cfs 12.87 cfs 135 PROPOSED MSE 24-hr 3 100 year Rainfall=7.38"Proposed RSI Marine site Chanhassen 23953 Printed 5/6/2022Prepared by JRH INC Page 26HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Area-Storage for Pond 1P: Stormwater pond Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 726.00 6,391 0 726.05 6,717 328 726.10 7,043 672 726.15 7,369 1,032 726.20 7,695 1,409 726.25 8,021 1,802 726.30 8,347 2,211 726.35 8,673 2,636 726.40 8,999 3,078 726.45 9,325 3,536 726.50 9,651 4,011 726.55 9,977 4,501 726.60 10,303 5,008 726.65 10,629 5,531 726.70 10,955 6,071 726.75 11,281 6,627 726.80 11,607 7,199 726.85 11,933 7,788 726.90 12,259 8,392 726.95 12,585 9,014 727.00 12,911 9,651 727.05 13,237 10,305 727.10 13,563 10,975 727.15 13,889 11,661 727.20 14,215 12,364 727.25 14,541 13,083 727.30 14,867 13,818 727.35 15,193 14,569 727.40 15,519 15,337 727.45 15,845 16,121 727.50 16,171 16,922 727.55 16,245 17,732 727.60 16,319 18,546 727.65 16,392 19,364 727.70 16,466 20,185 727.75 16,540 21,010 727.80 16,614 21,839 727.85 16,688 22,672 727.90 16,761 23,508 727.95 16,835 24,348 728.00 16,909 25,192 728.05 16,986 26,039 728.10 17,064 26,890 728.15 17,141 27,745 728.20 17,219 28,604 728.25 17,296 29,467 728.30 17,373 30,334 728.35 17,451 31,204 728.40 17,528 32,079 728.45 17,606 32,957 728.50 17,683 33,840 Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 728.55 17,760 34,726 728.60 17,838 35,616 728.65 17,915 36,509 728.70 17,993 37,407 728.75 18,070 38,309 728.80 18,147 39,214 728.85 18,225 40,123 728.90 18,302 41,037 728.95 18,380 41,954 729.00 18,457 42,875 729.05 18,534 43,799 729.10 18,612 44,728 729.15 18,689 45,660 729.20 18,767 46,597 729.25 18,844 47,537 729.30 18,921 48,481 729.35 18,999 49,429 729.40 19,076 50,381 729.45 19,154 51,337 729.50 19,231 52,297 729.55 19,308 53,260 729.60 19,386 54,227 729.65 19,463 55,199 729.70 19,541 56,174 729.75 19,618 57,153 729.80 19,695 58,135 729.85 19,773 59,122 729.90 19,850 60,113 729.95 19,928 61,107 730.00 20,005 62,106 730.05 20,087 63,108 730.10 20,168 64,114 730.15 20,250 65,125 730.20 20,332 66,139 730.25 20,413 67,158 730.30 20,495 68,180 730.35 20,577 69,207 730.40 20,658 70,238 730.45 20,740 71,273 730.50 20,822 72,312 730.55 20,903 73,355 730.60 20,985 74,402 730.65 21,066 75,454 730.70 21,148 76,509 730.75 21,230 77,569 730.80 21,311 78,632 730.85 21,393 79,700 730.90 21,475 80,771 730.95 21,556 81,847 731.00 21,638 82,927 136 PROPOSED MSE 24-hr 3 100 year Rainfall=7.38"Proposed RSI Marine site Chanhassen 23953 Printed 5/6/2022Prepared by JRH INC Page 27HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Link 3L: offsite total Inflow Area = 8.260 ac, 33.78% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.30" for 100 year event Inflow = 16.53 cfs @ 12.24 hrs, Volume= 3.650 af Primary = 16.53 cfs @ 12.24 hrs, Volume= 3.650 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link 3L: offsite total Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=8.260 ac 16.53 cfs 16.53 cfs 137 P8 Urban Catchment Model, Version 3.5 Case RSI_EX.p8c Title Startup Case PrecFile MSP4918.pcp PartFile nurp50.p8p Case Title Startup Case Case Data File RSI_EX.p8c Path G:\MSOFFICE\AA Docs\RSI Marine\p8\ Case Notes: Storm Data File MSP4918.pcp Particle File nurp50.p8p Air Temp File File MSP4918.tem Time Steps Per Hour 4 Minimum Inter-Event Time (hrs) 10 Maximum Continuity Error % 2 Rainfall Breakpoint (inches) 0.8 Precipitation Scale Factor 1 Air Temp Offset (deg-F) 0 Loops Thru Storm File 1 Simulation Dates Start 6/1/1970 Keep 1/1/1971 Stop 12/31/1972 Max Snowfall Temperature (deg-f) 32.0 SnowMelt Temperature (deg-f) 32.0 Snowmelt Coef (in/degF-Day) 0.06 Soil Freeze Temp (deg-F) 32.0 Snowmelt Abstraction Factor 1.00 Evapo-Trans. Calibration Factor 1.00 Growing Season Start Month 5 Growing Season End Month 10 5-Day Antecedent Rainfall + Runoff (inches) CN Antecedent Moisture Condition AMC-II AMC-III Growing Season 1.40 2.10 NonGrowing Season 0.50 1.10 Watershed Data Watershed Name Existing Site Runoff to Device Outflow Infiltration to Device Watershed Area 8.27 SCS Curve Number (Pervious) 74 Scale Factor for Pervious Runoff Load 1 Indirectly Connected Imperv Fraction 0 UnSwept Impervious Fraction 0.05 UnSwept Depression Storage (inches) 0.02 UnSwept Imperv. Runoff Coefficient 1 UnSwept Scale Factor for Particle Loads 1 Swept Impervious Fraction 0 Swept Depression Storage (inches) 0.02 Swept Imperv. Runoff Coefficient 1 Swept Scale Factor for Particle Loads 1 Sweeping Frequency 0 Sweeping Efficiency 1 Sweeping Start Date (MMDD) 101 Sweeping Stop Date (MMDD) 1231 138 Device Data Device Name Outflow Device Type PIPE Infiltration Outlet Normal Outlet Spillway Outlet Particle Removal Scale Factor Bottom Elevation (ft) Bottom Area (acres) Permanent Pool Area (acres) Permanent Pool Volume (ac-ft) Perm Pool Infilt Rate (in/hr) Flood Pool Area (acres) Flood Pool Volume (ac-ft) Flood Pool Infilt Rate (in/hr) Infilt Basin Void Fraction (%) Detention Pond Outlet Parameters Outlet Type Outlet Orifice Diameter (in) Orifice Discharge Coef Outlet Weir Length (ft) Weir Discharge Coef Perforated Riser Height (ft) Number of Holes in Riser Holes Diameter Flood Pool Drain Time (hrs) Swale Parameters Length of Flow Path (ft) Slope of Flow Path % Bottom Width (ft) Side Slope (ft-v/ft-h) Maximum Depth of Flow (ft) Mannings n Constant Hydraulic Model Pipe, Splitter, Aquifer Parameter Hydraulic Res. Time (hrs) 0 Particle Data Particle File nurp50.p8p Particle Class P0% P10% P30% P50% P80% Filtration Efficiency (%) 90 100 100 100 100 Settling Velocity (ft/hr) 0 0.03 0.3 1.5 15 First Order Decay Rate (1/day) 0 0 0 0 0 2nd Order Decay (1/day-ppm) 0 0 0 0 0 Impervious Runoff Conc (ppm) 1 0 0 0 0 Pervious Runoff Conc (ppm) 1 100 100 100 200 Pervious Conc Exponent 0 1 1 1 1 Accum. Rate (lbs-ac-day) 0 1.75 1.75 1.75 3.5 Particle Removal Rate (1/day) 0 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Washoff Coefficient 0 20 20 20 20 Washoff Exponent 0 2 2 2 2 Sweeper Efficiency 0 0 0 5 15 Water Quality Component Data Component Name TSS TP TKN CU PB ZN Water Quality Criteria (ppm) Level 1 5 0.025 2 2 0.02 5 Level 2 10 0.05 1 0.0048 0.014 0.0362 Level 3 20 0.1 0.5 0.02 0.15 0.38 Content Scale Factor 1 1 1 1 1 1 Particle Composition (mg/kg) P0% 0 99000 600000 13600 2000 64000 P10% 1000000 3850 15000 340 180 1600 P30% 1000000 3850 15000 340 180 1600 P50% 1000000 3850 15000 340 180 1600 P80% 1000000 0 0 340 180 0 139 P8 Urban Catchment Model, Version 3.5 Run Date 05/26/22 Case RSI_PROP.p8c FirstDate 01/01/71 Precip(in) 50.4 Title Startup Case LastDate 12/31/72 Rain(in) 40.76 PrecFile MSP4918.pcp Events 134 Snow(in) 9.67 PartFile nurp50.p8p TotalHrs 16440 TotalYrs 1.88 Case Title Startup Case Case Data File RSI_PROP.p8c Path G:\MSOFFICE\AA Docs\RSI Marine\p8\ Case Notes: Storm Data File MSP4918.pcp Particle File nurp50.p8p Air Temp File File MSP4918.tem Time Steps Per Hour 10 Minimum Inter-Event Time (hrs) 10 Maximum Continuity Error % 2 Rainfall Breakpoint (inches) 0.8 Precipitation Scale Factor 1 Air Temp Offset (deg-F) 0 Loops Thru Storm File 1 Simulation Dates Start 6/1/1970 Keep 1/1/1971 Stop 12/31/1972 Max Snowfall Temperature (deg-f) 32.0 SnowMelt Temperature (deg-f) 32.0 Snowmelt Coef (in/degF-Day) 0.06 Soil Freeze Temp (deg-F) 32.0 Snowmelt Abstraction Factor 1.00 Evapo-Trans. Calibration Factor 1.00 Growing Season Start Month 5 Growing Season End Month 10 5-Day Antecedent Rainfall + Runoff (inches) CN Antecedent Moisture Condition AMC-II AMC-III Growing Season 1.40 2.10 NonGrowing Season 0.50 1.10 Watershed Data Watershed Name 1S 2S Runoff to Device POND 1P POND 1P Infiltration to Device Watershed Area 7.23 1.03 SCS Curve Number (Pervious) 74 74 Scale Factor for Pervious Runoff Load 1 1 Indirectly Connected Imperv Fraction 0 0.126 UnSwept Impervious Fraction 0.368 0 UnSwept Depression Storage (inches) 0.02 0.02 UnSwept Imperv. Runoff Coefficient 1 1 UnSwept Scale Factor for Particle Loads 1 1 Swept Impervious Fraction 0 0 Swept Depression Storage (inches) 0.02 0.02 Swept Imperv. Runoff Coefficient 1 1 Swept Scale Factor for Particle Loads 1 1 Sweeping Frequency 0 0 Sweeping Efficiency 1 1 Sweeping Start Date (MMDD) 101 101 Sweeping Stop Date (MMDD) 1231 1231 140 Device Data Device Name POND 1PPOND 1P - FILTRATION BENCHOUTFLOW Device Type POND INF_BASIN PIPE Infiltration Outlet OUTFLOW Normal Outlet POND 1P - FILTRATION BENCH Spillway Outlet OUTFLOW OUTFLOW Particle Removal Scale Factor 1 1 Bottom Elevation (ft) 722 726 Bottom Area (acres) 0.03 0.15 Permanent Pool Area (acres) 0.11 Permanent Pool Volume (ac-ft) 0.34 Perm Pool Infilt Rate (in/hr) 0 Flood Pool Area (acres) 0.23 0.18 Flood Pool Volume (ac-ft) 0.68 0.25 Flood Pool Infilt Rate (in/hr) 0 1 Infilt Basin Void Fraction (%) 100 Detention Pond Outlet Parameters Outlet Type WEIR Outlet Orifice Diameter (in) Orifice Discharge Coef Outlet Weir Length (ft) 115 Weir Discharge Coef 3 Perforated Riser Height (ft) Number of Holes in Riser Holes Diameter Flood Pool Drain Time (hrs) Swale Parameters Length of Flow Path (ft) Slope of Flow Path % Bottom Width (ft) Side Slope (ft-v/ft-h) Maximum Depth of Flow (ft) Mannings n Constant Hydraulic Model Pipe, Splitter, Aquifer Parameter Hydraulic Res. Time (hrs) 0 Particle Data Particle File nurp50.p8p Particle Class P0% P10% P30% P50% P80% Filtration Efficiency (%) 90 100 100 100 100 Settling Velocity (ft/hr) 0 0.03 0.3 1.5 15 First Order Decay Rate (1/day) 0 0 0 0 0 2nd Order Decay (1/day-ppm) 0 0 0 0 0 Impervious Runoff Conc (ppm) 1 0 0 0 0 Pervious Runoff Conc (ppm) 1 100 100 100 200 Pervious Conc Exponent 0 1 1 1 1 Accum. Rate (lbs-ac-day) 0 1.75 1.75 1.75 3.5 Particle Removal Rate (1/day) 0 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Washoff Coefficient 0 20 20 20 20 Washoff Exponent 0 2 2 2 2 Sweeper Efficiency 0 0 0 5 15 Water Quality Component Data Component Name TSS TP TKN CU PB ZN HC Water Quality Criteria (ppm) Level 1 5 0.025 2 2 0.02 5 0.1 Level 2 10 0.05 1 0.0048 0.014 0.0362 0.5 Level 3 20 0.1 0.5 0.02 0.15 0.38 1 Content Scale Factor 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Particle Composition (mg/kg) P0% 0 99000 600000 13600 2000 64000 250000 P10% 1000000 3850 15000 340 180 1600 22500 P30% 1000000 3850 15000 340 180 1600 22500 P50% 1000000 3850 15000 340 180 1600 22500 P80% 1000000 0 0 340 180 0 22500 141 STORM SEWER DESIGN COMPUTATION SHEETSheet 1 of 1Project: RSI MARINEJob No.: 23953 James R. Hill, Inc.Location: CHANHASSEN, MNPrepared by: VUN PLANNERS / ENGINEERS / SURVEYORSDescription: Storm Sewer Comps for 10-Year Rain EventDate: 5/31/2022 2999 West County Road 42, Suite 100 Burnsville, MN 55306Pipe Type: RCP/PVC 952 / 890-6044 fax 952 / 890-6244Manning's n : 0.013 Structure No.A C C x A Σ tiQ dUPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM Length Slope Dia. Q-full MH Vel.-full t- travelFrom To acres coef. C x A min. intens. c.f.s. Rim Inv. Bld Rim Inv. Depth ft. ft./ft. in. c.f.s. size ft./sec. min.Remarks1 CB-105 CBMH-104 1.40 0.50 0.70 0.70 10.0 6.1 4.29 741.30 737.803.50741.30 737.214.091180.50% 15 4.57 3.72 0.53 OK 12 CBMH-104 CBMH-103 0.44 0.70 0.31 1.01 10.5 6.0 6.03 741.30 737.214.09741.20 735.945.261261.01% 15 6.48 5.29 0.40 OK 23 CBMH-103 CBMH-102 0.53 0.70 0.37 2.13 10.9 6.0 12.75 741.20 735.745.46741.20 733.877.331261.48% 18 12.79 7.24 0.29 OK 34 CBMH-102 CBMH-101 0.71 0.70 0.50 2.63 11.2 5.8 15.34 741.20 733.677.53741.30 732.548.761131.00% 21 15.84 6.59 0.29 OK 45 CBMH-101 FES-100 0.00 0.70 0.00 3.08 11.5 5.7 17.58 741.30 727.8513.45727.50 727.500.00670.52% 27 22.38 5.63 0.20 OK 567 CB-106 CBMH-103 1.50 0.50 0.75 0.75 10.0 6.1 4.60 752.92 742.0010.92741.20 737.004.201623.09% 12 6.26 7.97 0.34 OK 189 CB-107 CBMH-101 0.90 0.50 0.45 0.45 10.0 6.1 2.76 742.86 738.864.00741.30 738.233.07631.00% 12 3.56 4.54 0.23 OK 1 142 143 Variance Request 3 of 3 – Landscape Peninsulas REQUEST FOR VARIANCE 3 of 3 – Landscape Peninsulas Variance is requested for reduced required vehicle use area landscaping requirements per Sec. 20-1181. a. Overview • The proposed development does not require parking stalls as all traffic just comes to load and unload then leaves the site. We are providing minimal drive aisle width to access the building and load buildings with trailers; therefore, we do not have space for landscape islands per the code. The landscape islands would negatively impact vehicular circulation and trailer movements onsite. b. Practical Difficulties • Typically, landscape islands are used to end cap or break up long expanses of vehicular parking stalls. Since we do not require parking stalls interior to this development all landscape islands would need to be in the drive lane which poses a practical and safety issue with the site. c. Denied Substantial Rights. • Denial of the variation would impact the ability for safe and effective truck and trailer circulation in the main drive aisle. d. Essential Elements of the Area. • The variance would not result in a use or development on the subject lot in regards to the following: 1) The acceptance of the variation will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to the enjoyment, use, development, or value of property or improvements permitted in the vicinity. 2) Acceptance of the variance would not alter the essential character of the locality 3) The acceptance of the variance would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the properties and improvements in the vicinity. 4) Acceptance of the variance would not cause any increase to congestion in the public streets or have any impact on street traffic. 5) There will be no increase danger to flood or fire. 144 Variance Request 3 of 3 – Landscape Peninsulas 6) Acceptance would not unduly tax public utilities and facilities in the area 7) Acceptance will not endanger the public health or safety. 145 Memorandum To:MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner From:Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer Joe Seidl, Water Resources Engineer CC: Charles Howley, Public Works Director/City Engineer George Bender, Assistant City Engineer Joe Seidl, Water Resources Engineer Charlie Burke, Public Works Operations Manager Date:8/4/2022 Re:10500 and 10520 Great Plains Boulevard PUD and Site Plan Review – Planning Case No. 2022-04A EASEMENTS The preliminary plat provided dated 12/4/2018 and produced by James R. Hill, Inc., illustrates typical 10-foot public drainage and utility easements (DUE) along all property lines. Additional public DUEs were also provided over public utilities (only watermain at this phase) extending into the property. The location of the additional DUEs over the public water main are subject to change upon addressing the conditions associated with the public water main as discussed under the “Sanitary Sewer and Watermain” section of this report Any and all existing easements must be vacated prior to recording of the final plat. Based on Carver County property information there appears to be two parcels abutting the preliminary plat’s eastern property lines that are listed as “Parcel ID: Gap”. It is unclear if these parcels are being considered in the lot combination of the PUD, or if they are being considered a part of the adjacent lot to the west (PID #250361300). Clarification regarding the status of “Parcel ID: Gap” in conjunction with the proposed plat will be required prior to recording of the final plat from either the County or the applicant. 146 The preliminary plat abuts and gains access from Carver County right-of-way. Thus, the applicant must coordinate with Carver County regarding any additional considerations and potential conditions associated with easements for the property as well as any requirements associated with ingress/egress and construction activities such as during grading and hauling operations. EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY The original existing condition survey, dated 1/28/2022 and produced by James R. Hill, Inc., required updates, including: Topographic data 100 feet beyond the property boundary Illustration of existing features that would impact the site’s ingress/egress (e.g. the full extents of Flying Cloud Drive which includes the median near the site’s entrance) Utilities on or adjacent to the property, including location, size and invert elevation of storm sewers, catch basins and manholes; location and size of water mains (including casings) and hydrants; location of gas mains, high pressure lines, fire hydrants, electric and telephone lines, and street lights. The direction, distance to, and size of such facilities shall be indicated. Wetlands Bluff impact zones Sewage treatment systems and associated conveyance systems Existing easements and associated recording document numbers Property information within 150 feet of the property’s boundary Retaining wall elevations The resubmitted existing condition survey, dated 5/6/2022, was updated to include these requirements and is in general conformance with City Ordinance. WETLANDS A study completed by Kjolhaug Environmental Services in 2021 shows there are no wetlands within the project site. City records show there is a wetland/wetditch just south of the project site located in the drainage ditch along County Road 101 (Great Plains Blvd). This wetland has been classified as a manage type 2 wetland in the City’s Surface Water Management Plan. A 1992 delineation report indicates the source of water as surface water runoff and the route of outflow is a culvert to the Minnesota River. The preliminary plans submitted show grading in close proximity to the wetland which is near the proposed access to the site. Article VI, Chapter 20 of City Code describes buffer strip and setback requirements. For example a 10 to 30 foot buffer strip with an average of 20 foot width for 147 manage type 2 wetlands. There is also a 30-foot setback from the buffer strip so the building setback should be from 40 to 60 feet averaging 50 feet away from the edge of a manage type 2 wetland. The wetland buffer and wetland setback should be shown on the grading plan and staked in the field prior to construction. The preliminary plans appear meet the wetland setback requirements, however the buffer area should be staked with permanent markers and planted with native vegetation as outlined in city code. BLUFFS There is a steep slope located on the west side of the property; the bottom generally follows the 750 contour of the property and the top of the follows the 772 -774 contours. The steep area is called out in the preliminary plans as a bluff, however because this area was created from grading completed as part of a development project in 1996 it is not a natural slope and therefore does not meet the City's definition of a bluff. The Lower Minnesota River Watershed District (LMRWD) also regulates steep slopes within their jurisdiction. The applicant will need to coordinate with the watershed district to confirm if the project triggers any regulations as defined in Rule F – Steep Slopes. RETAINING WALLS Preliminary plans provided indicate that retaining walls may be required for the development. These walls are shown around the northern and eastern portions of the property. Portions of the retaining walls illustrated are shown to be located within public drainage and utility easements along the eastern property lines. An encroachment agreement would be required for any retaining walls located within public easements. Portions of the retaining walls are illustrated to be either close to or directly over the eastern property line. Due to the proximity to the property line, the construction of these walls would require construction activities to occur on the abutting property. The construction of any improvements that impact or require access to abutting properties must have the appropriate right-of-entry agreements and/or temporary construction easements prior to construction operations commencing. Retaining walls over 4 feet in height shall be constructed in accordance with plans prepared by a registered engineer and shall be constructed of a durable material (smooth face concrete, masonry/mortared, railroad ties and timber are prohibited). It should be noted that the height of any retaining wall is measured from the top of the wall to the bottom of the footing (not to the top of grade adjacent to the bottom of the wall). ACCESS 148 Access to the site is currently had from Flying Cloud Drive (CSAH 61) and is located near the eastern property line. The preliminary plans indicate that the current access will remain and no additional accesses to the surrounding Carver County rights-of-way are proposed. The development will be required to construct a commercial driveway access in accordance with City Standards. Any comments or conditions by Carver County associated with impacts to their rights-of-way must be adhered to and all permits required must be obtained prior to construction activities commencing. In accordance with Section 20-1122 of City Code a turnaround is required when access is had from a state highway, county road or collector roadway. As access is being had from CSAH 61 a turnaround will be required that can adequately facilitate the turning movement of the largest anticipated design vehicle for the site or the City’s largest fire truck, whichever is greater. GRADING AND DRAINAGE The existing conditions plansheet and drainage maps included in the submittal show an existing building near the center of the property with access to Great Plains Boulevard provided by an asphalt parking area and gravel driveway. Stormwater runoff generally flows from north to south down the slope of the site where it enters a drainage swale along Flying Cloud Drive. The drainage swale conveys stormwater from west to east. Stormwater leaves the site by way of an existing 48” culvert under Flying Cloud Drive which conveys the stormwater to the South through stormwater pond Bluff Creek 9-2-1 and into Bluff Creek before ultimately outleting to the Minnesota River. The preliminary plans provided with the submittal show a significant amount of grading. The design steepens the hill on the northeast side of the site to create a flat area conducive for the four proposed buildings with access and parking. The proposed design uses a combination of drainage swales and stormwater infrastructure to collect and convey stormwater into a Best Management Practice (BMP) located on the southwest corner of the property. The design shows stormwater being conveyed from the proposed BMP to the existing swale along Flying Cloud Blvd through an outlet control structure. Any impacts to Carver County’s right-of-way must be approved and permitted by the County prior to construction activities. The overall design of the stormwater infrastructure mimics the flow path of the existing condition and acts to convey stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces through water quality BMPs. The Hydrologic and Hydraulic HydroCAD models show the site is decreasing rates leaving the site for the 2-, 10- and 100-year storm events. 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 149 Activity Under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination/State Disposal System (NPDES Construction Permit). The applicant has prepared and submitted a preliminary Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which generally appears feasible. The SWPPP is a required submittal element for preliminary plan review. No earth disturbing activities may occur until an approved SWPPP is developed. This SWPPP shall be a standalone document consistent with the NPDES Construction Permit and shall contain all required elements as listed in the permit. The SWPPP will need to be updated as the plans are finalized, when the contractor and their sub- contractors are identified, and as other conditions change. SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN Currently, municipal sanitary sewer and potable water services are not available to the site. During the build-out of the Highway 101 Realignment project, which was substantially completed in 2021, public sanitary sewer mains and water mains were extended along the corridor. However, these newly extended utilities are not fully active nor ready for operation to service properties, as such the site does not have adequate public sanitary and water to fully serve the development’s needs. In 2014, a Highway 61 corridor study was conducted in response to several near and long-term infrastructure projects at the time (e.g. Highway 101 Realignment, CSAH 61 reconstruction, flood mitigation projects, etc.) which prompted the City to investigate the feasibility of extending public utilities to the southern portion of the City. The study, known as “County Road 61 Corridor Plan”, conducted by SRF in association with Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc., determined that utility extensions were feasible within the study area. The image below, taken from Figure 3.1 of the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, depicts the City’s existing and planned sanitary sewer in this area (planned water system build-out generally adheres to the same areas and alignments). 150 The proposed development falls within the southcentral region of sanitary subdistrict LB-1 (the Lower Bluff Creek District). The 2014 study estimated costs and fee revenue associated with extending City utilities to the study area, along with estimated utility assessments per acre, which are shown in Tables 1 and 2. 151 With a lack of adequate city utilities in the area, the development will be required to provide private utility services (sanitary sewer and potable water) to adequately meet the needs of the development. The City has agreed to allow the development to tap into the public watermain which was extended with the Highway 101 Realignment project, but only to service the development’s fire suppression needs. At this time there is not sufficient demand along the extended watermain to supply water to the quality standards that the City requires for consumption. This is important to note because the preliminary plans provided indicate the existing well on-site is proposed to be abandoned. If the site will have any fixtures requiring the use of water other than for fire suppression needs, a private source of water supply must be used for those fixtures. The preliminary plans indicate a sanitary sewer main to be installed within the development that then connects to the public main extended within the CSAH 61 right-of-way. This connection is not approved as the public sanitary sewer is not active nor ready for operation to service properties. If the applicant desires to construct sanitary sewer services and/or mains to service the future needs of the development, the applicant will be required to concurrently extend the public sanitary sewer main along CSAH 61 right-of-way to the eastern property line and cap the service line to the development. The preliminary plans indicate tapping of the existing public watermain for fire suppression needs at the southwest corner of the property. As shown on the preliminary plans this would be infeasible as the watermain was housed in a casing at the location, and would be required to be extended further east to facilitate the connection. Regardless, the development will be required to extend the 12” C900 PVC public watermain to the eastern property line along CSAH 61 right-of- way. The extension into the site must be along or near the improved private access to allow for reasonable access for future repair and maintenance and of adequate diameter to service the needs of the development. Adequate public drainage and utility easements will be required over the public main as it extends into the site. Private fire laterals can then be tapped from the public main as necessary. The applicant and their Engineer shall work with City staff in amending the construction plans, dated May 6, 2022 prepared by Joel G. Cooper, PE with James R. Hill, Inc. to fully satisfy staff concerns. Final construction plans will be subject to review and approval by 152 staff to ensure adherence to the most recent edition of the City’s Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and City Ordinances. The property and potential future properties associated with this developable area will be specially assessed for the extension of the public sanitary sewer when they connect. When the property and potential future properties connect to municipal services they will also be required to pay the utility hook-up fees at the rate in effect at the time of hook-up. Lastly, prior to commencement of any utility work, a copy of all required permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies shall be provided to the city which shall include but is not limited to the Minnesota Department of Health, Carver County, etc. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT The project site is located within the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District (LMRWD). The proposed development will exceed the one (1) acre of new impervious area and will therefore require permanent stormwater BMPs to be constructed as part of this project and maintained by the owner. The project will be subject to stormwater regulations outlined under LMRWD Rule D including rate, volume, and water quality. Based on the LMRWD’s website, a portion of the site includes Steep Slopes as defined by the LMRWD and will be required to meet LMRWD Rule F. The City of Chanhassen also regulates the design, construction, and maintenance of stormwater infrastructure. Article VII, Chapter 19 of City Code describes the required storm water management development standards. Section 19-141 states that “these development standards shall be reflected in plans prepared by developers and/or project proposers in the design and layout of site plans, subdivisions and water management features.” These standards include water quality treatment resulting in the removal of 90% total suspended solids (TSS) and 60% total phosphorous (TP), and runoff rate control for the 2, 10, and 100-year storm events. A stormwater maintenance agreement and associated operations and maintenance plan is required for all private stormwater BMPs. The LMRWD requires volume control equal to one inch of runoff from impervious surfaces. The site is proposing 2.99 acres of impervious which requires 10,852 cubic feet of volume control. The filtration bench provides 16,921 cubic feet of volume control below the outlet meeting the volume control requirement. The design of the BMP is highly dependent on soil types and infiltration rates of the underlying soils. Soil borings, infiltration testing and an associated geotechnical report will be needed to confirm the design of the stormwater BMP. No geotechnical report was included as part of the reviewed submittal. If the soil borings show onsite soils are conducive to infiltration, the BMP will need to be redesigned to allow for 153 infiltration in line with LMRWD rules. If the soil borings support the current filtration bench design, because the site is providing more volume control than is required, the project will be meeting the water quality rules. A number of comments pertaining to the P8 modeling of the site have been provided to the applicant which should be addressed to confirm the water quality treatment being provided. The Stormwater Narrative and supporting Hydrologic and Hydraulic HydroCAD models were reviewed and found to have a few inconsistencies from the plans provided such as a different amount of proposed impervious, not properly modeling the proposed filtration bench, and not including the overflow from the pond. The current modeling shows the site meets rate control requirements showing a decrease in discharge rates leaving the site from the existing condition to the proposed condition in the 2-, 10- and 100-year storm event. The applicant shall update Hydrologic and Hydraulic models based on comments from City staff and provide satisfactory models, and rate analysis confirming compliance with requirements prior to recording the final plat. As noted in Appendix H of the City’s Surface Water Management Plan dated August 2006, the City requires at least 3 feet of freeboard between a building elevation and adjacent ponding features. The site is currently meeting this freeboard requirement with respect to the proposed BMP HWL elevation of 730.44. Once the HydroCAD models have been updated, it should be confirmed the site is still in compliance with the City’s 3-foot freeboard requirement between HWL and adjacent buildings. The grading plan shows there is only 0.4 feet of vertical separation between the intermediate EOFs within the driving area and the adjacent buildings proposed first floor elevation. The grading plan should be updated to provide a minimum 1.0 feet of separation between these EOFs and the adjacent buildings as outlined in Chapter 19 of City Code. The City’s water resources engineer reviewed the preliminary plans provided with the submittal. Specific comments regarding the design of stormwater infrastructure and BMPs were provided to the applicant. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT FEES In 2005 a Stipulation of Settlement (Court File No. 10-CV-05-48) between PCH Development, LLC and the City of Chanhassen was agreed to regarding the park dedication fees and surface water management fees surrounding the subdivision of the “Paws Claws and Hooves Addition” subdivision (PC #2003-04 and the property of this Conceptual PUD). The surface water management fee was reduced to $9,900.00 and was paid on 7/25/2005. The settlement agreement states, “If all or any part of the property is changed to a different principal use or further subdivided, the property shall be subject to payment of additional park dedication and surface water management fees based upon the rates in effect at that time applicable to the 154 proposed use and type of municipal approval requested.” However, as the stipulation was between the property owner and the City and was not required to be memorialized against the property, if the property owner changes from PCH Development, LLC no stormwater fees will be required. If the property is subdivided in the future, stormwater fees will be collected at the rate in affect at the time of platting, minus the $9,900.00 already paid. RECOMMENDATIONS: Engineering: 1. Adequate public drainage and utility easements are required over any publicly owned and maintained water mains and will be subject to review and approval by staff prior to the recording of the final plat. 2. Any existing easements within the final plat area must be vacated prior to recording of the final plat. 3. The two parcels along the development’s eastern property lines listed with Carver County’s property information as “Parcel ID: Gap” will need to be identified appropriately prior to recording of the final plat. 4. Encroachment agreements are required of any proposed improvements within public drainage and utility easements after review and approval by the City Engineer. 5. The construction of any improvements that require access to adjacent properties shall receive a temporary construction easement or right-of-entry prior to issuance of any building permits. 6. Retaining walls over 4 feet in height shall be constructed in accordance with plans prepared by a registered engineer and shall be privately owned and maintained. 7. The development shall construct a commercial driveway access in accordance with the most recent edition of the City’s Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. 8. Any private utility needs to service the development, including sanitary sewer and potable water, will be required to be provided by the developer as the property is not serviced by adequate city utilities. 9. The proposed connection to the public sanitary sewer main is not approved. 10. The proposed water main tap to the public main shall only be used for fire suppression needs for the development. 11. The developer shall extend the 12” C900 PVC public watermain to the eastern property line along CSAH 61. 12. The water extension into the site must be along or near the improved private access to allow for reasonable access for future repair and maintenance. 13. The applicant and their Engineer shall work with City staff in amending the construction plans, dated May 6, 2022 prepared by Joel G. Cooper, PE to fully satisfy all plan review comments. Final construction plans will be subject to review and approval by staff. 155 14. The property and potential future properties associated with the final plat will be specially assessed for the extension of the public sanitary sewer when they connect. 15. The property and potential future properties associated with the final plat will be required to pay utility hook-up charges at the rate in effect at the time of connection to municipal services. 16. All required permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies including but not limited to the Minnesota Department of Health, Carver County Public, etc. shall be provided to the city prior to issuance of building permits. Water Resources: 1. The applicant shall provide a copy of an approved permit from the LMRWD as part of the building permit submittal to the City. 2. The applicant must submit soil borings and a geotechnical report with the building permit submittal to the City. Any modifications to the current design based on the geotechnical findings will be reviewed with future submittals to confirm compliance with the City’s requirements. 3. The applicant must update the Hydrologic and Hydraulic models per City comments and submit updated computations and models in their native forms with the building permit submittal to the City. 4. The applicant shall update P8 water quality modeling and resubmit the models in their native form to confirm the City’s water quality rule is met with the building permit submittal to the City. 5. The applicant shall update plans to provide the required freeboard from the proposed buildings and the EOF. 6. The applicant shall update plans to show wetland buffer markers and native vegetation in the wetland buffer area. 7. The applicant shall enter into an Operations and Maintenance Agreement for any proposed privately owned stormwater facilities which shall be recorded concurrently with the final plat. 8. If the property is subdivided in the future, stormwater fees will be collected at the rate in affect at the time of platting, minus the $9,900.00 already paid. 156 Carver County Public Works 11360 Highway 212, Suite 1 Cologne, MN 55322 Office (952) 466-5200 | Fax (952) 466-5223 | www.co.carver.mn.us CARVER COUNTY Review comments from the July 2022 Planned Unit Development Site Plan submittal are made in blue italic font. Comments updated August 3, 2022. March 1, 2022 City of Chanhassen c/o MacKenzie Young-Walters, AICP Associate Planner 952-227-1132 mwalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Re: Development / Access Review Comments: 10500 and 10520 Great Plains Boulevard Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) located at PID#s 256010010 and 256010020 adjacent to County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 101 (Great Plains Blvd.) and CSAH 61 (Flying Cloud Dr.) Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject development in the City of Chanhassen. Consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan and County Codes, and other official controls of the County, the following are comments and recommended conditions of approval and as potential requirements for any necessary permits to be issued for the project. 1. Regarding access to the County highway a. The proposed driveway access onto CSAH 61 was built with the County’s Flying Cloud Dr. project and the proposed driveway location appears consistent with the access that was constructed. i. Information b. Provide an estimate of the maximum number of vehicles that may make a left turn into the site during an hour to evaluate the potential operational and safety risk of vehicles and any towed trailers obstructing eastbound CSAH 61 traffic. Additional improvements may be needed to mitigate any operational or safety risks that are identified. i. Applicant to provide this information c. Update: The median on CSAH 61 (Flying Cloud Dr.) is to be shifted west 60 feet to accommodate a truck and trailer to pull out of the way of traffic when making left turns into the subject site. Applicant can coordinate with Carver County Public Works with design specifics. See attachment of this change. A plan set shall be developed and signed by a licensed Engineer. This improvement shall be made at the expense of the applicant and an excavation permit will be required. 2. Regarding County highway right of way a. The property boundaries shall match the existing County highway right of way. The proposed boundary appears to match the highway right of way as modified by CR RW Plat No. 29. 157 i. Information 3. Regarding grading adjacent to the County highway a. County requests drainage calculations and data for the proposed development. Revision is likely needed regarding the outlet for the proposed stormwater treatment ponds, which is not in a good location due to the flow outlet being up gradient from the trail which is below. Drainage should be carried and directed further to the east into the roadside ditch that currently exists instead of to the west side of the development on the steep slopes and directly pointed at the trail embankment. i. Condition applies b. Confirm the proposed drainage will not create an adverse impact to the County right of way. i. Condition applies c. Proposed grading shall tie-in and be compatible with the existing ground in the County right of way. i. Condition applies d. Update: The outlet apron needs to be stabilized per design guidance from MnDOT to minimize the erosion risk. e. Update: A meeting should be set up by the applicant’s engineer with Carver County Public Works to confirm the stormwater calculations. There are questions on the calculations for the culvert along CSAH 61. 4. Regarding final approvals and required permits - a. The County will need to review and approve the final grading plans for properties adjacent to CSAH 101 and CSAH 61. A grading permit will be required for grading work within the highway right of way. i. Condition applies b. An access permit will be required for access to CSAH 61 due to this change in use and connection of the site improvements to CSAH 61. i. Condition applies. A deposit will be required to ensure work within the right of way for required median change project is to County standards. c. The technical details of any final plat, its boundaries and form(s) will need to be reviewed and approved by the County Surveyor. i. Condition applies d. Prior to any work affecting or on County highways or in County right of way, the applicant shall coordinate plans with the County Engineer and obtain a Utility, Access, or Excavating/Filling/Grading Permit(s) from Carver County Public Works: (www.co.carver.mn.us/departments/public-works/quick-links/permits). Final details of locations, grades, and profiles affecting County roads as well as any utility connections will need to be reviewed and approved prior to any permits. i. Condition applies 158 e. Any damages, modifications, or changes incurred on County highways from current or approved conditions will need to remedied or updated at development expense, including costs incurred by the County. i. Information These are the County’s comments at this time. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please contact staff noted below: Jack Johansen Transportation Planner Carver County Public Works 952.466.5283 jjohansen@co.carver.mn.us Angie Stenson AICP Sr. Transportation Planner Carver County Public Works 952.466.5273 astenson@co.carver.mn.us Dan McCormick, P.E. PTOE Traffic Services Supervisor Carver County Public Works 952.466.5208 dmccormick@co.carver.mn.us 159 ? ? X=560000 X=560000 11 1075 80 85 75 80 85 155160 SURFACE FINISHED TOP OF GROUND EXISTING VPI +86.86EL. 738.27+1.00%VPI +20.30EL. 735.29-1 .75%VPI +14.84EL. 726.64-1 .75%+0.80% 200.00’ V.C. K = 78 ex = 0.64’VPC +14.84 EL. 728.39VPT +14.84 EL. 727.44729.52727.85ROUNDABOUT PROFILE SEE E-CID GRADING GRADE EXCAVATION-MUCK SELECT GRANULAR MODIFIED GRANULAR SELECT ELEV. 727.19 STA 84+52.09 LOW POINT 1.5:1727.32VPI +91.24EL. 728.85+0.80%-0.67% 200.00’ V.C. K = 136 SSD = 835’VPC +91.24 EL. 728.05VPT +91.24 EL. 728.18728.55STA. 86+81.36END PROJECT728.41STA. 86+36.34END PERMANENT CONST.75 80 85730.91729.94728.66726.68725.66724.82723.73721.89720.41719.14718.32718.25718.38718.61721.37723.43722.75723.56724.91726.95726.34726.67727.41728.00728.41728.79728.91728.97728.94728.74728.54734.40734.90735.40735.90736.40736.90737.40737.90738.10737.47736.83736.19735.55734.77733.90733.02732.15731.27730.40729.52728.65727.85727.36727.19727.33727.72728.12728.52728.9285 86 87 8885 IRON IRON 5/19/20143:51:57 PMS:\AE\C\Carvr\124268\5-final-dsgn\50-final-dsgn\40-TransHwy\plnshts\124268_cp.dgnDRAWN BY: DESIGNER: DESIGN TEAM CHECKED BY: REVISIONSNO.BY DATE ST. PAUL, MN 55110 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DR. PHONE: (651)490-2000119938_cp7 236 FILE NO. Lic. No. Date: CARVR 124268 CARVER COUNTY,MN. Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under Certified By: Printed Name: Licensed Professional Engineer 5/19/2014 OF 43475 CSAH 101 & CSAH 61 JASON E. OWENS CIF JEO JEO S.A.P. 194-020-010, S.A.P. 194-020-011 S.A.P. 070-701-009, S.P. 1009-24, S.A.P. 010-661-002, S.A.P. 010-701-002, 710 720 730 740 710 720 730 740 CP10 { E-CID MATCH LINE - EB STA 73+00CONSTRUCTION PLAN & PROFILE CP7 RETAINING WALL A { TRAIL RETAINING WALL A 32’18’23’32’30’18’23’32’14’14’16’16’10’ TRAIL +40 +50 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 +97 +19 1:10 16’14’ 14’12’ 1:15 +93 +76 8’ SHLD 10’ TRAIL 12’ 12’ 12’ 8’ SHLD +69 +73 1:151:10 6’ MED. +16 +26 +40 +50 SHEET ID5 INTERSECTION DETAIL FOR INFORMATION SEE CONSTRUCTION LIMITS CONSTRUCTION LIMITS CONSTRUCTION LIMITS (FLYING CLOUD DR) { WB CSAH 61 (FLYING CLOUD DR) { EB CSAH 61 EB CSAH 61 STA 73+00 - 89+00 { SB CSAH 101 { NB CSAH 101 STA. 86+81.36 { EB CSAH 61 END S.A.P. 010-661-002 CONSTRUCION END PERMANENT STA. 86+36.34 EB CSAH 61 CULVERT EXISTING BR. NO. 10549 22’17’ 15’17’15’22’EX R/W TE TE TE EX R/W EX R/W D&U EASE D&U EASETE TE EX R/WPROP R/W +14 +74 +16 +26C&G B624 C&G S524 C&G B624 C&G S524 (**) 2-1/c#12 (TRACERS) F&I (**) 2-1 1/4" CONDUITS (**) 2-1/c#12 (TRACERS) F&I (**) 2-1 1/4" CONDUITS HANDHOLE (URBAN) F&I (**) FIBER OPTIC SEE SHEET CP4 MATCH LINE (FIBER OPTIC)SEE SHEET CP4 MATCH LINE (FIBER OPTIC) FROM B624 TO S524. 3 10’ TRANSITION CURB AND GUTTER (PAID FOR AS 6" CONCRETE WALK). PER MNDOT STD. PL. 7113. 1 CONSTRUCT CONCRETE APROACH NOSE SPECIFIC NOTES: END GUARDRAIL EB STA. 75+15 11010’ TRAI L10’ TRAIL =10’R14’=104’R 700 700 C&G B624 C&G B624 C&G B424 1 JEO 5/19/2014 COUNTY’S PROPOSED PROFILE CHANGED THE END OF PROJECT PROFILE TO MATCH HENNEPIN EB CSAH 61 100’ SCALE IN FEET 160 Landscaping and Tree Preservation 10500/10520 Great Plains Blvd Existing vegetation on the site consists of many pioneer tree species. These types of trees that are the first to populate a site, often after a disturbance. Common species on the site include box elder, Siberian elm, green ash, cottonwood, and hackberry. The applicant is able to save the existing trees along the north property line adjacent to the regional trail corridor which is a mix of hackberry, elm and box elder. While the elm and box elder may not be highly desirable trees they do provide nesting and habitat for birds and pollinators. Preserving these trees also helps to meet bufferyard requirements for the north property line. The applicant is proposing a native prairie seed mix along the north property line. This location is ideal for a dry prairie seed mix and will work to provide habitat on site, provided that the proper establishment of the seed is followed. Staff recommends that the applicant provide a 3- year prairie management contract to ensure the establishment of the native plants. The applicant is proposing a diverse mix of tree and shrub species but needs to incorporate 2 additional understory genera in order to meet minimum diversity as required by ordinance so that no genus has more than 10 trees in quantity. Bufferyard plantings are required along the property lines. The landscape plan shows the following proposed landscaping for the site. Required plantings Proposed plantings Bufferyard A –North prop. line, Regional Trail, 780’ 7 overstory trees 14 Understory trees 21 Shrubs 19 overstory trees - existing 0 Understory trees 46 Shrubs Bufferyard B –South prop. Line, Hwy 61, 700’ 14 overstory trees 28 understory trees 42 shrubs 11 overstory trees 23 understory trees 25 shrubs Bufferyard B –west prop. line, Hwy 101 Great Plains Blvd, 500’ 10 Overstory trees 20 Understory trees 30 Shrubs 5 Overstory trees 8 Understory trees 20 Shrubs Bufferyard A -East property line, 460’ 4 Overstory trees 9 Understory trees 13 Shrubs 4 Overstory trees 8 Understory trees 12 Shrubs 161 The applicant does not meet minimum requirements for bufferyard plantings on the south, west and east sides of the site. Staff recommends that the minimum requirements for bufferyards in these areas. The vehicular use area is required by code to have landscaping that includes islands or peninsulas for every 6,000 sq. ft. of use area as well as landscaped areas and trees in and around the parking area in order to reduce the overall heat island effect of pavement and improve aesthetics of the site. Minimum requirements for landscaping for the parking lot include 3090 sq. ft. of landscaped area around the parking lot, 5 landscape islands or peninsulas, and 12 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 3,090 sq. ft.0 sq. ft. Trees/parking lot 12 trees 0 trees Landscape islands or peninsulas/parking lot 5 islands/peninsulas 0 islands/peninsulas The applicant is not proposing any parking stalls and the paved areas will be used for truck and trailer movements. Landscape islands would impede safe traffic movement in the site and therefore staff supports the variance request to not install landscape islands in the vehicular use area. Staff recommends that when the use of the site changes and parking is included, then all required landscape islands and/or peninsulas be installed. Recommendations: -The applicant shall meet minimum requirements for buffer yards. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the city. -The applicant shall provide a 3-year prairie establishment and management plan for the native seed area specified on the landscape plan. -When the use of the site changes and parking is included, then all required landscape islands and/or peninsulas be installed. -Incorporate 2 additional tree understory genera to Plant Schedule in order to meet minimum diversity as required by ordinance so that no genus has more than 10 trees in quantity. - 162 163 164 165 166 Planning Commission Item August 16, 2022 Item Avienda: Consider a Request to Amend Planned Unit Development-RC File No.Planning Case No. 2022-12 Item No: B.2 Agenda Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Prepared By Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Applicant Kendra Lindahl Landform Professional Services, LLC 105 S. 5th Avenue, Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Present Zoning Planned Unit Development District (PUD) Land Use Mixed Use Acerage 118+/- net acerage Density Assumes 55% of commercial and 45% of site residential of net acreage. Applicable Regulations LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving rezoning's, PUDs and amendments to PUDs because the City is acting in its legislative or policy- making capacity. A rezoning or PUD, and amendment thereto, must be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. A Comprehensive Plan amendment is required to permit the additional units. 167 SUGGESTED ACTION "The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve amending the Planned Unit Development, PUD-RC, Ordinance 657 for Avienda." or "The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council [deny or amends] amending the Planned Unit Development, PUD-RC, Ordinance 657 for Avienda." The Planning Commission should consider if the revised plan meets the intent of the Regional Commercial/Lifestyle Center. SUMMARY The developer is requesting to amend the PUD. The zoning for the development is guided by the PUD- RC ordinance. This report summarizes the requested changes from the developer and staff recommendations. The proposed changes will be incorporated into the PUD. At this time, there are no site plans being approved. This application amends the framework for Development District and the PUD-RC (uses and development guidelines). Any proposed developments will have to come back through the City process for approval. Details of Requested Changes 1. Adding 53 row homes between the townhomes and the apartments 2. Increasing the number of apartments from 250 to 417 3. Combine the 150-unit senior housing development to one 300-unit building at the southwest corner 4. The northerly senior housing is now a retail use 5. Shows potential locations for three to four additional drive-throughs, but does not seek approval at this time 6. The district plan may be fluid as future users are identified BACKGROUND June 30, 2020, the City Council approved the Rezoning to PUD-RC and amended Subdivision Preliminary Plat. July 12, 2021, the City Council approved the Final Plat for Avienda creating five outlots and dedication of public right-of-way. October 25, 2021, the City Council approved the Preliminary Plat for the subdivision of 40+ acres into 39 lots and six (6) outlots, Avienda Townhomes. DISCUSSION The Planning Commission should consider if the revised plan meets the intent of the Regional Commercial/Lifestyle Center. 168 RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission should review the Avienda PUD-RC (Ordinance #657), hold the Public Hearing, and make a recommendation to the City Council. ATTACHMENTS Staff Report Findings of Fact and Recommendation Development Review Application Planned Unit Development Ordinance Narrative Development Plan 8.1 Engineering Comments Toole Design Updated Trip Generation Memo Carver County Engineering Comments Affidavit of Mailing Email from Residents 169 CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: August 16, 2020 CC DATE: September 12, 2022 REVIEW DEADLINE:September 13, 2022 CASE #2022-12 BY:KA LOCATION: Southwest corner ofPowers Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard APPLICANT:Landform Professional Services, LLC Level 7 Development 105 South Fifth Avenue, Suite 513 4600 Kings Point Road Minneapolis, MN 55330 Minnetrista, MN 55330 PRESENT ZONING: PUD-RC 2030 LAND USE PLAN: Office or Regional Commercial ACREAGE:Approximately 118 +/-acres DENSITY:Assumes 55% of commercial and 45 % of site residential of net acreage. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving rezonings, PUDs and amendments to PUDs because the City is acting in its legislative or policy-making capacity. A rezoning or PUD, and amendment thereto, must be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. A Comprehensive Plan amendment is required to permit the additional units. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. SUMMARY OF REQUEST The developer is requesting to amend the PUD. The zoning for the development is guided by the PUD-RC Ordinance. This report summarizes the requested changes from the developer and staff recommendations. The proposed changes will be incorporated into the PUD. At this time there are no site plans being approved. This application amends the framework for Development District and the PUD-RC (uses and development guidelines). Any proposed developments will have to come back through the city process for approval. Details of Requested Changes 1. Adding 53 row homes between the townhomes and the apartments 2. Increasing the number of apartments from 250 units to 417 units 3. Combine the two, 150-unit senior housing developments to one 300-unit building at the southwest corner PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Amending the Avienda Regional Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development (PUD), Ordinance 657.” 170 Planning Commission Avienda: Amendment to PUD August 16, 2022 Page 2 of 9 4. The northerlysenior housing is now a retail use 5. Shows potential locations for three to four additional drive-throughs (beyond the four already approved) but does not seek approval at this time 6. The district plan may be fluid as future users are identified BACKGROUND November 1, 2016: The Planning Commission recommended conceptual approval of the PUD. November 28, 2016: The City Council gave conceptual approval of the PUD. February 27, 2017: During its Work Session, the City Council reviewed the significant issues of the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR).The AUAR included traffic modeling. February 28, 2017: An open house was held. March 7, 2017: The Planning Commission held a public meeting to review the proposed update to the AUAR document. The Planning Commission forwarded their comments to the City Council. March 13, 2017: The City Council authorized publication in the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) Monitor for April 3 and closed the AUAR comment period on April 17. May 8, 2017: The City Council adopted a final resolution for the updated AUAR and Mitigation Plan. May 6, 2017 and June 6, 2017: The Planning Commission held pubic hearings on the plan. June 20, 2017: The Planning Commission recommended preliminary plat approval. July 10, 2017: The City Council approved Preliminary Plat creating 17 lots, three outlots and dedication of public right-of-way for public streets; and rezoning the property zoned Agricultural Estate District, A-2, to Planned Unit Development-Regional Commercial District (PUD-RC). Design Standards: and a Conditional Use Permit to encroach into the primary zone and required buffer for development in the Bluff Creek Corridor; Wetland Alteration Permit to 4.897 acres of permanent wetland impacts as shown in plans dated April 14, 2017 and June 13, 2017, to request to construct into the primary zone and required buffer for development in the Bluff Creek Corridor. June 25, 2018: The City approved the final plat and grading permit. April 8, 2019: The Chanhassen City Council approved the extension of the final plat and grading permit to December 31, 2019 and extinguished the final plat for Avienda but allowed for grading. December 9, 2019: The Chanhassen City Council approved the extension of the preliminary plat until June 30, 2020 and permitted grading as stated in the conditions listed below and in accordance with the preliminary plat approvals. June 30, 2020 the City Council approved the Rezoning to PUD-RC and Amended Subdivision Preliminary Plat. July 12, 2021 the City Council approved the Final Plat for Avienda creating five outlots and dedication of public right-of-way. 171 Planning Commission Avienda: Amendment to PUD August 16, 2022 Page 3 of 9 October 25, 2021, the City Council approves the Preliminary Plat for the Subdivision of 40+ acres into 39 lots and six (6) outlots, Avienda Townhomes. Avienda Townhomes 172 Planning Commission Avienda: Amendment to PUD August 16, 2022 Page 4 of 9 Development Plan 2020 Approved 2022 Requested Land Use by Category Category Approved Proposed Change Res (all)24.88 21.27%36.27 30.75%9.49% Com 42.95 36.71%34 28.83%-7.88% Office 12.87 11.00%10.89 9.23%-1.77% Preserve 22.53 19.26%22.53 19.10%-0.16% ROW 13.76 11.76%14.25 12.08%0.32% Total 116.99 100.00%117.94 100.00%0.00% VISION (from the 2040 Comprehensive Plan) The land use change to either Office or Regional Commercial District as a part of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan was based on the City’s vision for a lifestyle center. The Comprehensive Plan states: 2.7.4 Regional/Lifestyle Center Commercial Definition/Vision: A mixed commercial district with retail and entertainment uses of a scale and function that serves a regional market. The physical environment emphasizes an attractive, comfortable walking experience for shoppers and visitors and is designed to serve trail users and 173 Planning Commission Avienda: Amendment to PUD August 16, 2022 Page 5 of 9 mass transit as well as automobile traffic. Centers of this type have at least two major retail anchors and are characterized by the diversity and mix of retail and service uses within their boundaries. Uses within this district should complement existing retail users in the other commercial districts. Development of these centers shall be planned as a group of organized uses and structures to accommodate a sensitive transition between commercial activities such as loading, parking of automobiles, lighting, and trash collection, and surrounding residential uses. Such centers shall be designed with one theme, with similar architectural style, similar exterior building materials, and a coordinated landscaping theme. Vehicle and pedestrian access is coordinated and logically linked to provide a comprehensive circulation system. Goods and Services Examples • Entertainment • Department Store • Comparison Shopping • Specialty Retail/Boutique • Restaurants • Hotels • Residential Developer’s District Master Plan 2020 Approved Plan 2022 Proposed Changes The development Master Plan identifies five distinct sub-districts within Avienda. Each of these sub-districts (outlined on the plan above) is defined by specific site development patterns and perhaps a distinctive character or image.The sub-districts complement one another as part of the overall plan.They include: The applicant’s narrative is attached. An overview of the requested changes and responses/considerations is outlined below: 174 Planning Commission Avienda: Amendment to PUD August 16, 2022 Page 6 of 9 1. Expand the uses permitted in the different districts to allow the developer to bring new uses like the regional recreation uses. (Section C (7)) 2. Clarify that the district boundaries are fluid in nature and can be adjusted to accommodate the uses that ultimately come to Avienda. 3. Modify Section C (6) of the ordinance to allow the option for the two approved senior housing developments (which were limited to two buildings with 150 units per building to be combined into a single building (up to 300 units) in District 3 and District 4 to accommodate a Senior Housing Project. Staff is supportive of the two senior housing developments combined into one building but the City wants to ensure a retail or entertainment use in the northwest corner. 4. Change the NW area previously shown as District 4 for senior to District 1 to accommodate additional retail. The change would have all of the frontage along Lyman Boulevard planned for retail uses. Staff is supportive of the two senior housing development combined into one but want to ensure a retail or entertainment use is in the northwest corner. 5. Allow row homes in District 2 (Village Retail District) to provide another housing option in the lifestyle center. This change would require a Comprehensive plan amendment to allow the additional density. The row homes would be an urban-style townhome that meets the city’s goals of lifecycle housing. The 2020 request did not utilize the maximum density of 16 units an acre. Based in the Comprehensive Plan the maximum number of units allowed at the site is 768 units; they are requesting 809 units. If the requested changes are approved, the Comprehensive Plan could be amended to permit up to 18 units an acre, thereby permitting the additional 41 units. Revising the number of units in the apartment from 250 units to 417 units. The acreage now attributed to residential increases from 28.88 acres to 36.27 acres. The increase in land dedicated to housing reduces the land available for retail/entertainment use. 6. The applicant has stated that the retail environment has dramatically changed and will continue to change. They believe that there is increased market demand for drive- through locations. The approved plans allow for a total of four drive-throughs. The plans depict an additional 3-4 drive though locations for marketing purposes. No additional approvals are being sought or granted with this amendment. The developer is advising they may make future requests based on uses/tenants. The PUD as approved allows for two drive- throughs north of Bluff Creek Boulevard for a grocery, pharmacy or bank and two south of Bluff Creek Boulevard likely for coffee or similar type use. 7. The developer has submitted an updated Trip Generation. This study states that the proposed land use would experience a decrease in anticipated traffic volumes. (Attached) 8. Entertainment Use.The plans show a reduction amount of entertainment use. The movie 175 Planning Commission Avienda: Amendment to PUD August 16, 2022 Page 7 of 9 theater use (60,000 sq. ft.) in District 2 is eliminated based on current market conditions. To ensure that an entertainment use(s) is built as part of the development, Staff is proposing a requirement for a minimum square footage of 25,000 square feet of entertainment in Districts 2 and/or 3. The developer has indicated agreement with this condition. 2020 Plan 2022 Plan 176 Planning Commission Avienda: Amendment to PUD August 16, 2022 Page 8 of 9 9. Open Space/Plaza. The total area and configuration has changed. See above for depictions. Developer will provide total square footage comparison at the meeting. The proposed plaza will be privately owned, programmed, and maintained. The intent is to have shared space for the development and the retail/restaurants around the plaza with programming and use that is open to the public. 10. Parking.A significant amount of the parking is on now the south side of Bluff Creek Boulevard serving the entertainment retail area to the north. The Planning Commission may consider/discuss the impact on the walkability of the area. 11. Intent.The Planning Commission may consider/discuss if the revised plan meets the intent of the Regional Commercial/Lifestyle Center. Development Master Plan Revised Districts Proposed changes in uses are provided in the attached PUD Ordinance. Sub-District 1 -Retail -Provides a location for larger-scale in-line and stand-alone retail and entertainment uses. The district has been expanded to include the area that was intended for 150 units of senior housing. Sub-District 2 -The Village -Provides the broadest variety,highest density,and greatest intensity of development,encouraging both vertical and horizontal mixed-use. Comprehensive Plan Amendment would allow up to 18 units per acre and includes 417 apartments and 58 row homes. The row homes provide a transition between the low- density townhomes and the apartments while increasing the land area for housing and total number of units. Sub-District 3 - Mixed Use - Provides a location for smaller-scale retail, service, and other auto-oriented uses as well as hotels and medical/technology-related uses. The District area has been reduced to accommodate the senior housing (300 units) in one building. A hotel and office use as well as two drive-through uses are in this District. A significant amount of the overall parking is in this District. A full-service car wash is proposed to be added as a permitted use in this district. Sub-District 4 -Multi-Family-Provides opportunities for high-density senior or rental apartments.This District has been expanded to have all the senior housing, 300 units, at one location. Sub-District 5 – Low-Density Residential - Provides opportunities for small lothomes. This District has a preliminary plat approved for 39 lots. 177 Planning Commission Avienda: Amendment to PUD August 16, 2022 Page 9 of 9 RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendments to the Avienda PUD-RC (Ordinance #657) subject to the approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. ATTACHMENTS Findings of Fact and Recommendation Development Review Application PUD Ordinance Narrative Development Plan 8.1 Chanhassen Engineering Comments Toole Design Updated Trip Generation Carver County Engineering Comments Affidavit of Mailing g:\plan\2017 planning cases\17-10 avienda preliminary plat & pud\2022 amended avienda pud\pc staff report 081622.doc 178 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of Landform Professional Services LLC – Planning Case No. 2022-12, Avienda Request for amending the Planned Unit Development of 118+/- acres of property zoned Planned Unit Development-Regional Commercial District (PUD-RC) including Exhibit A Avienda Design Standards for the property located at the southwest corner of Powers Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard. On August 16, 2022, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Landform Professional Services LLC to amend the Planned Unit Development-Regional Commercial (PUD-RC) zoning. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed development preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak. FINDINGS OF FACT 1.The property is currently zoned Planned Unit Development – Regional Commercial District (PUD-RC). 2.The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Office or Regional Commercial uses. 3.The legal description of the property is: The plat of Avienda, Carver County, Minnesota. 4.REZONING The proposed amendment meets the required standards for approval: a. The proposed zoning has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City of Chanhassen 2040 Comprehensive Plan subject to the amendment of the comprehensive plan permitting additional density within the regional commercial land use area. b. The proposed zoning is or will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. c. The proposed zoning conforms to all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. d. The proposed zoning will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. 179 e. The proposed zoning can be accommodated with existing and planned public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. f. Traffic generation by the proposed use within the zoning district is within capabilities of streets serving the property. g. The planning report #2022-12 dated August 16, 2022, prepared by Kate Aanenson, et al, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve the Amendment of Planned Unit Development – Regional Commercial, PUD-RC as shown in plans dated July 15, 2022, plan 8.1. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 16th day of August, 2022. Chanhassen Planning Commission BY:___________________________________ Mark von Oven, Chairman 180 181 Section 3: Property Owner and Applicant lnformation Name Landlorm Prolossional Services, LLC Contact:Ken t.e I indehl (612) 638-0225Address:105 S slh Avenue, Suite 513 Phone: City/Statezip: Email: Minnoapolb, MN 55401 Kl-indahl@Landlotm.n€t Cell:(612) 29G.8102 Fax: Signature . Kendra Lindahl, AICP ffi,?,ii*ffi'*Date:7t15t2. PROPERTY OWI{ER: ln signing this application, l, as prop€rty ownsr, have tull legal capacity to, and heleby do, auttorize ne ning ot tris afotidtion. lunderstand lhat conditions of approval are binding and_agr€o to be bound by lhose conOitions, suUje& only to ihe right to obiect at the hearings or during lhe appoal port ds' I will k6€p mysef infomsd of G O""Otin"" t& *bniission of -materiatlnd tre progress of this applicaton. I turther unde6tand that additonal f€€s may L" "ford for -"sulting fees, foasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any aulho.lza$on to proceed with lhe study. icertify that the i;fomation and exhlbils submitted aro tus and conec't' Name:Level 7 Development LLC Contact: Phon6: Bahram Akradi ls52lw74nAddress:4600 Kings Point Road city/statezip:Minnetrista, MN 55331 Cell: Fax: (612181z-',t212 Email Signature:Date: PRqTECT ENGINEER (if aPPlbable) Stev€n Sabraski (612) 638{2€ Iandlorm Prolessional Servic€s' LLC Contact: Phone:IOS S sth Avenue, Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Cell: Fax:Email:SSabraski @ Landform.nst Who ahould racslve coPies of staff rePorts? !tr Email Email Email Email E Mailod Papsr CoPY E Mailed Pap€r copy E Mailed Paper CoPY fl Mail€d PaP€r CoPY Nam6:Mark Nordland, Nordland Partnors Property Owner Vla: Applicaril Vta: Engine€r Vb: Ottq' Ma: Addrass: city/staterzip This application must be comPlet6d in full and must be aoplicable City Odinanc€ provisions. Bofore filing this airi confer witr me Planning Departrnent to determine acco.npanied by all information and plans tBquirsd by.. applicition, refer to the appropriate ApPlicatDn Cheddist thC specific ordinanco and aPplicable proceduEl aoolication shall b€ made lvithin 15 businsss da)'s of aPdication submittal A ;h;ll b€ mailed to the applicant within 15 busin6ss days of application'A determination of completoness of the writtsn notico of application deficiencies r€quirsments and fsss tf Section 4: Notification lnformation INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT device. PRINT FORM and deliver : Complete all necessary lorm fields' !o city along wilh t€quired do€uments copy to the city for Procossing.sAvE FOnu then selecl SAVE FORM and p€yment. SUBMIT PRINT FORII to save a coPY to ),our FoRM to s€nd a digital SUB IT FOR tr!Email:mnord @ nord rs.com APPUCANT OTHER THAN PROPERW OWNER: ln signing this application, I, as applicant, repressnt to have obtain€d authorization frcm the pmperty ownor to file this applicalion. I agre€ to b€ bound by conditions of approval, subject only to th6 right to objeci at the hearings on the applicatbn or during the appeal p€riod. lf this application has not b6en signed by lho prop€rty owner, I havs attach€d soparate documentation of full legal capadty to file th€ application. This application should be process€d in my name and I am the party whom the City should contac{ regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I will keep mlrsef infomed of the deadlin€s for subrnission of mawid and ths Progross of this apPlication. I further understand that additionalfs€s may b€ chargpd for consulting feos, feasibility studies, etc. with an €stimate Prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and conec't. Name: Address: City/Statezip: 'Othor Contact lnformrtlon: tr Dtr D 182 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 657 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE, BY REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: Section 1. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code, the City's zoning ordinance, is amended by rezoning the following described property below from Agricultural Estate District, A-2, to PUD Regional Commercial Avienda. Legal Description THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (S 1/2 OF SW 1/4), SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 23, CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA, EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING 2 DESCRIBED TRACTS: LINE 1. COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 23; THENCE RUNNING NORTH ON SECTION LINE 30 FEET; THENCE IN A STRAIGHT LINE TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH SECTION LINE OF SAID SECTION, 30 FEET EAST OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE WEST 30 FEET TO SAID SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION AND PLACE OF BEGINNING, BEING A THREE CORNERED PIECE IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 23; AND 2. THAT PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER AND THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER, BOTH IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 116 NORTH, RANGE 23 WEST, CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA WHICH LIES EASTERLY OF LINE 2 DESCRIBED BELOW. LINE 2. BEGINNING AT THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 23; THENCE RUNNING WEST ON AN AZIMUTH OF 271 DEGREES 56 MINUTES 13 SECONDS ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 23 FOR 1634.23 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE ON AN AZIMUTH OF 00 DEGREES 43 MINUTES 24 SECONDS FOR 500.11 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE ON AN AZIMUTH OF 91 DEGREES 56 MINUTES 13 SECONDS FOR 1173.46 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE ON AN AZIMUTH OF 29 DEGREES 19 MINUTES 18 SECONDS FOR 152.11 TO A POINT; THENCE ON AN AZIMUTH OF 352 DEGREES, 57 MINUTES 23 SECONDS FOR 709.36 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE ON AN AZIMUTH OF 91 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 02 SECONDS ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER FOR 475.37 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER AND THERE TERMINATING. 183 Page | 2 ABSTRACT TOGETHER WITH PARCEL 1 THE NORTH 420.00 FEET OF THE EAST 414.86 FEET OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 23, CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA. PARCEL 2 THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 23, CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA EXCEPT FOR THE SOUTH 658.24 FEET THEREOF; AND ALSO EXCEPT THE NORTH 420.00 FEET OF THE EAST 414.86 FEET THEREOF. PARCEL 3 THE SOUTH 658.24 FEET OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 23, CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA. TOGETHER WITH THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (NE 1/4 OF SW 1/4) OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 116 NORTH OF RANGE 23 WEST, CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA, EXCEPT THAT PART OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (NE1/4 OF SW1/4) OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 116 NORTH, RANGE 23 WEST, SHOWN AS PARCEL 64 ON MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-19, FILED 10-19-2004 AS DOCUMENT NO. 39930. DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS A. Intent The use of Planned Unit Developments (PUD) for regional/lifestyle center commercial purposes should result in a reasonable and verifiable exchange between the city and the developer. This district is intended to provide for the development of regional and community scale integrated retail, office, business services, personal services, and services to the traveling public near freeway interchanges. It shall strive to create a self-sustaining pattern of land uses with cultural, employment, entertainment, housing, shopping, and social components. The regional/lifestyle center commercial district is a mixed commercial district with retail and entertainment uses of a scale and function that serves a regional market. The physical environment emphasizes an attractive, comfortable walking experience for shoppers and visitors. It shall be designed to serve pedestrian and mass transit users as well as automobile traffic. Centers of this type, generally, have at least two major retail anchors and are characterized by the diversity of mixed retail and service uses. Uses within this district should complement existing retail users in the other commercial districts. Development of these centers shall be planned as a group of organized uses and structures to accommodate a sensitive transition between commercial activities such as loading, parking of 184 Page | 3 automobiles, lighting, and trash collection, and surrounding residential uses. Such centers shall be designed with one theme, similar architectural style, similar exterior building materials, and a coordinated landscaping theme, but shall avoid monotony in design and visual appearance. Vehicle and pedestrian access are coordinated and logically linked to provide a comprehensive circulation system. B. Design Standards Unless otherwise provided in the PUD, the design standards shall follow the Chanhassen City Code Chapter 20, Article VIII Division 1. 20-509. - STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR REGIONAL/LIFESTYLE CENTER COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS and Article XXIII, DIVISION 7. - DESIGN STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND OFFICE-INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENTS. Applies to District 1, 2 and 3. Chapter 20 DIVISION 9. - DESIGN STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS and the Avienda Development Design Guidelines. Applies to Districts 4 and 5. 185 Page | 4 The Master Plan identifies five distinct districts within Avienda. Each of these districts (outlined on the plan below) is defined by specific site development patterns and perhaps a distinctive character or image. The sub-districts complement one another as part of the overall plan. The districts are shown on the attached District Map above. They include: • District 1 - Retail – provides a location for larger-scale in-line and stand-alone retail entertainment uses. • District 2 - The Village – provides the broadest variety, highest density, and greatest intensity of development, encouraging both vertical and horizontal mixed use. Including 58 rowhomes and 417 Apartments with a minimum of 25,000 square feet of entertainment shall be included in this district. • District 3 - Mixed Use – provides a location for smaller-scale retail. Service and auto- oriented uses as well as hotels and medical/technology-related offices. • Sub-District 4 - Multi-Family – provides opportunities for high density senior or rental apartments. Includes 300 Senior Housing units. • Sub-District 5 - Low Density Residential – provides opportunities for small lot homes. Includes 31 townhomes. C. Development Plans and Regulations The PUD must be maintained in accordance with the following development plans which are on file with the city, and which are incorporated herein: 1. Preliminary Plat dated May 1, 2020 2. Development Plan dated July 15, 2022 3. Avienda Design Guidelines dated May 1, 2020 Permitted Uses 1. Entertainment: Amusement and recreation services or substantially similar as reviewed by the Design Review Committee (DRC) and the Community Development Director. 2. Retail sales: a. Department stores not to exceed 25,000 square feet per store, stores that carry an assortment of merchandise from all the other categories. Such establishments may include but are not limited to department stores, discount stores, and similar establishments. b. Supermarkets and other food and grocery stores such as butcher shops and fish markets, fruit and vegetable markets, dairy products stores, candy, nut, and confectionery stores and retail bakeries not to exceed a total of 98,000 square feet. c. Apparel and accessory stores not to exceed 20,000 square feet per store. d. Home furnishing stores selling interior decorating supplies, such as paint, light fixtures, and décor. Such stores may not exceed 40,000 square feet for any single store. e. Clothing and apparel stores, including shoes, jewelry, accessories, etc. f. Drug stores and pharmacies. 186 Page | 5 g. One home and furniture store which includes furniture store, home improvement center, electronic store, appliance store, and similar establishments not to exceed 50,000 square feet. h. Farmers market. 3. Hospitality and food service establishments including: a. Bars and taverns. b. Cafes, delicatessens, food catering establishments. c. Coffee shops and cafes. d. Patio/al fresco dining facilities; Accessory to a principal use. e. Restaurants. 4. Hotels: a. One hotel is permitted in the Mixed Use District. 5. Services: a. Personal Services i. Professional offices: banking, insurance, legal services, and real estate, etc. ii. Financial institutions. iii. Health and recreation clubs, industries, and services. iv. Health services: Offices of doctors, dentists, optometrists, etc. v. Dry cleaning, laundry, and garment services. b. One daycare center, childcare centers, preschools and Montessori school, not to exceed a total of 16,000 square feet for all such uses. 6. Housing: Residential development in the regional/lifestyle center commercial PUD may only occur in multiple-family dwellings. a. Senior housing developments are limited to two sites and are not to exceed 150 units per building. Senior housing (55 Plus) includes owner, rental or service enriched. b. Low Density Residential homes, District 5, shall be a Density of 3-6 units an acre and can include detached townhomes and twin homes. c. Medium density 53 townhomes density of 8 units an acre. These townhomes are a part of District 2. 7. Other uses: a. Retail businesses or service establishments that generally provide commodities or services and that are judged by the Community Development Director (1) to be similar in character and operation to the permitted uses described above; (2) to be closely complementary and to enhance the permitted uses; and (3) to be compatible with the intent and purposes of the Avienda Village Regional Lifestyle Center PUD. b. Drive-through accessory to a permitted use. (A maximum of four shall be permitted in Avienda. In District 1 the two permitted drive-throughs can be associated with the supermarket grocery or pharmacy or bank. In addition two drive-throughs in District 3 the Mixed Use District and includes a full service car wash.) 187 Page | 6 8. Prohibited Uses a. Auto related including gas stations, tires, repair etc. except for one full-service car wash in District 3. b. Truck, motorcycles, boats, etc. sales. c. Club warehouse including wholesale. 9. Other comparable or superior materials may be approved by the DRC and the Community Development Director. D. Minimum Setbacks Building setbacks shall follow Chapter 20, Article VIII Division 1. 20-509. - STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR REGIONAL/LIFESTYLE CENTER COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS. Setbacks may be waived by the City Council when it is demonstrated that environmental protection and design will be enhanced. E. Development Site Coverage and Building Height 1. The PUD standard for hard surface coverage is 70% for the overall development. Individual lots may exceed this threshold. 2. More than one (1) principal structure may be placed on one (1) platted lot. 3. The maximum building height shall be: a. Retail District - 1 story b. Village District Apartment - 5 stories (excluding underground parking) Retail - 1 story Restaurants - 1 story Entertainment - 1 story c. Mixed Use District Hotel - 3 stories (excluding underground parking) Retail - 1 story Offices - 3 stories (excluding underground parking) d. Multi-family District - 3 stories/40 feet (excluding underground parking) e. Low Density Housing District - 35 feet F. Parking Requirements 1. Parking shall follow Chanhassen City Code ARTICLE XXIV. - OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING. 2. There is no minimum parking setback when it abuts, without being separated by a street, another off-street parking area. 3. Code Drive-Through Facilities. Drive-throughs must comply with the standard of the City Code 20-963 and where appropriate, the city and developer may prepare a vehicle stacking study to determine whether more of less stacking shall be required for a particular use. G. Landscaping Plan An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall contain the following: 188 Page | 7 1. Boulevard plantings. Located in front yards shall require a mix of over-story trees and other plantings consistent with the site. Landscaped berms shall be provided to screen the site from major roadways, railroads, and less intensive land uses. In place of mass grading for building pads and roads, stone or decorative block retaining walls shall be employed as required to preserve mature trees and the site's natural topography. 2. Exterior landscaping and double-fronted lots. Landscaped berms shall be provided to buffer the site and lots from major roadways, railroads, and less intensive uses. Similar measures shall be provided for double-fronted lots. Where necessary to accommodate this landscaping, additional lot depth may be required. 3. Foundation and yard plantings. A minimum budget or plan for foundation plants shall be established and approved by the City. As each parcel is developed in the PUD, the builder shall be required to install plant materials meeting or exceeding the required budget or prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy or provide financial guarantees acceptable to the City. 4. Tree preservation. Tree preservation is a primary goal of the PUD. A detailed tree survey should be prepared during the design of the PUD and the plans should be developed to maximize tree preservation. 5. No fences shall be permitted between the required landscape buffer and arterial and collector roads. H. Signage 189 Page | 8 The intent of this section is to establish an effective means of communication in the development, maintain and enhance the aesthetic environment and the business’s ability to attract sources of economic development and growth, to improve pedestrian and traffic safety, to minimize the possible adverse effect of signs on nearby public and private property, and to enable the fair and consistent enforcement of these sign regulations. It is the intent of this section, to promote the health, safety, general welfare, aesthetics, and image of the community by regulating signs that are intended to communicate to the public, and to use signs which meet the city's goals: 1. Establish standards which permit businesses a reasonable and equitable opportunity to advertise their name and service. 2. Preserve and promote civic beauty and prohibit signs which detract from this objective because of size, shape, height, location, condition, cluttering or illumination. 3. Ensure that signs do not create safety hazards. 4. Ensure that signs are designed, constructed, installed, and maintained in a manner that does not adversely impact public safety or unduly distract motorists. 5. Preserve and protect property values. 6. Ensure signs that are in proportion to the scale of, and are architecturally compatible with, the principal structures. 7. Limit temporary commercial signs and advertising displays which provide an opportunity for grand opening and occasional sales events while restricting signs which create continuous visual clutter and hazards at public right-of-way intersections. 8. All signs shall comply with the city sign ordinance ARTICLE XXVI. – SIGNS unless otherwise permitted in this document. 1. Project Identification Sign A Six project identification signs shall be permitted for the development. The location of the Project Identification signs shall be as follows: a. Southwest and southeast of the intersection of Sunset Trail and Lyman Boulevard. b. Southwest of the intersection of Powers and Lyman Boulevards. c. Northwest and southwest of the intersection of Powers and Bluff Creek Boulevards. d. The most southeasterly corner of the development facing the Highway 212. The design and dimensions of the sign shall be identical throughout the development with exception of the larger sign facing south on to Highway 212. 190 Page | 9 2. Off-Premise Directory Sign B Three off-premise directory signs shall be permitted for the development. The location of the off- premise directory signs shall be as follows: • Southeast of the intersection of Avienda Parkway and Sunset Trail. • Northwest and southwest of the intersection of Bluff Creek Boulevard and Sunset Trail. The sign architectural structure shall not exceed 19 feet in height and shall be built in accordance with the dimensions and design shown and labeled below. 1. The individual tenant sign panel area shall not exceed eight (8) square feet, six (6) feet wide and 1’ 4” high, no more than three panels per off-premise directional sign. 2. The overall sign area shall not exceed 58 square feet. 3. The sign shall be located outside of the sight triangle and shall not interfere with the driver’s intersection sight distance. 4. The sign shall maintain a minimum of 10 feet from the back of the curb. 5. The sign shall maintain a 1.5-foot separation from trails/sidewalks. 191 Page | 10 6. The sign shall not interfere with snow removal operations. 7. The sign shall only include the names and logos of the businesses. 8. The sign design shall compliment the design and materials of the proposed buildings. Project identification sign area shall not exceed 80 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight (8) feet in height. The sign shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the property line and be located outside the sight distance triangle. 3. Monument Sign C a. Each lot shall be permitted one monument sign. One monument sign shall be permitted per lot with the exception of Lots 1 and 2, Block 2. These signs shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than five (5) feet in height. If more than one building is on a lot, the sign must be shared. b. All monument signs shall maintain a uniform architectural design that complements the architecture of the buildings. c. These signs shall be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the property line and be located outside the sight triangle. d. All monument signs shall face the internal streets (Avienda Parkway and Bluff Creek Boulevard). 192 Page | 11 4. Wayfinding Signs D Wayfinding signs shall be permitted along the internal street located within Lots 1 and 2, Block 5. a. The sign shall not exceed eight (8) feet in height. b. The sign area shall not exceed 32 square feet. c. The sign shall be located outside of the sight triangle and shall not interfere with the driver’s intersection sight distance. d. The sign shall maintain a minimum of 10 feet from the back of the curb. e. The sign shall maintain a 1.5-foot separation from trails and sidewalks. f. The sign shall not be illuminated. g. The sign shall not interfere with snow removal operations. h. The sign lettering shall not exceed six inches and shall have a uniform style. i. The sign shall only include the names and logos of the businesses and a directional arrow. j. The sign design shall compliment the design and materials of the proposed building. k. The sign shall not obstruct drivers’ views of any city-owned street signage or railroad signage. l. The sign will be owned and maintained by the developer. m. The applicant shall construct the sign. 193 Page | 12 5. Wall Signs a. The location of letters and logos shall be restricted to the approved building sign bands, the tops of which shall not extend above parapet height. The letters and logos shall be restricted to a maximum of 30 inches in height. All individual letters and logos comprising each sign shall be constructed of wood, metal, or translucent facing. b. Second story illuminated signs that can be viewed from neighborhoods outside the PUD site, are prohibited. c. Tenant signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant’s proper name and major product or service offered. Corporate logos, emblems, and similar identifying devices are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band and do not occupy more than 30% of the sign area unless the logo is the sign. d. Wall signs are limited to two elevations per building unless the area of square footage exceeds 25,000 or above in a single use. e. Single tenant buildings shall be permitted wall signs on two elevations only unless the area of square footage exceeds 25,000 or above in a single use. The size of the sign shall be based on Table 1. f. Halo Lit signs are permitted consistent with the wall area criteria, including maximum nits and only white. 194 Page | 13 6. Projecting Sign (Wall) a. Shall be limited to the Village Retail District. b. Sign area shall not exceed two (2) square feet and not project more than two (2) feet from the building. 7. Festive Flags/Banners a. Flags and banners shall be permitted on approved standards attached to the building facade and on standards attached to pedestrian area lighting. b. Flags and banners shall be constructed of fabric or vinyl. c. Banners shall not contain advertising for individual users, businesses, services, or products. d. Flags and banners shall project from buildings a maximum of two (2) feet. f. Flags and banners shall have a maximum area of 10 square feet. g. Flags and banners which are torn or excessively worn shall be removed at the request of the city. 8. Building Directory a. In multi-tenant buildings, one building directory sign may be permitted. The directory sign shall not exceed eight square feet. 9. On-Premise Directional Signs a. On-premise signs shall not be larger than four (4) square feet. The maximum height of the sign shall not exceed five (5) feet from the ground. The placement of directional signs on the property shall be so located such that the sign does not adversely affect adjacent properties (including site lines or confusion of adjoining ingress or egress) or the general appearance of the site from public right-of-way. No more than four (4) signs shall be allowed per lot. The City Council may allow additional signs in situations where access is confusing, or traffic safety could be jeopardized. b. Bench signs are prohibited except at transit stops as authorized by the local transit authority. c. Signs and Graphics. Wherever possible, traffic control, directional, and other public signs should be consolidated and grouped with other street fixtures and furnishings to reduce visual clutter and to facilitate vehicular and pedestrian movement. A system of directional signs should also be established to direct traffic within the commercial area and away from residential areas. 10. Prohibited Signs a. Pylon signs. b. Back lit awnings. c. Window signs are prohibited except for company logo/symbol and not the name. Such logo shall not exceed 10% of a window area. d. Menu signs. e. Signs on roofs, dormers, and balconies. f. Billboards. 195 Page | 14 g. Interchangeable letter boards or panels. h. Flashing signs. 11. Sign Design and Permit Requirements a. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect the quality of the development. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material and height throughout the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. b. All signs require a separate sign permit. c. Wall business signs shall comply with the City’s sign ordinance for the neighborhood business district for determination of maximum sign area. Wall signs may be permitted on the “street” front and primary parking lot front of each building. I. Public Realm, Streetscape The site development, streetscape character, building placement, pedestrian realm, material expression and color, stormwater utilization, building interest, lighting and walking paths shall be consistent with the Avienda Development Guidelines Dated May 1, 2020. J. Engineering Requirement 1. The traffic analysis for the 2016 AUAR Update shall be updated based on the approved land uses for the development. 2. Each subsequent plat and/or site plan will be required to complete a Traffic Impact Study for the abutting local road network to identify capacity deficiencies at affected intersections and to help identify feasible solutions to identified deficiencies. This shall also include: an assessment of internal circulation for vehicles and pedestrians; the interface between public and private streets and trails and their respective maintenance operations; and emergency service access and circulation. 3. The access point east of the most eastern round-a-bout on Bluff Creek Boulevard, as depicted in Development Plan 8.1 dated July 15, 2022, is not approved. 4. An updated capacity analysis for municipal utilities shall be provided based on the approved land uses to determine if the municipal utilities to service the development are adequate. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this the day of September 12, 2022. ATTEST: Kim Meuwissen, City Clerk Elise Ryan, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on ) g:\plan\2017 planning cases\17-10 avienda preliminary plat & pud\amended pud and concept 2020\pud ordinance amended 2020.doc 196 Narrative Avienda PUD Amendment Prepared for: Level 7 Development, LLC July 15, 2022 SUBMITTED TO City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 PREPARED BY Landform Professional Services, LLC 105 5th Ave S, Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Landform®, SensiblyGreen® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC 197 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Amendment Request .................................................................................................................................... 1 Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 2 Contact Information ...................................................................................................................................... 3 198 Avienda, Chanhassen, MN July 15, 2022 SCD1400.LEV.003 1 Introduction On behalf of Level 7 Development, LLC, Landform is pleased to submit this application for an amendment to the Avienda PUD to allow us to better respond to demand in the evolving marketplace and create the mixed use regional/lifestyle center envisioned for our site. We have been working with staff to discuss the proposed modifications that were presented at the June 27th Council Work Session and look forward to approval of the PUD modifications. We have prepared an updated development plan (DP 8.1) and district plan (below) that show the current master plan concept. We are very excited about the changes proposed and the development planned. Figure 1: July 15, 2022 district map Amendment Request Our proposal remains consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goal to create a regional destination with a walkable commercial core, residential and office uses. The five districts in the previous master plan approvals remain unchanged with high-quality building architecture, streetscape and amenities as a foundation. Avienda will provide places to dine, converge and socialize around an active open space area. The development team is continuing to refine the details and we have provided renderings to show how this village center could be programmed. The mixed use development will offer a variety of retail, restaurant, office, entertainment and housing options. 199 Avienda, Chanhassen, MN July 15, 2022 SCD1400.LEV.003 2 We have been working with a variety of users who have expressed interest in Avienda, including some recreational uses that were not previously anticipated. We are requesting some modification to the PUD to allow us to quickly respond to bring quality uses to the project. Specifically, we ask for the following: 1. Expand the uses permitted in the different districts to allow us to bring new uses like the regional recreation user that we discussed at the Council work session. This could likely be addressed in Section C (7) of the PUD ordinance. 2. Clarify that the district boundaries are fluid in nature and can be adjusted to accommodate the users that ultimately come to Avienda. 3. Modify Section C (6) of the ordinance to allow the option for the two approved senior housing developments (which were limited to two buildings with 150 units per building) to be combined into a single building (up to 300 units) in District 4 (Multi-Family Housing District). We have prepared a new district plan that shifts the boundary between District 3 and District 4 to accommodate a senior housing product. 4. We would proposed to change the NW area previously shown as District 4 for senior housing to District 1 to accommodate additional retail. With this change, all of the land along Lyman Boulevard would now be planned for retail uses. 5. Allow row homes in District 2 (Village Retail District) to provide another housing option in this lifestyle center. This may require a modification of the language in Section C (6) and Section E.3.b of the ordinance, but remains consistent with the urban core concept. These rowhomes would be an urban-style townhome that meets the City’s goal of providing lifecycle housing options by providing a housing option that is not currently available. The density of the rowhomes will support the commercial uses in Avienda as well. 6. While we don’t believe it requires a change to the PUD, we ask for the ability to construct a larger apartment in District 2 (Village Retail District) than previously shown. We are working with developers to provide a high-amenity housing product with first floor retail/office space. 7. In the post-COVID era the retail environment has changed dramatically and will continue to change. One of the primary outcomes was a desire for more drive-through services. We ask that the PUD allow us to offer additional opportunities for businesses to provide a drive-through option by modifying Section C (7)b of the ordinance. When the project was first proposed in 2015, we noted that a project of this size would continue to evolve. The “Avienda Design Guidelines” we created and the City approved will ensure that Avienda be developed as a high- quality lifestyle center as envisioned. Summary We respectfully request approval of the requested PUD amendment and look forward to working with staff to finalize the language to ensure a viable mixed-use lifestyle center on the Avienda site. 200 Avienda, Chanhassen, MN July 15, 2022 SCD1400.LEV.003 3 Contact Information This document was prepared by: Kendra Lindahl, AICP Landform 105 South Fifth Avenue, Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Any additional questions regarding this application can be directed to Kendra Lindahl at klindahl@landform.net or 612.638.0225. 201 US Hwy 212Lyman Boulevard Powers BoulevardBluff Creek BoulevardB e t h e s d a C i r c l e Lyman Boulvevard River Rock Drive NJersey Way RIVER ROC K D R S Degler Circle Sunset Tra i l Mills Drive Jeurissen LanePowers BoulevardOUTLOT E OUTLOT A OUTLOT C 13,000 S.F. x 3 STORIES6,000 S.F.73,500 s.f. 25,000 S.F. X 3 STORIES OFFICE OFFICE RETAIL RETAIL RETAIL 10,000 S.F. 35,000 S.F. RETAIL RETAIL ANCHOR RETAIL HOTEL10,000 S.F. 8,000 S.F. RETAIL RETAIL 3,000 S.F. 25,000 S.F. X 3 STORIES 6,000 S.F. 8,000 S.F. 5,000 S.F. 15,000 S.F. 6,000 S.F. 7,000 S.F.RETAILRETAIL RETAIL REST REST 13,000 S.F. SENIOR 30,000 S.F. RETAIL CHILD CARE 10,000 S.F. REST 10,000 S.F. 8,000 S.F. RETAIL 8,000 S.F. RETAIL 7,000 S.F. REST 125,840 S.F. x 4 STORIES APARTMENTS Bluff Creek Boulevard Avienda Parkway U R/W R/W A T D F G H I J K P Q PR 1 PR 2 30 115 92 917 54 103 76 67 213 O 869 36 47 168 23 70 82 85 108 131 R/W L M N S R/W R/W R/W Mills Drive R B C E R/W Landform and Site to Finish are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.R R in collaboration with: LEVEL 7 DEVELOPMENT NORDLAND PARTNERS · RSP ARCHITECTS ESG ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN AVIENDA · Chanhassen, MN Regional Map Legend Stall Future Traffic Signal Existing Traffic Signal Stall Count Public Right Of Way Regional Commercial Office High Density Residential Medium Density Residential Preservation Ponding NORTH 0 150 300 Wetland and Buffer PR R/W 12 494 10 394 169 5 169 55 62 100 62 MISSISSIPPIRIVERBLOOMINGTON MINNEAPOLIS 35W SITE 94 94 694 35W 35W 35 35E 494 494 94 94 35W 212 169 169 100 12 MINNESOTA RIVER CHANHASSEN MAPLE GROVE DP8.1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN 8.1 JULY 15, 2022 Development Data Section Gross Area (Acres) Net Developable Area (Acres) Building Area (S.F.) Parking Stalls Units/ Beds Parking Ratio (Stalls per 1,000 S.F. or per Unit) 1.91 1.91 6,000 36 6.0 1.66 1.66 10,000 47 4.7 3.76 3.76 35,000 168 4.8 2.26 2.26 10,000 23 2.3 1.27 1.27 13,000 70 5.4 1.75 1.75 15,000 82 5.5 1.46 1.46 5,000 85 17.0 1.48 1.48 6,000 76 12.7 1.62 1.62 7,000 67 9.6 1.06 1.06 7,000 30 4.3 6.10 6.10 45,000 239 5.3 6.60 6.60 93,227 n/a 53 2.74 2.74 24,632 n/a 8 9.27 7.35 95,449 n/a 31 12.51 12.51 461,089 869 417 4.48 4.45 30,000 115 3.8 7.07 7.07 73,524 213 300 1.2 1.92 1.92 10,000 54 5.4 1.78 1.78 6,000 92 15.3 1.52 1.52 39,000 103 100 2.6 10.89 10.89 225,000 917 4.1 14.25 0.00 n/a n/a 20.87 0.00 n/a n/a 1.66 0.00 n/a n/a Total 119.89 81.16 1,216,921 3,286 909 n/a A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P PR 1 R/W PR 2 Q R Notes Development plan shown for schematic purposes only and subject to change. S T U 202 Memorandum To:Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director From:Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer CC: Charles Howley, Public Works Director/City Engineer George Bender, Assistant City Engineer Date:8/4/2022 Re:Avienda PUD Amendment – Planning Case #2022-12 The Public Works and Engineering Department has reviewed the PUD Amendment submittal for the Avienda development. These comments are divided into two categories: general comments and proposed conditions. General comments are informational points to guide the applicant in the proper planning of public works infrastructure for this project, to inform the applicant of possible extraordinary issues and/or to provide the basis for findings. Proposed conditions are requirements that Public Works and Engineering recommend be formally imposed on the development in the final order. Note that references to the “City Standards” herein refer to the City of Chanhassen Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. General Comments/Findings 1. Any and all utility and transportation plans submitted with this application have been reviewed only for the purpose of determining the feasibility of providing utility and transportation facilities for the project in accordance with City Standards. A recommendation of approval does not constitute final approval of details, including but not limited to alignments, materials and points of access, connection or discharge, that are depicted or suggested in the application. The applicant is required to submit detailed construction drawings and/or plat drawings for the project, as applicable. The City of Chanhassen Engineering and Public Works Department will review plans, in detail, when they are submitted and approve, reject or require modifications to the plans or drawings based upon conformance with City Standards, the Chanhassen Code of Ordinances and the professional engineering judgment of the City Engineer. 203 2. It is the opinion of the Engineering Department that the proposed amendment can be developed in accordance with the requirements of the Chanhassen Code of Ordinances (as it pertains to Engineering and Public Works requirements) and City Standards, provided it fully addresses the comments and conditions contained herein. 3. The applicant is proposing to amend the Avienda PUD ordinance by changing and combining senior housing to one building located in the southern portion of the site, increasing the multi-family building (apartments) by 167 units, changing and relocating the entertainment use area, increasing the number of medium density units (townhouses/villas) by 53, and adding more drive throughs. The applicant has submitted a plan sheet titled “Development Plan 8.1” dated July 15, 2022, which is an illustrative depiction of the site’s layout based on the proposed amended PUD land uses. Staff has concerns regarding how the proposed land uses will alter the ultimate build-out, as depicted by Development Plan 8.1, and its impact on the surrounding public street operations along with the traffic circulation within the site. These concerns also include the interface between publicly owned and privately owned facilitates and their maintenance activities (e.g. snow removal). In order to assess any potential traffic deficiencies that may arise such as impacts to traffic safety, intersection operations, street capacity, etc., an update to the existing traffic study associated with the 2016 AUAR Update should be provided based on the newly proposed uses. Additionally, upon submittal of each subsequent plat and/or site plan within the Avienda development, a Traffic Impact Study should be performed for the immediate road network (Bluff Creek Blvd, Avienda Parkway, and Sunset Trail) which will also include the internal circulation of the site based on the proposed plans. This traffic impact study will be updated and build upon each approval for the development to ensure that the abutting public streets and internal site circulation meet acceptable levels of service and maintain safe and sustainable traffic operations. See proposed conditions 1 and 2. 4. The Development Plan 8.1 provided depicts an access off of Bluff Creek Blvd just east of the most eastern round-a-bout. Due to the anticipated volumes and it’s proximity to the round-a-bout there are serious concerns regarding traffic operations and potential safety issues. While Development Plan 8.1 is illustrative in nature, this access point as depicted is not approved. See proposed condition 3. 5. Public utilities to the development were originally designed to meet the needs of the development based on the original PUD land uses approved in 2020. The newly proposed land uses will impact the utility needs of the development, as such the applicant shall provide an updated capacity analysis to determine whether the public utilities installed have sufficient capacities to meet the needs of the usages proposed. See proposed condition 4. 204 Proposed Conditions 1. The applicant shall update the traffic analysis completed for the 2016 AUAR Update based on the approved land uses for the development. 2. Each subsequent plat and/or site plan will be required to complete a Traffic Impact Study for the abutting local road network to identify capacity deficiencies at affected intersections and to help identify feasible solutions to identified deficiencies. This shall also include; an assessment of internal circulation for vehicles and pedestrians; the interface between public and private streets and trails and their respective maintenance operations; and emergency service access and circulation. 3. The access point east of the most eastern round-a-bout on Bluff Creek Boulevard, as depicted in Development Plan 8.1 dated July 15, 2022, is not approved. 4. An updated capacity analysis shall be provided based on the approved land uses to determine if the municipal utilities to service the development are adequate. 205 MEMORANDUM July 26, 2022 To: Steven Sabraski, Landform and Mark Nordland, Level 7 Development, LLC From: Toole Design Project: Avienda Final Roadway Plans Re: Updated Avienda Development-Driven Trip Generation The purpose of this memo is to compare the results of the initial trip generation analysis to the results of the updated trip generation analysis. This memo also lists the assumptions made when calculating the updated trip generation totals. Updated Trip Generation Introduction Trip generation estimates were prepared for the Avienda development based on the latest site plan 8.1 and have been compared to estimates from the 2017 Chanhassen Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR). The 2017 AUAR used the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition to calculate trip generation rates for two different development concepts: Concept A assumed wetland mitigation, while Concept B assumed wetland preservation. In this updated analysis, the 10th Edition of the Trip Generation Manual was used to calculate trip generation estimates for the actual land uses being developed, which include a day care center, retail, restaurant, office, residential (apartments, senior living, and townhomes), and hotel components. 2017 Trip Generation Table 1 shows the 2017 trip generation estimates for Concept A. Only the estimates for the northeast quadrant (Avienda development) are shown. Concept A traffic volumes were used in the Intersection Control Evaluation Report (ICE Report) for T.H. 212 North Ramp at Powers Boulevard prepared by Toole Design Group, dated May 18, 2022. The Specific land use codes (LUC) from the Trip Generation Manual used in preparing the trip generation estimates from 2017 were provided in Appendix B of the AUAR report and are included in Table 1. 206 2 Table 1: 2017 Trip Generation Estimates (Concept A) Land Use LUC Intensity Trip Generation Values Daily AM Total (In/Out) PM Total (In/Out) Day Care Center 565 16,000 SF 1,185 195 (105/90) 195 (90/105) Retail 820 393,000 SF 16,780 375 (235/140) 1,460 (700/760) Restaurant 932 26,500 SF 3,370 285 (155/130) 260 (155/105) Office 710 150,000 SF 1,655 235 (205/30) 225 (40/185) Residential- Attached (Apartments) 220 407 DU 2,590 205 (40/165) 240 (155/85) Residential- Attached (Townhomes) 230 38 DU 125 10 (0/10) 10 (5/5) Hotel 310 100 Rooms 520 55 (30/25) 60 (30/30) Total Site Generated Trips 26,225 1,360 (770/590) 2,450 (1,175/1,275) Internal Capture Reduction 6,448 295 (150/145) 660 (330/330) Total Driveway Trips 19,777 1,065 (620/445) 1,790 (845/945) Pass-By Reduction 5,512 -- 460 (230/230) Total Net New Trips 14,265 1,065 (620/445) 1,330 (615/715) 2022 Trip Generation Table 2 shows the updated trip generation results for the proposed Avienda development based on Development Plan 8.1 dated July 15, 2022. Land use codes (LUC) from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition are included in the second column. The methodology in NCHRP Report 684 was followed to obtain the internal capture reduction rates, and the pass-by tables from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition were used to obtain the pass-by reduction rates. Specific assumptions for each part of the trip generation process are listed below. Trip Generation When using the Trip Generation Manual to obtain the number of daily, AM peak, and PM peak trips, the LUC from the 2017 AUAR were replicated to make a fair comparison of vehicle trips. There are some variations within the residential uses. LUC 230 (townhomes) does not appear in the newest edition of the Trip Generation Manual, so LUC 220, Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) was used instead. LUC 221, Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) was used 207 3 for the four-story apartment building, and LUC 252, Senior Adult Housing-Attached was used to generate trips for the senior living facility. Table 2: 2022 Trip Generation Estimates Land Use LUC Intensity Trip Generation Values Daily AM Total (In/Out) PM Total (In/Out) Day Care Center 565 10,000 SF 476 110 (58/52) 111 (52/59) Retail 820 167,000 SF 8,521 235 (146/89) 794 (381/413) Restaurant 932 28,000 SF 3,141 278 (153/125) 274 (170/104) Office 710 150,000 SF 1,572 167 (144/23) 167 (27/141) Residential-Attached (Apartments) 221 417 DU 2,271 139 (36/103) 174 (106/68) Residential-Attached (Senior Living) 252 300 DU 1,181 60 (21/39) 74 (41/33) Residential-Attached (Townhomes) 220 92 DU 655 44 (10/34) 55 (35/20) Hotel 310 100 Rooms 702 45 (26/18) 49 (25/24) Total Site Generated Trips 18,518 1,078 (595/484) 1,699 (837/862) Internal Capture Reduction 1,798 270 (137/135) 714 (360/362) Total Driveway Trips 16,721 809 (458/348) 985 (477/500) Pass-By Reduction 4,031 -- 397 (206/190) Total Net New Trips 12,690 809 (458/348) 588 (270/310) Internal Capture Reduction When calculating the internal capture reduction rate, it was assumed that all trips would be made by motor vehicle. As a result, the mode split accounted for 0% transit trips and 0% non-motorized trips, as well as a vehicle occupancy of 1.0. Land use interchange distances were omitted from the calculation. Pass-By Reduction The ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition only provided pass-by reduction tables for PM peak traffic. Table 2 shows the PM pass-by reduction rates applied to the total daily trips as well. Summary Comparing the total net new trips in Table 2 with those in Table 1, overall vehicle trips are expected to be less with the new composition of land use of the Avienda development. The ICE analysis performed for the intersection of T.H. 212 Ramp at Powers Boulevard assumed higher vehicle volumes and can be considered 208 4 conservative in its recommendation; proposed signal modification and intersection geometry will be suited to accommodate actual development-driven traffic. 209 Carver County Public Works 11360 Highway 212, Suite 1 Cologne, MN 55322 Office (952) 466-5200 | Fax (952) 466-5223 | www.co.carver.mn.us CARVER COUNTY Review comments from the July 2022 Planned Unit Development Amendment submittal are made in blue italic font. Comments updated August 5, 2022. City of Chanhassen c/o Kate Aanenson Community Development Director 952-227-1139 kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us May 9, 2018 City of Chanhassen c/o Paul Oehme Director of Public Works/City Engineer 952-227-1169 poehme@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Re: Development/Access Review Comments: Avienda – Progress Set Plans dated 4.25.2018 (Preliminary Plans) – CSAH 18/Lyman Blvd and CSAH 17/Powers Blvd/ US 212 Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject development plans in the City of Chanhassen. Consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan and County Codes, the following are comments and recommended conditions of approval and as potential requirements for any necessary permits to be issued for the project: 1. As an overall comment, prior to the next stage of plans and plat / site plans approval, the County would like to review and approve plans of detailed intersection and related segment geometric design plans with phasing and planned implementation steps and schedules. If the opportunity is not allowed for a reasonable review of such, this could lead to delays in the permitting process and potential major revisions to plans and right of way. The County is available to meet on project management or design meetings. a. Information 2. Plans for Bluff Creek Blvd at and from CSAH 17 / Powers Blvd look adequate as long as 2- lanes are maintained on the ingress side to the local roundabout, and 3-lanes are maintained on the egress side to Powers Blvd and the traffic signal intersection there. The exact width for the ingress should be a minimum of 28-ft face-to-face and preferably closer to 30-ft to accept dual LTs in. A cross-section detail should be provided for Bluff Creek Blvd as well as a plan and profile showing the vertical profile from the center-line of Powers Blvd to the internal roundabout. 210 a. Coordination of specifications of plan set to be approved as part of permit approval. 3. As a note, the geometric design of the internal (City) roundabout (ICD=125 ft) could be (or should be) improved—contact the County if the City would like additional feedback. a. Coordination of specifications of plan set to be approved as part of permit approval. 4. The Bluff Creek Blvd connection to the existing traffic signal at Powers Blvd/ CSAH 17 and US 212 will require traffic signal modifications and upgrades. Some form of contract / permit and surety with the County will be required for design, construction, re-timing / re- programming, and final inspection for the traffic signal and roadway approach and loop detection facilities. Striping and restriping of lanes and/or crosswalks may be needed to be incorporated into the project. The modification of the existing pedestrian push buttons / APS system may also be needed. Please contact the County and MnDOT to set up a scoping and design meeting. In addition, an intersection detail and traffic signal layout and wiring plan will be required to update the current record traffic signal plan. a. See item #14 5. The intersection of Sunset Trail / Lyman Blvd will need to be reviewed in detail for intersection control alternatives. Intersection traffic operations at this location are a concern and it may be that access needs to be restricted to right-in / right-out until such time that higher order intersection facilities are available and/or provided for. a. See item #14 6. The proposed cross-section of Sunset Trail from Lyman Blvd (CSAH 18) to the south will need to be widened five (5) feet to account for this access condition as well as for two turn lanes out and enough space for truck turning movements in. The cross-section should be 22- ft in; and 27-ft out (10-17-ft). A cross-section detail should be provided for Bluff Creek Blvd as well as a plan and profile showing the vertical profile and alignment plan from the development’s internal street intersection to the far side of Lyman Blvd intersection, to include the existing street on the north side of the intersection. Further changes to Sunset Trail and its alignment may be required. a. Condition applies, see item #14. Coordination of specifications of plan set to be approved as part of permit approval. 7. A full right of way intersection detail of the Sunset Trail and Lyman Blvd will need to be provided to show plans for a future traffic signal layout, wiring, loop detection, and corridor interconnection plan. In addition, numerous utilities are in place in the NW quadrant and some are being looked at to be relocated, such that a utility plan may also be required. Pedestrian ramps and other improvements will be required including pedestrian push buttons / APS systems. In addition, intersection lighting will need to be reviewed and included if not adequate as determined by the County. Contract / permit and surety with the County will be required for design, construction, and final inspection for the intersection connection, and if approved traffic signal and roadway approach facilities. Striping and restriping of lanes and/or crosswalks may be needed to be incorporated into the project. 211 a. Condition applies, see item #14. Coordination of specifications of plan set to be approved as part of permit approval. 8. The proposed vertical profile of Sunset Trail from Lyman Blvd (CSAH 18) to the south looks overly steep and will need to be revised to provide 100-feet of 2% max profile and match to the existing Lyman Blvd grade. A check for future loops and/or video camera signal detection may also be required. a. Coordination of specifications of plan set to be approved as part of permit approval. 9. The contour and grading of the site will need to factor in additional roadway width to include a right turn lane from Lyman Blvd to Powers Blvd. with the existing right turn lane converting to a through lane in future plans. The plat and the separate site plans’ final grading plans and right of way along both CSAH 18 and CSAH 17 will need to be reviewed and approved to show how this is set up for the planned future CSAH 18 future plans. Prior to next stage grading and plat approval, the County would like to review and approve an exhibit drawing showing a cross section of Lyman Blvd on both ends of the plat edges. The cross sections would show the future road improvements and how these improvements might affect the subject lots and any other plat or lot proposed improvements. The two cross sections should be referenced to a plan view at 1:40 scale from center of existing ROW and existing grade, with notes on proposed grades for the roadway and subject lots. a. Information, see comment #15. 10. The field entrance on the south side of Lyman Blvd approximately 400 ft. east of Sunset Trail must be removed and replaced with full B curb. a. Condition applies 11. As part of our review of the preliminary plans, the following are also noted: the City stubbed in a new water main at the SW quadrant of Powers Blvd and Lyman Blvd (NE quadrant of the property). County has fiber conduit and vaults along the south side of Lyman Blvd the entire length of this property. Utility plan shows the casing outside of the roadway on Sunset Trail. Proposed grading plans and utility plans will need further review to show and resolve these conflicts. a. Condition applies 12. Prior to any work affecting or on County highways or in County right of way, the applicant shall coordinate plans with the County Engineer and obtain a Utility or Excavating/Filling/Grading Permit(s) from Carver County Public Works: (http://www.co.carver.mn.us/how-do-i/apply-for/a-permit). Final details of locations, grades, and profiles affecting County roads as well as any utility connections will need to be reviewed and approved prior to any permits. a. Condition applies 13. Any damages, modifications, or changes incurred on County highways from current or approved conditions will need to remedied or updated at development expense, including 212 costs incurred by the County. a. Information Update: 14. With the increase in number of housing units on the subject site, the following are needed: a. A new ICE report for the intersection at Lyman Blvd & Sunset Trail. i. With the information available to the County to date, a signal would be required. If the ICE report determines that a signal is required, this would be at the developer’s expense. b. An update to the ICE report for the intersection at Powers Blvd & Bluff Creek Blvd. 15. Regarding final approvals and required permits - a. The County will need to review and approve the final grading plans for properties adjacent to CSAH 18 and CSAH 17. A grading permit will be required for grading work within the highway right of way. b. An access permit will be required for accesses onto CSAH 18 CSAH 17 due to this change in use and connection of the site improvements to both CSAH 18 and CSAH 17. c. The technical details of any final plat, its boundaries and form(s) will need to be reviewed and approved by the County Surveyor. 2018: These are comments at this time. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at dmccormick@co.carver.mn.us or by phone at (952) 466-5208. Sincerely, Dan McCormick, P.E. PTOE Transportation Manager Carver County Public Works 2022: These are the County’s comments, updated as of August 5th, 2022. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please contact staff noted below: Jack Johansen Transportation Planner Carver County Public Works 952.466.5283 jjohansen@co.carver.mn.us Angie Stenson AICP Sr. Transportation Planner Carver County Public Works 952.466.5273 astenson@co.carver.mn.us Darin Mielke PE Assistant Public Works Director Carver County Public Works 952.466.5222 dmielke@co.carver.mn.us 213 214 215 216 217 From: Erin <erinmichelle13@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2022 7:01 PM To: Public Comments <publiccomments@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: Avienda Public Comment Hello, I would like to provide some feedback on the proposed amendment to the Avienda plan. I have lived in Chanhassen for over 11 years now. I attended the earliest meetings about Avienda (previously called The Quadrant) and have been following the progress and changes. I attended the informational session on Thursday, and after looking over this proposed plan more, I wanted to provide my input. Originally, this was supposed to be a neighborhood gathering place for people to hang out and spend time, get groceries, go shopping, eat dinner...the entertainment, shops and restaurants were the anchor and center of the project with everything else surrounding that. From this new schematic, I see a humungous apartment complex now the center of the project with everything else worked around "it." I feel this 5 story complex made to be 6 stories with the parking garage is going to be an eye sore in our community. It reminds me of the apartment complexes in Eden Prairie by the transit station which fit well there right off the freeway, but I don't see them fitting well smack dab in the middle of beautiful landscape in Chanhassen. They mentioned there will only be 1.75 parking stalls per unit (and there will be up to 417 units now) and they mentioned there would be roughly 100 outdoor parking spots for the apartments. This doesn't seem like enough parking for the apartment owners and their guests and I can see them taking up a lot of street parking. Another thing to mention, is a huge apartment complex like this is typically seen near a transit station or public transit, and there isn't one here. The closest one is off 101 and 212. I do not want to see a transit station move out here to accommodate this apartment. As I was driving around running errands this weekend, I made a point to look for 5 story apartments around the area in Chaska and Eden Prairie, and they are HUGE. They don't look good. They completely change the appearance of a neighborhood and I didn't see any directly around houses (this apartment will be stacked in with row houses and butting up to another neighborhood). Also, what is going to happen if there isn't enough interest in these expensive luxury apartments...will they sit vacant? Will they be changed to low income housing? Has a study been done to determine if there is enough demand for apartments in this price range in our community? I realize if there is, it would bring a lot of tax revenue, but if there isn't, this could be a drain financially on the community. I highly recommend the council think this through and do the adequate research before approving this change of nearly doubling the number of apartments. The other concerning thing I heard the presenter say is he doesn't expect families with children will be moving into these new housing units and that there wouldn't be kids...the original plans were inclusive of families and children. When did this change? So this won't be a place to gather and hang out with families anymore? What is the point of the ice skating rink and gathering area? Everything surrounding this area is single family homes, why are we trying to completely change this demographic? Thanks for considering my input/comments. Please let me know if you have any questions. Kind Regards, Erin Wong, Chanhassen resident 218 -----Original Message----- From: Robin's E-Mail <rmspevacek@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2022 6:03 AM To: Public Comments <publiccomments@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: Avienda Village open spaces I am interested in knowing what the plan is for tree and shrub cover and open spaces for wildlife and pollinators. I am also interested in knowing how much consideration was given to energy efficiency with regard to the use of water, natural gas and electricity in the complex. The city has a unique opportunity here to set an example for not only the community but for the region! Rochelle Spevacek Sent from my iPhone -----Original Message----- From: Eric Swanson <swanels@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, August 12, 2022 12:36 PM To: Meuwissen, Kim <kmeuwissen@chanhassenmn.gov>; Hokkanen, Laurie <lhokkanen@chanhassenmn.gov>; Potter, Jenny <jpotter@chanhassenmn.gov>; Ryan, Elise <eryan@chanhassenmn.gov> Cc: Ryan, Elise <eryan@chanhassenmn.gov> Subject: Avienda Development Planning Commission / Mayor Ryan, It was my understanding that the project was approved to address the retail needs that were addressed in the comprehensive plan. It looks like the project continues to be more aligned toward housing and moves further and further away from what was proposed. The city is once again pursuing changes to accommodate the developer and current market dynamics and moving away from the original goals of the project and compliance with the comprehensive plan. My question is this, do we feel the comprehensive plan no longer addresses the long term needs of the residents of Chanhassen and therefore changes need to be made to address the needs of the residents? Or rather are we making amendments to the comprehensive plan to address the ever evolving needs of the developer. The lack of movement on the project and continued public meetings seem to indicate the later. Eric Swanson 1440 Bethesda Cir Chanhassen, MN 55317 219 From: tburnsfam <tburnsfam@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, August 12, 2022 12:56 PM To: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@chanhassenmn.gov> Subject: Submitting Written Comments for Aug 16th Meeting Kate, please let me know if this is in proper form to share copies with the Commission for Tuesday's meeting, or if I need to drop off or mail. Thank you! -Cathy Burns To: Planning Commission Staff RE: Avienda Application consideration, August 16th, 2022 I have several concerns about the recent proposal for Avienda, but cannot attend the city meeting. My concerns are about consistency with the original plan; homebuyers vs. renters; density; traffic; and blending with the neighborhood. The Plan Initially, the physical center of the project was retail. It’s understandable & practical to move retail to the roadway. However, from the site map, it looks like section 2, now dedicated to apartments, is a much larger area than what was initially allocated to all multi-unit housing. For someone who has not looked closely at the project for a couple of years, it seems like a dramatic departure from the original mission. I ask you to consider not only the project and density vs. code, but also vs. the original and earlier revised proposals—as many people in the abutting neighborhoods bought homes and settled in Chanhassen based upon earlier approvals, on descriptions of an upscale retail and office development with about 20% residential, and a small portion of a subset section being apartments. As a layperson who read the Avienda mission statement and prospectus years ago with faith that the developer and city will largely follow that mission, it did not occur to me that so much – 80% -- of the residential area would be apartment rentals. I did not know that “Multi-density” was a euphemism for “High-density.” I naively assumed that the development would mirror the current composition of Chanhassen, which is a mix of single family, townhome, twin, senior, and apartment housing, seemingly in that order. As someone who has not followed the project closely, but trusted when I bought my home that the interests of existing taxpayer / residents would be considered equally to a reasonable developer profit and the city’s desire to increase the tax base, I feel blindsided by how much the project has deviated from the original. Home-Owning Affordability Housing affordability is not just about subsidies. It flows from a balance of supply and demand. Currently there is an historic low in housing inventory. There are available apartments in and around Chanhassen, even in newly-built developments. Adding > 400 market-rate apartments will only exacerbate the problem—pricing out first-time homeowners, forcing them to continue renting, and making it difficult for seniors to downsize. As a parent of three young adults who rent apartments in other cities, rent because historic high prices stemming from low 220 inventory of for-sale property hinder buying, I see downsides to increasing rentals vs. affordable townhomes, twins etc. Market-rate rentals, at $2000-$2600 per month, equate to a mid-range $2300 mortgage payment on a $400,000 home (at 20% down, 5% interest, $200/month property tax, $100 insurance). Developing to increase available residential property for sale will increase supply and might lower our existing property values, but at least there is a societal benefit, in that increased supply should help young & lower-income people to become homeowners, invested for the long-term in our community. Density & Traffic At the Avienda presentation last night, the speaker estimated that 50% of the project was residential. And despite the fact that Avienda has been billed as an “Upscale Retail Development,” the speaker called the proposed 400+ apartment complex “The center of the project.” The original Development Design Standards (attached, p. 3) for Avienda proposed no more than 20% residential. In those standards, the following types of residential were outlined: • Multiple-family dwellings • Senior housing independent living and assisted • Single family homes (Density of 3-6 units an acre) • Townhomes, including detached townhomes and twin homes. The single-family and twin homes, which would mirror the existing area, as well as mitigate high density, are notably absent from the current proposal. Given three entrances/ exits to Avienda, and over 3000 parking spots, the high-density installation at Avienda could add 1000 cars--likely more than doubling the traffic along Bluff Creek Boulevard. There is already concern among neighbors about the safety of bicyclists, pedestrians, and kids at play along that street, where people access two stairways to the below- grade trail, as well as walk down the sidewalk to the park at Pioneer Pass. Will there be access, and even better, some kind of encouragement through signs, sidewalks, or trail connectors, for Avienda residents and visitors to access the city trail from Lyman Boulevard? Accessing the stairways on Bluff Creek Blvd and River Rock Dr S is already dangerous given the current amount of vehicular traffic. Further down the trail toward the high school, many people cross Lyman against traffic, with no crosswalk, at the intersection with Audubon at the Water Pump Station, instead of continuing down the sidewalk to the underpass that connects to the trail across Lyman. Would a connector from Avienda to the Water Pump area entrance to the trail and accentuating the section to the underpass help alleviate both the danger of crossing Lyman and the congestion along Bluff Creek Blvd between River Rock and Bluff Creek Dr.? 221 Did the recently done traffic study include counting cars at various times of day and days of the week? I have not seen a tracking cable across any of the local streets. Fitting in with Existing Neighborhood Four hundred apartments in one portion of the Avienda lot represents a huge deposit of a new type of housing. It does not fit or integrate with the developments to the west: The Preserve at Bluff Creek; Camden Ridge; Pioneer Pass; Liberty on Bluff Creek. How many homes/units are within those four developments? Five hundred? Six hundred? These existing developments and their publicly-accessible amenities (such as the park at Pioneer Pass) are spread out across much more land than proposed residences at Avienda. The large complex of apartments does not fit the area and could overwhelm existing resources and infrastructure. Those existing developments west of Avienda have substantial green space such that they integrate with the wetlands and the rural/suburban feel that drew many of us to Chanhassen. Liberty on Bluff Creek, the highest-density of the neighborhoods along Bluff Creek Blvd & Drive, has a lot of green space around and between the rows of townhomes. What is the hard-surface coverage percentage proposed at Avienda? Will it integrate with the neighboring area? Did the developer, at the outset, do field testing and canvas neighbors? Is there a point where the project has so veered from the original mission that this needs to be readdressed? (Beyond the mid-summer presentation given with one-week notice). Understanding that property owners have rights to develop land that they own within the parameters of city needs and code, should their developments not also be acceptable to the community? And integrate with, if not fit with the feel of, the existing neighborhood? It would be different if Avienda were just abutting our neighborhood, with no access. However, because one of the three main arteries through the development continues through our neighborhood, it would be nice to see as seamless an integration – not just transition – as possible. I understand the goals to make Chanhassen more walkable and bring in more residents. However, apartments are more transient, not as invested in the community as are homeowners. And higher density scale increases congestion and hinders walkability. Finally, is the revised Avienda project so huge that it could draw away from Chanhassen city center? Is a goal to develop a second city center, a Chan South? (An urban area abutting a single-family residential area and wetlands?) Thank you for considering my concerns! -Cathy Burns River Rock Dr. S, Chanhassen Carver County Housing Study (shows 590 market-rate apartments need through 2040) https://chanhassen.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&meta_id=12252 Avienda Development Design Standards (re: 20-30% residential) https://www.chanhassenmn.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/1270/637863379814700877 G:\PLAN\2017 Planning Cases\17-10 Avienda Preliminary Plat & PUD\2022 Amended Avienda PUD\Email from residents 222 Planning Commission Item August 16, 2022 Item Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Dated July 19, 2022 File No.Item No: D.1 Agenda Section APPROVAL OF MINUTES Prepared By Jenny Potter, Sr. Admin Support Specialist Applicant Present Zoning Land Use Acerage Density Applicable Regulations SUGGESTED ACTION "The Chanhassen Planning Commission approves the minutes from its July 19, 2022 meeting." SUMMARY BACKGROUND DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION 223 ATTACHMENTS Planning Commission Minutes dates July 19, 2022 224 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 19, 2022 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman von Oven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark von Oven, Erik Johnson, Perry Schwartz, Ryan Soller, Kelsey Alto. MEMBERS ABSENT: Edward Goff, Eric Noyes STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Joe Seidl, Water Resources Engineer. PUBLIC PRESENT: Matt Pavek, Kevin Teppen, Matt Sheehan Civil Site Group David Bieker Denali Custom Homes Seth Loken Alliant Engineering Jim Morin Nancy and Don Giacchetti 6679 Lakeway Drive Chris Mozina 6670 Point Lake Lucy Bruce Miller 6667 Point Lake Lucy Heida Onan 6700 Pointe Lake Lucy Thomas Hoghaug 6713 Lakeway Drive Patty Chapman 6675 Lakeway Drive Jim Wildermuth 6672 Lakeway Drive Blake Tornga 6686 Pointe Lake Lucy Ella Hale 600 Fox Hill Drive Francesca Landon 620 Fox Hill Drive John Stutzman 6901 Yuma Drive Deeann Hale 600 Fox Hill Drive PUBLIC HEARING: 1441 LAKE LUCY ROAD (GAYLE MORIN ADDITION): CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR REZONING PROPERTY FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND SUBDIVISION OF 4.84 ACRES INTO TWO LOTS Senior Planner Al-Jaff gave a presentation on the item, noting the site is guided residential low- density and the application is consistent with the land use plan. There is currently a single-family home on the site served by a driveway off Lake Lucy Road with two wetlands and abutting Lake Lucy which makes it a riparian parcel and must meet requirements of the Shoreland Overlay District. An existing turnaround is part of the private street and is intended to serve the new parcel after the site is subdivided. She gave history on the site noting City Council directed staff 225 Planning Commission Minutes – July 19, 2022 2 to look at how this area will develop and how they will serve the Morin property. She shared history of the site including two additional parcels, the possibility of adding a public street, and eventually went forward with a private street with a variance to serve up to five homes off the private street. The Morins worked with the developer and agreed to put the turnaround on their property to maximize the number of units the developer could put on the adjacent property. A cross-access agreement was granted at that time to the Morins. Water Resources Engineer Seidl gave history of the site from a three lot split to a two lot split. He noted with a previous application process the City received a number of comments from concerned residents in the area. He noted they used WSB Consulting to help with the review of the stormwater and passed those concerns on. Mr. Seidl shared about drainage patterns noting a north to south downhill slope with stormwater runoff going to Wetland A primarily from sheet flow and is conveyed to Wetland B via a small conveyance channel which then goes to Lake Lucy. The proposed project largely maintains the drainage patterns with the exception of increased impervious area provided by the home and the driveway connection. It includes a small stormwater Best Management Practice (BMP) which treats stormwater before it enters Wetland A. The project appears to meet both Watershed and City rules and regulations and the buffer area would be memorialized through a maintenance declaration with the Riley Purgatory Watershed District. The project received conditional approval from the Watershed District on June 1, 2022 and slightly reduces the high water level of Wetland A which should be a benefit to adjacent properties by reducing the flood risk. He spoke about concerns from the Lake Lucy taskforce including the geotechnical report, groundwater, wetland protection, heavy equipment, grading, and a freeboard requirement. Ms. Al-Jaff continued the presentation noting City requirements for park distances, tree loss/addition, and landscaping. Staff recommends approval of the development with conditions listed in the report and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation, as well as rezoning the property from Rural Residential to Single Family. Commissioner Schwartz asked about the conveyance channel between the two wetlands and noted Mr. Giacchetti refers to it as a creek. He asked if this is a semantic difference or if staff views the waterway as something other than a creek. Mr. Seidl would say it is more of a semantic difference. The channel/creek conveys the water from A to B, it is a natural channel and is not man-made and does not appear to convey water all the time. When it is dry (he would be surprised if it was not still dry) and during wet conditions, there is a natural overflow and the channel conveys the water between wetlands. Commissioner Schwartz asked about the discrepancy between staff’s assessment of drainage, stormwater management, erosion prevention, and sediment control, and those of the experts that Mr. Giacchetti’s group engaged. Mr. Seidl asked if Mr. Schwartz can be more specific. Commissioner Schwartz cannot because he is not an expert and read both reports and noted there seems to be a discrepancy. 226 Planning Commission Minutes – July 19, 2022 3 Mr. Seidl can only answer from the perspective of staff review. They look at City ordinance, rules, and regulations and apply those. If it meets the rules and regulations that is the basis of staff’s finding of fact. Commissioner Schwartz asked for a comment on the validity of the location discrepancy regarding the soil borings and the work performed by the geotechnical company on February 15, 2022. Mr. Seidl did not do the technical analysis but what he can offer is what the City is typically looking at for stormwater reporting including the soils (sandy clay which is typical of Chanhassen), and the depth which may be associated with the ground water in that area. Mr. Seidl noted the analysis was done by a professional geotechnical engineer who signed off on it and he would have to go with their recommendation with the caveat that there are conditions from the Watershed District and the City that they will receive additional information showing infiltration rates and the separation of ground water. The geotechnical analysis was done in the winter months which are not ideal for measuring infiltration and it is typical to get this information during spring, summer, and fall months. He stated the designer would use that data for their resubmittal. Commissioner Schwartz asked what is meant by “freeboard” requirement. Mr. Seidl replied freeboard is measured between the high water level of a pond or area collecting storm water and the low floor elevation of a property. A certain level of freeboard is wanted as a safety element to decrease risk of nuisance water and flooding. Commissioner Alto asked if a geotechnical analysis done with the City has ever been incorrect. Mr. Seidl replied not that he is aware of. He noted he has only been with the City for six months so it is difficult to answer. Commissioner Alto gathered one of the main concerns of residents is flooding and disturbance to the wetlands and who would be liable if the geotechnical analysis is incorrect and there is flooding to residents’ property: the geotechnical company, the Watershed, or the City. Mr. Seidl noted they are receiving additional information which would essentially trump what was collected in the geotechnical report and would mitigate that concern. He would consult with the legal team and get back to the Commissioners with an answer. Commissioner Alto clarified if approved they would do the initial grading and then look at the level. Mr. Seidl replied in the negative noting they would come back with an updated design after getting that additional information and then they would come back with a final design using that information. The mass grading and custom grading come after the plans are approved. Commissioner Alto noted there is additional due diligence to go through. 227 Planning Commission Minutes – July 19, 2022 4 Mr. Seidl replied in the affirmative. Chair von Oven noted spoke about the property that the majority of Wetland A overflows into and asked if that homeowner would expect the wetland to slightly reduce with the proposed BMP? Mr. Seidl noted the modeling submitted as part of the design shows that the high water level of the wetland would be slightly reduced. Chair von Oven asked what it means for a buffer to be memorialized. Mr. Seidl stated there is a maintenance declaration with staked-in markers so it is clear to the homeowner and future homeowners that it is a wetland buffer so it is easier to maintain. Chair von Oven asked about how Lot 2 would access Lake Lucy. Mr. Seidl thinks the current design has a conservation easement over the area between Wetland B and Lake Lucy. Ms. Al-Jaff clarified with conservation easements the City typically puts limitations as to what can and cannot be done within that area. The City could add language stating “no structures”. Commissioner Alto asked about bald eagles nesting on the site. Ms. Al-Jaff stated with any development the developer and city staff deal with the situation if they encounter any form of wildlife. Commissioner Soller asked if it had always been the plan since the road was put in that another house could be there. Ms. Al-Jaff replied in the affirmative and said when the property to the west came in, the City asked the Morins to show a “napkin sketch” about how they would develop their property. The Morins envisioned two additional lots which is when the City Council gave the variance to allow five homes off the private street. They also made sure sewer and water is stubbed to the property. Mr. Seidl noted since that time of original approval stormwater and wetland regulations have changed significantly with a dramatic increase in protecting wetlands. He noted the development would appear to meet all City rules and regulations, the intent of which is to protect wetlands and the environment. Jim Morin, brother of Joe Morin, gave some background noting Joe and Gayle bought the property and developed their dream home in April 1989 and was a remote, quite, beautiful property. It was a wonderful environment to raise their adopted children from India and Korea. They have seen many changes around the property over 33 years and he is glad they are airing concerns today and noted many concerns were shared by the Morins as the other homes were developed around the property. Unfortunately, Joe passed away from cancer in 2018 and Gayle 228 Planning Commission Minutes – July 19, 2022 5 was diagnosed 6 months later with Stage 4 lung cancer and passed away in March 2022. As a result, the home and property have become a key asset for their children who have special needs and will depend heavily on this investment for their living going forward. As neither child is likely to have children, any remaining money will go to a local charity when they pass which is set up with the trust. Mr. Morin noted they welcome concerns because Joe and Gayle would want to do things the right way and worked with neighbors, the City, and community. He also hopes the public shares the goal in a development that is done the right way and perhaps they will see this as a potential investment opportunity, or at least a way to make room for one more neighbor in the same spirit as the other developments in the area were done. Engineer Matt Pavek, Civil Site Group, was present along with landscape architect Kevin Teppen and engineer Matt Sheehan to answer any technical questions on the design. He stated they have worked for many months on versions of the plans and have worked closely with city staff. He feels they have the puzzle of drainage solved and going into final plans they will be able to refine those to meet all requirements. Chair von Oven noted another round of measurement coming and asked Mr. Pavek which he is most nervous about. Mr. Pavek stated the original geotechnical report with soil borings is preliminary and the next round will be test pits in which they will actually dig with a backhoe to look for corroboration of soil boring findings. Those will be done in a more precise location to make sure the soil is what they were expecting, and deeper to be sure no ground water within three feet of the bottom of the system. He noted they do their best to base the design on preliminary testing and then confirm it with further testing. If a redesign or shifting is necessary that is not uncommon and they can make those adjustments as they are conditions of approval. Chairman von Oven opened the public hearing. Nancy Giacchetti, along with her husband Don, have lived at 6679 Lakeway Drive for 21 years. She expressed condolences to Mr. Morin and noted they knew Joe and Gayle who were extremely nice people. She noted when they moved in 2001 and watched the other homes being put in, Dick told the Giacchettis and Jeff Dahl about the difficulty he had building on his property because it was not passing the tests regarding borings. He was very disappointed as the whole issue of building the turnaround and the arrangement with the Morins was due to that. She spoke about the low floor elevation chart and noted one reason she is concerned is that her home is in the -4.4 freeboard in the 100-year event. To her knowledge it was 2013 which was not that long ago. She stated the taskforce is comprised of people from both Point Lake Lucy and Whitetail Cove; they have learned a lot and hundreds of hours have gone into research. The taskforce believes the entire proposal is wrought with high risks and red flags. One thing they are concerned about is if mass grading and removal of trees occurs before these issues are known they will have a big “gravesite” that could exist forever. If new trees were planted to get it back to what it was, she would not be alive anymore. Ms. Giacchetti said even the best engineers can make mistakes and she spoke about the lack of notification and due process from the Watershed as they were not given notice of the June 1, 2022 meeting. Second, she spoke about inaccurate and incomplete geotechnical engineering data and analytics, noting the report states the GPS was 229 Planning Commission Minutes – July 19, 2022 6 not working and the soil sample depth was listed two different ways. She stated building a proposed plan on incorrect data is wrought with issues and showed a photo of drone shots taken in May and noted Wetland A is a lot bigger than shown and has changed significantly than when she first moved in 21 years ago. The creek created itself out of need. Ms. Giacchetti noted if one goes out to her property they can see the lay of the land which is not like looking at a piece of paper with elevations on it. She said anyone who has walked in there has asked how can a home be built there. She feels the 400-page stormwater management report will devastate the ecosystem and the report says in many areas that “problems will be fixed” and to do that the report may swell to 1,000 pages and still may not address the major issues identified. Ms. Giacchetti is concerned that the authors of the report feel they can solve potential water problems and given bad data one cannot assure that. The engineers are developing plans for the artificial bio-filtration basin to be placed next to Wetland A and her property is located about 60 feet down from that area. Water flows downhill and they are -4.4 feet below the freeboard elevation. She noted they are also concerned about potential damage to the private road noting it is not as wide as a city road and was built in a good way but with the amount and size of the equipment that will traverse it and there is nothing in the plan to account for road repair if there are issues with that road. Ms. Giacchetti said the turnaround has been sinking and has led her to believe there is muck under there and although this is a small area it is massive work. They also wonder whether the turnaround will change the nature of water flow. She stated they are asking that they stop the insanity surrounding water management on this property all for just one home. A number of people live there and honestly, she and Don will not tolerate the jeopardy in which their home could be placed. Chris Mozina, 6670 Point Lake Lucy, shared about the smart, dedicated, ethical people that are on the taskforce who have put in hundreds of hours trying to get at the truth. He spoke about choosing the harder right instead of the easier wrong and noted it is time to stop. He said Commissioner Schwartz’s question about analysis and why it matters now is because the preliminary plat ordinance from 1840 requires an accurate soil sample. Mr. Mozina is not aware of any site grading plan that involves the Dahl’s property and noted they are creating a funnel here. He has not seen elevations on impervious surface or retaining wall nor has he seen pictures of the house which are also 1840 requirements. Mr. Mozina is inspired by Jocelyn (Jen’s 12 year old daughter) who did a science experiment in June which reminded him about the scientific method and relies on observations of data, hypothesis, and controlled experiment. The purpose is to verify the hypothesis that one could build on this property and during the observation they simply walked away, therefore the observation four months later is irrelevant that there is water in the hole because the controlled experiment was over. Mr. Mozina shared his grading of what has gone on so far and spoke about sandwiching, surprises, supervision, “seen it before” history, societal benefit, and science. He noted a lot of great work has been done, the Watershed did a ton of work and he thinks they incorporated some of the taskforce’s letters and addendums into their work. He stated the City is beginning with inaccurate data full stop, and preliminary plan requires that they have it today. Once they cross to “conditional” and “variance” there is substantial detrimental harm based on Section 18-22 in the Code. Mr. Mozina spoke about standards that have not been met and he is concerned about whether there will be environmental damage because in the report the City says no, but in the questioning clearly there is. He showed a photo of the area and said it is an integrated ecosystem right now and picturing the equipment, impervious surface, torn down trees, how can they think there will not be damage to that 230 Planning Commission Minutes – July 19, 2022 7 ecosystem? He thinks an education guide in the future would be helpful so people can understand how the City and Watershed work together. Terry Jeffery at the Watershed stated the soil tells the truth about the wetland, it is bigger than people think, and the soil will show that. Regarding transparency and governance Mr. Mozina would like the website to say public service not just private citizens with a development hypothesis. He noted the Watershed website speaks about data collection and analysis to ensure decisions are based on sound science. The Planning Commission’s decision to recommend to the City Council is saying they believe good science was involved here and it simply was not. He asked them to reject the proposal which is substantially detrimental to the public welfare. Bruce Miller, 6667 Point Lake Lucy, built in 2000 and shared some concerns. When he saw the proposed development sign go up and having personal knowledge and experience of that area, he thought it is a high-risk. He is not an engineer but is speaking as a concerned citizen and taxpayer. When his home was built three houses were impacted by a City error; it was found that his house encroached on a wetland setback because the wetland was not shown on a City land survey so the permit was approved in error. He noted it was Case #008-VAR and staff stated if the City denied the recommendation the builder would be requested to demolish the part of the home that encroached on the 60 foot setback. As a future homeowner, one can imagine hearing that information. The bottom line is that the variance was accepted but he had to make adjustments because of that error. Twenty two years later they are here with another area that could create problems because it is high-risk. Mr. Miller hopes the Planning Commission recognizes the substantial attempts the taskforce has done to inform the District of their concerns. They made a video of a stream running between Wetlands A and B. The taskforce created a letter on April 4 to the Chanhassen Planning Department listing 72 questions generated from information on the proposal. To date, they have not had any questions answered, he noted tonight they heard information for the first time on some of the work the City has done. He spoke about the geotechnical report GPS system not working, boring holes not done to the right depth, moisture content in the soil, and he is happy to hear the City will revisit this and get the correct samples. It is too difficult to go forward without the right data. He thinks it would be prudent for the City to request a better study of the area and find out exactly what can and cannot be done on this piece of land. Mr. Miller stated the City took a strong position with his property in 2000, this area has a tremendous opportunity for error, and it is a high-risk area that could be permanently damaged if not backed up by the right data. He said City Ordinance states variances should only be approved if they avoid substantial detrimental harm to the public welfare. The taskforce believes that is the case here and they will continue to work hard to preserve this area. They strongly recommend the City listen to their concerns, protect the environment, and deny this proposal. Heida Onan, 6700 Pointe Lucy, noted this has been a long night and it is not personal for the Planning Commission because they will go home tonight and not be impacted. There are many concerns and a lot of passion that the taskforce and community have expressed, and she appreciates the reading of all the addendums and questions they have submitted. She noted a lot of insufficient, inaccurate, and incomplete data from the false water levels to the size of wetland are being under proposed, the bore holes filling with water, and the significant water level increase over 20 years shown by satellite imagery. She said this is a ravine and the wetlands will continue to grow. The faulty GPS is inexcusable and she cannot believe it was allowed to be 231 Planning Commission Minutes – July 19, 2022 8 submitted and allowed to go forward without question. Ms. Onan said the “said bore holes” were 20 feet deep but it was only reported at 14 feet and she asked why that was incomplete and who would be accountable. She asked who will pay for damage to the road and what it will look like during and after? She asked who will be held accountable for all the conditions and how will the City be held accountable? Ms. Onan noted they understand private landowners can do anything they want but when there is an impact to neighborhoods, wetlands, and wildlife that is a whole different situation. Building on Lot 2 will have an incredible water impact on existing homeowners and there was no consideration shown for the water flow on the west side of the house and asked about proper drainage easement. Ms. Onan stated there has been a bald eagle nest on that lot and there is a lot of community concern for that. Tonight’s real concern is that this will be devastating for the neighborhood, there are a lot of questions, and she appreciates that the Commissioners read them and stated they have not received any responses. She encourages more thorough and accurate information to be utilized as what they have seen during this process does not seem to conform to the City’s rules, regulations, and process. How can the City put one taxpayer over the City’s existing surrounding taxpayers? The taskforce urges the Planning Commission to reject this development as proposed and urge the City to request updated, thorough, and accurate information before making any decision. Thomas Hoghaug, 6713 Lakeway Drive, fell in love with his lot and has a Bachelor of Science in Geology as well as an MBA and when he heard about freeboard level he noted he is the absolute lowest home in the development and is downhill straight from the Morin property. He stated even at the height of the drought last year his sump pump ran all day and he is on his fifth sump pump in 20 years. He is curious if anyone in the Watershed has looked at the impact of downstream as it is all clay, water goes through it, and ends up in his yard. In wet years, the yard squishes all the time. He spoke about trying to put a pool in his yard, a discrepancy in the pool fence setback, having to change his deck, noting mistakes happen, the water is up, and he loses a little bit every year as the cattails get bigger. He asked if anyone ever asked about other impacts besides the adjacent homes because they will all be connected. Any water diverted from Lots 1 and 2 will eventually wind up heading his direction and that is a concern. He is also concerned about the wildlife and noted he loves his lot. He sees many young and mature bald eagles, loons, wood ducks, mallards, Canada geese, great blue heron, snow geese, white tail deer, turkeys, coyotes, red fox, muskrat, beavers, screech owls, and a great horned owl. It is obvious there is a lot of activity there and development is very disturbing to the environment. He stated the pond is substantially bigger over the 20 years he has lived there and he has never seen the creek not draining. He asked if the Planning Commission needs to tentatively approve it right now or do they actually spend the time to find out if it is an active bald eagle’s nest, where the water will go, how it will impact the neighbors, traffic, and the environment. It seems like they are rushing it through. He thanked them for their time. Patty Chapman, 6675 Lakeway Drive, shared her condolences to Mr. Morin. She explained her experience in living there for 18 years and noted the proposal does not take all the water issues into consideration. The natural drainage route that leads to Wetlands A and B begins on the north edge of the Morin property, surface water drains from the north, east, and west. She invited the Commissioners to come to the property when it is raining and said if they stood where the building site is proposed and walked north they would realize a natural drain exists there. During spring when snow melts it is common to see a constant stream all the way down from the road. 232 Planning Commission Minutes – July 19, 2022 9 Ms. Chapman is here asking them to please not disregard or ignore what she is saying or underestimate the water’s natural flow. She stated all of the plans deal with water at the home pad and south; she has not heard what they will do with the water that comes east, west, and north past her lot and where that water will go. Ms. Chapman noted they want to put the house where the water disburses and moves across and she asked where that water will go? She spoke about water volume and velocity and talked about being at the pinch point. The current proposal addressing only the downgrading elements would be insufficient and she believes it would be deliberate disregard not to take that into account and there would be sufficient potential for harm to the properties to the west of the Morin property. Ms. Chapman spoke about Minnesota case law modified the Common Enemy rule regarding surface water to require landowners diverting surface water must exercise reasonable care to avoid unnecessary injury to their neighbors. She spoke about another case from 1894 regarding natural drain accessibility. Ms. Chapman thanked the Planning Commissioners for the opportunity to speak and expects the City to address the citizens the same as the landowner or developer. Jim Wildermuth, 6672 Lakeway Drive, stated at this point there doesn’t appear to be any consideration about where workmen will park and the use of heavy equipment on the private road. He spoke about the attitude of the developer and builder and thinks the Planning Commission should reject this proposal and send it back to the City for further consideration and study. Blake Tornga, 6686 Pointe Lake Lucy, thanked the Planning Commissioners for their patience and for all of the community requests for information, the proposals, and thorough engineering work. He has not been in their shoes with residential zoning but he has been a commanding officer of a naval base and was responsible for approving very large construction projects. Based on the information tonight and with his past experience, he would have difficulty requesting or approving a policy change based on plans from flawed or even questionable data from the geotechnical report, from an environmental report, and from the residents. He noted it is probably premature given the questionable data to make a recommendation for approval. Chairman von Oven closed the public hearing. He thanked everyone for their concern noting the Commissioners are neighbors, volunteer citizens; they are in the people’s shoes and they will go home tonight and think about this. Depending on the decision tonight they will think about it for a very long time. He invited the Commissioners to ask questions and make comments. Commissioner Soller noted one thing that needs to be clarified regarding the Watershed District, it is a separate district, a separate entity, and is not governed by the City. Chair von Oven said regarding a comment on education, the Commissioners are not experts, and there is only one water expert in the room tonight. He asked staff to clarify the process from the moment a landowner makes a decision and wants to do something like this to approaching the City and asking for the specifics in the report. Then if it was to go before City Council and gets the green light, what happens after that. He wants people to understand the checks and balances that he believes to be in place. 233 Planning Commission Minutes – July 19, 2022 10 Engineer Seidl replied Chair von Oven is correct, the Watershed District is a separate entity and State Statute gives them the right to exist, have rules and regulations, and issue permits. Part of the City of Chanhassen resides within the Riley Purgatory Watershed District, as does this project. When a project comes in, staff looks at it and sees if it triggers any Watershed rules and regulations, as many of the City’s rules regarding water overlap and then the City would notice the Watershed and have a pre-application meeting with the applicant and the Watershed. Somewhere in the design for the project there will be a condition noting that before the applicant can move forward they need approval from the other agency (Watershed) whose rules are stricter than the City. Mr. Seidl wrote in the report that before they move forward with a final plat the City would want to see approval from the Watershed District. He clarified that is typically how these projects work. Commissioner Alto said in working with the Watershed, the City is looking at the citizens’ concerns with runoff in spring, the different directions water will go when a house is placed, and those are the checks and balances to ensure that water is not diverted into the neighbors’ yards. She lived in the Lotus Lake neighborhood and lived on a road so steep they parked at the top of it in the winter due to ice. She asked regarding the geotechnical report in saying they are not finding any groundwater, are all of the decisions being based on the assumption that there would never be groundwater? Mr. Seidl replied the Watershed and the City have rules and regulations meant to protect residents from adverse effects which is an analysis of existing conditions versus proposed conditions and trying to mimic what is happening in the existing condition and mimic how drainage flows off a property. They look at rates, volumes, treatment, wetlands, buffers, setbacks, etcetera. If a design meets those rules and regulations the City approves the project because it meets the intent. Commissioner Schwartz asked given the nature of the property and the neighborhood concerns expressed, what assurances can staff and the developer provide to assuage these concerns going forward assuming the project is approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Mr. Seidl noted one step in between the project being constructed and where they are currently, is the final plat submittal where they are requesting additional information. There is no immediate plan to do any mass grading as that all must happen with approved plans. That is the natural checks and balances happening here. Commissioner Schwartz asked if those checks and balances would include some responsibility on the part of the City to address the existence of the eagles’ nest. Ms. Al-Jaff replied if a situation was encountered while a developer was on site, they will address it. This is something that has happened in the past and the builder, developer, and the City come together to address it and ensure that wildlife is protected. She stated there will be a large conservation easement on the site and while there is an area that will be graded to accommodate the future home, the southern half of the development will be preserved in its natural state. 234 Planning Commission Minutes – July 19, 2022 11 Commissioner Schwartz asked what happens if the eagles nest is on a tree smack dab in the middle of where they want to put the house. Community Development Director Aanenson has been with the City for thirty years and has seen this incident before. Sometimes one can restrict the time that construction can take place and recently they were able to rescue some owls to be relocated. First they must identify where the wildlife is or if it affects construction timing. Regarding the eagles nest they would work with the appropriate agency to try to relocate the nest within the area. Commissioner Schwartz asked what happens if they are digging and find insufficient appropriate soil to build the house. Mr. Pavek, Civil Site Group, noted he is not a developer but is a civil engineer. He clarified if soil is not structurally sound they can build with pilings, geo-piers, soil can be removed and structural soil brought in, there are many options and construction techniques. Sometimes it becomes an economic decision on whether it is worth it at that point. He asked to address some of the public comments to bring clarity. As a civil engineer, his number one job is drainage and when they design they are cognizant and thinking about flood risk, ground water, etcetera, and right now this is a preliminary design. He is happy to meet with any neighbors to talk about how it sets up, freeboard, and drainage patterns. Regarding mass grading, the next step would be to do a test pit for further borings which would not be a big, disturbing event with a bunch of trees taken out. He noted they would not want to clear the site just to find out it does not work. Mass grading would happen after final plans are approved. He noted regarding the drainage coming off the site, the current plan shows water going around the house with contours and they would not design it that way. They would design it with appropriate swales to convey the water so it would not damage properties next door or increase any flood risks. The plans get checked by multiple other entities, as well and he hopes that brings people some comfort. Mr. Pavek said it is important to them as designers for the drainage to be designed in the best possible way to neighbors because the last thing they want is to cause a problem. He spoke about freeboard giving an example of a house with a basement next to a pond. The basement is supposed to be three feet above the 100-year high water level. With a large storm the pond would have to bounce up three feet higher than the 100-year level to touch that basement. That is what the freeboard is for and it is super conservative. With the little pond on this site it would be physically impossible for it to have three feet of standing water higher than its banks, noting the most it could bounce over its banks is just a couple of inches and then it flows downhill to other water bodies. The house with the -4.4 freeboard is below the pond and is not affected by that pond’s freeboard but is affected by the next downstream pond’s freeboard because it is going around. He would be happy to help clarify that with the homeowner. Commissioner Schwartz asked in the future whether they can have communication with homeowners before the Planning Commission meeting to explain the process. Commissioner Soller thinks it would be terrible to do a bunch of destruction of the natural environment only to end up with an outcome where no development is done. He asked for clarification on the process noting it sounds like more non-invasive work is done first. 235 Planning Commission Minutes – July 19, 2022 12 Mr. Seidl clarified in order to do any significant work out there the builder or developer will need approved construction plans and permits from the City and Watershed District and must meet all conditions of approval. There will be a final plat with other hurdles required to actually secure the permits, pre-construction meetings, and he clarified they are still preliminary in the process. Chair von Oven noted some concern of preliminary numbers gathered and asked if a number of trees and a backhoe needs to be brought in to get those updated numbers. Mr. Seidl replied in the negative. Commissioner Alto stated this is always a hard conversation involving development and change is hard, especially with such wildlife. She might assume the same feelings could be had for the houses that many of the neighbors currently own backing up to wetlands which used to be habitat that was previously like the habitat they are discussing tonight. She noted it is well within the right of an owner of a property, within the guidelines of the bodies they must report to, to make these decisions and the applicants are making efforts to make these decisions based on everything that is required of them. Commissioner Alto noted they already removed the second house knowing it was not feasible and she cannot in good faith say no to this based off of the emotion of it all. Commissioner Schwartz agrees and wants to be respectful of the homeowners’ rights but also feels compelled to make sure neighbors have been listened to and can be assured that some of the concerns will be addressed. Commissioner Soller noted Mr. Morin pointed out when the neighbors moved in, it had been a paradise with no houses. He looked at an aerial map from 1957 and there was nothing there where now there are 20, 30, 40 houses there. Now things have grown up around the houses and it looks very nice with tree cover and improvements near the development because of the conservation-minded policies the City has had. He asked why everything was rezoned residential low-density but this strip of land (the Morin property) stayed rural. Commissioner Alto noted the Morins already owned it and it cannot be rezoned unless the property owner wants it rezoned. In the 2040 Comprehensive Plan that is why the City intended this would be rezoned once it came up for sale for single family low-density. Community Development Director Aanenson noted this is a large lot and typically a rural lot would be 2.5 acres. When a property owner wants to subdivide the City makes it consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Many people keep their property in larger lots for tax purposes, and she stated this guiding is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Soller asked why more work was not done to answer more of the public’s questions that were submitted. Commissioner Schwartz lives on a private street and sees the damage snowplows and garbage trucks do to the private street. These people have a very serious concern about the damage that 236 Planning Commission Minutes – July 19, 2022 13 will be done by the construction equipment and he thinks it is a reasonable question in asking who will be responsible for maintain and repairing the damage that will be done. Chair von Oven noted there is a reason they are called private streets, everyone knows who is responsible for it: the people who live on it. He noted this is a tough answer to give but when one buys property on a golf course, golf balls will come at your house; when you buy property on a private street, you know what you are getting into. For Chair von Oven, the private street comes up at the Planning Commission every single time but he holds the same position on the private street every time. Will there be extra traffic on that street? Possibly. For a homeowner who has a right to do what he or she wants to do with their property, the concern of the private street which everyone knew was their responsibility, it is a concern for him because it is the public’s concern. However, it is not on his list of concerns because people know what they are getting into with a private street. He noted this is the single most comprehensive, well though-out, strategic presentation he has ever seen from the public and he is in each one of their shoes on the topics brought forward. In some of their 72 questions, it comes down to education and part of the process is that there are not final numbers right now. Chair von Oven see two things that need to be decided which are whether the property can be rezoned and subdivided into two lots. There is a final Watershed check that will get the real numbers and then this project will or will not go forward. He spoke about drainage, the reducing of Wetland A, and noted the landowner had two developments grow up around him is now asking for one house, not even a development. Commissioner Alto moved, Commissioner Schwartz seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of rezoning of property from Rural Residential District (RR) to Single Family Residential District (RSF), preliminary plat to subdivide 4.75 acres into two lots as shown in plans received June 16, 2022, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: 581 FOX HILL DRIVE: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION OF 2.47 ACRES INTO FOUR LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT WITH VARIANCES Senior Planner Al-Jaff gave a presentation on the item stating it is a riparian lot with a single family home on the parcel with a subdivision all parcels will meet the required lot area, width, depth, and access to each parcel is from Fox Hill Drive. Project Engineer Henricksen spoke about access and right-of-way, noting the applicant is proposing to dedicate some additional right-of-way to meet the 50 feet typical to the neighborhood. It is substandard to current standards of 60 feet but matches the neighborhood and would be consistent with the needs for the road network. He spoke about the Lotus Woods subdivision from 2020 and a connection to Fox Hill Drive which he showed on screen. Sanitary sewer and water is adequate to meet the needs and there is a need for an additional fire hydrant to be installed to meet fire code. Water Resources Engineer Seidl spoke about drainage and grading noting a high point at the center of the property with storm water flowing to Lotus Lake, the wetland, or stormwater infrastructure along Carver Beach Road. Mass grading is proposed to prepare the site for home 237 Planning Commission Minutes – July 19, 2022 14 construction, install storm water BMPs, and infrastructure before discharging water offsite. The proposed position conveys the water to four individual storm water BMPs which increases the wetland stormwater volumes and increases the 100-year high water level which is seen as an adverse impact and is something that will need to be addressed during final design submittal. He noted the project is within the Riley Purgatory Watershed District and is subject to the City and Watershed’s rules and regulations. A geotechnical analysis and related infiltration testing will be needed so the BMPs can be property designed. Ms. Al-Jaff spoke about parks and trails, trees on the site, and a conservation easement. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat to subdivide and a variance for the 50-foot right-of- way. Commissioner Schwartz asked staff to comment on Mr. Johanson’s email about concerns with tree removal, animal displacement, stormwater runoff, and pesticide contamination. Ms. Al-Jaff replied that Mr. Johanson is not opposed to development but noted his concern was the size of the potential homes in the future. If these parcels meet ordinance requirements and guidelines for subdivision, staff will typically recommend approval. This development has met all of those requirements and Mr. Johansen requested the size and height of the homes be limited; the City must abide by the single-family residential district and as long as they meet setbacks, hard surface coverage, and height limitations, they are permitted to build homes that would be in compliance with the ordinance. Commissioner Schwartz asked if Jill Sinclair has weighed in on any environmental issues. Ms. Al-Jaff had conversations with Ms. Sinclair about the woods. As has been done with Big Wood Boulevard, the City exercised similar practices by reducing the right-of-way and required the applicant to push the homes closer to the right-of-way with a preservation easement at the rear of the property. She noted the applicant will be 22 trees short of the maximum removal and will be replacing those trees on site. She believes as they finalize and define the location of the storm pond they can save additional trees. Commissioner Johnson noted with infiltration basins it raises a flag and asked if there are options to change those. Mr. Seidl replied the Watershed does not waive their abstraction volume requirement which is why they will need a test to prove those rates. There is a workaround which is a void space created from a rock layer under the infiltration practice to capture that volume which allows a longer time for the water to infiltrate the soil. Underground infiltration BMPs are typically a more cost-effective option. David Bieker, Denali Custom Homes, said the owner of the property will be constructing a new home on the lake side of the property. The applicants are lovely people who have lived in Chanhassen for years and are looking forward to living in the home; they are very into the environment and the outdoors. Their full intention is to plant many trees in strategic spots. He spoke about the potential road extension as well as the stormwater drainage system. 238 Planning Commission Minutes – July 19, 2022 15 Chairman von Oven opened the public hearing. Ella Hale, 600 Fox Hill Drive, thanked the Commissioners and noted she has lived in her house for almost 30 years and she loves the neighborhood. Everyone calls the area a hidden gem; they love the woods, wildlife, and if this were to change that wildlife would have nowhere to go. This area is the last big plot of woods and is very special. She cannot imagine it not being there anymore, it affects her everyday life and she would be lying if she said she has not cried every single day since this property was sold last summer because she did not have a million dollars to buy it and she has never been more mad at herself. She wants to keep it the way it is and this is such a thin stretch of land and noted no one wants the road. It is such a quiet area, and in putting four homes there it would double the entire neighborhood. In taking most of the trees… how can someone say they love nature if they are only going to leave 35%, that is ridiculous to her, so many trees will be gone that she has watched grow since she was a kid and she played in those woods. The previous owner left it the way it was because they loved it that way. Ms. Hale understands that people want to build a home and spoke about the cottage that is currently there. It is crazy for someone to see this and want to build as many homes as possible. She asked the Commissioners to please come out to the neighborhood if they haven’t already to look at how special it is. She wishes the project could be scaled back as it will change everyday life and it will lose the magic. She spoke about growing up and the big woods seemed to go on forever and she does not believe that the trees would be replanted. She stated nobody in the neighborhood wants this and it will affect everyone else, animals, water, and so many things. She asked the Commissioners to scale it back to two homes or three but not to devastate the entire forest for one person to have all their friends live in the same strip. Francesca Landon, 620 Fox Hill Drive, noted her house looks directly into the current wetland area and years ago during the Lotus Woods development she had concerns that all the trees would be gone. She spoke about deer and fawns, barn owls, red-tail hawks, and noted she is having a difficult time visualizing the four houses as the three acres does not seem like it will fit the houses. She is not opposed to change but her concern is taking 65% of the trees down and she does not think that qualifies as loving nature. Ms. Landon noted that 65% proposed does not include what was taken down at the lakefront last summer and she does not think it includes the trees taken down by the road the last couple of weeks. She noted this is truly a gem and it is not so much about their view as it is about drainage. She spoke about Page 4 of the staff report where the developer proposes to mass grade a majority of the site and asked how that will be done without removal of trees. Right now water goes to the corner of Outlot A and pools/overflows the corner and goes into the street; there is a neighbor down there who has lost some of his lot to the wetland due to the amount of drainage that goes there. She noted the road is very small and she does not know how construction trucks will go on the road and thinks the road will be demolished. There are a lot of issues, she thinks it is an excessive building plan and it would be better if it were two or three houses total. Chairman von Oven noted the City Code of Chanhassen requires that Planning meetings end at 10:30pm by law. He is not allowed to continue and noted this is the first time he has had to do this. 239 Planning Commission Minutes – July 19, 2022 16 Ms. Aanenson noted they can continue this item but cannot start another item. John Stutzman, 6901 Yuma Drive, is on the other side of the pond from Big Woods and has lived in the City for 14 years. He has utmost respect for staff and elected officials and said the common theme from neighbors tonight is to scale the project back. They understand development and it is an owner’s right to develop land within City Code and other governing bodies. As Ms. Landon said, the excessive nature of this seems to be a common theme and a tough area to develop. It is a very passionate issue for the neighborhood and he requested if there are ways to increase the conservation easement to save more trees and reduce the lot numbers, and he noted the bottom lot will be interesting to develop. He said if there is a way to avoid the road he would also propose that. He encouraged the Planning Commission, staff, and the developer to think about scaling this project back and be respectful of what the neighbors are asking. Deeann Hale, 600 Fox Hill Drive, grew up in Chanhassen and she has seen a lot of growth, some good change and some bad change. She was very happy many years ago when Mayor Mancito believed in conserving more trees. Ms. Hale was home one day when surveying and tree tagging was happening and one of the young men she was talking to noted there were a lot of old trees there and some were very rare and are not seen anymore. Ms. Hale said it is sad because someone will move in and not appreciate it but knock it down. Ms. Hale kept her fingers crossed that the property would stay as much the same as possible and said building four houses with the rare trees and wildlife that depend upon them is a shame. She is beginning to wonder if they appreciate what they have. As someone said “they paved paradise and put up a parking lot.” She asked if that is what is going to happen. If they remove two-thirds of the trees, where will the deer and wildlife go. Ms. Hale noted they cannot save this for the deer but they were there first, and said let’s not destroy what they enjoy and what the neighborhood enjoys. She asked the Commissioners to consider it and questioned why people buy lots only to knock it all down, she does not understand it. The way it will be developed she will have two driveways across from her driveway and will be interesting to get out at the same time. She does not know if the Commissioners have been out to see it but invited them to take a look. She spoke about Big Woods and all the trees taken out there noting it is a funny name as there are no woods. Mr. Bieker noted people keep mentioning they should scale it back and noted there are eight houses between the street and the lake at Big Woods and the applicant is only proposing four in the same amount of distance. He thinks that is a lot more reasonable than what has been done in the past; there will be a lot more greenspace, there is hardly any greenspace in Big Woods, and it will not be like that. He thinks they are being mindful on the number of houses and he thinks it might be possible to do more but that is not what is happening. In another area of Chanhassen, he built 12 homes and now there are more trees that tower above the houses. He noted the trees will be replenished and the character of the neighborhood will come back. Mr. Bieker stated they will work with the City to save every tree that they can and he appreciates what the neighbors are saying. Chairman von Oven closed the public hearing. Commissioner Schwartz wonders if the current owner would consider selling the property to the City, County, or a preservation organization such as a Sierra Club or Nature Conservancy, 240 Planning Commission Minutes – July 19, 2022 17 assuming they would get fair-market value of the land. He would ask that of the owner before proceeding. As proposed, he thinks this project is a travesty which is his personal opinion. When he drove into that neighborhood he was blown away and had no idea there was that degree of huge trees on the property and once it is gone it will never come back. He thinks it needs to be rethought. Commissioner Also stated given that her current house and childhood home are within .5 miles of this lot she will be recusing herself from the vote and that they would still have a quorum. Chairman von Oven lives across the lake on Lotus. He has driven through the neighborhood, and Commissioner Schwartz is right, these trees are different. He admitted he struggles a bit and as stated earlier he believes in the rights of a land owner to do what they want with their property within the boundaries of the law. The Lotus Woods subdivision in 2020 had a tree preservation of 29% and in looking at the google map now he thinks it does not look so bad, although they are not the same trees but were placed as a penalty for removing trees. He noted they are big, beautiful trees on Big Woods Boulevard and he does not know where he stands but would like to discuss if there is a right number. He is hopeful that there are ways of moving around of the puzzle pieces such as the infiltration system and downstream effects, which might affect the proposed tree preservation. He spoke about the number from the City plan that says it must be 55% or higher and then paying a tree penalty if it is below that has always been a thorn in a Commission predecessor’s side and has become a thorn in this case and in this neighborhood. Commissioner Johnson agrees, he has walked the street a number of times and noted the area is pretty special. He understands the tree debate but also understands an owner’s right to do what they want with their property. He hopes they can come up with a solution or compromise, whether reducing the lots, changing stormwater, or whatever they can do to save trees. Commissioner Soller feels the same and almost bought a house in the neighborhood; he has been through the area and likes it a lot. This is a tough one and he noted it may be in the purview of the City Council and City regarding conservation but perhaps it needs to be looked at such as increasing the penalty for taking out so many trees. He thinks the City has some leverage but finds it difficult to tell a property owner that they cannot work on this. Commissioner Soller likes the idea of compromise. It does not feel right to Chair von Oven to restrict the number of lots. He believes the number the Planning Commission can affect that does not put him at odds with his beliefs about landowner rights is the tree preservation number. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan requires 55% but has an out clause for certain situations and the proposal right now is 35%. He does not know what it would do to the project for that minimum canopy coverage to remain at 55% and be completely in compliance with the Code. Seth Loken, Alliant Engineering, said the Watershed has stormwater rules and in order to meet those they must treat discharge to the wetland prior to it getting to the wetland and to do that they must clear trees for that infrastructure. 241 Planning Commission Minutes – July 19, 2022 18 Ms. Al-Jaff clarified staff noticed this application with variances. One thing they did with Big Woods and why many cannot tell which trees they saved, the homes were pushed 10 feet closer to the right-of-way to save the trees behind, and they increased the rear yard to 40 feet for the conservation easement. If that is something the Commissioners wish to consider, staff will look at it. Commissioner Schwartz wants to make it clear that he also respects property rights of homeowners and property owners. He asked if it is possible at this stage to think out of the box and asked Ms. Aanenson whether the City could consider purchasing the property and keeping it the way it is. Ms. Aanenson replied at this stage she is not sure it would be appropriate to try although it is something that could have been considered. She clarified the tree preservation ordinance, noting the City has a very rigid tree preservation easement and it is not a one-size-fits-all. She noted they have a lot of deer in town travelling through the whole community and that is something the City wants to keep. Ms. Aanenson said the applicant has indicated if the City wants additional right-of-way, which is taking away some of the trees, the applicant is getting penalized for that. She thinks the best way is to Ms. Al-Jaff’s point and to look at ways to cluster the houses, shift them, figure out those significant trees and try to work around those. She is not sure they would have a willing seller but the City could offer that up although she is not sure the City has those funds right now. She noted it is a bit harder on a smaller scale but there are different zoning techniques that have been employed such as RLM or PUD to save a natural resource. Chair von Oven is not in a position to reject or approve the proposal and asked Ms. Aanenson about the best course of action to send it back. Ms. Aanenson replied they can ask for additional time and make a recommendation to table. Staff could then go back and revisit some issues to see what they can do (i.e.variances, what they can save, etc.) They have 120-days to review and would take the extra 60 days. Chairman von Oven moved, Commissioner Johnson seconded to table this item and allow staff and the developer to work towards achieving a greater percentage of tree canopy preservation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0 (Commissioner Alto recused herself from the vote). PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING IMPROVEMENTS AND ENCROACHMENTS IN PUBLIC EASEMENTS Ms. Aanenson noted this is a Code Amendment recommendation. Currently, staff must make everyone that wants to put a fence in an easement area must apply for an encroachment agreement which is a legal document constructed by the attorney. The city attorney is saying these need to go to the City Council for their approval and signature. Staff is creating a website with all easement agreements and development contracts. The purpose of this would be to amend the City Code to say if there is not an active easement, one can put up a fence and sign a document saying if the City would have to activate that easement, the fence owner could take care of that. This would affect 90% of people who must wait 3-4 weeks to get a fence permit. 242 Planning Commission Minutes – July 19, 2022 19 Chair von Oven opened the public hearing. Chair von Oven closed the public hearing. Commissioner Alto moved, Commissioner Johnson seconded to approve code amendment. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chair von Oven noted the summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 21, 2022 as presented. CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE: Ms. Aanenson spoke about Night to Unite and said in the future they will see the Avienda plat. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Alto moved to adjourn the meeting. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 11:11 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Jenny Potter Senior Admin. Support Specialist 243 Planning Commission Item August 16, 2022 Item City Council Action Update File No.Item No: E.1 Agenda Section ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS Prepared By Jean Steckling, Sr. Admin Support Specialist Applicant Present Zoning Land Use Acerage Density Applicable Regulations SUGGESTED ACTION SUMMARY BACKGROUND DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION ATTACHMENTS 244 City Council Action Update 245 City Council Action Update MONDAY, JULY 25, 2022 Meeting cancelled. MONDAY, AUGUST 8, 2022 Discuss Short-Term Rentals – Work Session - Staff will be drafting an ordinance. Discuss Eliminating Solicitor Licensing – Work Session - No changes recommended at this time. Ordinance XXX: Amendment Concerning Improvements and Encroachments in Public Easements – Approved Minutes for these meetings can be viewed and downloaded from the City’s website at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us, and click on “Agendas and Minutes” from the left-side links. 246