The URL can be used to link to this page

09-16-2025 PC Ageanda and PAcket A.6:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER B.PUBLIC HEARINGS B.1 Minnewashta Apartments Rezoning and Site Plan Review (Planning Case 25-11) C.GENERAL BUSINESS D.APPROVAL OF MINUTES D.1 Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated September 2, 2025 E.COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS F.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS F.1 Accessory Structure Ordinance Discussion G.CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION H.OPEN DISCUSSION I.ADJOURNMENT AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2025 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 9:00 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 2 Planning Commission Item September 16, 2025 Item Minnewashta Apartments Rezoning and Site Plan Review (Planning Case 25- 11) File No.Planning Case #2025-11 Item No: B.1 Agenda Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Prepared By Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner Applicant Headwaters Development, LLC Present Zoning Single Family Residential District (RSF) Land Use Residential Medium Density Acerage 5.6 Acres Density 44.8 units as allowed by the Residential Medium Density 2040 Land Use. This project is proposing 44 units. This results in a density of 8 housing units per acre. The Medium Density Residential land use allows for residential development up to 8 housing units per acre. Applicable Regulations Chapter 20, Article II, Division 6, Site Plan Review Chapter 20, Article 20-XXIII, Division 20-XXIII-9 Design Standards for Multifamily Developments City of Chanhassen 2040 Comprehensive Plan SUGGESTED ACTION Recommend approval of the proposed rezoning ordinance and site plan review subject to the conditions of approval and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. SUMMARY The Applicant is proposing the rezoning of a 5.6-acre property to construct a 44-unit multi-family apartment building. 3 The City is awaiting feedback from MnDot regarding installing a potential temporary traffic signal at the intersection of Hwy 41 and Minnetonka Middle School West due to the upcoming Highway 5 reconstruction project. BACKGROUND DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION "The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning ordinance and site plan review for the 44-unit Minnewashta Apartments subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation." ATTACHMENTS Development Application Narrative Civil Plan Set Architectural Plan Set City Staff Report Findings of Fact and Recommendation Rezoning Ordinance Traffic Memo TH41 at MMSW Intersection Control Evaluation Report MnDOT Review Comments Public Comments Minnewashta Apartments Affidavit of Mailing Affidavit of Publishing Affidavit of Mailing September Affidavit of Publishing September 4 5 6 Minnewashta Apartments Submittal Narrative Proposal Headwaters Development is proposing a development of a vacant site (the “Site”) located at 6440 Hazeltine Blvd. The redevelopment will consist of the new construction of a 44-unit apartment complex. As part of the project, we propose to collaborate closely with the Trouvaille Memory Care facility as well as the City of Chanhassen to provide improved stormwater management for areas offsite. Site Location The Site is bordered by Hazeltine Blvd. to the east, Trouvaille Memory Care and a few single family homes to the north, Lake Minnewashta Regional Park on the east, and Herman Field Park on the western boundary. Zoning and Land Use The Site is approximately 5.51 acres. The present zoning is RSF, and the present land use designation has the property guided Residential Medium Density, which allows for 4-8 units per acre. The Residential Medium Density guidance allows for up to 44 units by right. We request a zoning change to the R-8 Zoning designation to facilitate this project. Site Design The design of the Site allows for separation from the existing neighborhood single-family homes. The proposed access to the Site would be from Hazeltine Boulevard. Due to the dynamic nature of the access given the future roundabout proposed for the intersection as well as the forthcoming detours due to the MN-5 project, our traffic consultant will be providing data which demonstrates options for interim and permanent traffic solutions. The Project will adhere to all landscaping requirements, allowing it to blend seamlessly into its surroundings and the existing neighborhood. New stormwater ponding will be constructed on the western portion of the site – the natural low spot. This ponding will serve the Project, as well as treat additional city stormwater from offsite areas which is currently being released untreated into the municipal storm system. Project Description Once completed the Project will contain forty-four (44) total units. 7 2 The newly constructed building, as currently contemplated, will contain a unit mix comprised of 17 one-bedroom units, 22 two-bedroom units, and 5 three-bedroom units. The following tables better illustrate the overall Project unit count and mix. Proposed Building Units Avg. SF One Bedroom Units 17 704 SF Two Bedroom Units 22 1,037 SF Three Bedroom Units 5 1,307 SF Total Units 44 Parking and Amenities Interior flnishes will include hard surface countertops, hard-surface fiooring except for carpet in the bedrooms and quality lighting and plumbing flxtures. Most, if not all, units will have private balconies, and all homes will have in-unit washer/dryers. Once complete each resident will have access to at least one enclosed garage stall. Overall, the project will contain a total of 88 parking stalls, or 2 stalls per unit. Trash will be collected within the building footprint. It will be set out on the designated trash day and the empty containers will be returned to the parking garage after collection. The new building will include shared amenity spaces for all Project residents to enjoy, including a sky lounge, outdoor patio and grilling stations, dog spa, and a pet play area. A connection to the existing city trail system will also be constructed as part of the Project. Architectural Design Exterior materials will be of high quality and durable, consisting of glass, wood or other quality materials as deemed acceptable by the city. The roof will be fiat. Landscaping will meet or exceed the code, and signage will comply with the sign ordinance for residential districts. Sustainability The project will utilize many green building methods during construction and the Project itself will include low fiow plumbing flxtures, low VOC paints, LED lighting where appropriate. 8 3 Financing and Public Benefit The proposed Project will not require direct flnancial assistance from the City of Chanhassen. Being said, we are working diligently with City staff to provide maximum public beneflt, speciflcally utilizing our ability to oversize our stormwater management system to handle offsite runoff currently not being treated at all from neighboring properties. We will be looking to offset the additional costs for providing this infrastructure with potential fee impact fee reductions as appropriate. We will continue working with staff to quantify and flnalize the costs and beneflt. Phasing and Construction Schedule It is anticipated that the project will commence construction Q4 2025. Initial activities will include site clearing, installation of utilities and infrastructure, rough grading and excavation, and then vertical construction. It is anticipated that the entire duration of construction will be approximately fourteen (14) months. Development Method Headwaters intends to develop and own the project upon completion. Based in the Twin- Cities, the principals of Headwaters have a successful track record of development, acquisition, and rehabilitation, of over 5,000 units translating to over $2 billion worth of projects spanning the Midwest, Central Plains, and Mountain West regions of the United States. 9 DescriptionRev.DateMINNEWASHTA APARTMENTS CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA07.11.2025CITY SUBMITTALSheet Title:Project #:Drawn By:Checked By:Issue Date:25-102PMJM06/13/2025G:\Shared Drives\Active Projects\Chanhassen\Headwaters Dev - Minnewashta MF\CAD\Sheets\COVER SHEET.dwgProject Title: HEADWATERS 6757 KARMEN AVENUE ALBERTVILLE, MN Client:Date: Lic. No.:Sheet:XX.XX.XXN O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N PRELIMINARY PLANSCLIENT:ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:ARCHITECT:MINNEWASHTA APARTMENTSSHEET INDEX:FOR:VICINITY MAP- NOT TO SCALEC1.0COVER SHEETMEASURE GROUP - PETE MOREAU, PE (MN)PO BOX 10WAYZATA, MN 55391PH: 612-440-0934EMAIL: PMOREAU@MEASUREGRP.COMMEASURE GROUP - JOSH MCKINNEY, PLA (MN)PO BOX 10WAYZATA, MN 55391PH: 612-440-0934EMAIL: JMCKINNEY@MEASUREGRP.COMHEADWATERS6757 KARMEN AVEALBERTVILLE, MNPH: 612-508-4627EMAIL: RCS@HEADWATERS.BUILDSHEET #SHEET NAMEC1.0COVER SHEETC2.0DEMOLITION PLANC3.0SITE PLANC4.0GRADING PLANC5.0UTILITY PLANC5.1STORM SEWER PLANC6.0PHASE 1 EROSION CONTROLC6.1PHASE 2 EROSION CONTROLC7.0SWPPP NARRATIVEC7.1SWPPP NARRATIVEC8.0CIVIL DETAILS - UTILITY DETAILSC8.1CIVIL DETAILS - STORM SEWER DETAILSC8.2CIVIL DETAILS - ADA DETAILSC8.3CIVIL DETAILS - SITE DETAILSL0.1TREE INVENTORYL1.0LANDSCAPE PLANKAAS WILSON ARCHITECTS - KIM BEHRENS1301 AMERICAN BLVD.BLOOMINTON, MN 55425PH: 612-279-8917EMAIL: KIMB@KAASWILSON.COMSITEMN H W Y 4 1 - H A Z E L T I N E B L V D MINNETONKAMIDDLE SCHOOLMN HWY 710 MIN N E S O T A H I G H W A Y N O . 4 1 ( H A Z E L T I N E B L V D ) ORIOLE AVENUE OEOEOEOE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE G G G G G G G G G G G G||WLWLWL REMOVE SHEDREMOVE STAIRSREMOVE CURBREMOVE & SALVAGEHYDRANT FOR FUTURE USESALVAGE TRASH ENCLOSUREFOR REUSE ON SITEDescriptionRev.DateMINNEWASHTA APARTMENTS CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA07.11.2025CITY SUBMITTALSheet Title:Project #:Drawn By:Checked By:Issue Date:25-102PMJM06/13/2025G:\Shared Drives\Active Projects\Chanhassen\Headwaters Dev - Minnewashta MF\CAD\Sheets\DEMOLITION PLAN.dwgProject Title: HEADWATERS 6757 KARMEN AVENUE ALBERTVILLE, MN Client:Date: Lic. No.:Sheet:XX.XX.XXN O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N I hereby certify that this plan,specifications or report wasprepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am aduly licensed ProfessionalEngineer under the laws of theState of Minnesota.53735Peter S Moreau, PEC2.0DEMOLITION PLANLEGENDEXISTINGPROPOSEDPROPERTY BOUNDARYLOT LINESETBACK LINERIGHT OF WAY LINEEASEMENTSTANDARD CURB AND GUTTERFENCERETAINING WALLSCALE IN FEET080401.DEMOLITION NOTES ARE NOT COMPREHENSIVE. CONTRACTOR SHALL VISIT THE SITE PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION TO OBTAIN A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THE INTENDED SCOPE OF WORK.2. THE DESIGN SHOWN IS BASED ON ENGINEER'S UNDERSTANDING OF EXISTING CONDITIONS.THE EXISTING CONDITIONS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE BASED UPON ALTA AND TOPOGRAPHICMAPPING PREPARED BY XXXX DATED XX-XX-XXXX. IF CONTRACTOR DOES NOT ACCEPTEXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS WITHOUT EXCEPTION, CONTRACTOR SHALLHAVE MADE, AT OWN EXPENSE, A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY BY A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYORAND SUBMIT IT TO THE OWNER FOR REVIEW.3. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DEMOLITION, REMOVAL, AND DISPOSING INALOCATION APPROVED BY ALL GOVERNING AUTHORITIES AND IN ACCORDANCE WITHAPPLICABLE CODES, OF ALL STRUCTURES, PADS, WALLS, FLUMES, FOUNDATIONS, PARKING,DRIVES, DRAINAGE STRUCTURES, UTILITIES, ETC., SUCH THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ONTHE PLANS CAN BE CONSTRUCTED. ALL FACILITIES TO BE REMOVED SHALL BE UNDERCUT TOSUITABLE MATERIAL AND BROUGHT TO GRADE WITH SUITABLE COMPACTED FILL MATERIAL PERTHE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND/OR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER.4.CLEARING AND GRUBBING: CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVING ALL DEBRIS FROMTHE SITE AND DISPOSING THE DEBRIS IN A LAWFUL MANNER. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLEFOR OBTAINING ALL PERMITS REQUIRED FOR DEMOLITION AND DISPOSAL.5.. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DISCONNECTION OF UTILITY SERVICES TO EXISTINGBUILDINGS PRIOR TO DEMOLITION OF THE BUILDINGS.6. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH RESPECTIVE UTILITY COMPANIES PRIOR TO REMOVALAND/OR RELOCATION OF UTILITIES. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH UTILITYCOMPANIES CONCERNING PORTIONS OF WORK WHICH MAY BE PERFORMED BY THE UTILITYCOMPANIES' FORCES AND ANY FEES WHICH ARE TO BE PAID TO UTILITY COMPANIES FORSERVICES. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING ALL FEES AND CHARGES.7. CONTRACTOR IS SPECIFICALLY CAUTIONED THAT LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWNON THIS PLAN HAVE BEEN DETERMINED FROM INFORMATION AVAILABLE. ENGINEER ASSUMESNO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE UTILITY MAPPING ACCURACY. PRIOR TO START OF ANYDEMOLITION ACTIVITY, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY UTILITY COMPANIES 48 HOURS PRIORTO ANY EXCAVATION FOR ON-SITE LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES. THE LOCATIONS OFUTILITIES SHALL BE OBTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR BY CALLING MINNESOTA GOPHER STATEONE CALL AT 800-252-1166 OR651-454-0002.8.THE MAPPING LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING SEWERS, PIPING, AND UTILITIES SHOWN ARE NOT TOBE INTERPRETED AS THE EXACT LOCATION, OR AS THE ONLY OBSTACLES THAT MAY OCCUR ONTHE SITE. VERIFY EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PROCEED WITH CAUTION AROUND ANYANTICIPATED FEATURES. GIVE NOTICE TO ALL UTILITY COMPANIES REGARDING DESTRUCTIONAND REMOVAL OF ALL SERVICE LINES AND CAP ALL LINES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH WORK.UTILITIES DETERMINED TO BE ABANDONED SHALL BE REMOVED IF UNDER THE BUILDINGINCLUDING 10' BEYOND FOUNDATIONS.9.ELECTRICAL, TELEPHONE, CABLE, WATER, FIBER OPTIC CABLE AND/OR GAS LINES NEEDING TO BEREMOVED OR RELOCATED SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THE AFFECTED UTILITY COMPANY.ADEQUATE TIME SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR RELOCATION AND CLOSE COORDINATION WITH THEUTILITY COMPANY IS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE A SMOOTH TRANSITION IN UTILITY SERVICE.CONTRACTOR SHALL PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO EXISTING UTILITIES WITHIN THE ROAD RIGHTOF WAY DURING CONSTRUCTION.10.CONTRACTOR MUST PROTECT THE PUBLIC AT ALL TIMES WITH FENCING, BARRICADES,ENCLOSURES, ETC., TO THE BEST PRACTICES.11.CONTINUOUS ACCESS SHALL BE MAINTAINED FOR THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AT ALLTIMES DURING DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING FACILITIES12.PRIOR TO DEMOLITION OCCURRING, ALL EROSION CONTROL DEVICES ARE TO BE INSTALLEDAND APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY.13.CONTRACTOR SHALL LIMIT SAW-CUT & PAVEMENT REMOVAL TO ONLY THOSE AREAS WHEREIT IS REQUIRED AS SHOWN ON THESE CONSTRUCTION PLANS BUT IF ANY DAMAGE IS INCURREDON ANY OF THE SURROUNDING PAVEMENT, ETC. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FORITS REMOVAL AND REPAIR.14.CONTRACTOR TO PROTECT EXISTING FEATURES WHICH ARE TO REMAIN. DAMAGE TO ANYEXISTING CONDITIONS TO REMAIN WILL BE REPLACED AT CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE.15.ABANDON OR REMOVE ALL SANITARY, WATER AND STORM SERVICES PER CITY STANDARDS.COORDINATE ALL WORK WITH CITY. ALL STREET RESTORATION SHALL BE COMPLETED INCOMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL STANDARDS.16.CONTRACTOR SHALL PREPARE AND SUBMIT TO THE GOVERNING AUTHORITY A TRAFFICAND/OR PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC PLAN PER CITY/COUNTY/STATE STANDARDS TO BE APPROVEDBY THE LOCAL GOVERNING AUTHORITY.DEMOLITION NOTES11 3 STORYMULTIFAMILY44 UNITSFFE: 1011.00GFE: 1000.33HYDSTORMWATERFILTRATION BASINTOP BERM: 995.00EO: 994.50HWL:994.39BOT:989.00BOT(SAND):985.25WLWLWL DDDPROPOSED PUBLICDRAINAGE, UTILITY ANDROADWAY EASEMENT9ABBAA4522340.0'116.8'8818.0'24.0'18.0'10.0'R10.0'R5.0'R37.0'R63.0'26.0'294.2'11771020.0'MIN N E S O T A H I G H W A Y N O . 4 1 ( H A Z E L T I N E B L V D ) ORIOLE AVENUE 6.0'7R20.0'R76.0'R20.0'11C666726.0'9910111111DescriptionRev.DateMINNEWASHTA APARTMENTS CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA07.11.2025CITY SUBMITTALSheet Title:Project #:Drawn By:Checked By:Issue Date:25-102PMJM06/13/2025G:\Shared Drives\Active Projects\Chanhassen\Headwaters Dev - Minnewashta MF\CAD\Sheets\SITE PLAN.dwgProject Title: HEADWATERS 6757 KARMEN AVENUE ALBERTVILLE, MN Client:Date: Lic. No.:Sheet:XX.XX.XXN O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N I hereby certify that this plan,specifications or report wasprepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am aduly licensed ProfessionalEngineer under the laws of theState of Minnesota.53735Peter S Moreau, PEC3.0SITE PLANLEGENDDEVELOPMENT SUMMARYKEYNOTESB6-12 CURB & GUTTER1ZONING INFORMATIONCURRENT SITE ZONING:PROPOSED SITE ZONING:SITE DATATOTAL SITE AREA:DENSITYTOTAL UNITS:DENSITY:BUILDING SETBACKSFRONT:SIDE:REAR:PARKINGENCLOSEDEXTERIORTOTALSITE PARKING RATIOPARKING DIMENSIONSSTALL DIMENSIONSDRIVE AISLE WIDTHIMPERVIOUS SURFACEREQUIREDPROPOSEDRSFR-85.60 ACRES20'20'10'44 STALLS44 STALLS88 STALLS44 STALLS44 STALLS88 STALLS2 STALLSPER UNIT2 STALLSPER UNIT19.3%9x18'24'9'x18'24'&26'8 UPA MAX44 UNITS8 UPAADA SIGNAGE & BOLLARDS - SEE CIVIL DETAILS2ADA PARKING STRIPING - SEE CIVIL DETAILS34FLUSH CURB5CONCRETE SIDEWALK67RETAINING WALL WITH FENCE8CURB TAPERMATCH EXISTINGPROPOSEDPROPERTY BOUNDARYSETBACK LINERIGHT OF WAY LINEEASEMENTSTANDARD CURB AND GUTTERHEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENTLIGHT DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENTCONCRETE SIDEWALKHEAVY DUTY CONCRETE PAVEMENTFENCERETAINING WALL (BY OTHERS)TRAFFIC SIGNLIGHT POLESCALE IN FEET08040ARCHITECTURAL STOOP - COORDINATE WITH STRUCTURALDESIGN BY OTHERSAB116.8'40'294.2'50% MAXCLIGHT POLE WITH FOUNDATIONFIRE LANE - NO PARKING SIGNAGESTOP SIGN9END CONCRETE CURB, START BITUMINOUS EDGE10WETLAND BUFFER SIGNAGE - MCWD REQUIREMENT1112 MIN N E S O T A H I G H W A Y N O . 4 1 ( H A Z E L T I N E B L V D ) ORIOLE AVENUE OEOEOEOE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE G G G G G G G G G G G G||3 STORYMULTIFAMILY44 UNITSFFE: 1011.00GFE: 1000.33HYDSTORMWATERFILTRATION BASINTOP BERM: 995.00EO: 994.50HWL:994.39BOT:989.00BOT(SAND):985.25WLWLWL DDDSSSPROPOSED PUBLICDRAINAGE, UTILITY ANDROADWAY EASEMENTLODLODLOD LOD LOD LODLODLOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LODLODL O D L O D L O DLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLOD LODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLOD LODLODLODLODLODLODLODLO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D -1.6%-4 .9% -1.4% -1.7%-1.6%-33.3%-2.3%-2.0%-5.0%-2.4 %-2.0%-2.0%-33.3%-24.4%-33.3%-7.5%-33.5%-27.5%-33.3%-2.2%-7.5%-5.1%-6.5%-10.0%-4.5%-1.5% -2.0%-4.5%-2.5%-33.3%-33.3% 10 1 9 1 0 2 0 10 2 11012101310141015101610171 0 1 8 101910201016 1017 1018 10161017101898498598698798898998798898999098910229959969979989991000100110021003100410051006100710081009 10101011101210071008 1009 1010 101 1 1012 1013 1014 10151001100299699799899910001001 9951017 1018 1010 1011 1011101510 2 1 10101011 985985995995989995989995996982985979990995990980990995980985990995995988989985990995993989995996 9849939919899919961010100810091000 1015101610131014-3 .8%1011.001011.001011.001011.001009.801009.001007.50 TW1001.00 BW1000.23999.83999.801000.101000.001000.001010.501011.001008.951009.501009.651009.651009.901009.901010.001009.701010.001013.101012.901012.501018.901018.501016.351020.30 M.E.1007.70 E.O.1007.501007.601007.201017.201018.501002.40 TW1001.90 BW1000.90 BW1007.00 TW997.00 BW1008.50 TW1012.20 BW1013.20 TW996.50 BW1010.80 TW1010.00 BW1012.00 TW1010.251010.601010.201009.001018.271018.001005.80 TW1004.80 TW1017.001018.371013.901014.001010.601010.801010.701011.701011.801009.721009.551009.45994.50 E.O.1000.101000.001000.001000.001000.001000.101010.501010.001010.001010.501009.901009.901022.101022.101011.001009.201009.801011.301008.901008.751008.401009.601009.001008.661009.101009.051011.001010.921010.60995.00996.00995.00995.00995.00995.00995.00995.00995.00995.00995.00995.00995.001012.001012.201012.001017.501019.301018.60 M.E.10171018-0.6%101710181010.20 E.O.1010.501010.50DescriptionRev.DateMINNEWASHTA APARTMENTS CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA07.11.2025CITY SUBMITTALSheet Title:Project #:Drawn By:Checked By:Issue Date:25-102PMJM06/13/2025G:\Shared Drives\Active Projects\Chanhassen\Headwaters Dev - Minnewashta MF\CAD\Sheets\GRADING PLAN.dwgProject Title: HEADWATERS 6757 KARMEN AVENUE ALBERTVILLE, MN Client:Date: Lic. No.:Sheet:XX.XX.XXN O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N I hereby certify that this plan,specifications or report wasprepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am aduly licensed ProfessionalEngineer under the laws of theState of Minnesota.53735Peter S Moreau, PEC4.0GRADING PLANLEGENDGRADING NOTES1.LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AND UTILITIES ASSHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFYSITE CONDITIONS AND UTILITY LOCATIONS PRIOR TOEXCAVATION/CONSTRUCTION. THE ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELYIF ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND.2.CONTRACTORS SHALL REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACTLOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS OF VESTIBULE, SLOPED PAVEMENT, EXITPORCHES, RAMPS, TRUCK DOCKS, PRECISE BUILDING DIMENSIONS, EXACTBUILDING UTILITY ENTRANCE LOCATIONS, AND EXACT LOCATIONS ANDNUMBER OF DOWNSPOUTS.3.ALL EXCAVATION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT EDITION OF"STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR TRENCH EXCAVATION ANDBACKFILL/SURFACE RESTORATION" AS PREPARED BY THE CITY ENGINEERSASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA.4.ALL DISTURBED UNPAVED AREAS ARE TO RECEIVE SIX INCHES OF TOPSOIL ANDSOD OR SEED. THESE AREAS SHALL BE WATERED UNTIL A HEALTHY STAND OFGRASS IS OBTAINED. SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR PLANTING AND TURFESTABLISHMENT.5.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND MAINTAININGTRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SUCH AS BARRICADES, WARNING SIGNS,DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, FLAGMEN AND LIGHTS TO CONTROL THE MOVEMENT OFTRAFFIC WHERE NECESSARY. PLACEMENT OF THESE DEVICES SHALL BEAPPROVED BY THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO PLACEMENT. TRAFFIC CONTROLDEVICES SHALL CONFORM TO APPROPRIATE MNDOT STANDARDS6.ALL SLOPES SHALL BE GRADED TO 3:1 OR FLATTER, UNLESS OTHERWISEINDICATED ON THIS SHEET.7.CONTRACTOR SHALL UNIFORMLY GRADE AREAS WITHIN LIMITS OF GRADINGAND PROVIDE A SMOOTH FINISHED SURFACE WITH UNIFORM SLOPES BETWEENPOINTS WHERE ELEVATIONS ARE SHOWN OR BETWEEN SUCH POINTS ANDEXISTING GRADES.8.SPOT ELEVATIONS SHOWN INDICATE FINISHED PAVEMENT ELEVATIONS &GUTTER FLOW LINE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. PROPOSED CONTOURS ARETO FINISHED SURFACE GRADE.9.SEE SOILS REPORT FOR PAVEMENT THICKNESSES AND HOLD DOWNS.10.CONTRACTOR SHALL DISPOSE OF ANY EXCESS SOIL MATERIAL THAT EXISTSAFTER THE SITE GRADING AND UTILITY CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED. THECONTRACTOR SHALL DISPOSE OF ALL EXCESS SOIL MATERIAL IN A MANNERACCEPTABLE TO THE OWNER AND THE REGULATING AGENCIES.11.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A STRUCTURAL RETAINING WALL DESIGNCERTIFIED BY A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER.12.ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL RULESINCLUDING THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM(NPDES) PERMIT REQUIREMENTS.13.PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF ANY STRUCTURE OR PAVEMENT, A PROOF ROLL, ATMINIMUM, WILL BE REQUIRED ON THE SUBGRADE. PROOF ROLLING SHALL BEACCOMPLISHED BY MAKING MINIMUM OF 2 COMPLETE PASSES WITHFULLY-LOADED TANDEM-AXLE DUMP TRUCK, OR APPROVED EQUAL, IN EACH OF2 PERPENDICULAR DIRECTIONS WHILE UNDER SUPERVISION AND DIRECTION OFTHE INDEPENDENT TESTING LABORATORY. AREAS OF FAILURE SHALL BEEXCAVATED AND RE-COMPACTED AS SPECIFIED HEREIN.14.EMBANKMENT MATERIAL PLACED BENEATH BUILDINGS AND STREET OR PARKINGAREAS SHALL BE COMPACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFIED DENSITYMETHOD AS OUTLINED IN MNDOT 2105.3F1 AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF THEGEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER.15.EMBANKMENT MATERIAL NOT PLACED IN THE BUILDING PAD, STREETS ORPARKING AREA, SHALL BE COMPACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH REQUIREMENTSOF THEORDINARY COMPACTION METHOD AS OUTLINED IN MNDOT 2105.3F2.16.ALL SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING SHALL BE COMPLETED BY AN INDEPENDENTGEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. EXCAVATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF REMOVINGUNSTABLE OR UNSUITABLE SOILS SHALL BE COMPLETED AS REQUIRED BY THEGEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FORCOORDINATING ALL REQUIRED SOILS TESTS AND INSPECTIONS WITH THEGEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER.SCALE IN FEET08040PROPERTY BOUNDARYEXISTING CONTOURPROPOSED CONTOURSETBACK LINERIGHT OF WAY LINEEASEMENTSTANDARD CURB AND GUTTERSTORM SEWERFLARED END SECTIONRETAINING WALLDRAINTILEGRADING LIMITSSPOT ELEVATIONFLOW DIRECTIONEMERGENCY OVERFLOWLODD-1.50%1000.00E.O.SPOT ELEV. LABELSM.E.=MATCH EXISTINGTW=TOP OF WALLBW=BOTTOM OF WALLTC=TOP OF CURB13 MIN N E S O T A H I G H W A Y N O . 4 1 ( H A Z E L T I N E B L V D ) ORIOLE AVENUE OEOEOEOE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE G G G G G G G G G G G G||3 STORYMULTIFAMILY44 UNITSFFE: 1011.00GFE: 1000.33HYDSTORMWATERFILTRATION BASINTOP BERM: 995.00EO: 994.50HWL:994.39BOT:989.00BOT(SAND):985.25WLWLWL |||| | ||||| |||||DDDSSSPROPOSED PUBLICDRAINAGE, UTILITY ANDROADWAY EASEMENT150'8" COMBINEDFIRE & DOMESTIC SERVICECOORD. W/ MEP8"X6" TEE6" GAVE VALVEAND HYDRANT8" 45° BEND8" GATE VALVE8" SANITARY SERVICE STUBCOORD. W/ MEPIE=1002.3MH-3RIM: 1009.40INV(S): 1001.4INV(N): 1001.3MH-2RIM: 1012.00INV(S): 998.94INV(E): 998.84MH-1DROP MH*RIM: 1014.00INV(W): 994.6INV(E): 991.10CORE DRILL AND CONNECTTO EXISTING MANHOLE*RIM:1012.00INV(S): 989.82*INV(N): 989.72*CONTRACTOR TO CONFIRMEXISTING INV. AND NOTIFYENGINEER IF A DISCREPANCY EXISTS64 LF -8" PVC @ 2.00%217 LF -8" PVC @ 2.00%44 LF -8" PVC @ 2.00%118 LF -8" PVC @ 2.00%8" 45° BEND8" 45° BEND8" 45° BEND8" 45° BENDCONNECT TO EXISTING(1) 8"X8" TEE(1) 8" GATE VALVEPER CITY STANDARDSEXISTING HYDRANTTO BE RELOCATED8" 45° BEND &8" 22.5° BEND1234DescriptionRev.DateMINNEWASHTA APARTMENTS CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA07.11.2025CITY SUBMITTALSheet Title:Project #:Drawn By:Checked By:Issue Date:25-102PMJM06/13/2025G:\Shared Drives\Active Projects\Chanhassen\Headwaters Dev - Minnewashta MF\CAD\Sheets\UTILITY PLAN.dwgProject Title: HEADWATERS 6757 KARMEN AVENUE ALBERTVILLE, MN Client:Date: Lic. No.:Sheet:XX.XX.XXN O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N I hereby certify that this plan,specifications or report wasprepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am aduly licensed ProfessionalEngineer under the laws of theState of Minnesota.53735Peter S Moreau, PEC5.0UTILITY PLANLEGENDUTILITY NOTES1.THE CONTRACTOR IS SPECIFICALLY CAUTIONED THAT THE LOCATION AND/OR ELEVATIONOF EXISTING UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE BASED ON RECORDS OF THEVARIOUS UTILITY COMPANIES AND LIMITED MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN THE FIELD. THEINFORMATION SHALL NOT BE RELIED ON AS BEING EXACT OR COMPLETE. THECONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY EXISTING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION ANDNOTIFY THE OWNER OR ENGINEER OF DISCREPANCIES.2.ALL SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER AND WATER MAIN MATERIAL AND INSTALLATIONSSHALL BE PER CITY REQUIREMENTS, MINNESOTA PLUMBING CODE, AND IN ACCORDANCEWITH THE CURRENT EDITION OF THE STANDARD UTILITIES SPECIFICATION AS PREPAREDBY THE CITY ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA (CEAM).3.PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN THE NECESSARY FEDERAL,STATE AND LOCAL PERMITS FOR THE PROPOSED WORK OR VERIFY WITH THE OWNER ORENGINEER THAT PERMITS HAVE BEEN OBTAINED. PERMIT FEES SHALL BE THERESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR UNLESS OTHERWISE ARRANGED WITH THE OWNER.4.CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATION ANDDIMENSIONS OF DOORWAYS, RAMPS, TRUCK DOCKS, PRECISE BUILDING DIMENSIONS,AND EXACT BUILDING UTILITY CONNECTION LOCATIONS.5.ALL PRIVATE UTILITIES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESPECIFICATIONS OF THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALLCOORDINATE THE SERVICE LINE CONSTRUCTION WITH THE UTILITY COMPANIES.6.CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY CITY PERMITS FOR UTILITY CONNECTIONSAND UTILITIES SHALL BE INSPECTED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY. THE CITY SHALL BENOTIFIED 48-HOURS PRIOR TO COMMENCING WITH THE UTILITY CONSTRUCTION OR ANYREQUIRED TESTING. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT OPERATE, INTERFERE WITH, CONNECT ANYPIPE OR HOSE TO, OR TAP ANY WATER MAIN BELONGING TO THE CITY UNLESS DULYAUTHORIZED TO DO SO BY THE CITY. ANY ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES OF SCHEDULED ORUNSCHEDULED DISRUPTIONS OF SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC ARE TO BE THE RESPONSIBILITYOF THE CONTRACTOR.7.PROVIDE WATER MAIN THRUST RESTRAINTS PER CITY STANDARD REQUIREMENTS.8.PER MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY REQUIREMENTS, A MINIMUM OF 18INCHES OF VERTICAL SEPARATION AND 10 FEET OF HORIZONTAL SEPARATION IS REQUIREDFROM WATERMAIN TO ANY MANHOLE, SEPTIC SYSTEM, CATCH BASIN, SEWER PIPE, OROTHER SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION, MEASURED FROM THE OUTER EDGE OF THE PIPE TOTHE OUTER EDGE OF THE CONTAMINATION SOURCE UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN.9.UTILITY SERVICES TYPICALLY TERMINATE 5' OUTSIDE BUILDING WALL UNLESS OTHERWISESHOWN OR NOTED.10.WATERMAIN PIPE SHALL EITHER BE AWWA C900 PVC WITH DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS ANDRISERS, OR DIP CLASS 52.11.ALL WATER LINES SHALL HAVE 8' MINIMUM COVER (TOP OF PIPE TO FINISH GRADE).INSULATE WATER MAIN IF LESS THAN 8' OF COVER. INSULATION SHALL BE DOWSTYROFOAM HI BRAND 35 OR EQUIVALENT, WITH 4 INCHES OF THICKNESS.12.SANITARY SEWER PIPE OUTSIDE THE BUILDING ENVELOPE THAT IS 8" OR GREATER SHALL BEPOLYVINYL CHLORIDE (PVC) SDR 26. SCHEDULE 40 MUST BE USED IS THE PIPE IS 6" ORSMALLER. C900 IS REQUIRED FOR DEPTHS GREATER THAN 20 FEET. SANITARY SEWER PIPEWITHIN 5 FEET OF THE BUILDING AND UNDER FOOTINGS SHALL BE SCHEDULE 40 PERASTM D2665. ALL PLASTIC SANITARY SEWER SHALL BE INSTALLED PER D2321. SOLVENTWELD JOINTS MUST INCLUDE USE OF A PRIMER WHICH IS OF A CONTRASTING COLOR TOTHE PIPE AND CEMENT. ALL SANITARY SEWER SHALL BE TESTED COMPLIANT TO CURRENTMINNESOTA PLUMBING CODE.13.STORM SEWER PIPE:13.1.HDPE OR POLYPROPYLENE PIPE MAY BE INSTALLED WITH APPROVAL OF LOCALGOVERNING AGENCIES.13.2.HDPE STORM PIPE 4- TO 60-INCHES IN DIAMETER SHALL MEET REQUIREMENTS OFASTM F2648. FITTINGS SHALL BE PER ASTM F2306 AND INSTALLED PER ASTM D2321.13.3.POLYPROPYLENE STORM PIPE 12- TO 60-INCHES IN DIAMETER SHALL MEETREQUIREMENTS OF ASTM F2881. APPROVED FITTINGS SHALL MEET JOINTPERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM D3212. AT PIPE JOINTS, THE SPIGOT SHALLUTILIZE TWO GASKETS MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM F477. INSTALL INACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D2321.13.4.PVC STORM SEWER PIPE AND FITTINGS SHALL BE SCHEDULE 40 PIPE PER ASTM D2665AND INSTALLED PER ASTM D2321.13.5.IF REQUIRED BY AHJ, REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE SHALL BE CLASS 5 FOR PIPEDIAMETERS 18" AND SMALLER AND CLASS 3 FOR PIPE DIAMETERS 21" AND LARGERUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, PER ASTM C76 WITH R-4 GASKETS.14.ALL PORTIONS OF SANITARY & STORM SEWER SYSTEMS, INCLUDING STRUCTURES,LOCATED WITHIN 10-FEET OF A BUILDING AND/OR WATER LINE SHALL BE TESTED INACCORDANCE WITH MINNESOTA RULES, PART 4714 AND CURRENT MINNESOTAPLUMBING CODE.PROPOSEDPROPERTY BOUNDARYEASEMENTCURB AND GUTTERWATER MAINHYDRANTGATE VALVESANITARY SEWERSTORM SEWERFLARED END SECTION W/ RIP RAP & TRASH GUARDDRAINTILERETAINING WALLGASUNDERGROUND ELECTRICOVERHEAD ELECTRICTELEPHONE/FIBERLIGHT POLE|||GGUEUTSCALE IN FEET08040SUTILITY CROSSING TABLECROSSING #UPPER UTILITY BOTTOMOF PIPELOWER UTILITY TOPOF PIPE1STORM = 1004.52SAN = 1001.372WM = 1003.37SAN = 999.623STORM = 1004.90SAN = 999.214STORM = 1004.16WM = 1000.63DOE14 MIN N E S O T A H I G H W A Y N O . 4 1 ( H A Z E L T I N E B L V D ) ORIOLE AVENUE OEOEOEOE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE G G G G G G G G G G G G||3 STORYMULTIFAMILY44 UNITSFFE: 1011.00GFE: 1000.33HYDSTORMWATERFILTRATION BASINTOP BERM: 995.00EO: 994.50HWL:994.39BOT:989.00BOT(SAND):985.25WLWLWL |||||||||||||||DDDSSSPROPOSED PUBLICDRAINAGE, UTILITY ANDROADWAY EASEMENTSTUB FOR FUTURE CONNECTIONINV: 1013.20STMH-101RIM: 971.00INV(E): 965.50INV(SW): 961.00122 LF - 15" HDPE @ 3.30%FES-100INV: 957.00OCS-103 (SEE DETAIL)RIM: 994.00 TO 995.00TOP WEIR WALL: 994.0015" R.C. ORIFICE: 991.00(15") INV(E): 989.50(DT) INV: 985.50INV(W): 981.00FES-104INV: 989.00FES-200INV: 993.00STMH-102RIM: 981.00INV(E): 975.50INV(W): 971.0045 LF - 15" HDPE @ 12.20%45 LF - 15" HDPE @ 12.20%14 LF - 15" HDPE @ -3.50%CB-201RIM: 1003.50(24") INV(E): 995.30(24") INV(W): 995.30SUMP: 992.30STMH-202RIM: 1006.40(12") INV(S): 1003.80(24") INV(E): 1001.00(24") INV(W): 997.00STMH-203RIM: 1015.90(24") INV(E): 1007.30(24") INV(W): 1007.30CB-301RIM: 1007.20(12") INV(N): 1003.90(12") INV(SE): 1003.90SUMP: 1000.90CB-302RIM: 1008.90(12") INV(E): 1004.35(12") INV(NW): 1004.35SUMP: 1001.35STMH-303RIM: 1010.10(12") INV(S): 1004.60(12") INV(W): 1004.60DRAIN BASIN-304RIM: 1009.00(12") INV(N): 1005.00SUMP: 1002.0086 LF - 12" HDPE @ 0.50%46 LF - 12" HDPE @ 0.50%91 LF - 12" HDPE @ 0.50%20 LF - 18" HDPE @ 0.50%150 LF - 24" HDPE @ 3.90%160 LF - 24" HDPE @ 3.90%46 LF - 24" HDPE@ 3.80%61 LF - 24" HDPE@ 3.80%CLASS III RIP RAP|||GGUEUTSCALE IN FEET08040SDescriptionRev.DateMINNEWASHTA APARTMENTS CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA07.11.2025CITY SUBMITTALSheet Title:Project #:Drawn By:Checked By:Issue Date:25-102PMJM06/13/2025G:\Shared Drives\Active Projects\Chanhassen\Headwaters Dev - Minnewashta MF\CAD\Sheets\UTILITY PLAN.dwgProject Title: HEADWATERS 6757 KARMEN AVENUE ALBERTVILLE, MN Client:Date: Lic. No.:Sheet:XX.XX.XXN O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N I hereby certify that this plan,specifications or report wasprepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am aduly licensed ProfessionalEngineer under the laws of theState of Minnesota.53735Peter S Moreau, PEC5.1STORM SEWER PLANLEGENDPROPOSEDPROPERTY BOUNDARYEASEMENTCURB AND GUTTERWATER MAINHYDRANTGATE VALVESANITARY SEWERSTORM SEWERFLARED END SECTION W/ RIP RAP & TRASH GUARDDRAINTILERETAINING WALLGASUNDERGROUND ELECTRICOVERHEAD ELECTRICTELEPHONE/FIBERLIGHT POLEDOESTORM SEWER NOTES1.STORM SEWER PIPE:1.1.HDPE OR POLYPROPYLENE PIPE MAY BE INSTALLED WITH APPROVAL OF LOCAL GOVERNINGAGENCIES.1.2.HDPE STORM PIPE 4- TO 60-INCHES IN DIAMETER SHALL MEET REQUIREMENTS OF ASTMF2648. FITTINGS SHALL BE PER ASTM F2306 AND INSTALLED PER ASTM D2321.1.3.POLYPROPYLENE STORM PIPE 12- TO 60-INCHES IN DIAMETER SHALL MEET REQUIREMENTS OFASTM F2881. APPROVED FITTINGS SHALL MEET JOINT PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OFASTM D3212. AT PIPE JOINTS, THE SPIGOT SHALL UTILIZE TWO GASKETS MEETING THEREQUIREMENTS OF ASTM F477. INSTALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D2321.1.4.PVC STORM SEWER PIPE AND FITTINGS SHALL BE SCHEDULE 40 PIPE PER ASTM D2665 ANDINSTALLED PER ASTM D2321.1.5.IF REQUIRED BY AHJ, REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE SHALL BE CLASS 5 FOR PIPE DIAMETERS 18"AND SMALLER AND CLASS 3 FOR PIPE DIAMETERS 21" AND LARGER UNLESS OTHERWISENOTED, PER ASTM C76 WITH R-4 GASKETS.FOR GENERAL UTILITY NOTES, SEE SHEET C5.0.15 MIN N E S O T A H I G H W A Y N O . 4 1 ( H A Z E L T I N E B L V D ) ORIOLE AVENUE OEOEOEOE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE G G G G G G G G G G G G||STORM BASINTOP BERM: 995.00EO: 994.70HWL:993.68BOT:989.00PER AS-BUILTS,30" RCPIE +/-957.00wetland is 957.00 to 958.0030" RCP@0.46%LODLODLOD LOD LOD LODLODLOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LODLODLO D L O D L O DLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLOD LODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLOD LODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO DWLWLWL INSTALL ROCK ENTRANCEPER CIVIL DETAILSINSTALL SILT FENCEPER CIVIL DETAILSDescriptionRev.DateMINNEWASHTA APARTMENTS CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA07.11.2025CITY SUBMITTALSheet Title:Project #:Drawn By:Checked By:Issue Date:25-102PMJM06/13/2025G:\Shared Drives\Active Projects\Chanhassen\Headwaters Dev - Minnewashta MF\CAD\Sheets\EROSION CONTROL PLANS.dwgProject Title: HEADWATERS 6757 KARMEN AVENUE ALBERTVILLE, MN Client:Date: Lic. No.:Sheet:XX.XX.XXN O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N I hereby certify that this plan,specifications or report wasprepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am aduly licensed ProfessionalEngineer under the laws of theState of Minnesota.53735Peter S Moreau, PEC6.0PHASE 1EROSIONCONTROLLEGENDPROPOSEDPROPERTY BOUNDARYINDEX CONTOURINTERVAL CONTOURSETBACK LINERIGHT OF WAY LINEEASEMENTSTANDARD CURB AND GUTTERSTORM SEWERFLARED END SECTIONWATER MAINSANITARY SEWERRETAINING WALLDRAINTILEGRADING LIMITSSPOT ELEVATIONFLOW DIRECTIONEMERGENCY OVERFLOWWALL LABEL|LODSCALE IN FEET08040DEROSION CONTROL NOTES1.THE CONTRACTOR IS SPECIFICALLY CAUTIONED THAT THE LOCATION AND/ORELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE BASED ONRECORDS OF THE VARIOUS UTILITY COMPANIES AND LIMITED MEASUREMENTSTAKEN IN THE FIELD. THE INFORMATION SHALL NOT BE RELIED ON AS BEINGEXACT OR COMPLETE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY EXISTING CONDITIONSPRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND NOTIFY THE OWNER OR ENGINEER OFDISCREPANCIES.2.ALL SILT FENCE AND OTHER EROSION CONTROL FEATURES SHALL BE IN-PLACEPRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION/CONSTRUCTION AND SHALL BE MAINTAINEDUNTIL VIABLE TURF OR GROUNDCOVER HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. EXISTING SILTFENCE ON-SITE SHALL BE MAINTAINED AND OR REMOVED AND SHALL BECONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO THE GRADING CONTRACT. IT IS OF EXTREMEIMPORTANCE TO BE AWARE OF CURRENT FIELD CONDITIONS WITH RESPECTTO EROSION CONTROL. TEMPORARY PONDING, DIKES, HAYBALES, ETC.,REQUIRED BY THE CITY SHALL BE INCIDENTAL TO THE GRADING CONTRACT.3.EROSION AND SILTATION CONTROL (ESC): THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUMECOMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONTROLLING ALL SILTATION AND EROSIONOF THE PROJECT AREA. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL USE WHATEVER MEANSNECESSARY TO CONTROL THE EROSION AND SILTATION INCLUDING BUT NOTLIMITED TO: CATCH BASIN INSERTS, CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES, EROSIONCONTROL BLANKET, AND SILT FENCE. ESC SHALL COMMENCE WITH GRADINGAND CONTINUE THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT UNTIL ACCEPTANCE OF THEWORK BYTHE OWNER. THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY INCLUDES ALLIMPLEMENTATION AS REQUIRED TO PREVENT EROSION AND THE DEPOSITINGOF SILT. THE OWNER MAY DIRECT THE CONTRACTOR'S METHODS AS DEEMEDFIT TO PROTECT PROPERTY AND IMPROVEMENTS. ANY DEPOSITION OF SILT ORMUD ON NEW OR EXISTING PAVEMENT OR IN EXISTING STORM SEWERS ORSWALES SHALL BE REMOVED AFTER EACH RAIN EVENT. AFFECTED AREAS SHALLBE CLEANED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE OWNER, ALL AT THE EXPENSE OFTHE CONTRACTOR. ALL TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL SHALL BE REMOVEDBY THE CONTRACTOR AFTER THE TURF IS ESTABLISHED.4.ALL STREETS DISTURBED DURING WORKING HOURS MUST BE CLEANED AT THEEND OF EACH WORKING DAY. A CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE TO THE SITE MUSTBE PROVIDED ACCORDING TO DETAILS TO REDUCE TRACKING OF DIRT ONTOPUBLIC STREETS.5.PROPOSED PONDS SHALL BE EXCAVATED FIRST AND USED AS TEMPORARYPONDING DURING CONSTRUCTION.6.WHEN INSTALLING END-OF-LINE FLARED END SECTIONS, BRING THE SILT FENCEUP & OVER THE FLARED END SECTIONS & COVER DISTURBED AREAS WITH RIPRAP. THE UPSTREAM FLARED END SECTIONS SHALL HAVE WOOD FIBER BLANKETINSTALLED ON THE DISTURBED SOILS.7.ALL UNPAVED AREAS ALTERED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES MUST BERESTORED WITH SEED AND MULCH, SOD, EROSION CONTROL BLANKET OR BEHARD SURFACED WITHIN 2 WEEKS OF COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION.8.THE SITE MUST BE STABILIZED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MPCA, NPDES,MNDOT, AND CITY.A. TEMPORARY (GREATER THAN 1-YEAR) SEED SHALL BE MNDOT SEED MIX 22-111AT 30.5-POUNDS PER ACRE.B. TEMPORARY (LESS THAN 1-YEAR) SEED SHALL BE MNDOT SEED MIX 21-112(FALL) OR 21-111 (SPRING/SUMMER) AT 100-POUNDS PER ACREC.INFILTRATION/FILTRATION BASIN SHALL BE MNDOT SEED MIX 34-262 AT14.5-POUNDS PER ACRE.D. POND SLOPES SHALL BE MNDOT SEED MIX 33-261 AT 35-POUNDS PER ACRE.E. GENERAL SEEDING SHALL BE MNDOT SEED MIX 25-151 AT 70-POUNDS PERACRE.F. MULCH SHALL BE MNDOT TYPE 1 APPLIED AT 2-TONS PER ACRE.9.FOR AREAS WITH SLOPES OF 3:1 OR GREATER, RESTORATION WITH SOD OREROSION CONTROL BLANKET IS REQUIRED.10.ALL TEMPORARY STOCKPILES MUST HAVE SILT FENCE INSTALLED AROUNDTHEM TO TRAP SEDIMENT.11.ALL PERMANENT PONDS USED AS TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASINS DURINGCONSTRUCTION SHALL BE DREDGED AFTER THE SITE HAS BEEN STABILIZED TORESTORE THE POND TO THE PROPOSED BOTTOM ELEVATION.12.ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO LOCAL AND STATE RULESINCLUDING THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM(NPDES) PERMIT REQUIREMENTS.13.THE SITE MUST BE KEPT IN A WELL-DRAINED CONDITION AT ALL TIMES. THECONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR TEMPORARY DITCHES, PIPING, OROTHER MEANS REQUIRED TO INSURE PROPER DRAINAGE DURINGCONSTRUCTION. LOW POINTS IN ROADWAYS OR BUILDING PADS MUST BEPROVIDED WITH A POSITIVE OUTFLOW.16 MIN N E S O T A H I G H W A Y N O . 4 1 ( H A Z E L T I N E B L V D ) ORIOLE AVENUE OEOEOEOE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE G G G G G G G G G G G G||STORM BASINTOP BERM: 995.00EO: 994.70HWL:993.68BOT:989.00PER AS-BUILTS,30" RCPIE +/-957.00wetland is 957.00 to 958.0030" RCP@0.46%LODLODLOD LOD LOD LODLODLOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LODLODL O D L O D L O DLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLOD LODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLOD LODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D -1.6%-4. 9% -1.4% -1.7%-1.6%-33.3%-2.3%-2.0%-5.0%-2.4%-2.0%-2.0%-33.3%-24.4%-33.3%-7.5%-33.5% -27 .5% -33. 3 % -2.2% -7.5 %-5.1%-6.5%-10.0%-4.5% -1.5% -2.0%-4.5%-2.5%-33.3% -33.3% 1019 10 2 0 102 1 1012 1013101410151016101710 1 8 1019 102 0 1016 1017 1018 10 1610171018 984985986987988989987988989990989 10229959969979989991000100110021003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010101110121007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 10151001100299699799899910001001 9951017 1018 1010 1011 101110151021 1010 1011 985985995995989995989995996982985979990995 990980990995980985990995995988989985990995993989995 996 9849939919899919961 0 1 0100810091000 1015101610131014-3 .8%10171018-0.6%101710 1 83 STORYMULTIFAMILY44 UNITSFFE: 1011.00GFE: 1000.33HYDSTORMWATERFILTRATION BASINTOP BERM: 995.00EO: 994.50HWL:994.39BOT:989.00BOT(SAND):985.25WLWLWL DDDPROPOSED PUBLICDRAINAGE, UTILITY ANDROADWAY EASEMENTINSTALL ROCK ENTRANCEPER CIVIL DETAILSINSTALL INLET PROTECTIONPER CIVIL DETAILSINSTALL BIOROLLSPER CIVIL DETAILSINSTALL INLET PROTECTIONPER CIVIL DETAILSINSTALL INLET PROTECTIONPER CIVIL DETAILSINSTALL EROSION CONTROLBLANKET PER CIVIL DETAILSDescriptionRev.DateMINNEWASHTA APARTMENTS CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA07.11.2025CITY SUBMITTALSheet Title:Project #:Drawn By:Checked By:Issue Date:25-102PMJM06/13/2025G:\Shared Drives\Active Projects\Chanhassen\Headwaters Dev - Minnewashta MF\CAD\Sheets\EROSION CONTROL PLANS.dwgProject Title: HEADWATERS 6757 KARMEN AVENUE ALBERTVILLE, MN Client:Date: Lic. No.:Sheet:XX.XX.XXN O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N I hereby certify that this plan,specifications or report wasprepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am aduly licensed ProfessionalEngineer under the laws of theState of Minnesota.53735Peter S Moreau, PEC6.1PHASE 2EROSIONCONTROLLEGENDSCALE IN FEET08040EROSION CONTROL NOTES1.THE CONTRACTOR IS SPECIFICALLY CAUTIONED THAT THE LOCATION AND/ORELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE BASED ONRECORDS OF THE VARIOUS UTILITY COMPANIES AND LIMITED MEASUREMENTSTAKEN IN THE FIELD. THE INFORMATION SHALL NOT BE RELIED ON AS BEINGEXACT OR COMPLETE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY EXISTING CONDITIONSPRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND NOTIFY THE OWNER OR ENGINEER OFDISCREPANCIES.2.ALL SILT FENCE AND OTHER EROSION CONTROL FEATURES SHALL BE IN-PLACEPRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION/CONSTRUCTION AND SHALL BE MAINTAINEDUNTIL VIABLE TURF OR GROUNDCOVER HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. EXISTING SILTFENCE ON-SITE SHALL BE MAINTAINED AND OR REMOVED AND SHALL BECONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO THE GRADING CONTRACT. IT IS OF EXTREMEIMPORTANCE TO BE AWARE OF CURRENT FIELD CONDITIONS WITH RESPECTTO EROSION CONTROL. TEMPORARY PONDING, DIKES, HAYBALES, ETC.,REQUIRED BY THE CITY SHALL BE INCIDENTAL TO THE GRADING CONTRACT.3.EROSION AND SILTATION CONTROL (ESC): THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUMECOMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONTROLLING ALL SILTATION AND EROSIONOF THE PROJECT AREA. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL USE WHATEVER MEANSNECESSARY TO CONTROL THE EROSION AND SILTATION INCLUDING BUT NOTLIMITED TO: CATCH BASIN INSERTS, CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES, EROSIONCONTROL BLANKET, AND SILT FENCE. ESC SHALL COMMENCE WITH GRADINGAND CONTINUE THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT UNTIL ACCEPTANCE OF THEWORK BYTHE OWNER. THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY INCLUDES ALLIMPLEMENTATION AS REQUIRED TO PREVENT EROSION AND THE DEPOSITINGOF SILT. THE OWNER MAY DIRECT THE CONTRACTOR'S METHODS AS DEEMEDFIT TO PROTECT PROPERTY AND IMPROVEMENTS. ANY DEPOSITION OF SILT ORMUD ON NEW OR EXISTING PAVEMENT OR IN EXISTING STORM SEWERS ORSWALES SHALL BE REMOVED AFTER EACH RAIN EVENT. AFFECTED AREAS SHALLBE CLEANED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE OWNER, ALL AT THE EXPENSE OFTHE CONTRACTOR. ALL TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL SHALL BE REMOVEDBY THE CONTRACTOR AFTER THE TURF IS ESTABLISHED.4.ALL STREETS DISTURBED DURING WORKING HOURS MUST BE CLEANED AT THEEND OF EACH WORKING DAY. A CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE TO THE SITE MUSTBE PROVIDED ACCORDING TO DETAILS TO REDUCE TRACKING OF DIRT ONTOPUBLIC STREETS.5.PROPOSED PONDS SHALL BE EXCAVATED FIRST AND USED AS TEMPORARYPONDING DURING CONSTRUCTION.6.WHEN INSTALLING END-OF-LINE FLARED END SECTIONS, BRING THE SILT FENCEUP & OVER THE FLARED END SECTIONS & COVER DISTURBED AREAS WITH RIPRAP. THE UPSTREAM FLARED END SECTIONS SHALL HAVE WOOD FIBER BLANKETINSTALLED ON THE DISTURBED SOILS.7.ALL UNPAVED AREAS ALTERED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES MUST BERESTORED WITH SEED AND MULCH, SOD, EROSION CONTROL BLANKET OR BEHARD SURFACED WITHIN 2 WEEKS OF COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION.8.THE SITE MUST BE STABILIZED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MPCA, NPDES,MNDOT, AND CITY.A. TEMPORARY (GREATER THAN 1-YEAR) SEED SHALL BE MNDOT SEED MIX 22-111AT 30.5-POUNDS PER ACRE.B. TEMPORARY (LESS THAN 1-YEAR) SEED SHALL BE MNDOT SEED MIX 21-112(FALL) OR 21-111 (SPRING/SUMMER) AT 100-POUNDS PER ACREC.INFILTRATION/FILTRATION BASIN SHALL BE MNDOT SEED MIX 34-262 AT14.5-POUNDS PER ACRE.D. POND SLOPES SHALL BE MNDOT SEED MIX 33-261 AT 35-POUNDS PER ACRE.E. GENERAL SEEDING SHALL BE MNDOT SEED MIX 25-151 AT 70-POUNDS PERACRE.F. MULCH SHALL BE MNDOT TYPE 1 APPLIED AT 2-TONS PER ACRE.9.FOR AREAS WITH SLOPES OF 3:1 OR GREATER, RESTORATION WITH SOD OREROSION CONTROL BLANKET IS REQUIRED.10.ALL TEMPORARY STOCKPILES MUST HAVE SILT FENCE INSTALLED AROUNDTHEM TO TRAP SEDIMENT.11.ALL PERMANENT PONDS USED AS TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASINS DURINGCONSTRUCTION SHALL BE DREDGED AFTER THE SITE HAS BEEN STABILIZED TORESTORE THE POND TO THE PROPOSED BOTTOM ELEVATION.12.ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO LOCAL AND STATE RULESINCLUDING THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM(NPDES) PERMIT REQUIREMENTS.13.THE SITE MUST BE KEPT IN A WELL-DRAINED CONDITION AT ALL TIMES. THECONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR TEMPORARY DITCHES, PIPING, OROTHER MEANS REQUIRED TO INSURE PROPER DRAINAGE DURINGCONSTRUCTION. LOW POINTS IN ROADWAYS OR BUILDING PADS MUST BEPROVIDED WITH A POSITIVE OUTFLOW.PROPERTY BOUNDARYEXISTING CONTOURPROPOSED CONTOURSETBACK LINERIGHT OF WAY LINEEASEMENTSTANDARD CURB AND GUTTERSTORM SEWERFLARED END SECTIONRETAINING WALLDRAINTILEGRADING LIMITSSPOT ELEVATIONFLOW DIRECTIONEMERGENCY OVERFLOWROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCEEROSION CONTROL BLANKETINLET PROTECTIONSILT FENCEBIOROLLLODD-1.50%1000.00E.O.17 DescriptionRev.DateMINNEWASHTA APARTMENTS CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA07.11.2025CITY SUBMITTALSheet Title:Project #:Drawn By:Checked By:Issue Date:25-102PMJM06/13/2025G:\Shared Drives\Active Projects\Chanhassen\Headwaters Dev - Minnewashta MF\CAD\Sheets\SWPPP NARRATIVE & NOTES.dwgProject Title: HEADWATERS 6757 KARMEN AVENUE ALBERTVILLE, MN Client:Date: Lic. No.:Sheet:XX.XX.XXN O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N I hereby certify that this plan,specifications or report wasprepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am aduly licensed ProfessionalEngineer under the laws of theState of Minnesota.53735Peter S Moreau, PEC7.0SWPPP NARRATIVESWPPP NARRATIVETHE SWPPP IS PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES)REGULATIONS AS ESTABLISHED BY THE CLEAN WATER ACT. THE MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY'S CONSTRUCTIONGENERAL PERMIT MN R100001 (CSGP) (EXPIRATION DATE JULY 31, 2023) PROVIDES A FRAME WORK OF REQUIREMENTS FORCOMPLIANCE TO DISCHARGE STORMWATER FROM A CONSTRUCTION SITE.THE SWPPP IS FOR IMPLEMENTATION BY THE OWNER AND OPERATOR, AS LISTED BELOW, AT SANTA VERA APARTMENTS. THIS REPORTSHALL BE ON THE SITE AT ALL TIMES DURING CONSTRUCTION. THE OWNER MUST ALSO KEEP THIS SWPPP ON FILE FOR THREE YEARSAFTER SUBMITTAL OF THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION. THE FOLLOWING ARE OUTLINED IN THIS SWPPP:- CONTROL MEASURES FOR STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PRIOR TO AND DURING CONSTRUCTION- CONTROL MEASURES FOR STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION AFTER CONSTRUCTION- SOURCES OF STORMWATER AND NON-STORMWATER POLLUTION- INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE PROCEDURESTHE GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN PREPARED FOR MINNEWASHTA APARTMENTS SHALL BE CONSIDERED PART OF THESWPPP.PROJECT LOCATIONTHIS DOCUMENT PRESENTS A STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP) FOR MINNEWASHTA APARTMENTS INCHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA. THE SITE IS LOCATED ON 5.60ACRES NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF MN 41 AND MINNETONKA MIDDLESCHOOL-WEST.PROJECT CONTACT INFORMATIONOWNER/DEVELOPER: HEADWATERS DEVELOPMENTOWNER ADDRESS:6757 KARMEN AVENUEALBERTVILLE, MNOWNER EMAIL: RCS@HEADWATERS.BUILDCONTRACTOR: TBDCOMPANY NAME: TBDIDENTIFY PERSONNEL INVOLVED WITH THE PROJECT AND THEIR RELATED NECESSARY TRAINING COMMENSURATE WITH THEIR TASKPRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.SWPPP DESIGNER: MEASURE GROUP, LLCPETER MOREAUPO BOX 10WAYZATA, MN 55391612-440-0934PMOREAU@MEASUREGRP.COMDESIGN OF CONSTRUCTION SWPPP, U OF M 05/31/28SWPPP INSPECTION:TBDBMP INSTALLER:TBDOWNER/OPERATOR RESPONSIBILITIESOWNER·DEVELOPMENT OF SWPPP PRIOR TO APPLICATION/NOI SUBMITTAL.·SUBMIT A COMPLETE AND ACCURATE APPLICATION FORM (NOI)·COMPLIANCE WITH ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF CONSTRUCTION GENERAL STORMWATER PERMIT·SWPPP SUBMITTAL FOR 30 DAY REVIEW FOR PROTECT GREATER THAN 50 ACRES & DISCHARGING TO SPECIAL/IMPAIREDWATERS WITHIN 1 MILE OF SITE DISCHARGE.·KEEPING PERMIT COVERAGE UP-TO-DATE (TRANSFER/SUBDIVISION)·SUBMIT NOTICE OF TERMINATION (NOT) WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER ALL PERMIT TERMINATION CONDITIONS AS LISTED IN SECTION13 ARE COMPLETE·SUBMIT NOTICE OF TERMINATION (NOT) WITHIN 30 DAYS OF MEETING REQUIREMENTS OF FINAL STABILIZATION·IDENTIFY WHO HAS LONG TERM OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PERMANENT STORMWATER SYSTEM.·DEVELOP CHAIN OF RESPONSIBILITY WITH ALL OPERATORS TO ENSURE NPDES COMPLIANCE.·IDENTIFY TRAINED PERSONNEL TO DEVELOP THE SWPPP, INSTALL AND MAINTAIN BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, AND OVERSEETHE SWPPP AND CONDUCT INSPECTIONSOPERATOR·COMPLETION OF AN ACCURATE NOI WITH THE OWNER·COMPLIANCE WITH CSGP SECTIONS 3, 4, 6-22, 24 AND ANY APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY INSECTION 23 (MINN. R. 7090)·KEEPING THE PERMIT UP-TO-DATE WITH THE OWNER (PARTIAL, WHOLE, CONTRACTOR, BUILDER, ETC)·COMPLETE AND SIGN APPLICATIONS FOR PERMIT TRANSFER AND MODIFICATION AND NOTICE OF TERMINATION WITH OWNERAS NEEDED.PROJECT DESCRIPTIONTHE SITE IS APPROXIMATELY 5.60 ACRES. CONSTRUCTION WILL CONSIST OF, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO GRADING AND A FILTRATIONBASIN. THE PROPOSED PHASE OF THE DEVELOPMENT WILL CONSIST OF THE CONSTRUCITON OF A MULTIFAMILY HOUSINGDEVELOPMENT WITH ASSOCIATED BUILDING, PARKING LOT AND UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE.PROJECT AREA = 5.60 ACDISTURBED AREA = 4.54 ACEXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA = 0.03 ACPROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA = 1.15 ACPRE-DEVELOPMENT SITE CONDITIONSSITE IS GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH TYPE "D" SOILS. THE EXISTING SITE GENERALLY DRAINS FROM NORTHEAST TO THESOUTHWEST.REFER TO GEOTECHNICAL REPORT DATED XX/XX/XXXX COMPLETED BY BRAUN INTERTEC.POST-DEVELOPMENT SITE CONDITIONSTHE PROPOSED SITE MAINTAINS THE OVERALL EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERNS. MOST OF THE SITE DRAINS FROM NORTHEAST TOSOUTHWEST. THE RUNOFF FROM MOST OF THE SITE WILL BE DIRECTED THROUGH STORM SEWER TO THE FILTRATION BASIN.STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN·THE TEMPORARY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN WILL CONSIST OF GUIDELINES SET FORTH IN ITEMS 7 AND 8 OF THE SWPPPNOTES SECTION.·THE PERMANENT STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN WILL CONSIST OF SURFACE DRAINAGE BY CURB AND GUTTER, SWALESAND STORM SEWER PIPE.·THE SITE DRAINAGE WILL BE ROUTED TO PROPOSED STORM SEWER WHICH WILL DISCHARGE TO THE FILTRATION BASIN .·REFER TO THE PROJECT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REPORT FOR MORE INFORMATION REGARDING THE PRE-DEVELOPMENTSITE CONDITIONS, POST-DEVELOPMENT SITE CONDITIONS, AND STORM WATER MANAGEMENT CALCULATIONS.·THE SITE STORM WATER DETENTION FACILITY WILL BE CONSTRUCTED TO MEET OR EXCEED LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERALREQUIREMENTS.·TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMP'S ALONG WITH THE PROCEDURES TO BE USED TOESTABLISHED ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY BMP'S AS NECESSARY FOR SITE CONDITIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION ARE IDENTIFIEDON THE SITE GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN PREPARED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROJECT, AND WITHIN THEPROJECT STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN.POTENTIAL STORM WATER POLLUTANTSPOTENTIAL POLLUTANT SOURCES, INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION AND WASTE MATERIALS THAT ARE USED OR STORED AT THE SITE, AREDESCRIBED IN THE SECTION. BY IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE BMPS, THE POTENTIAL POLLUTANT SOURCES ARE NOT REASONABLYEXPECTED TO AFFECT THE STORM WATER DISCHARGES FROM THE SITE.CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, CHEMICALS AND WASTE MATERIALS THAT WILL BE USED OR STORED AT THE SITE:CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCETHE INTENDED SEQUENCING OF MAJOR SITE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES IS AS FOLLOWS:1. INSTALL PERIMETER CONTROL DEVICES (SILT FENCE, BIO-LOGS, ETC.) AND INLET PROTECTION TO EXISTING STRUCTURES ASSHOWN ON PLAN.INSTALL TREE PROTECTION FENCE AS SHOWN ON PLAN.2. INSTALL STABILIZED ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE.3. CLEAR AND GRUB SITE.4. STRIP AND STOCKPILE TOPSOIL.5. ROUGH GRADE OF SITE.6. STABILIZE DENUDED AREAS AND STOCKPILES.7. INSTALL SANITARY SEWER, WATERMAIN, STORM SEWER AND SERVICES.8. INSTALL INLET PROTECTION AROUND CATCH BASINS.9. INSTALL STREET SECTION.10. INSTALL CURB AND GUTTER.11. INSTALL PAVEMENT.12. INSTALL SMALL UTILITIES (GAS, ELECTRIC, PHONE, CABLE, ETC.)13. FINE GRADE BOULEVARD, LANDSCAPE AREAS, SEED AND MULCH.14. REMOVE ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT.15. FINAL GRADE.16. WHEN ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IS COMPLETE AND THE SITE IS STABILIZED BY EITHER SEED OR SOD AND LANDSCAPING,REMOVE SILT FENCE AND RESEED ANY AREAS DISTURBED BY THE REMOVAL.CONSTRUCTION NOTESIT IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED THAT THE CONTRACTOR MAINTAIN A STOCKPILE OF EROSION CONTROL DEVICES AND SEDIMENTCONTROL BMP'S ON SITE AT ALL TIMES FOR IMMEDIATE USAGE. IN THE EVENT OF AN ACCIDENTAL SEDIMENT DISCHARGE TOWATERS OF THE STATE, OR ANY DISCHARGE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIAL OF REPORTABLE QUANTITY, CONTACT THE MPCA STATEDUTY OFFICER AT 1-800-422-0798.TIMING OF BMP INSTALLATIONTHE EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMP'S SHALL BE INSTALLED TO MINIMIZE EROSION FROM DISTURBED SURFACESAND CAPTURE SEDIMENT ON SITE. THE FOLLOWING LIST DEFINES THE TIMING OF EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLMEASURES IN SPECIFIC AREAS.PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTIONTHE FOLLOWING EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES ARE SHOWN IN THE PLANS AND SHALL BE IMPLEMENTEDPRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION:1. INSTALL SILT FENCE OR OTHER SEDIMENT CONTROL AROUND THE PERIMETER OF AREAS TO BE GRADED AND ALL AREAS WHICH ARENOT TO BE DISTURBED AS SHOWN ON THE GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN.2. CONSTRUCT GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES AT FIELD ENTRANCES TO THE SITE AS SHOWN ON THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS.3. INLET PROTECTION IS TO BE INSTALLED AT ALL STORM WATER INLETS WHICH HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO RECEIVE STORM WATERRUNOFF FROM THE CONSTRUCTION SITE WITHIN 200 FEET OF LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION.4. INSTALL SILT FENCE OR OTHER SEDIMENT CONTROL AROUND ALL TEMPORARY INACTIVE STOCKPILES. ALL SILT FENCES FORSTOCKPILES SHALL BE INCIDENTAL TO GRADING CONTRACT IF STOCKPILES ARE PLACED OUTSIDE OF SILT FENCES SHOWN ON THEPLAN.DURING CONSTRUCTIONTHE FOLLOWING EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES ARE SHOWN IN THE PLANS AND SHALL BE IMPLEMENTEDDURING CONSTRUCTION:1. PHASE GRADING WORK TO MINIMIZE THE DURATION THAT ANY DISTURBED SOIL IS EXPOSED.2. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL HAVE TEMPORARY PROTECTION OR PERMANENT COVER OVER EXPOSED SOIL AREAS IF NOT BEINGACTIVELY GRADED AND/OR IF NOT AT FINAL GRADE WITHIN 7 DAYS OF DISTURBANCE ACTIVITY TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLYCEASING. TEMPORARY SEED MIX 22-111, APPLIED AT A RATE OF 30.5 LBS/ACRE, SHALL BE USED PRIOR TO WINTER, IF SITE NOTSODDED.3. STRIP AND STOCKPILE TOPSOIL FOR REPLACEMENT OF 6 INCHES OF TOPSOIL OVER TURF AREAS WHEN GRADING IS COMPLETE.4. PLACE A MINIMUM OF 2 TONS/ACRE OF STRAW ON ALL AREAS AFTER REACHING FINAL GRADE WITH TOPSOIL AND ANCHORSTRAW WITH EITHER A STRAIGHT DISK, HYDROMULCH OR POLYMER.5. STABILIZATION OF TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT DRAINAGE DITCHES THAT DRAIN WATER FROM THE CONSTRUCTION SITE MUST BEINITIATED WITHIN 24 HOURS OF CONNECTING THE DRAINAGE DITCH TO ANY CONVEYANCE SYSTEM THAT DISCHARGES TOSURFACE WATERS. THE FIRST 200 LINEAR FEET MUST BE STABILIZED WITHIN 24 HOURS. THE REMAINING DITCH SHALL BE STABILIZEDWITHIN 7 DAYS.6. INSTALL SILT FENCE AROUND ALL TEMPORARY INACTIVE STOCKPILES WHICH ARE NOT PLACED WITHIN EXISTING SILT FENCES OROTHER PERIMETER CONTROLS.7. TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT ENERGY DISSIPATION AT PIPE APRON OUTLETS WILL BE PLACED PRIOR TO BUT NO SOONER THAN 7DAYS BEFORE APRON IS INSTALLED. RIPRAP SHALL BE INSTALLED UNDER APRON LIP ACCORDING TO THE STANDARD DETAIL.8. SUFFICIENT PERSONNEL, EQUIPMENT, AND MATERIALS SHALL BE MOBILIZED WITHIN 24 HOURS OF A WRITTEN ORDER BY THEOWNER OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE TO CONDUCT CORRECTIVE WORK AND INSTALL TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL WORK INTHE CASE OF AN EMERGENCY.9. REMOVE ANY SEDIMENT THAT HAS BEEN TRACKED ONTO PUBLIC STREETS AT THE END OF THE DAY OR WITHIN 24 HOURS OFDETECTION, OR MORE FREQUENT AT DIRECTION OF SITE INSPECTOR.10. COLLECT ALL CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS IN DUMPSTERS AND ROLL-OFF BOXES, EMPTY WHEN DEBRIS REACHES TOP OF DUMPSTER11. INSPECT POLLUTION CONTROL MEASURES AS SPECIFIED WITHIN SECTION 11 OF THE GENERAL PERMIT.INLET SEDIMENT CONTROL BMP REMOVALIF INLET SEDIMENT CONTROLS (WIMCO TYPE OR EQUAL) BMP'S ARE REMOVED FOR FLOODING / FREEZING CONCERNS UPONREQUEST OF THE MUNICIPALITY, WATERSHED DISTRICT OR OTHER AGENCY, DOCUMENTATION SHALL BE ATTACHED TO THEINSPECTION REPORTS AND THIS SWPPP OR BEAVAILABLE WITHIN 72 HOURS OF REQUEST. DOCUMENTATION SHALL BE A WRITTEN FORM OF CORRESPONDENCE VERIFYING THENEED FOR REMOVAL.UPON COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIESPERMIT TERMINATION CONDITIONS ARE ACHIEVED FOR THE PROJECT WHEN PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL BMP'S ARE APPLIED TOTHE SITE. THE PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL BMP'S MAY BE A COMBINED OF VEGETATIVE AND NON-VEGETATIVE COVER TYPES.ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS TO ACHIEVING FINAL STABILIZATION PERMIT TERMINATION CONDITIONS INCLUDE:1. ALL SOIL DISTURBING ACTIVITY IS COMPLETED. ALL DISTURBED AREA WITHOUT PERMANENT IMPERMEABLE SURFACES AREVEGETATED FOR FINAL STABILIZATION.2. PERMANENT STORMWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM (IF REQUIRED) IS CONSTRUCTED AND ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT HAS BEENREMOVED FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. CLEAN OUT ALL SEDIMENT FROM CONVEYANCES AND FROM TEMPORARY SEDIMENTBASINS THAT ARE TO BE USED AS PERMANENT WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT BASINS. THE CLEAN OUT OF PERMANENT BASINS MUSTBE SUFFICIENT TO RETURN THE BASIN TO DESIGN CAPACITY.3. THE VEGETATIVE COVER FOR THE SITE IS AT A DENSITY, WITH UNIFORM PERENNIAL COVER OF 70% OF THE EXPECTED FINALGROWTH DENSITY.4. ALL TEMPORARY, SYNTHETIC BMP'S HAVE BEEN REMOVED.PERMANENT VEGETATION ESTABLISHMENTPERMANENT TURF SHALL FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATIONS PER NOTES AND SPECIFICATIONS IN THE GRADING AND/OR LANDSCAPEPLAN. SEED THAT IS TO OCCUR AFTER OCTOBER 20TH SHALL CONFORM TO THE MNDOT SPECIFICATIONS FOR DORMANT SEEDING.SWPPP INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL INSPECTIONSCONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AND ALL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES MUST BE INSPECTED (USING MPCA CONSTRUCTION STORMWATERINSPECTION CHECKLIST OR AN ALTERNATIVE FORM) WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF THE SCHEDULE BELOW. THE INSPECTOR SHALL BEA PERSON TRAINED AND FAMILIAR WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SWPPP AND THE MPCA MN R100001 PERMIT. ALTERNATES WILLINCLUDE INDIVIDUALS TO BE DESIGNATED BY THE OWNER AND MAY INCLUDE CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL OR OTHER QUALIFIEDINDIVIDUALS AND SHALL BE LISTED IN THE PROJECT CONTACT INFORMATION SECTION OF THIS PLANINSPECTION SCHEDULE:- IF THE SITE IS ACTIVE: INSPECTION NEEDED ONCE EVERY 7 CALENDAR DAYS AND WITHIN 24 HOURS OF A RAINFALL GREATER THAT0.5 INCHES.- INACTIVE AND STABILIZED AREAS: INSPECTION NEEDED ONCE EVERY 30 CALENDAR DAYS.- INACTIVE AREAS WITH FINAL STABILIZATION: INSPECTION NEEDED ONCE EVERY MONTH FOR 12 MONTHS (NOT INCLUDING FROZENCONDITIONS).- SUBJECT TO WINTER/FROZEN CONDITIONS: NOT APPLICABLE/NOT NEEDED IF NO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IS OCCURRING.SCOPE OF INSPECTION SHALL INCLUDE:1. RECORD DATE AND TIME OF INSPECTION2. NAME OF PERSON(S) CONDUCTING INSPECTION3. FINDINGS OF THE INSPECTION4. LOCATION AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS NEEDED5. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN (DATE.TIME/BY WHOM)6. DATE AND AMOUNT OF RAINFALL (RAINFALL AMOUNTS TO BE TAKEN FROM AN ONSITE RAIN GAUGE)7. OBSERVED DISCHARGES LOCATIONS8. DESCRIBE DISCHARGE (COLOR, ODOR, FLOATING. SETTLED, SOLIDS, FOAM, OIL SHEEN)9. THE SITE INSPECTOR WILL VISUALLY CHECK A DISCHARGE FROM A TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT SEDIMENTATION BASIN TO ENSUREADEQUATE TREATMENT IS OBTAINED AND DISCHARGE WATER WILL NOT CONTRIBUTE EXCESSIVE SEDIMENT OR OTHER NUISANCECONDITIONS.10. RECORD CHANGES MADE TO THE SWPPP. AMENDMENTS FROM INSPECTIONS NEED TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN 7 DAYS.11. ALL INSPECTIONS SHALL BE DOCUMENTED WITHIN 24 HOURS AFTER COMPLETING THE FIELD INSPECTION AND AVAILABLE IN PAPEROR ELECTRONIC FORM ON SITE.MAINTENANCE OF EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICESTHE OWNER/CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OPERATION, MAINTENANCE OF TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT WATER QUALITYMANAGEMENT BMPS AS WELL AS ALL EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPS, FOR THE DURATION OF THECONSTRUCTION WORK AT THE SITE. THE CONTRACTOR MUST INSPECT ALL EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPSAND POLLUTION PREVENTION MANAGEMENT MEASURES TO ENSURE INTEGRITY AND EFFECTIVENESS DURING ALL ROUTINE AND POSTRAINFALL EVENTS. ALL NONFUNCTIONAL BMPS MUST BE REPAIRED, REPLACED, OR SUPPLEMENTED WITH FUNCTIONAL BMPS BY THEEND OF THE NEXT BUSINESS DAY AFTER DISCOVERY, OR AS SOON AS FIELD CONDITIONS ALLOW ACCESS UNLESS ANOTHER TIMEFRAME IS SPECIFIED BELOW.THE FOLLOWING GUIDELINES WILL BE USED TO DETERMINE IF THE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICES REQUIREMAINTENANCE, REPAIR, OR REPLACEMENT:1. ALL NON-FUNCTIONAL BMPS - OBSERVED CONDITION; SEDIMENT OVERTOPPING, UNDER WATER, SCOURED ENDS, UNDERMINED,DESTROYED, NON-FUNCTION AS DESIGNED, ETC. - SHALL BE MAINTAINED OR REPLACED BY THE END OF THE NEXT BUSINESS DAYAFTER DISCOVERY OR NOTIFICATION, OR AS SOON AS FIELD CONDITIONS ALLOW.2. PERIMETER SEDIMENT CONTROL (SILT FENCE, FIBER LOGS, BERMS, ETC.) - OBSERVED CONDITION TO BE 1/2 FULL OF SEDIMENT,FLATTENED TO 12 HEIGHT, DRIVEN OVER, UNDERMINED, SCOURED, MOVED FOR ACCESS, ETC. - SHALL BE MAINTAINED, REPAIRED ORSUPPLEMENTATION OF PERIMETER SEDIMENT CONTROL SHOULD BE DONE BY THE END OF NEXT BUSINESS DAY OR AD FIELDCONDITIONS ALLOW.3. INLET PROTECTION BMPS, CONVEYANCES, SURFACE WATERS - OBSERVED CONDITION; SEDIMENT DEPOSITION, SEDIMENT DELTASAN ACCUMULATION OF SEDIMENT MATERIAL, DEVICES APPEAR PLUGGED WITH SEDIMENT - REMOVAL/CLEAN OUT OFACCUMULATED SEDIMENT AND DELTAS TO BE REMOVED WITHIN 7 DAYS, STABILIZE AS NEEDED IF SOILS ARE EXPOSED DURINGREMOVAL/CLEAN OUT.4. TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASINS AND TRAPS/PERMANENT SEDIMENT BASINS - OBSERVED TO HAVE SEDIMENT DEPOSITION ANDACCUMULATION TO 1/2 OF THE STORAGE VOLUME - CLEAN OUT, REMOVE ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT MATERIAL WITHIN 7 DAYS OFOBSERVATION, OR AS FIELD CONDITIONS ALLOW ACCESS.5. SITE EXIT LOCATIONS, ROCK EXIT PADS, OTHER ANTI-TRACKING PRACTICES - OBSERVED TO HAVE ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT INROCK OR OTHER ANTI-TRACKING BMP, TRACKING OF SEDIMENT FROM THE SITE ONTO PAVED SURFACES - TOP DRESS ROCK,MAINTAIN ROCK EXIT OR OTHER ANTI-TRACKING CONTROLS, SCRAP PAVED SURFACES, SWEEP PAVED SURFACES WITHIN 1CALENDAR DAY OF DISCOVERY.6. PAVED SURFACES AND ADJACENT STREETS - OBSERVED TO BE TRACKED WITH SEDIMENT AND SOIL MATERIAL FRO THE SITEHAULING OR ACCESS -SWEEP WITHIN 1 CALENDAR DAY OF DISCOVERY, ADDITIONAL AND/OR MORE FREQUENT SWEEPING MAY BENEEDED TO MAINTAIN PUBLIC SAFETYOR PREVENT WASHING FROM FORECASTED RAINS.7. STREET SWEEPING IS REQUIRED ONE TIME PER WEEK AND AFTER RAINFALL OR MORE FREQUENTLY IF DIRECTED BY CITY ENGINEER.TERMINATION OF COVERAGETHE PROJECT PERMIT MAY BE TERMINATED IN ONE OF THE FOLLOWING SCENARIOS:1. ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IS COMPLETE, TEMPORARY SYNTHETIC BMP'S ARE REMOVED, ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT FROMCONSTRUCTION IS REMOVED, AND PERMANENT COVER HAS BEEN ACHIEVED WITH VEGETATIVE AND/OR NON-VEGETATIVE COVER.THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION FORM FROM THE PCA SHOULD BE COMPLETED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF MEETING THE CONDITIONS ABOVE.UPON MIDNIGHT OF THE POST MARKED DATE, THE PERMIT COVERAGE IS TERMINATED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTIFIED BY THE MPCA.OR:2. WITHIN 30 DAYS OF SELLING OR OTHERWISE LEGALLY TRANSFERRING OWNERSHIP OF THE SITE IN IT'S ENTIRETY (INCLUDING STREETSWEEPING AND STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE) FROM THE ORIGINAL OWNER TO ANOTHER PARTY TAKING RESPONSIBILITY OFOWNERSHIP. THE TERMINATION IS EFFECTIVE UPON MIDNIGHT OF THE SUBMISSION DATE OF THE NOT. IF A PORTION OF THE SITE ISTRANSFERRED (I.E. OUTLOTS,LOTS/BLOCKS) THAT PORTION OF THE SITE IS TERMINATED FROM THE ORIGINAL PERMIT COVERAGE ATMIDNIGHT OF THE SUBMISSION DATE. OR:3. PERMIT COVERAGE CAN BE TERMINATED IF ALL OF THE FOLLOWING ARE MET:3.a. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY HAS CEASED FOR 90 DAYS; AND3.b. AT LEAST 90% OF THE AREA OF THE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED ACTIVITY HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND PERMANENTLY ESTABLISHEDWITH VEGETATION OR NON-VEGETATIVE COVER; AND3.c. WHERE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IS NOT COMPLETE, PERMANENT COVER HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED; AND3.d. THE SITE IS COMPLIANT WITH PERMIT SECTIONS 13.3 THROUGH 13.7.4. WHERE THE PROJECT OBTAINED PERMIT COVERAGE BUT NEVER STARTED CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY DUE TO CANCELLATION OROTHER REASONS, DOCUMENTATION SHOULD BE SENT TO THE MPCA WITH THE NOT FORM AND IS SUBJECT TO MPCA APPROVAL.POTENTIAL POLLUTANTLOCATIONCONTROL MEASUREANTIFREEZEVARIOUSSECONDARY CONTAINMENT/DRIP PANDIESEL FUELVARIOUSSECONDARY CONTAINMENT/DRIP PANFERTILIZERLANDSCAPE CONTRACTORSECONDARY CONTAINMENTGASOLINEIN EQUIPMENT/FUELING AREASECONDARY CONTAINMENT/DRIP PANGLUE/ADHESIVESCONTRACTORSECONDARY CONTAINMENTHYDRAULIC OILCONTRACTORSECONDARY CONTAINMENTPAINTSCONTRACTORSECONDARY CONTAINMENTGREASECONTRACTORSECONDARY CONTAINMENT/DRIP PANSANITARY WASTEPORTABLE BATHROOMSSERVICE PROVIDER TO SECURE UNITS FROM TIPPINGSOIL AMENDMENTSLANDSCAPE CONTRACTORSECONDARY CONTAINMENTCONCRETETRUCK WASHOUTWASHOUT AREACONCRETE/MORTARMOBILE MIXERS.C / WASHOUT AREASWPPP BMP QUANTITIESSILT FENCE 1,721 LFBIO-ROLL 60 LFINLET PROTECTION 6 EACHCULVERT/ FES PROTECTION 3 EACHTEMPORARY SEED MIX (22-111) AS NEEDEDPERMANENT SEED MIX 81,067 SFSOD 18,473 SFEROSION CONTROL BLANKET 4,021 SFROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE 1 EACHSTREET SWEEPING1 EACH18 DescriptionRev.DateMINNEWASHTA APARTMENTS CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA07.11.2025CITY SUBMITTALSheet Title:Project #:Drawn By:Checked By:Issue Date:25-102PMJM06/13/2025G:\Shared Drives\Active Projects\Chanhassen\Headwaters Dev - Minnewashta MF\CAD\Sheets\SWPPP NARRATIVE & NOTES.dwgProject Title: HEADWATERS 6757 KARMEN AVENUE ALBERTVILLE, MN Client:Date: Lic. No.:Sheet:XX.XX.XXN O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N I hereby certify that this plan,specifications or report wasprepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am aduly licensed ProfessionalEngineer under the laws of theState of Minnesota.53735Peter S Moreau, PEC7.1SWPPP NOTESLISTED BELOW ARE ADDITIONAL BMP'S THAT MAY BE CONSIDERED FOR USE IF THE BMP'S IDENTIFIED IN THEEROSION CONTROL PLANS PROVE TO BE INSUFFICIENT. PAYMENT FOR THESE BMP'S MAY ONLY BE MADE IFPRIOR APPROVAL FROMAN OWNER HAS BEEN GIVEN.1.IMPORTANT VEGETATION·SAFETY FENCE OR A SIMILAR METHOD OF PROTECTION SHALL BE INSTALLED TO PROTECT IMPORTANTVEGETATION AND PROHIBIT VEHICULAR TRAFFIC.·A SECONDARY SILT FENCE SHALL BE INSTALLED AT FIELD OFFICES, STORED EQUIPMENT (INCLUDINGVEHICLE PARKING), CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL LOCATIONS, AND TOPSOIL OR FILL STOCKPILESINSTALLED WITHIN A 25-FOOT MINIMUM BUFFER OUTSIDE THE DRIP LINE OF TREES.2.DITCH PROTECTION (TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT)·THE LAST 200 FEET OF ANY DITCH CONNECTING TO A SURFACE WATER SHALL HAVE TEMPORARY ORPERMANENT STABILIZATION MEASURES IN PLACE WITHIN 24 HOURS OF DIRECT CONNECTION TO ASURFACE WATER. DITCHES MAY BE KEPT IN A "SMOOTH" ROUGH GRADED CONDITION IN ORDER TOPROPERLY INSTALL EROSION CONTROL SEEDING, MULCH, MATS AND BLANKETS.·STABILIZATION METHODS FOR DITCH BOTTOM WETTED PERIMETER MAY INCLUDE ONE OF THEFOLLOWING OR COMBINATIONS OF EROSION CONTROL BLANKET, MATS, RIP-RAP, BIO-ROLLS OR ROCKCHECK DAMS. THE METHOD CHOSEN WILL BE BASED ON AN ANALYSIS OF THE SLOPE AND VELOCITYOF THE RUNOFF. THESE ARE ADDITIONAL BMP'S WHICH MAY BE CONSIDERED FOR USE IF THE BMP'SIDENTIFIED IN THE EROSION CONTROL PLANS PROVE TO BE INSUFFICIENT. PAYMENT FOR THESE BMP'SMAY ONLY BE MADE IF PRIOR APPROVAL FROM AN OWNER HAS BEEN GIVEN.·WHERE DITCH GRADES EXCEED 5%, ROCK CHECK DAMS OR EQUIVALENT BMP SHALL BE INSTALLED.CHECK DAMS TO BE SPACED SO THAT THE CREST OF THE DOWNSTREAM DAM IS AT THE ELEVATION OFTHE TOE OF THE UPSTREAM DAM. TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL DEVICES REQUIRED DUE TOCONTRACTORS METHOD OF SEQUENCING THEIR CONSTRUCTION WORK SHALL BE INCIDENTAL TO THEGRADING CONTRACT.·ABOVE THE WETTED PERIMETER, THE DITCH WILL BE STABILIZED BY SEEDING AND MULCH AND/OREROSION CONTROL BLANKETS DEPENDING ON SIDE SLOPE STEEPNESS AND LENGTH.·ALL DITCHES WILL BE STABILIZED WITHIN 14 DAYS.3. WORK NEXT TO WETLANDS·PRESERVE A 100' FROM SPECIAL WATERS) NATURAL BUFFER, OR IF A BUFFER IS INFEASIBLE, PROVIDEREDUNDANT SEDIMENT CONTROLS PRIOR TO DISTURBANCE OF UP-GRADIENT AREAS.·FILL SLOPES ADJACENT TO WETLANDS SHALL BE SEEDED AND MULCHED WITHIN 7 DAYS OFCOMPLETION OF WORK. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL BLANKET AS INDICATED ON THE EROSIONCONTROL / GRADING PLAN.4. LONG-STEEP CUT/FILL SLOPES·THERE WILL BE NO UNBROKEN SURFACE SLOPE LENGTHS OF GREATER THAN 75 FEET FOR SLOPES WITHA GRADE OF 3:1 OR STEEPER WITHIN 200 FEET OF SURFACE WATERS. ALL EXPOSED AREAS WITH ACONTINUOUS POSITIVE SLOPE WITHIN 200 FEET OF A SURFACE WATER WILL HAVE A TEMPORARY ORPERMANENT COVER YEAR ROUND. THE EXPOSED SOILS SHALL BE STABILIZED WITHIN 14 DAYS·PLANNED SLOPES OF 3:1 (H:V) OR STEEPER AND GREATER THAN 75 FT IN LENGTH WILL BE TEMPORARILYOR PERMANENTLY STABILIZED IN INCREMENTS NOT TO EXCEED 75 FT, PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION ORDISTURBING A NEW INCREMENT.·LONG SLOPES SHOULD BE BROKEN INTO SHORTER LENGTHS BY INSTALLING STRAW BIOROLLS ININTERLOCKING HERRINGBONES AS SHOWN ON THE GRADING PLAN. IF TEMPORARY SEEDING ANDMULCH CAN NOT BE USED ON SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1, THEN THE SLOPE MAY BE COVERED WITHTARPS OR PLASTIC SHEETING. TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL DEVICES REQUIRED DUE TOCONTRACTORS METHOD OF SEQUENCING THEIR CONSTRUCTION WORK SHALL BE INCIDENTAL TO THEGRADING CONTRACT.·THE SOIL SURFACE ON RE-VEGETATED SLOPES WILL BE ROUGHENED USING ANY APPROPRIATEIMPLEMENT THAT CAN BE SAFELY OPERATED ON THE SLOPE, SUCH AS BULLDOZERS OR DISKS. THEGROOVES SHALL BE CREATED PERPENDICULAR TO THE SLOPE TO HELP ESTABLISH VEGETATIVE COVER,REDUCE RUNOFF VELOCITY, INCREASE INFILTRATION, AND PROVIDE FOR SEDIMENT TRAPPING.5.CULVERT INLET/OUTLET PROTECTION·SOD MAY BE PLACED AND ANCHORED AT CULVERT INLETS AS SHOWN ON THE GRADING PLAN, UNLESSVELOCITIES REQUIRE RIPRAP.·AT LEAST ONE 2-FOOT WIDE STRIP OF SOD OR FIBER BLANKET SHALL BE PLACED ALONG THE EDGES OFCULVERT HEADWALLS AND WINGWALLS AS SHOWN ON THE GRADING AND/OR UTILITY PLANS.·RIPRAP AT PIPE APRON OUTLETS WILL BE PLACED PRIOR TO BUT NO SOONER THAN 7 DAYS BEFOREAPRON IS INSTALLED. RIPRAP SHALL BE INSTALLED UNDER APRON LIP ACCORDING TO THE STANDARDDETAIL.6.STORM SEWER INLET PROTECTION·STORM DRAIN INLETS SHALL BE PROTECTED UNTIL THE DISTURBED AREAS THAT COULD DISCHARGE TOAN INLET HAVE BEEN STABILIZED.·INFRASAFE SEDIMENT CONTROL BARRIERS OR APPROVED EQUAL SHALL BE USED WHEN CASTINGS ARENOT IN PLACE AS INDICATED ON THE UTILITY PLAN AND AS APPROVED BY THE OWNER.·INFRASAFE DEBRIS COLLECTION DEVICE OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT SHALL BE USED WHEN CASTINGSARE IN PLACE AS INDICATED ON THE UTILITY PLAN AND AS APPROVED BY THE OWNER.·DOCUMENTATION IS NEEDED WITHIN 72 HOURS IF REMOVAL OF PROTECTION BMPS IS NEEDED DUE TOWINTER CONDITIONS OR FLOODING CONCERNS.7.STORM WATER POND OUTLETS·TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT ENERGY DISSIPATION MEASURES SHALL BE IN PLACE AT THE STORMWATER POND OUTLETS WITHIN 24 HOURS OF DIRECT CONNECTION TO A SURFACE WATER.·RIPRAP AT PIPE APRON OUTLETS WILL BE PLACED PRIOR TO APRON INSTALLATION AND SHALL BEINSTALLED UNDER THE APRON LIP.·POND EMERGENCY SPILLWAYS SHALL BE LINED BASED ON THE DESIGN DISCHARGE FLOW VELOCITYAND AS INDICATED ON GRADING AND/OR UTILITY PLANS.8.TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASINS·TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASINS WILL BE PROVIDED WHERE 10 OR MORE ACRES OF DISTURBED SOILDRAIN TO ACOMMON LOCATION. THE BASIN SIZE IS BASED ON RUNOFF FROM A 2-YEAR, 24 HOURSTORM, FOR EACH ACRE DRAINED TO THE BASIN. AT A MINIMUM, THE BASIN WILL PROVIDE 1800 CUBICFEET OF STORAGE FOR EACH ACRE DRAINED TO THE BASIN.·SEDIMENT BASINS WILL DETAIN WATER LONG ENOUGH TO SETTLE OUT AT LEAST 75 PERCENT OF THESEDIMENT. THE USE OF FLOCS MAY BE NECESSARY. THE DISCHARGE QUALITY SHALL BE EQUAL TO ORBETTER THAN THE RECEIVING WATER. THE TEMPORARY BASIN MAY BE DRAWN DOWN WITH A PUMP TOINCREASE CAPACITY FOR THE NEXT RAIN EVENT. TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL DEVICES REQUIREDDUE TO CONTRACTORS METHOD OF SEQUENCING THEIR CONSTRUCTION WORK SHALL BE INCIDENTALTO THE GRADING CONTRACT.·THE SEDIMENT PONDS WILL BE EXCAVATED TO MAINTAIN THE NECESSARY SEDIMENT CAPACITY ANDCONTAINMENT.··TEMPORARY SEDIMENT FOREBAYS WILL BE CONSTRUCTED TO CAPTURE SEDIMENT BEFORE IT ENTERSTHE POND, IF·NECESSARY.·THE SEDIMENT PONDS WILL BE MONITORED BY THE CONTRACTOR TO DETERMINE THE SEDIMENT LEVELIN THE POND.·WHEN THE DEPTH OF SEDIMENT COLLECTED IN THE TEMPORARY BASIN REACHES ½ FULL (50% OF THESTORAGE VOLUME) THE BASIN SHALL BE DRAINED USING PUMPS AND ENERGY DISSIPATION ANDSEDIMENT REMOVAL SHALL BE COMPLETED WITHIN 72 HOURS OF DISCOVERY OF THE BASIN BEING 1/2FULL OF SEDIMENT, OR AS SOON AS FIELD CONDITIONS ALLOW ACCESS. TEMPORARY EROSIONCONTROL DEVICES REQUIRED DUE TO CONTRACTORS METHOD OF SEQUENCING THEIRCONSTRUCTION WORK SHALL BE INCIDENTAL TO THE GRADING CONTRACT.·TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASINS WILL HAVE A STABILIZED EMERGENCY OVERFLOW AND CONTAINENERGY DISSIPATION AT BASIN OUTLET.9.DEEP UTILITIES: WATER AND SANITARY/GAS LINE·SILT FENCE OR A SIMILAR TYPE OF PERIMETER CONTROL SHALL BE PLACED DOWN GRADIENT OF THEEXCAVATED SOIL IF WORK IS DONE WITHIN 200 FEET OF WETLANDS OR STREAMS.·DISTURBANCE OF CHANNEL BANKS, WETLANDS, AND IMPORTANT VEGETATION AREAS SHALL BEMINIMIZED TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE.·THE UTILITY CONSTRUCTION SITE SHALL BE SEEDED WITH A TEMPORARY·SEED MIX AND MULCH AFTER INSTALLATION IF THE SITE WILL BE IDLE FOR 7, 14, OR 21 DAYS DEPENDINGUPON SLOPES OF STEEPER THAN 3:1, 3:1 TO 10:1 AND FLATTER THAN 10:1 RESPECTIVELY.10.STOCKPILES (TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT)·LOCATE STOCKPILES A MINIMUM OF 100 FEET FROM CATCH BASIN INLETS, PONDS, AND SITE DRAINAGEROUTES PERIMETER CONTROLS SUCH AS SILT FENCE SHALL BE INSTALLED AROUND ALL STOCKPILES IFNOT PLACED WITHIN EXISTING SILT FENCES OR OTHER SEDIMENT CONTROL.·TEMPORARY SEED AND MULCH SHALL BE USED TO STABILIZE THE STOCKPILES AND THE STOCKPILESSHALL BE SHAPED TO FACILITATE SEEDING AND MINIMIZE EROSION AND SHALL BE SEEDED WITHIN 7DAYS. TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL DEVICES REQUIRED DUE TO CONTRACTORS METHOD OFSEQUENCING THEIR CONSTRUCTION WORK SHALL BE INCIDENTAL TO THE GRADING CONTRACT.·IF TEMPORARY SEED AND MULCH CANNOT BE USED, THEN THE STOCKPILES SHALL BE COVERED WITHHYDROMULCH, TARPS OR PLASTIC SHEETING AS APPROVED BY THE OWNER.·IF STOCKPILES MUST BE PLACED WITHIN A CONVEYANCE A TEMPORARY BYPASS SHALL BE INSTALLED(I.E. PVC PIPE) TO ADEQUATELY CONVEY RUNOFF. TEMPORARY BYPASS BMPS SHALL BE INCIDENTAL TOTHE CONTRACT UNLESS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE OWNER / ENGINEER11.CONSTRUCTION DEWATERING·DURING DEWATERING ACTIVITIES, THE SEDIMENT LADEN WATER CANNOT BE DIRECTLY DISCHARGED TOSURFACE WATERS. OPTIONS FOR REDUCING THE TURBIDITY OF THE WATER INCLUDE:(TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL DEVICES REQUIRED DUE TO CONTRACTORS METHOD OFSEQUENCING THEIR CONSTRUCTION WORK SHALL BE INCIDENTAL TO THE GRADING CONTRACT):1.CONSTRUCT A TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAP FOR TURBID WATER DISCHARGE.2.USE A PORTABLE SEDIMENT TRAP SYSTEM.3.APPLY NATURAL BASED FLOCCULENT TECHNOLOGY SUCH AS CHITOSAN IN SEDIMENT TRAPS OR ASERIES OF DITCH CHECKS TO CONTAIN SEDIMENT.4.DISCHARGE THROUGH FIBERLOGS OR A ROCK WEEPER INTO A LARGE VEGETATIVE BUFFER AREA.5.PUMP TO A TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASIN.6.ENERGY DISSIPATION WILL BE PROVIDED AT ALL DISCHARGE POINTS.7.DEWATERING OR BASIN DRAINING ACTIVITIES WILL NOT CAUSE EROSION IN RECEIVING CHANNELS ORADVERSELY IMPACT WETLANDS.8.ALL EROSION CONTROL OR SEDIMENT TRAPS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION DEWATERING SHALL BECONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY REQUIRING DEWATERING.12.CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES·A TEMPORARY CRUSHED ROCK OR WOOD CHIP PAD SHALL BE LOCATED WHERE VEHICLES LEAVE THECONSTRUCTION SITE.·THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE PAD SHALL BE AT LEAST 50 FEET IN LENGTH.·GEOTEXTILE FABRIC MAY BE PLACED UNDER THE CRUSHED ROCK OR WOOD CHIPS TO PREVENTMIGRATION OF MUD FROM UNDERLYING SOIL INTO THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE MATERIAL.·ROCK PADS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF ROCK 1 TO 3 INCHES IN SIZE AND PLACED IN 6 INCH LAYERS.·CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES SHALL BE INSPECTED AT LEAST EVERY 7 DAYS AND MAINTAINED ASNEEDED.·TRACKED SEDIMENTS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM PAVED SURFACES AT THE END OF EACH DAY USINGPICK-UP TYPE STREET SWEEPER.·IF TRACKING INTO ROADWAY BECOMES PROBLEMATIC THE ENTRANCE PADS SHALL BE LENGTHENED ORANOTHER TECHNIQUE APPLIED. TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL DEVICES REQUIRED DUE TOCONTRACTORS METHOD OF SEQUENCING THEIR CONSTRUCTION WORK SHALL BE INCIDENTAL TO THEGRADING CONTRACT.·THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SHALL BE MONITORED CLOSELY DURING WET CONDITIONS. IFTRACKING INTO ADJACENT ROADWAYS OCCURS, THE FREQUENCY OF STREET SWEEPING SHALL BEINCREASED.13.CONCRETE TRUCK WASHOUT·CONCRETE TRUCKS SHALL UTILIZE THE CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA SHOWN ON THE PLANS TO WASHAND RINSE THEIR EQUIPMENT PRIOR TO LEAVING THE SITE.·WASHOUT OF CONCRETE MIXER TRUCKS WILL BE PERFORMED IN THE DESIGNATED AREAS ONLY.·WASHOUTS WILL BE CONSTRUCTED AND MAINTAINED TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT CONTAINMENT FOR ALLLIQUID AND CONCRETE WASTE GENERATED BY WASHOUT OPERATIONS.·WASHOUTS SHALL BE CLEARLY MARKED ON SITE WITH SIGNAGE BY THE UTILITY CONTRACTOR WITHAPPROVAL FROM OWNER.·WASHOUTS SHALL BE LOCATED A MINIMUM OF 50 FEET FROM DRAINAGE FACILITIES ANDWATERCOURSES.·CONCRETE WASHOUT AREAS WILL HAVE AN IMPERMEABLE LINER TO PREVENT CONCRETE WASHOUTWATER FROM INFILTRATING/CONTACTING WITH SOIL.·IMPERMEABLE LINER INCLUDES 10 MIL POLYLINER OR COMPACTED CLAY LINER.·WASHOUT SYSTEMS CAN BE USED AS ALTERNATE WASHOUT AREAS.14.VEHICLE MAINTENANCE·ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OF VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT SHALL OCCUR IN STAGING AREAS ONLY.·VEHICLE WASHING SHOULD BE AVOIDED. IF WASHING IS NECESSARY, RUNOFF FROM THE WASHINGWILL BE CONTAINED AND LIMITED TO A DEFINED AREA OF THE SITE. RUNOFF MUST BE CONTAINED ANDWASTE PROPERLY DISPOSED OF·ENGINE DEGREASING SHALL BE AVOIDED. IF DEGREASING IS NECESSARY, RUNOFF FROM THEOPERATION WILL BE CONTAINED IN A LINED SEDIMENT TRAP AND PROPERLY DISPOSED OF AT ATREATMENT FACILITY.·ALL REQUIRED SEDIMENT TRAPS AND CONTAINMENT FACILITIES AND PROPER DISPOSAL OF WASHWATER/DEGREASING AT A TREATMENT FACILITY SHALL BE INCIDENTAL TO THE CONSTRUCTIONCONTRACT.15.FUELING·ANY FUEL TANK OR TRUCK STORED ON THE PROJECT SITE SHALL BE PROTECTED BY A SECONDARYCONTAINMENT SYSTEM.·FUELING AREAS SHALL NOT BE WASHED OR RINSED WITH WATER SINCE THIS COULD CAUSE FUEL SPILLSTO BE DISCHARGED INTO STORM WATER SYSTEMS.·ABSORBENT MATERIALS SHALL BE AVAILABLE ON SITE FOR USE IN CLEANING UP SMALL SPILLS.·ALL REQUIRED FUEL CONTAINMENT AND CLEAN-UP MATERIALS AND THE PROPER DISPOSAL OF THEMATERIALS SHALL BE INCIDENTAL TO THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT.16.HAZARDOUS MATERIALS·HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SHALL BE PROPERLY STORED TO PREVENT VANDALISM OR UNAUTHORIZEDACCESS.·CONTAINMENT UNITS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCALREGULATIONS.·MPCA STORING AND DISPOSAL REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE FOLLOWED FOR ALL HAZARDOUS WASTE.·NO HAZARDOUS MATERIAL SHOULD BE STORED WITHIN 200 FEET OF AN IDENTIFIED CRITICAL AREA.·ABSORBENT MATERIALS SHALL BE AVAILABLE FROM THE CONTRACTOR ON SITE FOR USE IN CLEANINGUP SMALL SPILLS.·IF BUILDING MATERIALS, CHEMICALS, OR GENERAL REFUSE IS BEING USED, STORED, DISPOSED OF, OROTHERWISE MANAGED INAPPROPRIATELY, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CORRECT SUCH DEFECTS WITHIN24 HOURS OF DETECTION OR NOTIFICATION.·ALL REQUIRED CONTAINMENT / STORAGE UNITS / ABSORBENT MATERIAL AND REQUIRED DISPOSALSHALL BE INCIDENTAL TO THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT.17.CHEMICAL CONTAINMENT·GASOLINE, OIL, PAINT, SOLVENTS, AND OTHER CHEMICALS NECESSARY FOR CONSTRUCTION ARE NOTALLOWED TO CONTACT THE GROUND SURFACE, BE EXPOSED TO GROUNDWATER OR BE RELEASED TOA SURFACE OR GROUNDWATER EXCEPT IN DE MINIMIS QUANTITIES.·ALL PRODUCTS SHALL BE KEPT IN THEIR ORIGINAL CONTAINER, WITH ORIGINAL LABELS STILL ATTACHED,UNLESS THE CONTAINER IS NOT RESEALABLE.·HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SHALL BE RETURNED TO THE HAZARDOUS MATERIAL STORAGE AREA AT THEEND OF EACH DAY.·AN EFFORT SHOULD BE MADE TO STORE ONLY ENOUGH PRODUCTS TO DO THE REQUIRED JOB.·THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE TANKS OR BARRELS TO COLLECT LIQUID BYPRODUCTS THAT POSE APOLLUTION HAZARD.·THE POLLUTANTS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE ON A WEEKLY BASIS AND DISPOSED OF INACCORDANCE WITH FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS.·ALL SPILLS SHALL BE CLEANED UP IMMEDIATELY AFTER DISCOVERY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEMANUFACTURE'S RECOMMENDED METHODS.·ALL REQUIRED CONTAINMENT / STORAGE UNITS / ABSORBENT MATERIAL AND REQUIRED DISPOSALSHALL BE INCIDENTAL TO THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT·ALL STORAGE AREAS SHALL BE SECURED TO PREVENT UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS.18.SOLID WASTE·SOLID WASTE SHALL BE STORED IN APPROPRIATE CONTAINERS AND PROPERLY DISPOSED OF ON AREGULAR BASIS.·CONTAINERS SHALL BE COVERED TO PREVENT WIND BLOWING THE WASTE AROUND THE SITE.·MPCA DISPOSAL REQUIREMENTS WILL BE FOLLOWED FOR ALL SOLID WASTE.·SOLID WASTE STORAGE CONTAINERS AND PROPER DISPOSAL SHALL BE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TOTHE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT.19.DUST CONTROL·THE CONTRACTOR SHALL USE A VARIETY OF DUST CONTROL INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THEFOLLOWING:·RAPID STABILIZATION METHODS ON SLOPES·WATER ON ROADWAYS AND GRADED AREAS·ALTERNATIVES: IN THE FORM OF VEGETABLE POLYMERS, WATER AND CALCIUM CHLORIDE PETROLEUMEMULSION RESINS, OR ACRYLIC COPOLYMERS MAY ALSO BE USED.·ALL REQUIRED DUST CONTROL SHALL BE INCIDENTAL TO THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AS PERSPECIFICATIONS.20.WINTER STABILIZATION·COVER EXPOSED SOILS ON OR AROUND NOV. 15TH AND/OR PRIOR TO TERMINATION OFCONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES FOR WINTER·ALL EXPOSED SOILS TO BE COVERED WITH 2 TONS TYPE 1 MULCH·ALL EXPOSED SOILS TO BE SEEDED WITH MNDOT SEED MIX 150·ALL LOW POINTS IN ROADS TO BE ADEQUATELY DRAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH NPDES DEWATERINGREQUIREMENTS PART IV. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY REQUIREMENTS. SECTION D. DEWATERING ANDBASIN DRAINING.·PERIMETER SILT FENCE OR OTHER CONTROLS TO BE INSTALLED 3-5 FEET FROM THE BACK OF THE CURBAND OUT OF THE PLOWED SNOW AREA.·PERIMETER CONTROLS AROUND PERMANENT STORMWATER BASINS TO BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED·INLET CONTROLS TO BE REMOVED ACCORDING TO LEGAL REQUIREMENTS WITH DOCUMENTATIONWITHIN 72 HOURS FROM LEGAL AUTHORITY.·IF WORK HAS OCCURRED NEAR OR IN STREAMS OR OTHER SURFACE WATERS, THE EXPOSED SOILSSHALL BE STABILIZED TO PROTECT AGAINST FLOODING AND SPRING RUNOFF TO THE 100-YR FLOODELEVATION.·ALL TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT STORMWATER BASINS AND SEDIMENT BASINS SHOULD HAVEOUTLETS AND STABILIZED EMERGENCY OVERFLOWS INSTALLED AS PER THE GRADING AND/OR UTILITYPLAN AND AT THE APPROVAL OF THE OWNER.21.NON-STORMWATER DEWATERING·HYDRANT FLUSHING: FLUSHING OF HYDRANTS WILL BE DISCHARGED·THROUGH TEMPORARY PIPES AS NECESSARY, ONTO IMPERVIOUS SURFACES OR TO STABILIZED ARESWITH ENERGY DISSIPATION AT THE DISCHARGE POINT. THE DISCHARGE SHOULD BE COLLECTED BY THESTORM WATER BASINS AND STORM SEWER SYSTEM.·POTABLE WATER DISCHARGE: ALL WATER LINES WILL BE FLUSHED USING HOSES AND DISCHARGEDONTO AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AND DIRECTED TO THE STORM SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE BYNON-EROSIVE MEANS.22.WORK NEAR OR IN IMPAIRED WATERS·EXPOSED SOILS MUST BE STABILIZED WITHIN 7 DAYS OF ACTIVITY TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLYCEASED.·TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASIN NEEDED WITHIN AREAS 5 ACRE DISTURBANCE WITH COMMON POINT OFDISCHARGE.·IF WORK IS NEAR SPECIAL WATERS REFER TO APPENDIX A OF THE NPDES PERMIT FOR ADDITIONALNOTES AND REQUIREMENTS.·NO UNTREATED DEWATERING WILL TAKE PLACE AND DISCHARGE TO "IMPAIRED WATERS"·SEE PERMIT FOR ADDITIONAL NOTES AND REQUIREMENTS23.INFILTRATION/FILTRATION AREAS·FENCE OFF AREA PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION.·EXCAVATION AREA SHALL TAKE PLACE AFTER CONTRIBUTING AREAS ARE AT FINAL GRADE ANDSTABILIZED.·DO NOT USE HEAVY/WHEELED EQUIPMENT IN FILTRATION AREA.·DIVERSIONS, REDUNDANT SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROLS MUST BE USED TO PROTECT AREA.·ENSURE 8 FT MAINTENANCE ACCESS IS ADEQUATE FOR AREA.·IF GRADING MUST OCCUR IN FILTRATION AREA, LEAVE GRADE 3 FT HIGH TEMPORARILY UNTIL AREA CANBE FINAL GRADED AND STABILIZED19 DescriptionRev.DateMINNEWASHTA APARTMENTS CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA07.11.2025CITY SUBMITTALSheet Title:Project #:Drawn By:Checked By:Issue Date:25-102PMJM06/13/2025G:\Shared Drives\Active Projects\Chanhassen\Headwaters Dev - Minnewashta MF\CAD\Sheets\CIVIL DETAILS.dwgProject Title: HEADWATERS 6757 KARMEN AVENUE ALBERTVILLE, MN Client:Date: Lic. No.:Sheet:XX.XX.XXN O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N I hereby certify that this plan,specifications or report wasprepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am aduly licensed ProfessionalEngineer under the laws of theState of Minnesota.53735Peter S Moreau, PEC8.0CIVIL DETAILS -UTILITY DETAILS1C8.02C8.03C8.04C8.05C8.06C8.020 DescriptionRev.DateMINNEWASHTA APARTMENTS CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA07.11.2025CITY SUBMITTALSheet Title:Project #:Drawn By:Checked By:Issue Date:25-102PMJM06/13/2025G:\Shared Drives\Active Projects\Chanhassen\Headwaters Dev - Minnewashta MF\CAD\Sheets\CIVIL DETAILS.dwgProject Title: HEADWATERS 6757 KARMEN AVENUE ALBERTVILLE, MN Client:Date: Lic. No.:Sheet:XX.XX.XXN O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N I hereby certify that this plan,specifications or report wasprepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am aduly licensed ProfessionalEngineer under the laws of theState of Minnesota.53735Peter S Moreau, PEC8.1CIVIL DETAILS -STORM SEWERDETAILSREVE7001-110-042DWG NO.1 OF 1SHEET1:40SCALEDWG SIZEA3130 VERONA AVEBUFORD, GA 30518PHN (770) 932-2443FAX (770) 932-2490www.nyloplast-us.com8 IN - 36 IN TYPICAL INSTALLATION OPTIONSTITLEPROJECT NO./NAMEMATERIALDATEREVISED BY8-10-00DATEAWADRAWN BYTHIS PRINT DISCLOSES SUBJECT MATTER IN WHICHNYLOPLAST HAS PROPRIETARY RIGHTS. THE RECEIPTOR POSSESSION OF THIS PRINT DOES NOT CONFER,TRANSFER, OR LICENSE THE USE OF THE DESIGN ORTECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN HEREINREPRODUCTION OF THIS PRINT OR ANY INFORMATIONCONTAINED HEREIN, OR MANUFACTURE OF ANYARTICLE HEREFROM, FOR THE DISCLOSURE TO OTHERSIS FORBIDDEN, EXCEPT BY SPECIFIC WRITTENPERMISSION FROM NYLOPLAST.11-2-18NMHDUCTILE IRONDO NOT POLLUTE DRAINS TO WATERWAYSNYLOPLASTTSALPOLYNDUCTILEIRONTSALPOLYNDUCTILEIRON DUCTILE IRON DO NOT POLLUTE DRAINS TO WATERWAYS NYLOPLAST WHEN ARE DRAIN BASINS USED?2808AG _ _ X2810AG _ _ X2812AG _ _ X2815AG _ _ X2818AG _ _ X2824AG _ _ X2830AG _ _ X2836AG _ _ XWHEN ARE INLINE DRAINS USED?2708AG _ _ X2710AG _ _ X2712AG _ _ X2715AG _ _ X2718AG _ _ X2724AG _ _ X2730AG _ _ XTYPICAL INSTALLATIONSTYPICAL INSTALLATION OF NYLOPLASTDRAIN BASIN AND INLINE DRAIN1: TO ENTER AN EXISTING LINE USING A TEE & RISER2: AT THE BEGINNING OF A DRAIN LINE USING AN ELBOW & RISERTEEELBOW12" DRAIN BASIN(2) INLET & OUTLETADAPTERS CAN BEPUT ON ANY ANGLE1: TO CHANGE ELEVATION2: TO CHANGE PIPE DIAMETER3: TO CHANGE PIPE TYPE4: FOR SHALLOWAPPLICATIONS5: TO CHANGE DIRECTIONA°RISERDRAIN BASININLINE DRAIN10" INLINE DRAIN10" INLINE DRAIN(3) VARIABLE ELEVATIONWATERTIGHT ADAPTERS AVAILABLEFOR MOST COMMON PLASTIC PIPING SYSTEMS8"6"CORRUGATEDHDPE PIPESMOOTH WALLPVC1 - STRUCTURES & ADAPTERS AVAILABLE IN SIZES 8" - 36"2 - ADAPTERS CAN BE MOUNTED ON ANY ANGLE 0° TO 360°, TO DETERMINE MINIMUM ANGLE BETWEEN ADAPTERS SEE DRAWING NO. 7001-110-0123 - DRAIN BASIN TO BE CUSTOM MANUFACTURED ACCORDING TO PLAN DETAILS RISERS ARE NEEDED FOR BASINS OVER 84" DUE TO SHIPPING RESTRICTIONS SEE DRAWING NO. 7001-110-0654 - REDUCING CONES DOWN TO 30" DIAMETER WILL BE REQUIRED FOR 36" DRAIN BASINS.©2010 NYLOPLAST1C8.12C8.14C8.1REVF7001-110-111DWG NO.1 OF 1SHEET1:25SCALEDWG SIZEA3130 VERONA AVEBUFORD, GA 30518PHN (770) 932-2443FAX (770) 932-2490www.nyloplast-us.comDRAIN BASIN & INLINE DRAIN NON TRAFFIC INSTALLATIONTITLEPROJECT NO./NAMEMATERIALDATEREVISED BY9-30-99DATECJADRAWN BYTHIS PRINT DISCLOSES SUBJECT MATTER IN WHICHNYLOPLAST HAS PROPRIETARY RIGHTS. THE RECEIPTOR POSSESSION OF THIS PRINT DOES NOT CONFER,TRANSFER, OR LICENSE THE USE OF THE DESIGN ORTECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN HEREINREPRODUCTION OF THIS PRINT OR ANY INFORMATIONCONTAINED HEREIN, OR MANUFACTURE OF ANYARTICLE HEREFROM, FOR THE DISCLOSURE TO OTHERSIS FORBIDDEN, EXCEPT BY SPECIFIC WRITTENPERMISSION FROM NYLOPLAST.03-11-16NMHDRAIN BASININLINE DRAINTHE BACKFILL MATERIAL SHALL BE CRUSHED STONE OR OTHERGRANULAR MATERIAL MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF CLASS I,CLASS II, OR CLASS III MATERIAL AS DEFINED IN ASTM D2321.BEDDING & BACKFILL FOR SURFACE DRAINAGE INLETS SHALL BEPLACED & COMPACTED UNIFORMLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D2321.NON TRAFFIC INSTALLATIONTOP SOILGRATE/COVERTOP SOILGRATE/COVER©2011 NYLOPLAST4" MIN ON 8" - 24"6" MIN ON 30" & 36"THE BACKFILL MATERIAL SHALL BE CRUSHED STONE OR OTHERGRANULAR MATERIAL MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF CLASS I,CLASS II, OR CLASS III MATERIAL AS DEFINED IN ASTM D2321.BEDDING & BACKFILL FOR SURFACE DRAINAGE INLETS SHALL BEPLACED & COMPACTED UNIFORMLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D2321.REVD7003-110-057DWG NO.1 OF 1SHEET1:40SCALEDWG SIZEA3130 VERONA AVEBUFORD, GA 30518PHN (770) 932-2443FAX (770) 932-2490www.nyloplast-us.comINLINE DRAIN WITH DOME GRATEQUICK SPEC INSTALLATION DETAILTITLEPROJECT NO./NAMEMATERIALDATEREVISED BY03-25-10DATEEBCDRAWN BY03-15-16NMHMINIMUM PIPE BURIALDEPTH PER PIPEMANUFACTURERRECOMMENDATIONINVERT ACCORDING TOPLANS/TAKE OFFNYLOPLAST INLINE DRAIN WITH DOME GRATE8" - 30"1 - 8" - 30" DOME GRATES SHALL BE DUCTILE IRON PER ASTM A536 GRADE 70-50-05.2 - DRAINAGE CONNECTION STUB JOINT TIGHTNESS SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM D3212 FOR CORRUGATED HDPE (ADS N-12/HANCOR DUAL WALL), N-12 HP, & PVC SEWER (4" - 24").3 - 8" - 30" DOME GRATES HAVE NO LOAD RATING(3) VARIOUS TYPES OF INLET & OUTLET ADAPTERSAVAILABLE: 4" - 30" FOR CORRUGATED HDPE(ADS N-12/HANCOR DUAL WALL, ADS/HANCORSINGLE WALL), N-12 HP, PVC SEWER (EX: SDR 35),PVC DWV (EX: SCH 40), PVC C900/C905,CORRUGATED & RIBBED PVCWATERTIGHT JOINT(CORRUGATED HDPE SHOWN)THIS PRINT DISCLOSES SUBJECT MATTER IN WHICHNYLOPLAST HAS PROPRIETARY RIGHTS. THE RECEIPTOR POSSESSION OF THIS PRINT DOES NOT CONFER,TRANSFER, OR LICENSE THE USE OF THE DESIGN ORTECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN HEREINREPRODUCTION OF THIS PRINT OR ANY INFORMATIONCONTAINED HEREIN, OR MANUFACTURE OF ANYARTICLE HEREFROM, FOR THE DISCLOSURE TO OTHERSIS FORBIDDEN, EXCEPT BY SPECIFIC WRITTENPERMISSION FROM NYLOPLAST.©2013 NYLOPLAST(1) INTEGRATED DUCTILE IRONGRATE TO MATCH BASIN O.D.THE BACKFILL MATERIAL SHALL BE CRUSHED STONE OR OTHERGRANULAR MATERIAL MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF CLASS I,CLASS II, OR CLASS III MATERIAL AS DEFINED IN ASTM D2321.BEDDING & BACKFILL FOR SURFACE DRAINAGE INLETS SHALL BEPLACED & COMPACTED UNIFORMLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D2321.3C8.11FILTRATION BASIN CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING1.Install appropriate temporary erosion control devices to preventsediment from leaving or entering the practice during construction.2.All down-gradient perimeter sediment control bmp's must be inplace before any up gradient land disturbing activity begins.3.Perform continuous inspections of erosion control practices,especially after each rainfall event.4.Install all utilities (water, sanitary sewer, electric, natural gas,phone, fiber optic, etc) prior to setting final grade of filtration basin.5.Rough grade the site. If filtration areas are being used astemporary sediment basins during construction, leave a minimumof 1 feet of cover over the practice to protect the underlying soilsfrom clogging.6.Complete, stabilize, and vegetate all other site improvements.7.Construct and vegetate basin following stabilization of contributingdrainage area. Ensure that critical elevations, such as underdraininvert, top of media, top of mulch, and invert of overflow structure(if present) are correct.8.Remove temporary erosion control devices after the contributingdrainage area is adequately vegetated.CLEANOUT (TYPICAL)12FILTRATION SECTION(SHALL ADHERE TO MPCA MN STORMWATER GUIDELINES)3" MULCH30" FILTRATION MEDIA(MIX C SUITABLE FOR FILTRATION W/UNDERRAIN)3" CLEAN EMBEDMENT STONE COVER (#57 STONE)6" PERFORATED HDPE OR PVC UNDERDRAIN3" CLEAN EMBEDMENT STONE BEDDING (#57 STONE)TOTAL FILTRATION SECTION DEPTH = 3.75'WATER QUALITY VOLUME (WQV) ELEVATIONTOTAL STORAGE VOLUME ELEVATION994.50991.00989.00985.50TOP OF BASIN BERM995.00EMERGENCY SPILLWAYWQV ELEV.BOTTOM OF BASINUNDERDRAIN OUTLET INV.3.50'2.00'3.50'2=/>3.00'SEPARATION TO BEDROCK OR GROUNDWATER3NON-COMPACTED SUBGRADE (SEE STORMWATER MANUAL FOR SUBGRADE PREP.)3FILTRATION BASIN GENERAL NOTES1.In the event that sediment is introduced into the basin during orimmediately following excavation, this material shall be removedfrom the basin prior to continuing construction.2.See Minnesota Stormwater Manual for material specificationsrecommendations for filtration soil mixes, mulch, etc.3.Design is based on the WQV draining within 48 hours maximum.MAX. 3L:1H SLOPEFILTRATION BASIN WITH UNDERDRAINNOT TO SCALE21 DescriptionRev.DateMINNEWASHTA APARTMENTS CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA07.11.2025CITY SUBMITTALSheet Title:Project #:Drawn By:Checked By:Issue Date:25-102PMJM06/13/2025G:\Shared Drives\Active Projects\Chanhassen\Headwaters Dev - Minnewashta MF\CAD\Sheets\CIVIL DETAILS.dwgProject Title: HEADWATERS 6757 KARMEN AVENUE ALBERTVILLE, MN Client:Date: Lic. No.:Sheet:XX.XX.XXN O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N I hereby certify that this plan,specifications or report wasprepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am aduly licensed ProfessionalEngineer under the laws of theState of Minnesota.53735Peter S Moreau, PEC8.2CIVIL DETAILS -SITE DETAILS1C8.22C8.23C8.24C8.25C8.26C8.27C8.28C8.222 DescriptionRev.DateMINNEWASHTA APARTMENTS CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA07.11.2025CITY SUBMITTALSheet Title:Project #:Drawn By:Checked By:Issue Date:25-102PMJM06/13/2025G:\Shared Drives\Active Projects\Chanhassen\Headwaters Dev - Minnewashta MF\CAD\Sheets\CIVIL DETAILS.dwgProject Title: HEADWATERS 6757 KARMEN AVENUE ALBERTVILLE, MN Client:Date: Lic. No.:Sheet:XX.XX.XXN O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N I hereby certify that this plan,specifications or report wasprepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am aduly licensed ProfessionalEngineer under the laws of theState of Minnesota.53735Peter S Moreau, PEC8.3CIVIL DETAILS -ADA DETAILS1C8.32C8.33C8.34C8.323 DescriptionRev.DateMINNEWASHTA APARTMENTS CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA07.11.2025CITY SUBMITTALSheet Title:Project #:Drawn By:Checked By:Issue Date:25-102PMJM06/13/2025G:\Shared Drives\Active Projects\Chanhassen\Headwaters Dev - Minnewashta MF\CAD\Sheets\CIVIL DETAILS.dwgProject Title: HEADWATERS 6757 KARMEN AVENUE ALBERTVILLE, MN Client:Date: Lic. No.:Sheet:XX.XX.XXN O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N I hereby certify that this plan,specifications or report wasprepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am aduly licensed ProfessionalEngineer under the laws of theState of Minnesota.53735Peter S Moreau, PEC8.4CIVIL DETAILS -ADA DETAILSCONTINUED1C8.41C8.43C8.524 MIN N E S O T A H I G H W A Y N O . 4 1 ( H A Z E L T I N E B L V D ) ORIOLE AVENUE OEOEOEOE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE G G G G G G G G G G G G||LODLOD LOD LODLOD LOD LOD LODL O D L O DLODLODLODLODLODLOD LODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLOD LODLODLODLODLODLODLO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D2597259825992600259625952594 25932591259225902589258625852583258425802581258225792577257825762575DescriptionRev.DateMINNEWASHTA APARTMENTS CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA07.11.2025CITY SUBMITTALSheet Title:Project #:Drawn By:Checked By:Issue Date:25-102PMJM06/13/2025G:\Shared Drives\Active Projects\Chanhassen\Headwaters Dev - Minnewashta MF\CAD\Sheets\LANDSCAPE PLAN.dwgProject Title: HEADWATERS 6757 KARMEN AVENUE ALBERTVILLE, MN Client:Date: Lic. No.:I hereby certify that this plan,specifications or report wasprepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am aduly licensed ProfessionalLandscape Architect under thelaws of the State of Minnesota.Sheet:XX.XX.XX53234Joshua J McKinney, PLAN O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O NL0.1TREE INVENTORYSCALE IN FEET08040LEGENDTREE PROTECTION FENCE DETAILTREE INVENTORYSITE AREA:5.51 ACEXISTING SITE TREE COVERAGE AREA1.58 ACEXISTING SITE TREE COVERAGE PERCENTAGE28.8%BASE LINE TREE COVERAGE (PER TABLE 18-61-2b)20%TREE CANOPY ACREAGE TO REMAIN1.29 ACTREE CANOPY PERCENTAGE TO REMAIN23%NO TREE MITIGATION REQUIREDMAINTAIN EXISTINGGRADE WITH THE TREEPROTECTION FENCEUNLESS OTHERWISEINDICATED ON THEPLANS.2" X 6' STEEL POSTSOR APPROVED EQUAL.5" THICKLAYER OF MULCH.NOTES:1- LOCATE FENCING PER TREEPROTECTION & EROSION CONTROLPLANS.2- NO PRUNING SHALL BE PERFORMEDEXCEPT BY APPROVED ARBORIST.3- NO EQUIPMENT SHALL OPERATEINSIDE THEPROTECTIVE FENCING INCLUDINGDURING FENCEINSTALLATION AND REMOVAL.SECTION VIEWKEEP OUTTREEPROTECTIONAREATREE PROTECTIONFENCE: 48" HIGH DENSITYPOLYETHYLENE FENCINGWITH 3.5" X 1.5"OPENINGS; COLOR-ORANGE. STEEL POSTSINSTALLED AT 8' O.C.TREE PROTECTION FENCE/ LIMITS OF DISTURBANCETREES TO BE REMOVEDLODEXISTING TREE CANOPYTREE CANOPY TO REMAINTREE CANOPY TO BE REMOVEDTAG IDSPECIESDBHSTATUS2575RED PINE14PRESERVE2576SPRUCE18REMOVE2577LOCUST19REMOVE2578ASH13REMOVE2579WT. PINE21REMOVE2580MAPLE14PRESERVE2581BIRCH12PRESERVE2582ASH14PRESERVE2583LOCUST16PRESERVE2584BIRCH18PRESERVE2585ASH27REMOVE2586ASH19REMOVE2587ASH18OFF SITE2588ASH18OFF SITE2589BASSWOOD22REMOVE2590ASH18REMOVE2591ELM21REMOVE2592ASH21REMOVE2593ASH13REMOVE2594CRABAPPLE13REMOVE2595WILLOW18REMOVE2596WILLOW39REMOVE2597ASH26REMOVE2598MAPLE12REMOVE2599MAPLE13REMOVE2600MAPLE14REMOVETREE PRESERVATION CALCULATIONS25 3 STORYMULTIFAMILY44 UNITSFFE: 1011.00GFE: 1000.33HYDSTORMWATERFILTRATION BASINTOP BERM: 995.00EO: 994.50HWL:994.39BOT:989.00BOT(SAND):985.25WLWLWL |||||||||||||||DDDSSSPROPOSED PUBLICDRAINAGE, UTILITY ANDROADWAY EASEMENTMIN N E S O T A H I G H W A Y N O . 4 1 ( H A Z E L T I N E B L V D ) ORIOLE AVENUE OEOEOEOE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE G G G G G G G G G G G G||9SX216NX21JC1UA1AF31RA21GT24NX8HP8JC5HP8JC3HP3SX23SX23JC5HP5HX410JC4AC4AF5PA2DescriptionRev.DateMINNEWASHTA APARTMENTS CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA07.11.2025CITY SUBMITTALSheet Title:Project #:Drawn By:Checked By:Issue Date:25-102PMJM06/13/2025G:\Shared Drives\Active Projects\Chanhassen\Headwaters Dev - Minnewashta MF\CAD\Sheets\LANDSCAPE PLAN.dwgProject Title: HEADWATERS 6757 KARMEN AVENUE ALBERTVILLE, MN Client:Date: Lic. No.:I hereby certify that this plan,specifications or report wasprepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am aduly licensed ProfessionalLandscape Architect under thelaws of the State of Minnesota.Sheet:XX.XX.XX53234Joshua J McKinney, PLAN O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O NL1.0LANDSCAPE PLANLANDSCAPE NOTES1.THE CONTRACTOR IS SPECIFICALLY CAUTIONED THAT THE LOCATION AND/ORELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE BASED ONRECORDS OF THE VARIOUS UTILITY COMPANIES AND LIMITED MEASUREMENTSTAKEN IN THE FIELD. THE INFORMATION SHALL NOT BE RELIED ON AS BEINGEXACT OR COMPLETE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY EXISTING CONDITIONSPRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND NOTIFY THE OWNER OR ENGINEER OFDISCREPANCIES.2.ALL SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER AND WATER MAIN MATERIAL ANDINSTALLATIONS SHALL BE PER CITY REQUIREMENTS, MINNESOTA PLUMBINGCODE, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT EDITION OF "STANDARDSPECIFICATIONS FOR WATER MAIN AND SERVICE LINE INSTALLATION ANDSANITARY SEWER AND STORM SEWER INSTALLATION" AS PREPARED BY THE CITYENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA.3.PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN THE NECESSARYFEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL PERMITS FOR THE PROPOSED WORK OR VERIFYWITH THE OWNER OR ENGINEER THAT PERMITS HAVE BEEN OBTAINED. PERMITFEES SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR UNLESS OTHERWISESCALE IN FEET08040LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTSTREES PLANTEDOVERSTORY TREESCONIFEROUS TREESORNAMENTAL TREESTOTAL TREESPARKING LOT PLANTINGAREA REQUIREMENT75416LANDSCAPING REQUIRED:·NO TREES ARE REQUIRED FOR MITIGATION- SEE L0.1·LANDSCAPING MUSE MEET 1% OF PROJECT BUDGET (Sec. 20-1179)·8% MINIMUM PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE AREA (20-1181)8%16.11%SYMBOLCODECOMMON / BOTANICAL NAMESIZETYPEQTYTREESUAAMERICAN ELM / ULMUS AMERICANA `PRINCETON`B & B2.5"CAL1AFSIENNA GLEN MAPLE / ACER FREEMANII `SIENNA GLEN`B & B2.5"CAL5GTSKYLINE HONEY LOCUST / GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS `SKYLINE`B & B2.5"CAL1CONIFERSPA2NORWAY SPRUCE / PICEA ABIESB & B5ORN. TREESACAUTUMN BRILLIANCE SERVICEBERRY / AMELANCHIER CANADENSIS `AUTUMN BRILLIANCE`B & B2"CAL4CODECOMMON / BOTANICAL NAMESIZETYPEQTYSHRUBSRA2GRO-LOW FRAGRANT SUMAC / RHUS AROMATICA `GRO-LOW`5 GAL31SX2LILAC / SYRINGA X `BLOOMERANG`5 GAL15HPLITTLE LIME HYDRANGEA / HYDRANGEA PANICULATA `JANE`5 GAL21JCMINT JULEP JUNIPER / JUNIPERUS CHINENSIS `MINT JULEP`5 GAL50PERENNIALSHX4PLANTAIN LILY / HOSTA X `GUACAMOLE`1 GAL5NXWALKERS LOW CATMINT / NEPETA X FAASSENII `WALKERS LOW`1 GAL40SYMBOLCODECOMMON / BOTANICAL NAMEQTYGROUND COVERSMS8FORMERLY MNDOT SEED MIX 33-261 / MNDOT SEED MIX WET DITCH15,797 SFMS5FORMERLY MNDOT SEED MIX 35-221/36-211 / MNDOT SEED MIX SOUTHERN SHORTGRASS ROADSIDE63,270 SFTSSOD / TURF SOD HIGHLAND SOD24,635 SFPLANT SCHEDULE26 kaas wilson architects Chanhassen ApartmentsPROJECT DATA 1.0 Chanhassen Apartments 7/9/2025 UNIT MIX - GROSS AREA Name Count Unit Gross Area Total Area %Main Floor 1 BR Unit 1-0 14 737 ft² 10,313 ft² 32% Unit 1-1 3 681 ft² 2,043 ft² 7% 17 12,357 ft² 39% 2BR Unit 2-0 11 1,050 ft² 11,546 ft² 25% Unit 2-1 9 1,033 ft² 9,301 ft² 20% Unit 2-2 2 1,032 ft² 2,063 ft² 5% 22 22,910 ft² 50% 3BR Unit 3-0 3 1,300 ft² 3,901 ft² 7% Unit 3-2 2 1,315 ft² 2,629 ft² 5% 5 6,530 ft² 11% Grand total 44 41,797 ft² 100% PARKING Level Type Count Level -1 Parking Garage 44 Level 1 Surface 44 88 GROSS AREA - TOTAL Level Area Level 3 17,829 ft² Level 2 17,829 ft² Level 1 17,829 ft² Level -1 18,143 ft² Grand total 71,630 ft² 1 3D Axon 27 CV C N N N N N N N N N N 9x18 N N N N N N N 9x18 NNNNNNNNNN9x18N N N N N N N N N N N 9x18 N N N N N N N 9x18 H YD1 STORY GARAGE/ 3 STORY RESIDENCES 44 UNITS 1 2 3 HAZELTINE BLVD/HWY 41TO TROUVAILLE MEMORY CARE SUITES 4 44 PARKING STALLS 1 BUILDING ENTRANCE 2 GARAGE ENTRANCE 3 ROOF TOP PATIO 4 STORMWATER RETENTION SITE PLAN KEY kaas wilson architects Chanhassen ApartmentsSITE PLAN 2.0 Chanhassen Apartments 7/9/2025 1/64" = 1'-0"1 SD Site Plan 28 6.11 6.1 2 6.1 3 6.2 1 6.22 6.2 3 44 PARKING STALLS 210 ft² Stair 99 ft² Elev 365 ft² Core 210 ft² Stair 747 ft² Maintenance kaas wilson architects Chanhassen ApartmentsFLOOR PLANS - LEVEL -1 3.0 Chanhassen Apartments 7/9/2025 1" = 30'-0"1 Level -1 29 ENTRY 1,050 ft² Community Room 737 ft² Fitness 1,300 ft² Unit 3-0 1,315 ft² Unit 3-2 1,032 ft² Lobby 1,033 ft² Unit 2-1 1,033 ft² Unit 2-1 737 ft² Unit 1-01,050 ft² Unit 2-0 681 ft² Unit 1-1 737 ft² Unit 1-0 737 ft² Unit 1-0 1,033 ft² Unit 2-11,050 ft² Unit 2-0 1,050 ft² Unit 2-0 737 ft² Unit 1-0 99 ft² Elev 485 ft² Core 6.11 6.1 2 6.1 3 6.2 1 6.22 6.2 3 276 ft² Stair 276 ft² Stair kaas wilson architects Chanhassen ApartmentsFLOOR PLANS - LEVEL 1 3.1 Chanhassen Apartments 7/9/2025 1" = 30'-0"1 Level 1 UNIT MIX - GROSS AREA Name Count Unit Gross Area Total Area %Main Floor 1 BR Unit 1-0 14 737 ft² 10,313 ft² 32% Unit 1-1 3 681 ft² 2,043 ft² 7% 17 12,357 ft² 39% 2BR Unit 2-0 11 1,050 ft² 11,546 ft² 25% Unit 2-1 9 1,033 ft² 9,301 ft² 20% Unit 2-2 2 1,032 ft² 2,063 ft² 5% 22 22,910 ft² 50% 3BR Unit 3-0 3 1,300 ft² 3,901 ft² 7% Unit 3-2 2 1,315 ft² 2,629 ft² 5% 5 6,530 ft² 11% Grand total 44 41,797 ft² 100% GROSS AREA - TOTAL Level Area Level 3 17,829 ft² Level 2 17,829 ft² Level 1 17,829 ft² Level -1 18,143 ft² Grand total 71,630 ft² 30 1,050 ft² Unit 2-0 737 ft² Unit 1-0 1,300 ft² Unit 3-0 1,315 ft² Unit 3-2 1,032 ft² Unit 2-2 1,033 ft² Unit 2-1 1,033 ft² Unit 2-1 1,050 ft² Unit 2-0 681 ft² Unit 1-1 737 ft² Unit 1-0 737 ft² Unit 1-0 1,033 ft² Unit 2-11,050 ft² Unit 2-0 1,050 ft² Unit 2-0 737 ft² Unit 1-0 99 ft² Elev 485 ft² Core 6.11 6.1 2 6.1 3 6.2 1 6.22 6.2 3 276 ft² Stair 276 ft² Stair 737 ft² Unit 1-0 kaas wilson architects Chanhassen ApartmentsFLOOR PLANS - LEVEL 2 3.2 Chanhassen Apartments 7/9/2025 1" = 30'-0"1 Level 2 31 843 ft² Sky Lounge 1,050 ft² Unit 2-0 1,300 ft² Unit 3-0 1,032 ft² Unit 2-2 1,033 ft² Unit 2-1 1,033 ft² Unit 2-1 1,050 ft² Unit 2-0 681 ft² Unit 1-1 1,033 ft² Unit 2-11,050 ft² Unit 2-0 1,050 ft² Unit 2-0 99 ft² Elev 485 ft² Core 6.11 6.1 2 6.1 3 6.2 1 6.22 6.2 3 276 ft² Stair 276 ft² Stair 737 ft² Unit 1-0 737 ft² Unit 1-0 737 ft² Unit 1-0 737 ft² Unit 1-0 472 ft² Rooftop Deck 737 ft² Unit 1-0 kaas wilson architects Chanhassen ApartmentsFLOOR PLANS - LEVEL 3 3.3 Chanhassen Apartments 7/9/2025 1" = 30'-0"1 Level 3 32 Level 1 100'-0" Level 2 111'-1 7/8" Level -1 89'-4" Level 3 122'-3 3/4" Truss Brg. 131'-4 7/8" BRICK CFB VERTICAL BOARD & BATTEN ALTERNATING CFB LAP SIDING COLORED ROCKFACE CMU CFB PANEL SIDINGLevel 1 to Top of Roof33'-5 3/4"Level 1 to Top of Parapet34'-4 7/8"Level 1 100'-0" Level 2 111'-1 7/8" Level -1 89'-4" Level 3 122'-3 3/4" Truss Brg. 131'-4 7/8" BRICK CFB VERTICAL BOARD & BATTEN COLORED ROCKFACE CMU Level 1 100'-0" Level 2 111'-1 7/8" Level -1 89'-4" Level 3 122'-3 3/4" Truss Brg. 131'-4 7/8" BRICK CFB VERTICAL BOARD & BATTEN COLORED ROCKFACE CMU ALTERNATING CFB LAP SIDING N kaas wilson architects 7/9/2025 1:58:30 PM Chanhassen ApartmentsEXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 6.1 Chanhassen Apartments 1/8" = 1'-0"1 East Elevation 1/8" = 1'-0"2 North End Elevation 1/8" = 1'-0"3 West Elevation 33 Level 1 100'-0" Level 2 111'-1 7/8" Level -1 89'-4" Level 3 122'-3 3/4" Truss Brg. 131'-4 7/8" BRICK CFB VERTICAL BOARD & BATTEN ALTERNATING CFB LAP SIDING COLORED ROCKFACE CMU CFB PANEL SIDING Level 1 100'-0" Level 2 111'-1 7/8" Level -1 89'-4" Level 3 122'-3 3/4" Truss Brg. 131'-4 7/8" BRICK CFB VERTICAL BOARD & BATTEN Level 1 100'-0" Level 2 111'-1 7/8" Level -1 89'-4" Level 3 122'-3 3/4" Truss Brg. 131'-4 7/8" BRICK ALTERNATING CFB LAP SIDING CFB VERTICAL BOARD & BATTEN N kaas wilson architects 7/9/2025 1:58:32 PM Chanhassen ApartmentsEXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 6.2 Chanhassen Apartments 1/8" = 1'-0"1 South Elevation 1/8" = 1'-0"2 East End Elevation 1/8" = 1'-0"3 North Elevation 34 Application: Rezoning & Site Plan Review. (Planning Case #2025-11) Staff Report Date: September 12, 2025 Drafted By: Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner Joe Seidl, Water Resources Engineer Mackenze Grunig, Project Engineer Planning Commission Review Date: September 16, 2025 City Council Review Date: October 13, 2025 (Tentative) SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The Applicant is requesting rezoning and site plan review of a 44-unit multi-family apartment project. LOCATION: 6440 Hazeltine Boulevard PID: 250940020 (Subject Property) APPLICANT: Headwaters Development LLC PROPERTY OWNER: Clover Investments LLC PRESENT ZONING: Single-Family Residential 2040 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Medium Density SITE PLAN ACREAGE: 5.6 Acres SITE PLAN DENSITY: 7.8 Units/Acre PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the requested rezoning, and site plan review for the 44-unit Minnewashta Apartments subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision.” 35 Page 2 of 15 LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The city has discretion in approving a 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. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Notice of the public hearing at Planning Commission was mailed to all property owners within 500 feet which is the minimum required. The City extended the mailed notice beyond the 500 feet minimum and sent notice to 74 property owners in the area. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on July 30, 2025. This neighborhood meeting was conducted entirely by the Applicant to gather feedback from adjacent property owners prior to the city’s review of the development application. The City sent an email update to the “Proposed Developments” email subscription group regarding the project on July 24th, August 7th, August 12th, and August 18th. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 20, Article II, Division 6, Site Plan Review Chapter 20, Article 20-XXIII, Division 20-XXIII-9 Design Standards for Multifamily Developments City of Chanhassen 2040 Comprehensive Plan and 2040 Future Land Use Map ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DISTRICTS Wetland Protection – Not applicable Bluff Protection – Not applicable Shoreland Management – Not applicable Floodplain Overlay – Not within FEMA Flood Zones 2018 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The Applicant is proposing the rezoning of the property from Single-Family Residential (RSF) to Mixed Medium Density Residential District (R-8), along with a site plan review for a 44-unit multi-family building. BACKGROUND This property was platted in 2015 as a part of the Beehive Home 2nd Addition. Prior to the replatting, this property was used a single-family residence. REZONING REVIEW The Developer proposes to rezone the property from Single-Family Residential (RSF) to Mixed Medium Density Residential District (R-8). This proposed rezoning is in accordance with the 2040 Land Use Comprehensive Plan, which designates this property Residential Medium 36 Page 3 of 15 Density with an allowable net density of 4-8 units/acre. Within the Residential Medium Density land use designation, the following zoning districts are allowed: Mixed Low Density (R-4), Residential Low & Medium Density (RLM), Mixed Medium Density (R-8), and Planned Unit Development Residential (PUD-R). Based on the City of Chanhassen’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan and the 2040 Land Use designation of Residential Medium Density for the subject property, development of the property is required to have a minimum of 22.4 units and a maximum of 44.8 units. Properties adjacent to the Subject Property are guided Public/Semi Public, Office/Medium Density Residential, Residential Low Density, and Parks/Open Space. SITE PLAN REVIEW Parking City code section 20-1124 establishes the minimum number of parking spaces required to be provided for multifamily housing development projects. Based on the project as proposed, a minimum of 86 parking spaces are required, 44 of which are required to be enclosed garage parking. The project proposes 44 underground garage parking spaces and 44 outdoor parking spaces, for a total of 88 parking spaces. The proposed parking plan meets the minimum requirements established by city code. Unit Type # of Units Parking Required By Unit Type 1 Bedroom 17 21 2 Bedroom or greater 27 54 Required Guest Parking 11 Total Minimum Required: 86 Parking Required Parking Shown Total Enclosed Spaces 44 44 Outdoor Surface Parking Spaces 42 44 Total Parking Spaces Shown 88 Building Height In the zoning district requested, R-8, and the current zoning district, RSF, building height is limited to 35 feet. Building elevations have been provided which show a building height of 34’4 7/8”. City Code defines building height as “the vertical distance between the highest adjoining ground level at the building or ten feet above the lowest ground level, whichever is lower, and the highest point of a flat roof or average height of the highest of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof.” Currently the elevation shows the building height being measured from the ground level at the building. However the lower level has an elevation of 89’4”. Ten feet above 37 Page 4 of 15 the lower floor elevation would be 99’4” which is 6” below the line currently being measured from. The elevation shall also be measured to the highest parapet. The Developer will need to update the elevation measurement to align with city code definition and ensure the building height is below the maximum allowed of 35’0”. Site furnishings The project as proposed shows a sidewalk connection from the building to the neighboring regional park trail as well as future trail on the west side of Hazeltine Blvd. The building will also contain a gym and community room on the first floor with a sky lounge with rooftop deck located on the second floor on the southwest corner of the proposed apartment building Loading, mechanical, and refuse areas Garbage service, recycling service, and mechanical is shown to be located inside the garage. Any rooftop mounted equipment shall meet the screening requirements of city code. Lighting The site plan shows 8 light poles dispersed around the parking and drive areas. Fixture height shall not exceed 30 feet. Lighting on the building faces shall also be restricted to having a total cutoff angle equal to or less than 90 degrees. The Developer shall provide shop drawings of the proposed lights, as well as a photometric plan. Signage The plans provided do not depict signage on the site. Signage for the property shall comply with city code. Sign permits will be required to be applied for and approved at the time of building permit. Hard Surface Coverage The proposed lot coverage for this development is 19.3%, this is below the lot coverage maximum of 50% for the requested zoning district of Mixed Medium Density Residential District (R-8). BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Required Architectural Standards The proposed architecture is consistent with the Division 20-XXIII-9 Design Standards for Multifamily Developments. Massing and Placement The proposed site plan is for one building with two wings aligned to create an L-shaped building. The location of the building is strategically placed to work with the current grade and preserve the natural resources on the property. This is achieved by keeping the building and parking area closer to Hazeltine Boulevard. 38 Page 5 of 15 Additionally, the building is located on the southeastern portion of the site such that the proposed apartment building is as far as is practicable from the adjacent single-family homes along the northwest portion of the proposed development site. The Sky Lounge/Rooftop Deck are shown in the southwest corner of the proposed building which is furthest from adjacent residential properties to mitigate any noise generation . Materials and Color The building proposed contains four main materials, brick, board & batten, lap siding, and colored rockface CMU. The design pulls inspiration from architecture along Hazeltine Boulevard, providing a cohesive and timeless feeling to the area. The color palette uses mute d earth tones including a red/brown brick mix, dark grey vertical board and batten and an off- white lap siding. 3D Rendering and Building Elevations 39 Page 6 of 15 40 Page 7 of 15 LANDSCAPING – TREE COVERAGE The Developer submitted tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations. Total upland area (excl wetlands, bluff) 5.51 acres Baseline canopy coverage 1.58 acres or 28.8% Minimum canopy coverage required 1.37 acres or 25% Proposed tree preservation 1.29 acres or 23% Minimum canopy coverage to be replaced 0.11 acres or 2% The applicant must bring the canopy coverage on site up to the 1.37 acres which equates to the 25% required. The difference between the required coverage and the remaining coverage is multipled by 1.2 for total area to be replaced . The total area to be replaced is .13 acres or 5,750 square feet of canopy coverage. One tree is valued at 1.089 square feet of canopy coverage. The landscaping plan proposes planting 16 trees, which equates to 17,424sf or 0.40 acres of canopy coverage. The project as proposed adheres to the tree coverage requirements outlined in city code. PARKING LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS Staff have analyzed the site plan and found the requirements in Sec 20-1181 have been satisfied by additional screening on the site. In addition, the applicant is providing the required landscaping withing the vehicular use areas. 41 Page 8 of 15 PROPOSED PLANTING SCHEDULE The Applicant proposed planting 16 trees, 4 of which would be ornamental serviceberry trees. Also shown are 117 shrubs, and 45 perennials. Tree plantings are required to adhere to the city’s planting diversity requirement. PROJECT OVERVIEW – ENGINEERING AND WATER RESOURCES The Applicant is requesting rezoning and site plan review of a 44-unit multi-family apartment project located at 6440 Hazeltine Blvd. Construction plans and Stormwater Reports developed by Measure Group dated June 13, 2025 were reviewed by staff. The proposed design would create ~1.15 acres of new impervious area in the form of an apartment building, parking lots, sidewalks, and streets. Stormwater is proposed to be managed by an above ground stormwater pond located in the NW corner of the property. GRADING & DRAINAGE The site is located west of Hazeltine Boulevard (Highway 41), directly across the highway from the entrance to Minnetonka Middle School. The property is currently undeveloped, with the only impervious surfaces being a small section of an access drive (serving the adjacent pro perty to the north) and a small shed. In the existing condition most of the site drains to a wetland located on the southwest portion of the property. A small area near the site entrance drains northward to the neighboring property, where runoff is treated by an existing private filtration bas in. This basin currently discharges through the Minnewashta Apartments property before ultimately flowing into the wetland onsite. That discharge pattern will remain unchanged in the proposed development. In the proposed condition stormwater runoff will be directed through a storm sewer system to a new on-site filtration basin. This proposed basin will outlet to the wetland located on the southwest portion of the site which maintains the current drainage pattern. A small portion of the entrance drive will continue to drain northward, consistent with existing conditions. Proposed discharge rates to the north will need to be verified to ensure they do not exceed current rates. There is an opportunity for the developer to partner with the city to construct a regional stormwater treatment facility on the site as part of the development project. In this scenario the applicant would oversize the onsite stormwater management system to provide stormwater treatment for stormwater runoff from the planned TH 41 round -a-bout Project and from city right of way. In return the City would own and maintain the stormwater BMP and could potentially offer financial relief in the form of reduced stormwater development fees. The proposed design shows a regional treatment facility that could treat stormwater from TH 41 however based on the location and elevation it would be difficult to route city stormwater from the north to the proposed system. There appears to be an opportun ity to optimize the design by shifting the regional stormwater BMP down the hill near the existing wetland which 42 Page 9 of 15 could facilitate the treatment of more stormwater from the north. As such the applicant shall work with city staff to improve the design of the stormwater management system onsite. WETLANDS The proposed plans show one (1) wetland onsite located in the southwest corner of the property that was delineated by Kjolhaug Environmental Services on October 25, 2017. The wetland is part of a larger complex that extends onto both regional park and city property. The delineation was approved by the City of Chanhassen in its role as the local governing unit (LGU) that is responsible for administering the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). The Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) made up of representatives from the city, Watershed District, MN Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR), and Carver County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) are all part of the WCA process in reviewing wetland applications including types and boundaries. The Wetland type on site was determined to be a shallow marsh. Wetland decisions, including delineations, are only good for 5 -years. As such the applicant will need to complete another delineation to confirm the boundary and type and complete a MnRAM assessment to determine the buffer and setback requirements. The pla ns show that the wetland is located a significant distance from the proposed development therefore the wetland rules will likely not impact the design. A permanent wetland buffer with signs is required and will need to be included in the final plans. The wetland and buffer shall be placed within a drainage and utility easement or outlot. SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN The applicant is proposing the construction of 8” PVC mains for the sanitary sewer and water needs of the Minnewashta Apartment utility plans do indicate that the extension of 8” PVC C900 is planned for. Sanitary sewer mains and water mains will be discussed prior to final plans if they will be publicly owned and maintained or privately owned and maintained. TRAFFIC Staff has reviewed the preliminary traffic memo for the proposed Minnewashta Apartments. While the estimated trip generation is relatively low, approximately one vehicle every three minutes during peak hours. While the trip generation from the project is low, the existing traffic operations of the adjacent intersection require greater evaluation of traffic control and turning movements to ensure safe operations, particularly during peak school times. Staff has included a condition that a temporary traffic signal shall be installed at the adjacent intersection until such time as the permanent roundabout is constructed as the intersection control. The Applicant, city staff and the Highway 5 project team are assessing the feasibility to implement a temporary traffic signal at the Hazeltine Blvd/MMSW intersection until 2028 when the roundabout project could be constructed. Staff recommends continued coordination with MnDOT regarding upcoming Highway 5 detours, as well as engagement with the school district to address potential transportation impacts. 43 Page 10 of 15 The Site Plan as proposed, would include the reconstruction of the current access to the Trouvaille Memory Care Suites which is an improvement that was to be completed with the construction of the proposed roundabout at the intersection of Hazeltine Blvd and Minnetonka Middle School West (MMSW) which is the same intersection that this project would route vehicle trips through. Additionally, this project would be responsible for constructing a portion of the future roundabout as well as stormwater management. Each of these improvements reduces the future cost of the MMSW intersection roundabout . EROSION CONTROL The proposed development will create greater than one (1) acre of land disturbance and therefore will be subject to the General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity Under the National Pollution Discharge Elimin ation/State Disposal System (NPDES Construction Permit). A Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) was included in the preliminary site plan submittal. The SWPPP is a required submittal element for final site plan review along with the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) in accordance with Section 19-145 of City Ordinance. No earth disturbing activities may occur until the SWPPP is formally approved. This SWPPP shall be a standalone document consistent with the NPDES Construction Permit and shall contain all required elements of the permit. The SWPPP will need to be updated as the plans are finalized when the contractor and their sub - contractors are identified and as other conditions change. An updated SWPPP shall be submitted and approved prior to recording the final site plan agreement. All erosion and sediment control BMP’s shall be installed and inspected prior to initiation of site grading activities. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT 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 abstraction of runoff and water quality treatment resulting in the removal of 90% total suspended solids (TSS) and 60% total phosphorous (TP). The proposed project is located within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) and is therefore subject to the watershed’s rules and regulations. A MCWD permit will be required for final site plan approval. The site is proposing to meet stormwater management requirements through an onsite filtration basin. Soil borings were not provided and are needed to confirm the feasibility of infiltration onsite as noted by the developer. If infiltration is feasible, the design will need to be modified to provide infiltration as required by the NPDES permit and MCWD regulations. Water quality modeling is needed to confirm that the site is in compliance with the City’s water quality treatment requirements (60% TP and 90% TSS removals). As currently proposed, the filtration basin was sized to account for 2.59 acres of impervious (4.89 acres of total drainage) from the future roundabout and Minnetonka Middle School entrance drive but not for any drainage from the north. The basin design should be modified to account for an additional 2.64 acres of impervious (7.52 acres of total drainage) from the north 44 Page 11 of 15 if the design is meant to be a regional treatment facility. Given the elevation of the existing storm sewer at the low point on 64th Street West to route the drainage from the north to the proposed regional basin the location and elevation of the basin will need to be modified. A liner may be required if three feet of separation between the updated basin elevation and groundwater cannot be provided. The city would need to reconstruct the existing 30” storm sewer from the low point along 34th Street West with 36” storm sewer in order to make the connection feasible. The applicant shall work with staff to confirm the size of the regional treatment facility to determine the scale partnership between the city and developer. As outlined in the City’s Surface Water Management Plan adopted in December 2018, the City requires at least 3 feet of freeboard between a building elevation and adjacent ponding features. Freeboard requirements are currently being met to the proposed buil ding but appears not to meet the requirement for the existing homes located to the north. The design would safely route surface away from the existing homes in an emergency, but groundwater interactions would need to be analyzed. As such the applicant shall submit additional information and potentially redesign the pond to meet freeboard requirements. The city also requires at least 1 foot of freeboard between emergency overflows (EOF) and building opening elevations. This is not currently being met between the EOF for the green space low point east of the building. Currently the basin is planned to be a regional stormwater basin sized for offsite City drainage, the basin will be owned and maintained by the city. The proposed basin and maintenance access shall be covered under drainage and utility easement to allow for future maintenance activities. If the regional stormwater design does not work, then the BMP would become private, and an operations and maintenance agreement would be required to ensure the system functions as designed. The applicant shall provide final versions of all modeling (HydroCAD and any water quality models developed) and Stormwater Management Report to address all City and MCWD comments and confirm rate, volume and water quality requirements are met as part of t he final site plan approval. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning and site plan for the construction of the project as proposed, subject to updating of plans based on staff review comments. APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTS PLANNING: 1. Developer shall add property line measurements to the site plan. 2. Developer shall update site plan to include all dimensions for driveway access from right-of-way. 3. Developer shall provide details of trash enclosure locations in the building. 45 Page 12 of 15 4. Developer shall provide utility locations, proposed screening if applicable, and a sight line diagram for any utilities proposed on the roof. 5. A photometric plan shall be provided with the civil plan set. 6. Building elevation measurement to be updated to provide a measurement based on city code definition. Building shall not measure greater than 35’0”. 7. Developer shall provide measurements for parking spaces and drive aisles within the enclosed garage. FORESTRY 1. Applicant must include the condition of each tree as part of the tree survey. Condition should be noted as “Poor, Fair, or Good” as is standard for forestry field identification. 2. Applicant shall confirm all trees over ten inches in diameter and any damaged or diseased trees on site are included in the inventory. 3. Applicant must include the total square footage of the vehicular use area. 4. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed around existing trees to be saved prior to any construction activities and remain installed until completion. 5. All trees must be planted outside of the city’s right-of-way. 6. Landscaping plan shall meet the minimum buffer yard requirements. ENGINEERING: 1. A temporary traffic signal shall be installed at the adjacent intersection of Hwy 41 and Minnetonka Middle School West until such time that the permanent roundabout is constructed as the intersection control. 2. The developer shall enter into Encroachment Agreements for private improvements (e.g., retaining walls and monument signage) located within the 10-foot-wide public drainage and utility corridor abutting the right -of-way prior to issuance of building permits. 3. Any previously recorded easements located within proposed public right -of-way or proposed public drainage and utility easements must be vacated prior to or concurrently with the final site plan. 4. The applicant and their Engineer shall work with City staff in amending the construction plans to fully satisfy construction plan comments and concerns. Final construction plans will be subject to review and approval by staff prior to recording the site plan agreement. 5. Developer shall provide documentation of coordinate with adjacent Trouvaille Property Owner. 6. All newly constructed streets and sidewalks, with the exception to the sidewalk & trail on TH 41 will be privately owned and maintained. The developer shall provide for review and approval maintenance agreements for these improvements, as well as cross access/parking agreements for the shared parking, prior to or concurrently with the recording of the site plan agreement. 7. Construction design elements associated with the street plans such as stationing, curb tables and alignments, centerline grades, and intersection details will be required prior to site plan agreement approval. 46 Page 13 of 15 8. Pavement removals shall extend to the end of the curb and gutter removals. 9. Developer shall provide a color-coded map identifying what improvements are public and what are private with final site plan. 10. The Developer will be required to enter into a Development Contract with the City and all applicable securities and fees provided prior to recording of the site plan agreement. 11. It is the Developer’s responsibility to ensure that permits are received from all other agencies with jurisdiction over the project (i.e. Army Corps of Engineers, DNR, MnDOT, Carver County, RPBC Watershed District, Board of Water and Soil Resources, PCA, MDH, MPCA, etc.). Applicant shall provide a copy of all permits prior to starting construction. 12. The Developer shall incorporate the latest City Detail Plates and Specifications into the site plan application. 13. Provide sidewalk connection from apartments to TH 41 trail system. 14. City Standard Detail Plates shall be included in the construction plan set and displayed in a layout format of 2 rows by 4 columns for consistency with City expectations. 15. Developer provided a technical memo to address traffic concerns due to the connection to TH 41. Applicant shall provide a traffic study for site plan documents and an operational analysis. 16. Developer shall provide a plan sheet showing access during TH 41 round-a-bout construction. 17. The Developer is connecting into City owned sanitary sewer main. Developer shall clean and televise the downstream pipe and provide that tape to the Project Engineer. 18. The City is in the process of retracting the condemnation of a portion of land shown within the plans. The Developer shall deed an easement to the City over the area shown as “CITY OF CHANHASSEN DRAINAGE, UTILITY, AND TRANSPORTATION EASEMENT” at no cost. WATER RESOURCES: 1. Soil borings must be provided to confirm infeasibility of infiltration onsite. If infiltration is feasible, the design will need to be modified to provide infiltration as required by the NPDES permit and MCWD. A geotechnical report with soil boring analysis shall be provided with all subsequent submittals. 2. If the basin is designed to be a regional facility owned and operated by the city, then the design shall be modified to allow for storm sewer from the north to be routed and treated by the basin onsite in addition to the future Hazeltine Avenue roundabout and Minnetonka Middle School entrance drive already included. A liner may be required if three feet of separation between the updated basin elevation and the groundwater cannot be provided. 3. The proposed regional stormwater basin and proposed maintenance access shall be shown under drainage and utility easement. 4. The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the final site plan approval and construction of infrastructure onsite. The development contract shall be recorded concurrently with the site plan agreement. 47 Page 14 of 15 5. It is the developer’s responsibility to ensure that permits are received from all other agencies with jurisdiction over the project (i.e. Carver County, MCWD, Board of Water and Soil Resources, MnDOT, etc.) prior to the commencement of construction activities. 6. The developer shall submit additional information to verify the design meets the freeboard requirement to the stormwater basin. A modification to the basin grading may be needed. 7. The applicant shall provide an updated wetland delineation to verify the current conditions of the site as part of the final plan submittal. The final plans shall include a wetland buffer with permanent signs as outlined by city ordinance. The wetland and buffer shall be placed within an outlot or drainage and utility easement. 8. The developer and their Engineer shall work with City staff in amending the construction plans, dated June 13, 2025 created by Measure Group to fully satisfy construction plan comments and concerns. Final construction plans will be subject to review and approval by staff prior to recording site plan agreement. 9. An Operations and Maintenance plan for all proposed private BMPs including the inspection frequency, maintenance schedule, and responsible party shall be submitted with the site plan. 10. The applicant shall provide updated H&H and water quality modelling to verify that the design meets all applicable design standards including those from MCWD with the final plans submittal. 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. 3. 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 4. The building is required to have automatic fire extinguishing systems. 5. 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. 6. 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 (Ext walls, Bearing walls - exterior or interior, Shaft, Incidental use), Occupant load, Exits required (Common path, Travel distance), Minimum plumbing fixture count 7. Retaining walls (if present) more than four feet high, measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall, must be designed by a professional engineer and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction. Retaining walls (if present) under four feet in height require a zoning permit. 8. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. 48 Page 15 of 15 9. Accessibility will have to be provided to all portions of the development and a percentage of the units may also be required to be accessible or adaptable in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. FIRE: 1. A turning radius study will need to be completed with the dimensions of our largest fire apparatus (ladder truck) to assure the parking lot will work as an access road and fire apparatus turn around 2. The parking lot will need to maintain a drivable width of 26 feet since it is technically a fire apparatus access road. There are parts showing less than 26 feet. 3. Since there is no access for fire apparatus on all sides of building, balconies will require dry head fire sprinklers to provide a safe area of refuge for residents. 4. All exterior egress doors will require a paved path to the public right of way. Rear of building does not show a path. 5. Standpipes will be required in stairwells and underground garage 6. Full fire sprinkler system and fire alarm systems required. 49 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of Headwaters Development LLC, for a rezoning and site plan review. On September 16, 2025, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application for rezoning and site plan review for the construction of a 44- unit multi-family apartment building. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed development which was preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and made the following Findings of Fact on the remaining application. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On July 11, 2025 the City received a land use application for the property legally described in attachment Exhibit A for the following: A. A rezoning from Single-Family Residential (RSF) to Mixed Medium Density Residential District (R-8). B. A site plan review for the construction of a 44-unit apartment building. 2. The property is currently zoned Single-Family Residential. 3. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan as Residential Medium Density. 4. The R-8 zoning district is an eligible zoning district for the Residential Medium Density land use designation. REZONING FINDINGS 5. The proposed R-8 Mixed Medium Density Residential District 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 for Residential Medium Density land use areas. 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. 50 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 the capabilities of the streets serving the property. SITE PLAN REVIEW FINDINGS 6. The Applicant has requested approval of the site plan dated 07.11.2025 prepared by Measure Group, LLC. 6. The zoning ordinance directs the City to consider nine possible adverse effects of the proposed site plan. The nine (9) effects and our findings regarding them are: a) Is consistent with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted. Finding: The site plan is consistent with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, comprehensive plan, and official road mapping. b) Is consistent with the site plan review requirements. Finding: The site plan is consistent with the site plan review requirements. c) Preserves the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing or developing areas. Finding: The layout of the proposed structure minimizes affects to the natural resources, sites the proposed building the furthest practicable from adjacent single family properties, and the proposed grading is designed in keeping with Hazeltine Boulevard. d) Creation of a harmonious relationship of buildings and open spaces with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development. Finding: The proposed design creates a harmonious relationship between the building and its natural features through strategic placement. e) Creates a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: i. 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; 51 ii. The amount and location of open space and landscaping; iii. 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 iv. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. Finding: The proposed site plan does create an internal sense of order for the buildings and uses on the site through the balance of landscaping, material applications, and circulation for pedestrians and vehicles. f) Protects adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. Finding: The site plan as proposed does protect adjacent and neighboring properties for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air that could have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. g) Within the Highway Corridor (HC) districts, consistency with the purpose, intent and standards of the HC districts. Finding: The proposed site plan is not within the Highway Corridor District. h) Within the Bluff Creek Overlay (BCO) district, consistency with the purpose, intent and standards of the BCO district. Finding: The proposed site plan is not within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. i) Maintain an acceptable road system level of service. Finding: The proposed development is consistent with anticipated development of the site. That anticipated development of a residential project up to 8 residential units per acre has been incorporated with the traffic analysis associated with planning for the future roundabout construction between this proposed development site and the adjacent Minnetonka Middle School West property. 7. The planning report Planning Case 2025-11, dated September 12, 2025, prepared by Rachel Arsenault, et al, is incorporated herein. 52 RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends approval of the requested Rezoning Ordinance and Site Plan Review to the City Council. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 16th day of September 2025. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY:_______________________________ Eric Noyes, Chair 53 EXHIBIT A Lot 2, Block 1, Beehive Home 2nd Addition. 54 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. ___ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE, BY REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY TO MIXED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-8) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: Section 1. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code, the City's zoning ordinance, is hereby amended by rezoning all property in attached Exhibit A from Single-Family Residential (RSF) to Mixed Medium Density Residential District (R-8). Section 2. The zoning map of the City of Chanhassen shall not be republished to show the aforesaid zoning, but the Clerk shall appropriately mark the zoning map on file in the Clerk's Office for the purpose of indicating the rezoning hereinabove provided for in this ordinance, and all the notations, references, and other information shown thereon are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this ordinance. Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of October 2025, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota. Jenny Potter, City Clerk Elise Ryan, Mayor (Published in _________________ on _______, 2025) 55 2 EXHIBIT A Lot 2, Block 1, Beehive Home 2nd Addition 56 www.transportationcollaborative.com July 21, 2025 Josh McKinney, PLA, Principal Measure Group Subject: Minnewashta Apartments Development Traffic Engineering Support Chanhassen, MN INTRODUCTION TC2 has been engaged to provide traffic engineering support for the proposed Minnewashta Apartments development located at 6440 Hazeltine Road (Hwy 41) in the City of Chanhassen. The proposed development is a 44-unit multifamily development with one (1) access planned to Hazeltine Road (Hwy 41) across from Minnetonka Middle School West. The main objective of this support is to identify the expected trip generation of the proposed development and collaborate with City staff / area agencies to understand potential traffic impacts and timelines associated with the proposed development and Hwy 5 detours planned in the next couple years. The following information provides some preliminary information related to the project. PRELIMINARY TRAFFIC REVIEW A trip generation estimate for the proposed development was created using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, which includes trips for typical weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours, as well as daily. The proposed development, based on the average rate using ITE Code 220 (Multifamily Housing – Low Rise), is estimated to generate 18 a.m. peak hour (4 in / 14 out), 22 p.m. peak hour (14 in / 8 out), and 298 daily (149 in / 149 out) trips. Based on this trip generation, the site would generate about one (1) vehicle trip every three (3) minutes during the peak hours. At this level of trip generation, the change in overall intersection operations of the proposed access is anticipated be minimal. NEXT STEPS TC2 will continue to collaborate with City staff and area agencies to review detour-related information provided to help understand potential traffic impacts and timelines associated with the proposed development and Hwy 5 detours. A subsequent memo will be developed in consultation with City staff and area agencies. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, Matt Pacyna, PE (MN, ND, WI) Transportation Collaborative & Consultants, LLC 57 Temporary Intersection Control Evaluation Truck Highway 41 (Hazeltine Blvd) at Minnetonka Middle School West City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota Prepared by: SRF Consulting Group, Inc. 3701 Wayzata Blvd, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55416-3791 763.475.0010 August 2025 SRF No. 15100.03 Temporary Intersection Control Evaluation 58 Temporary Intersection Control Evaluation i TH 41 (Hazeltine Blvd) at Minnetonka Middle School West Temporary Intersection Control Evaluation Truck Highway 41 (Hazeltine Blvd) at Minnetonka Middle School West Report Certification: I hereby certify that this report was 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. Collin Schroeder 59575 Print Name Reg. No. August 26, 2025 Signature Date Approved: Chanhassen City Engineer Date MnDOT Metro District Traffic Engineer Date August 26, 2025 59 Temporary Intersection Control Evaluation ii TH 41 (Hazeltine Blvd) at Minnetonka Middle School West Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Location characteristics ............................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Traffic Volumes ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Quantitative Analysis of Alternatives ............................................................................................................................................................ 7 Warrants Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Operations Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Analysis Summary .................................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Recommended Intersection Control ................................................................................................................................................. 10 60 Temporary Intersection Control Evaluation iii TH 41 (Hazeltine Blvd) at Minnetonka Middle School West Figures Figure 1. Overall Project Location .................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Figure 2. Subject Intersection .......................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Tables Table 1. Crash History Summary (Severity) ................................................................................................................................................. 3 Table 2. Crash History Summary (Type) ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 Table 3. Crash History Summary (Crash Rates) ......................................................................................................................................... 4 Table 4. Existing Conditions.............................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Table 5: Existing and Detour Peak Hour Volumes ................................................................................................................................... 6 Table 6. Warrants Analysis Assumptions ..................................................................................................................................................... 7 Table 7. School in Session Warrants Analysis Summary ....................................................................................................................... 7 Table 8: Level of Service Criteria ..................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Table 9. Operation Analysis Results .............................................................................................................................................................. 9 61 Temporary Intersection Control Evaluation 1 TH 41 (Hazeltine Blvd) at Minnetonka Middle School West Introduction The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is preparing to improve TH 5 between 80th Street in Victoria to Century Boulevard in Chanhassen beginning in April 2026. To facilitate the traffic diversion during the TH 5 construction, a traffic detour is proposed to travel through the currently unsignalized TH 41 (Hazeltine Blvd) and Minnetonka Middle School West intersection. Figure 1 shows the location of the subject intersection with respect to the TH 5 project area and alternative routes during construction1. Due to the increased traffic demand from the detours, a temporary traffic signal is being proposed at the TH 41 (Hazeltine Blvd) and Minnetonka Middle School West intersection during the TH 5 construction. The TH 5 construction is planned for two construction seasons. The temporary traffic signal will be removed in summer 2028 after the TH 5 construction is complete. After removal of the temporary traffic signal, a permanent roundabout will be constructed at the subject intersection which has been designed and is funded. This Temporary Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) report summarizes the analysis performed for the proposed temporary traffic signal at the TH 41 and Minnetonka Middle School West intersection. Maintaining the side-street stop control, a temporary traffic signal, and a temporary traffic signal with restriping were evaluated as possible alternatives to mitigate delays incurred from added detour traffic volumes. Roundabouts were not considered as a feasible alternative since they are not temporary intersection control treatment. For traffic at the TH 41 and Minnetonka Middle School West intersection, the worst-case scenario with the heaviest detoured traffic volumes were used at the subject intersection to evaluate the conditions during construction. The intersection currently operates as a side-street stop control, and the existing lane configuration of the subject intersection is shown in Figure 2. The TH 5 construction project provides the opportunity to examine operations and safety along the TH 41 corridor and select a temporary intersection control alternative that can meet detour traffic demands for all modes of transportation. Refer to SP 1002-124 TMP by Bolton & Menk for staging considerations. The purpose of this evaluation was to analyze various intersection control alternatives under anticipated detouring traffic conditions to identify a preferred temporary intersection control alternative. The analyses included evaluating detailed signal warrants, traffic operations, and safety. 1 Highway 5 Improvements Project Construction and Detours Figure 1. Overall Project Location 62 Figure 2Temporary Intersection Control Evaluation TH 41 (Hazeltine Blvd) at Minnetonka Middle School West City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota15000.03 August 2025 Subject Intersection US 2 Image Source: Google TH 41 (Hazeltine Blvd)Minnetonka Middle School West Trouvaille Memory Care 63 Temporary Intersection Control Evaluation 3 TH 41 (Hazeltine Blvd) at Minnetonka Middle School West Existing Conditions Location characteristics The areas adjacent to the intersection are comprised of a mixed medium density district to the west and an independent school district to the east. The mixed medium district is currently a memory care residence, while the independent school district is currently Minnetonka Middle School West. There is a shopping center approximately 900 feet north of the intersection. TH 41 serves as a north/south roadway connecting TH 7 to the north and through TH 5 to the south. Characteristics of the intersection roadways are described below. • TH 41 (Hazeltine Blvd) is a three-lane undivided roadway with one left-turn lane, one through lane, one right- turn lane that runs north/south and serves as the major approaches at the intersection. TH 41 in this area has a posted speed limit of 45 MPH, with a school zone speed limit of 35 MPH when children are present and is classified as a minor arterial. • Minnetonka Middle School West is a one lane undivided roadway with a shared left turn/right turn lane that runs westbound and serves as a minor approach at the intersection. It should be noted that during the school year AM and PM peak hours, the westbound left-turn movement from the school is prohibited and is actively managed by staff. Minnetonka Middle School West has a posted speed limit of 30 MPH. • Trouvaille Memory Care is a one lane undivided roadway with a shared left turn/through/right turn lane and serves as a minor approach at the intersection. Trouvaille Memory care has a posted limit of 30 MPH. Crash History The most recent crash data available (from 2020 through 2024) were obtained from the MnDOT Crash Mapping Analysis Tool (MnCMAT2). When measuring crash data, the critical crash rate determined by MnDOT is defined using the statewide average rate and the specific volume of the subject intersection to determine a point at which a high crash rate is considered statistically significant. If a crash rate exceeds the critical rate, it is highly recommended that action is taken to improve safety at that intersection. A summary of the crash data is shown in Table s 1, 2, and 3: Table 1. Crash History Summary (Severity) Crash Severity Number of Crashes K (Fatality Crashes) 0 A (Serious Injury) 0 B (Minor Injury) 0 C (Possible Injury) 0 PD (Property Damage) 2 64 Temporary Intersection Control Evaluation 4 TH 41 (Hazeltine Blvd) at Minnetonka Middle School West Table 2. Crash History Summary (Type) Table 3. Crash History Summary (Crash Rates) Location Number of Crashes Daily Entering Volume (1) Total Crash Rate (2) Fatal & Serious Injury Crash Rate (3) Calculated Average (4) Critical Calculated Average (4) Critical TH 41 at Minnetonka Middle School West 2 16,212 0.20 0.14 0.34 0.00 0.41 3.62 (1) Obtained from MnDOT’s Traffic Mapping Application. (2) Intersection crash rates are expressed in crashes per million entering vehicles. (3) Intersection crash rates are expressed in crashes per 100 million entering vehicles. (4) Statewide average rates obtained from MnDOT Office of Traffic Engineering Intersection Toolkit, September 2024. Two crashes were reported at the subject intersection during the five-year analysis period. Both observed crashes during the analysis period were angle crashes that resulted in property damage only. The crash data during the analysis period results in a 0.20 crash rate and 0.00 fatal and serious injury crash rate. The crash rate is above the statewide average rate for similar intersections. The fatal and serious injury crash rate is below the statewide average rate for similar intersections. Crash occurrence is widespread by nature. Identifying every intersection with a crash rate above the statewide average in an analysis would produce a large amount of data that may not be statistically relevant with respect to safety deficiencies. The critical crash rate identifies locations that have a crash rate higher than similar facilities by a statistically significant amount. The critical crash rate is calculated by adjusting the systemwide average based on the amount of exposure and a statistical constant indicating level of confidence2. At locations where the observed crash rate exceeds the critical crash rate there is a high probability that conditions at the site are contributing to the higher crash rate. The total crash rate of 0.20 at the subject intersection indicates that the intersection is performing within expectations regarding total crash frequency and traffic volume exposure. With no fatal (Type K) or serious injury (Type A) crashes reported at the subject intersection, the observed K/A rates are 0.00 and indicated that the intersection is performing within expectation regarding fatal and serious injury crashes. 2 Traffic Safety Fundamentals Handbook | MnDOT Digital Library Crash Type Number of Crashes Angle 2 65 Temporary Intersection Control Evaluation 5 TH 41 (Hazeltine Blvd) at Minnetonka Middle School West Traffic Conditions The TH 41 at Minnetonka Middle School West intersection currently operates as a side-street stop control with TH 41 functioning as the major approaches, and Trouvaille Memory Care and Minnetonka Middle School West functioning as the minor approaches. As noted previously, during the AM and PM school peak hours, traffic exiting the school is prohibited from turning south onto TH 41. The westbound left-turn movement is prohibited due to the increased traffic volumes on TH 41, resulting in minimal available gaps for drivers to make this movement safely and efficiently. Intersection annual average daily traffic (AADT) values were gathered from MnDOT’s Traffic Mapping Application using the most recent available data. The overall intersection AADT was found to be 16,212 vehicles per day. AADT values for each approach are listed below in Table 4. The existing hourly approach volumes at the subject intersection were collected by SRF in August 2025. Table 4. Existing Conditions Approach Lane Configurations AADT (Year) Northbound TH 41 One left-turn lane, one thru lane, and one right-turn lane 16,212 (2024) Southbound TH 41 One left-turn, one thru lane, and one right- turn lane 16,212 (2024) Eastbound Travaille Memory Care Shared left-turn / thru / right-turn lane N/A Westbound Minnetonka Middle School West Shared left-turn / thru / right-turn lane N/A 66 Temporary Intersection Control Evaluation 6 TH 41 (Hazeltine Blvd) at Minnetonka Middle School West Traffic Volumes As part of the previous TH 41 Roundabout at Minnetonka Middle School West project, traffic counts were collected by SRF in December 2022. Since recent traffic counts from August 2025 do not capture school traffic, the traffic entering and exiting the school during the school AM and PM peak hours from December 2022 were layered on to the August 2025 counts to represent the typical traffic conditions at the intersection during the school year. The existing turning movement counts with the layered school traffic are included in Appendix A. Detouring traffic due to the TH 5 construction was provided by the TH 5 TMP (SP 1002-124) project team. It was determined as part of the TH 5 TMP that the traffic volumes on TH 41 are anticipated to increase by approximately 30 percent during construction. For the purposes of this analysis, th e 30 percent increase was applied to the northbound and southbound through movements at the subject intersection. The existing and detour peak hour volumes are shown in Table 5. Table 5: Existing and Detour Peak Hour Volumes Peak Hour Scenario Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Existing 3 0 1 24 0 273 1 829 163 186 780 6 Detoured Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +249 0 0 +234 0 Detoured Total 3 0 1 24 0 273 1 1,034 163 186 1,014 6 PM Existing 8 0 8 30 0 217 0 1,019 53 120 786 3 Detoured Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +306 0 0 +236 0 Detoured Total 8 0 8 30 0 217 0 1,325 53 120 1,022 3 67 Temporary Intersection Control Evaluation 7 TH 41 (Hazeltine Blvd) at Minnetonka Middle School West Quantitative Analysis of Alternatives Warrants Analysis A warrants analysis was performed for the traffic signal control alternatives as outlined in the August 2024 Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MnMUTCD). Analysis of signal warrants 1-3 was performed utilizing existing and anticipated detour volumes. Signal warrants 4-9 were investigated and determined to not be applicable to the subject intersection. Per the MnMUTCD, the 70 percent volume factor was applied because the posted speed limit of the major roadway exceeds the 40 MPH threshold for reducing minimum volume requirements. For the analysis, 50% of right-turning vehicles on the minor approaches were included as these turns are the primary traffic option for leaving Minnetonka Middle School West, impacting the through movements on the minor approaches. The lane geometry and approach speeds assumed for the warrants analysis are shown in Table 6. Table 6. Warrants Analysis Assumptions Approach Geometry Speed Limit Northbound TH41 Two or more approach lanes 45 mph Southbound TH 41 Two or more approach lanes 45 mph Eastbound Trouvaille Memory Care One approach lane 30 mph Westbound Minnetonka Middle School West One approach lane 30 mph Table 7 provides a summary of the warrants analysis results, while the detailed volume-based warrants analyses are included in Appendices C and D. Table 7. School in Session Warrants Analysis Summary MN MUTCD Warrant Hours Required Existing Volumes Detour Volumes Hours Met Warrant Met? Hours Met Warrant Met? Warrant 1A: Minimum Vehicular Volume 8 3 No 3 No Warrant 1B: Interruption of Continuous Traffic 8 4 No 4 No Warrant 1C: Combination of Warrants 8 3 No 3 No Warrant 2: Four-Hour Volume 4 4 Yes 4 Yes Warrant 3B: Peak Hour Volume 1 3 Yes 3 Yes Warrants 4-9 Not Applicable The results of the warrants analysis indicate that the intersection satisfies warrant 2 and 3B under existing and the anticipated detour volumes. Based on the results, a temporary traffic signal is warranted for the subject intersection. 68 Temporary Intersection Control Evaluation 8 TH 41 (Hazeltine Blvd) at Minnetonka Middle School West Operations Analysis A traffic operations analysis was conducted for the anticipated detour traffic conditions during the AM and PM peak hours. Each scenario was evaluated using Synchro/SimTraffic. The term Level-of-Service (LOS), as defined by the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), refers to an intersection’s capacity to handle traffic volumes. It is measured by the delay experienced by vehicles due to traffic control at the intersection. The effectiveness results are typically expressed as a letter grade (A -F), indicating the operational efficiency qualitatively. LOS A represents excellent operational conditions, while LOS F indicates very poor conditions. Although traffic simulation models calculate average vehicle delays differently from HCM procedures, the thresholds remain applicable. Significant delays and poor LOS can occur on individual approaches even if the overall intersection performs well, making approach LOS an important design criterion. In general, drivers are more tolerant of additional delay at traffic signals than at un-signalized intersections as shown by the higher thresholds for each LOS bracket. The LOS results are based on the average delay per vehicle, corresponding to the delay threshold values shown in Table 8. Table 8: Level of Service Criteria Level of Service Intersection Delay (seconds/vehicle) Signalized Intersections Un-Signalized Intersection A 0 - 10 0 - 10 B >10 - 20 >10 - 15 C >20 - 35 >15 - 25 D >35 - 55 >25 - 35 E >55 - 80 >35 - 50 F >80 >50 The operational analysis reviewed the AM and PM peak hour delay for three scenarios with the anticipated detoured traffic volumes: • Construction Condition – The existing lane configurations and control type (side-street stop control). • Temporary Traffic Signal – The existing lane configurations, but the control type is converted from a side- street stop to a temporary traffic signal. • Temporary Traffic Signal with Restriping – The existing lane configuration remains the same on the northbound, southbound, and eastbound approaches. The east leg is modified to convert one of the eastbound lanes exiting the intersection to a westbound approach lane. This conversion results in two westbound lanes approaching the intersection; a shared left-turn/through lane and a dedicated right-turn lane. 69 Temporary Intersection Control Evaluation 9 TH 41 (Hazeltine Blvd) at Minnetonka Middle School West During the analysis, it was observed that excessive delays are experienced by traffic exiting the school on the westbound approach of the subject intersection. For the purposes of this analysis, the results reported in Table 9 focus on the overall operations and the westbound approach operations. Detailed results from the analysis can be found in Appendix B. Table 9. Operation Analysis Results Scenario Analysis Tool AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Construction Condition SimTraffic 78 / >10 mins F / F 81 / > 15 mins F / F Temporary Traffic Signal SimTraffic 75 / > 2 mins E / F 76 / > 3 mins E / F Temporary Traffic Signal with Restriping SimTraffic 66 / 107 E / F 68 / 90 E / F Note: Overall results are followed by the westbound approach results. It should be noted that the through traffic on TH 41 is a free-flow movement under the construction conditions scenario, meaning that much of the delay reported at the intersection is experienced on the side-street approaches. A temporary traffic signal provides opportunity for the side-street traffic to access TH 41. Based on the results of this analysis, a temporary traffic signal is anticipated to significantly reduce the westbound approach delay and slightly reduce the overall delay at the subject intersection. The temporary traffic signal with restriping scenario provides additional capacity for the westbound approach, resulting in reduced westbound approach delay and overall intersection delay from the temporary traffic signal scenario. 70 Temporary Intersection Control Evaluation 10 TH 41 (Hazeltine Blvd) at Minnetonka Middle School West Conclusions Analysis Summary The following Temporary Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) conclusions and recommendations are provided for the TH 41 (Hazeltine Blvd) at Minnetonka Middle School West intersection in Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota: • Warrants Analysis The results of the warrants analysis indicate the intersection satisfies warrants 2 and 3B under existing and anticipated detouring volumes. Based on the results, a temporary traffic signal is warranted at the subject intersection. • Operations Analysis The results of the analysis indicate that the detouring traffic will cause excessive delays under the construction conditions scenario. The temporary traffic signal provides opportunity for the side -street traffic to access TH 41, resulting in reduced side-street delays, but increased delays for traffic on TH 41. The increase in delays for TH 41 traffic is more than offset by the reduction in delays on the side streets, and results in reduced overall intersection delays. The temporary traffic signal with restriping scenario results in additional reduction in delays from the temporary traffic signal scen ario. • Safety Analysis The total crash rate of 0.20 at the subject intersection indicates that the intersection is performing within expectations regarding total crash frequency. With no fatal (Type K) or serious injury (Type A) crashes reported at the intersection, the observed K/A rates are 0 .00 and indicates that the intersection is performing within expectation regarding fatal and serious injury crashes. Recommended Intersection Control From the results of the analysis, the temporary traffic signal is anticipated to satisfy the criteria cons idered in this evaluation. Based on the warrants analysis, a temporary traffic signal is warranted under existing traffic volumes and anticipated detouring traffic volumes. The temporary traffic signal results in a significant reduction in westbound approach delay and a slight reduction in overall intersection delay. If there is desire to convert one of the eastbound exiting lanes to a westbound approach lane on the east leg of the subject intersection, the temporary traffic signal with restriping scenario should be considered. Based on the results from this evaluation, this scenario is anticipated to result in an additional reduction in westbound approach delay and overall intersection delays. The recommended temporary traffic signal will be replaced with a permanent intersection control solution once the TH 5 construction is completed. The City of Chanhassen and MnDOT have programmed a roundabout i nstallation at the subject intersection, which is planned for construction in 2028. The roundabout has been designed and is funded; however, the construction cannot occur until 2028 due to the detouring traffic from the TH 5 construction. 71 Temporary Intersection Control Evaluation 11 TH 41 (Hazeltine Blvd) at Minnetonka Middle School West Appendix Appendix A: Existing Turn Movements Layered with School Turn Movements Appendix B: Operational Analysis Results Appendix C: Existing Volumes Signal Warrants Analysis Appendix D: Detour Volumes Signal Warrants Analysis 72 Temporary Intersection Control Evaluation TH 41 (Hazeltine Blvd) at Minnetonka Middle School West Appendix A: Existing Turn Movements Layered with School Turn Movements 73 Date Time U Turns Left Turns Straight Through Right Turns EB Crosswalk Crossings WB Crosswalk Crossings U Turns Left Turns Straight Through Right Turns NB Crosswalk Crossings SB Crosswalk Crossings U Turns Left Turns Straight Through Right Turns EB Crosswalk Crossings WB Crosswalk Crossings U Turns Left Turns Straight Through Right Turns NB Crosswalk Crossings SB Crosswalk Crossings 0:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 0 1 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 66 1 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 6:15 0 4 82 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 97 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30 0 1 123 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 158 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:45 0 6 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 139 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 0 1 126 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 216 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 0 8 142 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 229 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 0 10 160 1 0 0 0 1 0 9 0 1 0 0 212 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 0 6 234 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 2 0 2 163 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 0 0 197 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 163 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 8:15 0 0 205 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 186 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:30 0 42 198 0 0 0 0 5 0 36 0 0 0 0 220 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:45 0 77 213 2 0 0 0 3 0 103 1 2 0 0 226 58 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 9:00 0 58 193 2 0 0 0 10 0 98 1 0 0 0 225 72 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:15 0 9 176 2 0 0 0 6 1 36 0 0 0 1 158 3 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 9:30 0 0 156 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 171 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 9:45 0 0 139 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 171 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 10:00 0 6 144 1 0 0 0 3 0 13 1 0 0 2 143 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 10:15 0 13 153 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 152 6 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 10:30 0 5 142 3 0 0 0 6 0 16 0 0 0 2 140 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:45 0 4 129 1 0 0 0 2 0 3 2 1 0 1 148 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 0 5 142 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 1 0 0 1 156 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 1 11:15 1 2 170 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 3 0 2 181 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 11:30 0 5 151 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 179 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:45 0 11 149 0 0 0 0 3 0 6 1 0 0 1 174 6 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 12:00 0 1 168 0 0 0 0 7 0 11 4 0 0 0 202 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 12:15 0 7 163 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 206 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 12:30 0 4 173 2 0 0 0 3 0 7 2 2 0 1 183 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:45 0 3 151 2 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 1 166 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13:00 0 3 153 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 193 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 13:15 0 2 156 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 162 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13:30 0 1 172 5 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 1 160 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 13:45 0 2 154 4 0 0 0 2 0 5 1 0 0 1 177 3 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 14:00 0 7 172 3 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 1 0 2 194 0 0 0 0 6 0 4 0 0 14:15 0 2 162 1 0 0 0 1 0 8 1 1 0 1 203 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 14:30 0 1 178 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 196 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 14:45 0 2 151 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 220 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 15:00 0 0 163 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 206 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 15:15 0 0 164 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 221 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 15:30 0 37 171 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 1 0 0 235 16 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 15:45 0 43 202 2 0 0 0 6 0 46 0 1 0 0 217 20 45 0 0 2 0 5 0 0 16:00 0 22 199 1 0 0 0 3 0 69 0 0 0 0 280 9 17 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 16:15 0 18 214 0 0 0 0 21 0 88 2 0 0 0 287 8 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 16:30 0 0 221 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 282 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 16:45 0 0 211 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 283 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 17:00 0 5 188 0 0 0 0 2 0 5 0 0 0 2 334 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 17:15 0 13 182 0 0 0 0 3 0 7 3 0 0 2 266 3 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 17:30 0 6 198 0 0 0 0 1 0 9 2 0 0 1 236 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 17:45 0 1 182 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 223 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 18:00 0 1 149 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 2 0 1 197 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18:15 0 0 152 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 192 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 18:30 0 1 135 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 163 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 18:45 0 1 132 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 141 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 19:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound TOTAL 8/12/2025 74 Temporary Intersection Control Evaluation TH 41 (Hazeltine Blvd) at Minnetonka Middle School West Appendix B: Operational Analysis Results 75 SimTraffic Performance Report Construction Baseline -AM Peak 08/22/2025 Construction Condition AM SimTraffic Report Page 1 1: Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Delay (hr)0.0 33.7 0.6 1.0 35.3 Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 402.0 1.8 2.8 46.0 Total Delay (hr)0.3 52.2 1.6 4.9 58.9 Total Del/Veh (s)315.1 803.2 4.5 14.4 78.0 Total Network Performance Denied Delay (hr)35.3 Denied Del/Veh (s)46.0 Total Delay (hr)60.7 Total Del/Veh (s)79.8 76 Queuing and Blocking Report Construction Baseline -AM Peak 08/22/2025 Construction Condition AM SimTraffic Report Page 2 Intersection: 1: Movement EB WB NB SB SB Directions Served LTR LTR L L T Maximum Queue (ft)77 1641 16 285 563 Average Queue (ft)9 1201 1 96 64 95th Queue (ft)53 2212 7 245 502 Link Distance (ft)875 1626 1487 Upstream Blk Time (%)59 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)85 190 Storage Blk Time (%)11 Queuing Penalty (veh)123 Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 123 77 SimTraffic Performance Report Construction Temp Signal -AM Peak 08/22/2025 Temp Signal AM SimTraffic Report Page 1 1: Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Delay (hr)0.0 0.0 3.1 19.0 22.1 Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.3 9.0 56.3 28.8 Total Delay (hr)0.1 15.1 21.1 21.9 58.2 Total Del/Veh (s)71.8 177.1 60.6 64.2 75.0 Total Network Performance Denied Delay (hr)22.1 Denied Del/Veh (s)28.8 Total Delay (hr)62.4 Total Del/Veh (s)79.9 78 Queuing and Blocking Report Construction Temp Signal -AM Peak 08/22/2025 Temp Signal AM SimTraffic Report Page 2 Intersection: 1: Movement EB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served LTR LTR L T R L T R Maximum Queue (ft)60 1073 11 1577 290 320 1522 77 Average Queue (ft)3 465 1 854 120 221 587 3 95th Queue (ft)26 1039 7 1844 332 375 1540 50 Link Distance (ft)875 1626 1806 1487 Upstream Blk Time (%)7 12 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)85 90 190 210 Storage Blk Time (%)28 0 33 4 Queuing Penalty (veh)47 0 349 8 Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 404 79 SimTraffic Performance Report Construction Temp Signal Plus -AM Peak 08/22/2025 Temp Signal with Restriping AM SimTraffic Report Page 1 1: Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Delay (hr)0.0 0.0 2.3 19.5 21.9 Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.5 6.8 58.0 28.6 Total Delay (hr)0.2 9.1 19.5 22.1 51.0 Total Del/Veh (s)261.2 107.4 55.9 65.0 65.7 Total Network Performance Denied Delay (hr)21.9 Denied Del/Veh (s)28.6 Total Delay (hr)55.4 Total Del/Veh (s)70.9 80 Queuing and Blocking Report Construction Temp Signal Plus -AM Peak 08/22/2025 Temp Signal with Restriping AM SimTraffic Report Page 2 Intersection: 1: Movement EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served LTR LT R L T R L T R Maximum Queue (ft)64 274 776 12 1586 290 320 1510 70 Average Queue (ft)8 59 306 1 782 127 216 592 2 95th Queue (ft)56 223 714 9 1713 341 380 1538 48 Link Distance (ft)875 1624 1813 1477 Upstream Blk Time (%)5 13 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)250 85 90 190 210 Storage Blk Time (%)0 26 27 0 35 4 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 8 46 1 363 8 Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 426 81 SimTraffic Performance Report Construction Baseline -PM Peak 08/22/2025 Construction Condition PM SimTraffic Report Page 1 1: Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Delay (hr)0.0 35.6 0.8 0.6 37.0 Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 516.9 2.2 1.8 48.0 Total Delay (hr)2.4 53.2 1.9 3.5 61.0 Total Del/Veh (s)485.5 1132.6 5.0 10.9 80.7 Total Network Performance Denied Delay (hr)37.0 Denied Del/Veh (s)48.0 Total Delay (hr)63.1 Total Del/Veh (s)83.0 82 Queuing and Blocking Report Construction Baseline -PM Peak 08/22/2025 Construction Condition PM SimTraffic Report Page 2 Intersection: 1: Movement EB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served LTR LTR T R L T Maximum Queue (ft)187 1678 8 9 223 478 Average Queue (ft)58 1234 0 0 79 38 95th Queue (ft)181 2193 4 6 208 344 Link Distance (ft)873 1626 1806 1483 Upstream Blk Time (%)60 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)90 190 Storage Blk Time (%)7 1 Queuing Penalty (veh)78 1 Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 79 83 SimTraffic Performance Report Construction Temp Signal -PM Peak 08/22/2025 Temp Signal PM SimTraffic Report Page 1 1: Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Delay (hr)0.0 0.0 26.4 0.5 27.0 Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.3 68.9 1.7 35.0 Total Delay (hr)0.4 14.0 36.1 7.5 58.0 Total Del/Veh (s)81.4 199.9 96.7 23.5 75.7 Total Network Performance Denied Delay (hr)27.0 Denied Del/Veh (s)35.0 Total Delay (hr)63.1 Total Del/Veh (s)81.7 84 Queuing and Blocking Report Construction Temp Signal -PM Peak 08/22/2025 Temp Signal PM SimTraffic Report Page 2 Intersection: 1: Movement EB WB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served LTR LTR T R L T R Maximum Queue (ft)72 1066 1853 290 289 668 6 Average Queue (ft)15 435 1398 51 142 191 0 95th Queue (ft)61 996 2406 213 290 480 4 Link Distance (ft)873 1626 1806 1483 Upstream Blk Time (%)24 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)90 190 210 Storage Blk Time (%)27 17 3 Queuing Penalty (veh)14 177 4 Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 196 85 SimTraffic Performance Report Construction Temp Signal Plus -PM Peak 08/22/2025 Temp Signal with Restriping PM SimTraffic Report Page 1 1: Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Delay (hr)0.0 0.0 24.9 0.6 25.5 Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.6 64.8 2.0 33.1 Total Delay (hr)1.3 6.3 35.6 9.0 52.2 Total Del/Veh (s)253.8 89.8 94.8 28.4 67.9 Total Network Performance Denied Delay (hr)25.5 Denied Del/Veh (s)33.1 Total Delay (hr)57.3 Total Del/Veh (s)74.0 86 Queuing and Blocking Report Construction Temp Signal Plus -PM Peak 08/22/2025 Temp Signal with Restriping PM SimTraffic Report Page 2 Intersection: 1: Movement EB WB WB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served LTR LT R T R L T R Maximum Queue (ft)106 274 596 1860 290 284 812 4 Average Queue (ft)34 41 227 1382 66 143 247 0 95th Queue (ft)142 161 544 2420 251 296 794 3 Link Distance (ft)873 1624 1813 1475 Upstream Blk Time (%)22 1 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)250 90 190 210 Storage Blk Time (%)0 12 26 17 2 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 7 14 184 3 Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 208 87 Temporary Intersection Control Evaluation TH 41 (Hazeltine Blvd) at Minnetonka Middle School West Appendix C: Existing Volumes Signal Warrants Analysis 88 WARRANTS ANALYSIS Existing Year 2025 TH 41 (Hazeltine Blvd) at Minnetonka Middle School West TH 5 Improvments City of Chanhassen, Carver County Location : City of Chanhassen, Carver County Speed (mph)Lanes Date: 8/21/2025 45 1 Major Approach 1: Alex Armbrustmacher 45 1 Major Approach 3: Population Less than 10,000:No 30 1 Minor Approach 2: Seventy Percent Factor Used:Yes 30 1 Minor Approach 4: Major Major Total Minor Minor Largest Hour Approach 1 Approach 3 1 + 3 350 525 Approach 2 Approach 4 Minor App.105 53 Condition A Condition B A B 210 140 6 - 7 AM 462 402 864 X X 4 5 5 X 7 - 8 AM 825 692 1517 X X 0 17 17 X 8 - 9 AM 884 936 1820 X X 3 128 128 X X X X X X X 9 - 10 AM 803 740 1543 X X 5 131 131 X X X X X X X 10 - 11 AM 600 602 1202 X X 3 41 41 X 11 - 12 AM 701 635 1336 X X 9 18 18 X 12 - 1 PM 765 676 1441 X X 4 36 36 X 1 - 2 PM 698 654 1352 X X 13 18 18 X 2 - 3 PM 819 681 1500 X X 15 15 15 X 3 - 4 PM 916 784 1700 X X 14 65 65 X X X X 4 - 5 PM 1149 888 2037 X X 8 180 180 X X X X X X X X 5 - 6 PM 1073 775 1848 X X 7 30 30 X 6 - 7 PM 699 572 1271 X X 4 3 4 X 7 - 8 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 - 9 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 - 10 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 - 11 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 3 4 MWSA (C):Multiway Stop Applications Condition C Warrant 1A:Minimum Vehicular Volume Warrant 1B:Interruption of Continuous Traffic Warrant 1C:Combination of Warrants Warrant 2:Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant 3B:Peak HourWarrant SummaryWarrant and Description 4 3 3 Not Met 4 8Warrants Analysis: Warrants 1A, 1B and 1CWarrant Met Combination 3 Hours Met 1Background InformationApproach Northbound TH 41 (Hazeltine Blvd) Southbound TH 41 (Hazeltine Blvd) Eastbound Trouvaille Memorary Care Westbound Minnetonka Middle School West Analysis Prepared By: Met - Warrant 3B Satisfied 1 Met/Not Met Warrant Met Met Same Hours 8 Not Met Hours Required MWSA (C) 8 Not Met Met - Warrant 2 Satisfied Not Met 4 1 8 89 WARRANTS ANALYSIS Existing Year 2025 TH 41 (Hazeltine Blvd) at Minnetonka Middle School West TH 5 Improvments City of Chanhassen, Carver County Number of Hours Satisfying Requirements: Notes:1. 80 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 60 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. 2. INTERSECTION IS EITHER (1) WITHIN A COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR (2) HAS SPEEDS ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET.Warrants Analysis: Warrant 24 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100MINOR STREET HIGH VOLUME APPROACH -- VPH MAJOR STREET -- TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES -- VPH WARRANT 2 - FOUR-HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME 90 WARRANTS ANALYSIS Existing Year 2025 TH 41 (Hazeltine Blvd) at Minnetonka Middle School West TH 5 Improvments City of Chanhassen, Carver County Number of Hours Satisfying Requirements: Notes:1. 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. 2. INTERSECTION IS EITHER (1) WITHIN A COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR (2) HAS SPEEDS ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET. 3Warrants Analysis: Warrant 30 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100MINOR STREET HIGH VOLUME APPROACH -- VPH MAJOR STREET -- TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES -- VPH WARRANT 3 - PEAK HOUR 91 Temporary Intersection Control Evaluation TH 41 (Hazeltine Blvd) at Minnetonka Middle School West Appendix D: Detour Volumes Signal Warrants Analysis 92 WARRANTS ANALYSIS Existing Year 2025 TH 41 (Hazeltine Blvd) at Minnetonka Middle School West TH 5 Improvments City of Chanhassen, Carver County Location : City of Chanhassen, Carver County Speed (mph)Lanes Date: 8/21/2025 45 1 Major Approach 1: Alex Armbrustmacher 45 1 Major Approach 3: Population Less than 10,000:No 30 1 Minor Approach 2: Seventy Percent Factor Used:Yes 30 1 Minor Approach 4: Major Major Total Minor Minor Largest Hour Approach 1 Approach 3 1 + 3 350 525 Approach 2 Approach 4 Minor App.105 53 Condition A Condition B A B 210 140 6 - 7 AM 600 519 1119 X X 4 5 5 X 7 - 8 AM 1071 891 1962 X X 0 17 17 X 8 - 9 AM 1123 1180 2303 X X 3 128 128 X X X X X X X 9 - 10 AM 1021 939 1960 X X 5 131 131 X X X X X X X 10 - 11 AM 775 772 1547 X X 3 41 41 X 11 - 12 AM 908 819 1727 X X 9 18 18 X 12 - 1 PM 992 873 1865 X X 4 36 36 X 1 - 2 PM 906 845 1751 X X 13 18 18 X 2 - 3 PM 1063 880 1943 X X 15 15 15 X 3 - 4 PM 1180 994 2174 X X 14 65 65 X X X X 4 - 5 PM 1489 1142 2631 X X 8 180 180 X X X X X X X X 5 - 6 PM 1391 1000 2391 X X 7 30 30 X 6 - 7 PM 907 742 1649 X X 4 3 4 X 7 - 8 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 - 9 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 - 10 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 - 11 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 3 4 MWSA (C):Multiway Stop Applications Condition C Warrant 1A:Minimum Vehicular Volume Warrant 1B:Interruption of Continuous Traffic Warrant 1C:Combination of Warrants Warrant 2:Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant 3B:Peak HourWarrant SummaryWarrant and Description 4 3 3 Not Met 4 8Warrants Analysis: Warrants 1A, 1B and 1CWarrant Met Combination 3 Hours Met 1Background InformationApproach Northbound TH 41 (Hazeltine Blvd) Southbound TH 41 (Hazeltine Blvd) Eastbound Trouvaille Memorary Care Westbound Minnetonka Middle School West Analysis Prepared By: Met - Warrant 3B Satisfied 1 Met/Not Met Warrant Met Met Same Hours 8 Not Met Hours Required MWSA (C) 8 Not Met Met - Warrant 2 Satisfied Not Met 4 1 8 93 WARRANTS ANALYSIS Existing Year 2025 TH 41 (Hazeltine Blvd) at Minnetonka Middle School West TH 5 Improvments City of Chanhassen, Carver County Number of Hours Satisfying Requirements: Notes:1. 80 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 60 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. 2. INTERSECTION IS EITHER (1) WITHIN A COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR (2) HAS SPEEDS ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET.Warrants Analysis: Warrant 24 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100MINOR STREET HIGH VOLUME APPROACH -- VPH MAJOR STREET -- TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES -- VPH WARRANT 2 - FOUR-HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME 94 WARRANTS ANALYSIS Existing Year 2025 TH 41 (Hazeltine Blvd) at Minnetonka Middle School West TH 5 Improvments City of Chanhassen, Carver County Number of Hours Satisfying Requirements: Notes:1. 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. 2. INTERSECTION IS EITHER (1) WITHIN A COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR (2) HAS SPEEDS ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET. 3Warrants Analysis: Warrant 30 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100MINOR STREET HIGH VOLUME APPROACH -- VPH MAJOR STREET -- TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES -- VPH WARRANT 3 - PEAK HOUR 95 Metropolitan District Waters Edge Building 1500 County Road B2 West Roseville, MN 55113 An equal opportunity employer MnDOT Metropolitan District, Waters Edge Building, 1500 County Road B2 West, Roseville, MN 55113 August 8, 2025 Rachael Arsenault Associate Planner City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 SUBJECT: MnDOT Review # S25-028 Minnewashta Apartments SW Quad MN 41/Hazeltine Blvd & Donahue Drive Chanhassen, Carver County Dear Ms. Arsenault: Thank you for the opportunity to review the plans for the Minnewashta Apartments. MnDOT has reviewed the documents and has the following comments: Surveys: The site plan should be updated. The dimensions should be added, It appears that the site plan is within Lot 2, block 1, Beehive Home 2nd Addition-but without dimensions is it hard to check against MnDOT right-of-way. Questions regarding these comments should be directed to Jordan Olson, MnDOT Surveys, at jordan.olson@state.mn.us or telephone 651-297-1168. Pedestrian/Bicycle: The current plans don’t appear to show any pedestrian access.MnDOT highly encourages the developer to consider how pedestrians can access the apartments from the existing trails along Hazeltine Blvd. For questions regarding these comments, contact Tristan Trejo, Metro Multimodal, at tristan.trejo@state.mn.us. Water Resources: The increase in water will require a drainage permit. Any projects adjacent to MnDOT Right-of- Way or connecting to MnDOT drainage facilities will require a MnDOT drainage permit to ensure that current drainage rates to MnDOT right -of-way will not be increased. The drainage permit 96 MnDOT Metropolitan District, Waters Edge Building, 1500 County Road B2 West, Roseville, MN 55113 application, including the information below, should be submitted online to: https://dotapp7.dot.state.mn.us/OLPA/. The following information must be submitted with the drainage permit application: 1) A grading plan showing existing and proposed contours. 2) Drainage area maps for the proposed project showing existing and proposed drainage areas. Any off-site areas that drain to the project area should also be included in the drainage area maps. The direction of flow for each drainage area must be indicated by arrows. 3) Drainage computations for pre and post construction conditions during the 2, 10, and 100 year rain events. 4) Time of concentration calculations. 5) An electronic copy of any computer modeling used for the drainage computations. 6) See also the attached Drainage Permits Checklist for more information. Once a drainage permit application is submitted, a thorough review will be completed and additional information may be requested. Please direct questions concerning drainage issues to Jason Swenson, MnDOT Metro Water Resources at (651-234-7539) or Jason.Swenson@state.mn.us. Permits: As mentioned above a drainage permit may be required. Any other use of, or work within or affecting, MnDOT right of way will require a permit. Permits can be applied for at this site: https://olpa.dot.state.mn.us/OLPA/. Please upload a copy of this letter when applying for any permits. Please direct questions regarding permit requirements to Buck Craig of MnDOT’s Metro Permits Section at 651-775-0405 or Buck.Craig@state.mn.us. Review Submittal Options MnDOT’s goal is to complete reviews within 30 calendar days. Review materials received electronically can be processed more rapidly. Do not submit files via a cloud service or SharePoint link. In order of preference, review materials may be submitted as: 1. Email documents and plans to metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us. Attachments may not exceed 20 MB (megabytes) per email. Documents can be zipped as well. If multiple emails are necessary, number each email. 2. Files over 20 MB can also be uploaded to MnDOT’s Web Transfer Client site: https://mft.dot.state.mn.us. Contact metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us, and staff will create a shared folder in which files can be uploaded. Please send an accompanying email with a narrative for the development. 97 MnDOT Metropolitan District, Waters Edge Building, 1500 County Road B2 West, Roseville, MN 55113 If you have any questions concerning this review, please contact me at (651) 234 -7797 or Cameron.muhic@state.mn.us. Sincerely, Cameron Muhic Principal Planner Copy sent via E-Mail: Buck Craig, Permits Mohammad Dehdashti, Design Jason Swenson, Water Resources Almin Ramic, Traffic Bryant Ficek, Area Manager Diane Langenbach, Area Engineer Mohamoud Mire, South Area Support Michael Kowski, Maintenance Tristan Trejo, Multimodal Amrish Patel, Transit Douglas Nelson, Right-of-Way Jordan Olson, Surveys Joe Widing, Metropolitan Council 98 From: To:DL Projects Public Comments Cc:Arsenault, Rachel Subject:Request to Continue Minnewashta Apartments Hearing (Case 25-11) Date:Tuesday, September 16, 2025 12:51:54 PM Dear Planning Commission, I respectfully request that the September 16 public hearing for the Minnewashta Apartments (Case 25-11) be continued to a later date. When the August 12 hearing was postponed, the City’s notice stated that additional traffic data would be collected and interim traffic solutions identified with MnDOT prior to the rescheduled meeting. To date, no updated traffic study, new analysis, or interim plan has been made available to the public in the project file. Holding the hearing without this information leaves residents and the Commission unable to meaningfully review or comment on the project’s most critical safety issue: school-hour traffic at Hazeltine Boulevard and the Middle School entrance. Respectfully, I ask that the Commission delay action until: The promised additional traffic data is collected and posted, Interim traffic solutions are presented for public review, and Residents are given adequate time to review these materials before a new hearing. Thank you for considering this request to ensure that the review process is transparent and complete. Sincerely, Aleksey Kerbel 99 From: To:DL Projects Public Comments Subject:Proposed Apartments across from MMW Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2025 4:11:50 PM I am not in favor of the proposed apartment project at 6440 Hazeltine Blvd. As a parent of several MMW students, it is already a traffic nightmare to get in and out of MMW all daytime hours. Thank you! Kiirsten Rakers Get Outlook for iOS 100 From: To:DL Projects Public Comments Subject:Public Comment – Minnewashta Apartments 6440 Hazeltine Blvd Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2025 10:37:46 AM Dear Planning Commission Members, I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed Minnewashta Apartments project at 6440 Hazeltine Blvd (Hwy 41), directly next to Minnetonka Middle School West. My primary concern is that a high-turnover, 44-unit apartment complex in this location will bring residents who are far less likely to be long-term, vested members of our community. Our neighborhood is built on relationships, shared investment in schools, parks, and safety, and the stability of property ownership. This project, as proposed, undermines that stability. Aesthetics and neighborhood fit are also a major issue. Placing a large, multi-story rental complex along a prominent stretch of Hwy 41 so close to the school will significantly alter the visual character of the area. It will also set a precedent for more high-density projects on this corridor. The current RSF zoning exists for a reason, and this rezoning to R-8 high-density is not compatible with the surrounding single-family homes, the school, and the senior care facility. Beyond these primary concerns, there are procedural and planning gaps that should prevent approval at this stage: 1. Incomplete and inaccessible public documents – Several pre-application materials have been unavailable online due to “technical errors” since June 11. Minnesota law requires meaningful public access before a hearing. This hearing should be continued until all files are posted and the public has had a full review period. 2. Traffic, parking, and access conflicts – The only access point for the project is directly opposite the middle school driveway at a new roundabout. The traffic memo provided is not a full impact study and fails to assess school drop-off and pick-up congestion, pedestrian safety, and cumulative impacts from current road work detours. The middle school already experiences major congestion at dismissal, with vehicles often lined up along Chaska Road. While this project may not directly increase congestion on Chaska Road itself, it will add significant traffic into the complex’s entrance during peak school times. With only 88 garage stalls for 44 units and limited visitor parking, overflow is likely to 101 spill into nearby lots, including the memory care facility. This increases the potential for conflict between school traffic and apartment traffic at the roundabout and shared approach. 3. Wetland and environmental review – The application acknowledges wetlands on the site, yet no current delineation or functional assessment is provided. The existing wetland decision is from 2017 and is outdated for 2025 permitting. A new delineation and agency concurrence are required before approval. 4. Stormwater and groundwater risks – The stormwater plan relies heavily on a single surface basin with unclear freeboard and discharge point compliance. Geotechnical borings indicate possible groundwater interaction and unstable soils, yet the current geotechnical report is incomplete and lacks seasonal data. Given the lack of complete information, the incompatibility with existing neighborhood character, and the long-term risk to community cohesion, I urge the Planning Commission to deny the rezoning request or at minimum continue the hearing until: All application materials are accessible for public review for the required notice period. A full, independent traffic study is conducted during school-year peak hours. A current wetland delineation, environmental review, and updated geotechnical report are submitted and reviewed. A detailed parking and overflow management plan is provided. Approving a high-density rental complex at this sensitive location without resolving these issues would be premature and contrary to the long-term interests of Chanhassen residents. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Luke Steck 6239 Chaska Rd 102 From: To:DL Projects Public Comments Subject:Minnewashta apartments Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2025 9:08:37 AM Good morning, I’m writing about the proposed Minnewashta Apartment complex across from MMW. This is already a ridiculously congested intersection and the increased traffic will only make it worse and more dangerous. As a Chanhassen resident, this is a very unwelcome development in our community. Regardless of what happens, I hope you’ll also consider replacing the cross walk lights near MMW to be something significantly more noticeable. Those tiny lights that are there now rarely get drivers’ attention early enough- I’ve seen many close calls with e-bikers, bikers walkers trying to cross there. Thanks for your consideration, Melanie Winters Asset 23.png 103 From: To:von Oven, Mark; Kimber, Josh; McDonald, Jerry; Schubert, Haley; Ryan, Elise; DL City Council; DL Projects Public Comments Subject:Proposed 44 unit bldg on HWY 41! Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2025 7:58:07 AM Hello! I am writing as a resident Washta Bay Road on Highway seven just a half mile west of Highway 41. I have major concerns about the proposed four units building going in off of Highway 41 directly across from Minnetonka middle school West. As a mom of four children, three of them which will be in middle school this year this is a horrible idea to build another structure on that 2 lane road that's already traffic ridden. The construction to put in new piping at the end of the school year last year caused major difficulties getting in and out of the school parking lot, it was extremely dangerous for the children to be walking to school as many of them do from surrounding neighborhoods. What usually is approximately a 10 minute round-trip for me to drive them from home drop them at school and get back home was sometimes taking 35 minutes and multiple days at the end of the school year. We were late due to the amount of traffic we faced, trying to turn onto 41 and then off of 41 into the middle school parking lot With a large building being built. I can only imagine there would be many more traffic challenges during the building process. Beyond that on a normal day, driving to middle school or walking to middle school traffic during your typical rush- hour period is increasingly getting worse as 41 is very congested. We cannot handle the traffic of other vehicles coming in and out of a potential shared lot with the memory care facility. School takes up a solid nine months out of the year, so this isn't a small issue for a small bit of time each year. Furthermore, there are plans to shut down a decent portion of Highway five and a lot of that traffic will be pushed on the highway 41 to then go west on Highway seven. This summer there was a substantial accident just outside of the Arboretum on Highway five closing it down during rush-hour in the evening. The time it took me from Highway five and 41 to get down to Highway seven and 41 was 33 minutes, 33 minutes for that short stretch of road. We simply cannot handle the traffic on 41 and on highway seven in the first place as is there's no way those roads and the people around it want to deal with that kind of traffic on a daily basis during the construction process and added traffic, it will bring after. For multiple reasons, I am highly opposed to this building going up. Something needs to be done about these roadways. We were told there would be a roundabout and are now told there won't be because the city doesn't have the budget for it. Trying to add this building so that some investor will give you the money to build that roundabout null and voids the roundabout with the additional traffic. Jessica Dronen 2851 Washta Bay Rd., Excelsior 55331 Sent from my iPhone 104 From: To:DL Projects Public Comments Subject:Public Comment – Minnewashta Apartments 6440 Hazeltine Blvd Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2025 7:46:23 AM Dear Planning Commission Members, I am writing to formally request that no approvals for the proposed Minnewashta Apartments at 6440 Hazeltine Blvd move forward until critical concerns are addressed. This project is directly across from Minnetonka Middle School West and next to a Memory Care facility. The intersection is already congested during school drop-off and pick-up. Adding a 44-unit apartment building with only 88 parking stalls will inevitably lead to overflow parking on nearby private lots and along Hazeltine Blvd, creating safety risks for students and residents. A full independent traffic study that accounts for current detours and real school-year traffic patterns must be completed and made public. The site also contains a wetland. As the stormwater report confirms, altering this wetland will permanently remove its flood control, water quality, and habitat benefits. Once a wetland is disturbed, these protections cannot be restored. The public deserves a transparent and thorough environmental review, not just a developer-funded report. Some pre-application city documents tied to this project, specifically 250522 SD and 25006 Headwaters Chanhassen Apartments 250204 (3), have been posted since June 11 but remain inaccessible online due to a “technical error.” These are supposed to be public records, yet residents have not had the required time to review them. I urge the Planning Commission to delay any approvals until: 1. All project documents are made accessible and residents have adequate time to review them. 2. A traffic study by an independent firm is completed and considers actual school-year traffic. 3. A full environmental review is conducted, with public input, on the wetland impacts and stormwater plan. Given the number of unresolved issues, I do not understand how this proposal has progressed to this stage. I strongly urge the Commission to require these steps before any further action. 105 Sincerely, Aleksey Kerbel, Chanhassen, MN 106 From: To:DL Projects Public Comments Subject:Apartment Complex Date:Monday, August 11, 2025 8:56:02 PM Hello, I won’t be able to attend but I am not in favor of the apartment complex near the middle school. I’m not in favor of the project because it will bring high-density traffic, strain local infrastructure, and change the small-town character of the community. Kind regards, Martim Quayat Sent from my iPhone 107 From: To:DL Projects Public Comments Subject:Minnewashta Apartments Date:Thursday, August 7, 2025 7:25:08 PM I won't be able to attend the public hearing but would like to submit a comment: As someone who lives in Chanhassen near Hwy 41, it's plain to see that this road has become overloaded to the point of being useless and at times dangerous. Any further development along this road- especially an apartment complex- would be irresponsible without first fixing the current traffic situation. -Charlie Marshik 108 From: To:DL Projects Public Comments Subject:NO TO PROPOSAL TO BUILD APARTMENTS ON HWY 41!!!!! Date:Wednesday, August 6, 2025 12:14:52 PM I just saw the sign on Hwy 41 across from the Middle School concerning the proposed building of an apartment complex. I AM TOTALLY AGAINST THIS IDEA!!!! WHO THINKS ADDING MORE TRAFFIC TO AN ALREADY DANGEROUS ROAD WITH CARS TURNING IN TO THE SCHOOL AND KIDS WALKING ACROSS THE HIGHWAY IS A GOOD IDEA????? THIS IS A TERRIBLE IDEA. My daughter's family lives in the cul-du-sac behind that property and adding all of these units will make the neighborhood much busier and unsafe for the young kids. Is this low-income housing? If so, I am completely dumbfounded by this. I never received information on the meetings regarding this project but have added August 12 to my calendar. I will speak out AGAINST THIS INSANE IDEA. Whoever is in charge of this project needs to respond to my concerns and explain the ridiculous proposal. Keep this land OPEN!!!!! Paula Evanich 109 From: Katie Fisher < Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2025 8:18:57 AM To: von Oven, Mark <mvonoven@chanhassenmn.gov>; Kimber, Josh <jkimber@chanhassenmn.gov>; Ryan, Elise <eryan@chanhassenmn.gov>; McDonald, Jerry <jmcdonald@chanhassenmn.gov>; Schubert, Haley <hschubert@chanhassenmn.gov> Subject: Opposition to Proposed Apartment Building Adjacent to My Home Dear City of Chanhassen, I hope you're doing well. I'm writing to formally express my opposition to the proposed construction of an apartment building next to my home at 6461 Oriole Ave. While I understand the need for responsible development, I have deep concerns about the potential impact this project wi ll have on our neighborhood and local environment. This type of development raises a number of serious issues, including: • Environmental impact – The construction and long-term operation of a large apartment building could disrupt local ecosystems, reduce green space, and increase pollution and runoff in the area. • Wildlife disruption – The area around my home is home to various species of birds and small wildlife. Increased construction and human activity may displace or endanger these animals. • School crowding – Our local schools are already operating near or at capacity. A large influx of new residents could place additional strain on the school system, affecting class sizes and resource availability. • Increased taxes – New developments often lead to rising property taxes and infrastructure costs, which would unfairly burden current residents. • Quality of life – The increase in traffic, noise, and population density would significantly alter the quiet, residential character of our neighborhood and reduce privacy for nearby homeowners. For all these reasons, I respectfully ask that this project be reconsidered or relocated to a more suitable area. I also ask to be kept informed of any public hearings or meetings regarding this development so I may participate and make my voice heard. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Kathrine Fisher 6461 Oriole Ave, Excelsior, MN 55331 -- Katie Fisher KaJo Inscriptions 110 From: To:DL Projects Public Comments; von Oven, Mark; Kimber, Josh; McDonald, Jerry; Schubert, Haley; Ryan, Elise Subject:Fw: Opposition to Proposed 44-Unit Apartment Development Near School and Residential Area at 6440 Hazeltine Boulevard Date:Tuesday, August 5, 2025 1:17:54 PM Members of the City Council; With the intent to reduce the amount of input to read through, I wanted to share that I concur with all of the concerns/details in the email below. We have resided at this address (2444 W 64th Street) for 22 years and are neighbors of the sender below , We also have concerns about the impact this project will have on our neighborhood and local environment if implemented. The proposed development raises serious concerns as described in the below email. Local ecosystems will be impacted; green space will be reduced and this proposed development would increase environmental pollution and runoff. Displacement and endangerment of wildlife will also be impacted due to increased human presence, consumption & crowding. Local schools are already strained and this will further impact resources and class sizes. Property taxes and infrastructure costs would burden current residents. Traffic, which is already insanely busy and reckless, and the road infrastructure overwhelmed as it is, the proposed location of this development would highly impact the school zone which with vehicle and foot traffic putting our children at (greater) risk when leaving the school grounds. We respectfully request consideration of a more suitable area for the proposed development. Kelly & Wayne Peterson ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Carrie Miller <> Date: Tue, Aug 5, 2025, 10:48 Subject: Opposition to Proposed 44-Unit Apartment Development Near School and Residential Area at 6440 Hazeltine Boulevard To: <projectcomments@chanhassenmn.gov>, <mvonoven@chanhassenmn.gov>, <jkimber@chanhassenmn.gov>, <jmcdonald@chanhassenmn.gov>, <hschubert@chanhassenmn.gov>, <eryan@chanhassenmn.gov> To the Honorable Members of the City Council: I am writing as a concerned resident of 2445 W 64th St, regarding the proposed construction 111 of a 44-unit apartment building near Minnetonka Middle School West, directly adjacent to a heavily trafficked and already dangerous intersection. I respectfully urge you to reconsider or halt this development for the following reasons: 1. Traffic Congestion and Safety Risks The proposed site is located near an intersection that is already known to be busy and hazardous, especially during school drop-off and pick-up hours. The addition of potentially 88 or more vehicles (assuming two per unit) will drastically increase congestion. This poses a serious risk to children walking or biking to school, as well as to school buses and local traffic navigating tight or poorly controlled turns. Traffic at this intersection already exceeds safe levels during peak hours. Emergency vehicle access could also be impeded, compromising public safety. 2. Incompatibility with Rural and Residential Character The proposed development sits directly beside a quiet, single-family residential neighborhood and is entirely out of scale with the area’s rural charm and low-density character. The introduction of high-density housing: Undermines the planning integrity of this neighborhood. Sets a precedent for further high-density development in areas that are not zoned or prepared for it. Disrupts the peaceful quality of life that current residents have invested in and expect to maintain. 3. Environmental and Infrastructure Strain High-density developments place increased strain on local infrastructure, including: Water, sewage, and stormwater management systems, which may not be adequately equipped to support such an influx. Public services, such as waste collection, snow removal, and utility maintenance, which will face new burdens without corresponding funding or expansion. 4. School Capacity and Child Safety Concerns An influx of new residents will likely increase enrollment pressure on nearby schools, which are already operating at capacity. Additionally: Increased vehicle traffic during school hours heightens the risk of accidents. Limited crosswalks, signage, and patrols near the school will not suffice to protect the larger 112 number of children expected in the area. 5. Lack of Community Input Many residents feel this project has moved forward without adequate community engagement or transparency. Large-scale changes to a neighborhood should not be made without thoroughly considering and addressing local voices. We ask that a full traffic impact study, environmental impact assessment, and community hearing be conducted before any approval is granted. Conclusion We are not against responsible development. However, this particular project is inappropriate for the location proposed and would fundamentally alter the safety, character, and livability of our community. We urge the council to: Deny or pause approval of this project. Reevaluate zoning in this area. Require further studies and community consultation. Thank you for your time and dedication to our community. We trust that you will prioritize the safety, integrity, and well-being of the families who live here. Sincerely, Justin and Carrie Miller 2445 W 64th St, Excelsior, MN 55331 On behalf of concerned residents of the local neighborhood near W 64th St and Oriole Ave 113 114 without nearby apartment buildings. That decision was based on past experience. We previously lived in a neighborhood that welcomed apartment complexes with high rent—and I watched that area change dramatically. It became unsafe for kids to play outside. I found children from the apartments having sex in my yard while waiting for the school bus. I witnessed drug use, physical fights, and a sharp rise in theft and car break-ins. My own son was threatened with violence while playing in our front yard. This isn’t speculation, it’s reality. Data clearly shows that higher density and renter-occupied housing is associated with increased rates of property and violent crime. What are the benefits of this apartment complex to our community—especially to our students? There is a well-documented difference between owner-occupied and renter-occupied neighborhoods. Renter-heavy areas tend to have higher turnover, weaker community ties, and less resident investment. This undermines the kind of supervision and neighborhood stability that’s essential for our children’s development. Studies show: Renters are less likely to attend PTA meetings, vote in local elections, or engage in long- term community improvement efforts. Children in owner-occupied homes have higher test scores, better attendance, fewer behavioral problems, and lower dropout and teen birth rates. Owner-occupied neighborhoods tend to have stronger social cohesion, leading to lower crime and better youth behavior outcomes. These aren’t just studies—they reflect the real-world consequences of neighborhood design on families, schools, and child well-being. I have some direct questions that deserve answers: 1. Would you approve an apartment complex in your own backyard? 2. Would you feel comfortable with increased traffic where your own children walk to and from school? 3. What specific actions are you taking to address the additional traffic and safety issues this project will create? This area already experiences heavy traffic during school drop-off and pickup, as well as after- school sports and evening/weekend events. Adding this dense residential complex will only make an already dangerous situation worse for pedestrians and student drivers. I’m extremely disappointed that this project is even being considered and I ask that you revisit this decision with full transparency and a genuine commitment to the long-term safety and character of our community. Please use this land for something that will enhance and not harm our neighborhood. I strongly urge you to say no to renter-occupied apartments and reconsider the location of this building, especially given the safety risks associated with high-turnover, renter-dominated housing near a middle school. Thank you for your time and consideration. 115 Sincerely, Jessica Johnson 2742 Piper Ridge Ln Parent of a student at MMW 116 From: Hokkanen, Laurie <lhokkanen@chanhassenmn.gov> Sent: Monday, August 4, 2025 7:57 AM To: Maass, Eric <emaass@chanhassenmn.gov>; Arsenault, Rachel <rarsenault@chanhassenmn.gov> Subject: Fwd: Planning Commission Meeting- Aug 12th- Minnewashta Apartments Begin forwarded message: From: Keri Burton Date: August 4, 2025 at 7:40:14 AM CDT To: "von Oven, Mark" <mvonoven@chanhassenmn.gov>, "Kimber, Josh" <jkimber@chanhassenmn.gov>, "McDonald, Jerry" <jmcdonald@chanhassenmn.gov>, "Schubert, Haley" <hschubert@chanhassenmn.gov>, "Ryan, Elise" <eryan@chanhassenmn.gov>, DL City Council <Council@chanhassenmn.gov> Subject: Re: Planning Commission Meeting- Aug 12th- Minnewashta Apartments Hello Mayor Ryan and Members of the Chanhassen City Council, I wanted to reach out regarding concerns about recently hearing of the possibility of a 44 unit apartment building going in across from MMW. I live in Chanhassen, in Minnewashta Manor, behind North Coop. 117 As a fellow business owner, I am all for businesses and know of the need we have for housing, but as a neighbor to the area, and mom to kids at MMW, I have the following concerns: 1) It is already well known, and well documented, that traffic is a problem in and around MMW, how would adding more traffic to the area help the students to be safer? 2) In an email update from Mayor Ryan on May 23rd it was communicated that the roundabout bid came in higher than expected and there was a funding gap. In the "Neighborhood Open House" hosted by Headwaters Development on July 30th (barely 2 months later) and just 3 days ago, it was communicated to neighbors present that the roundabout would be going in, but not until 2028, and that the roundabout would make the traffic issue better for students. My main question to Headwaters Development- If in fact the roundabout had now been approved, you are going off of subjective study and data that the roundabout would help. Plans can not account for all variables. If you are so confident it will help, build your apartment AFTER the roundabout goes in because the safety of students is at stake. It was communicated to parents that the new parking lot at MMW was going to significantly improve traffic and what, $1.5 million later, how much has been improved? You have a tough job of keeping students safe at MMW with the traffic as it already is....but help me to understand how this apartment, whether the roundabout goes in or not, would help the students to be safer? 3) As a mentioned above, I am all for business! I love growth and I know the need for housing. At that intersection we have 2 groups of vulnerable people, a memory care center and a school with children who walk that road all the time. How will adding an apartment building to this site help both of these groups of people be safer than they already are with the horrible traffic patterns? 4) Headwaters Development stated that based on their research the busy traffic patterns of AM drop off at MMW and afternoon pick up of MMW will not be affected by their building, because the traffic patterns of their residents 118 are different than the school times. Have you ever tried to pick up a student in the spring after track and tennis practice is done? Or tried to get out of the parking lot after Open House, or a choir concert, or some other MMW event where the lot is full? Or when the lot is full due to soccer events and tournaments on the weekends? I appreciate data and research, but it's just that, data on a paper there is no way to feel confident the data is correct and will truly be accurate in keeping students safer? 5) Finally, Headwaters Development, mentioned all the road construction going on around the area in the upcoming years and how traffic would be re- routed to Hwy 41. And with all the construction traffic from the apartment development too in the next 1-2 years, how is this all going to keep students more safe??? You probably don't have a lot of control over the re-routing of construction traffic, but you do have control over the approval of this apartment building. In closing, I propose that at a minimum the approval of this building is postponed for a few years, until as a city council, you are convinced that our students will be safer with the addition of the roundabout that Headwaters Development mentioned has been approved. Thank you, Keri Burton 2701 Piper Ridge Lane, Excelsior 119 1 Arsenault, Rachel From:Josh McKinney <jmckinney@measuregrp.com> Sent:Tuesday, July 22, 2025 2:10 PM To:Arsenault, Rachel; Maass, Eric Subject:Fwd: 6440 Hazeltine apartment complex FYI. Resident communication/response. To help p otect you p vacy M c osoft Offce p evented automatc download of th s pictu e f om the Inte net Josh McKinney, PLA Principal Phone: 612-440-0934 Mobile: 605-310-9766 jmckinney@measuregrp.com ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Kathleen H <> Date: Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 1:58 PM Subject: Re: 6440 Hazeltine apartment complex To: Josh McKinney <jmckinney@measuregrp.com> That all makes sense! I think it’s great to study the worst case scenario—I was surprised how quickly the roundabout project was deferred this year after years of work and studies, etc. Thanks so much for all of your communication and information and good luck moving forward! Kathleen Sent from my iPhone On Jul 22, 2025, at 1:34 PM, Josh McKinney <jmckinney@measuregrp.com> wrote: Kathleen- You're very welcome! The last I had heard, and what the council has heard at a recent work session, is that the grants and state funding are secured (I believe I heard through 2029) and would be 120 2 available for the roundabout project. There may also be other sources of funding that become available between now and then. We believe there will ultimately be a permanent intersection improvement at 41 and the Middle School. Our traffic consultant is studying the "worst case scenario" of a no-build condition and what our impacts are to the road network if no improvements are constructed. The results of that study, in coordination with the City engineering staff, will ultimately determine if the project is feasible without the roundabout. I hope that answered your question, please let me know if you have any others that come up. Thanks, -Josh To help p otect you p vacy M c osoft Offce p evented automatc download of th s pictu e f om the Inte net Josh McKinney, PLA Principal Phone: 612-440-0934 Mobile: 605-310-9766 jmckinney@measuregrp.com On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 1:04 PM Kathleen H <> wrote: Thanks for your reply! I was hoping maybe the addition of an apartment complex would help contribute to a solution in this area. Is the city saying a roundabout is slated for construction in 2028 now? I would be very curious about how they will be funding that since the school funding and grant money they were going to use in addition to their own contribution may or may not be available by that time. I know the grant was set to expire and I’m sure the school has their own process for approving something like that again and new budget constraints. I can always connect with the city if that’s outside of your scope. I’m assuming that the project would move forward with or without the roundabout at that intersection? Thanks again, Kathleen Heimermann Sent from my iPhone 121 3 On Jul 22, 2025, at 11:49 AM, Josh McKinney <jmckinney@measuregrp.com> wrote: Hi Kathleen- Thank you very much for your message. The project team is aware of the challenges with the traffic in that area and have been working with the City to mitigate our impact to the existing condition while planning for the future roundabout, now slated for construction in 2028. To specifically answer your question, our project is proposing to improve the western leg of the future roundabout, along with install ponding which will benefit nearly 5 acres of off-site drainage, including the roundabout and parts of the school. Those two design features, along with some other improvements, will help the City close the funding gap experienced this spring. We understand a traffic issue exists during peak times at the Middle School. A few things to consider:  The peak usage times for the school and peak usage times for our project do not overlap.  The proposed project will not be fully occupied until late spring/summer of 2027 at the earliest.  We would like to construct the project prior to the roundabout completion in 2028 to avoid the potential of damaging the new pavement and curbs with heavy machinery  We can communicate with our residents the traffic constraints through the summer of 2028. While working & living in an area of active construction is not ideal, the overlap of those activities is small relative to the commitment of being a part of the community for the long term.  As mentioned, our project ultimately helps facilitate the roundabout improvements via cost sharing for items otherwise paid for by the money allocated for the roundabout. I am happy to share the meeting materials with you and update you after next Wednesday, along with any sort of consensus that area residents provide if that would be of interest to you. Thanks again for reaching out! Josh 122 4 To help p otect you p ivacy M c osoft Offce p evented au omatc download of this pic u e f om the Inte net Josh McKinney, PLA Principal Phone: 612-440-0934 Mobile: 605-310-9766 jmckinney@measuregrp.com On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 8:51 AM Kathleen H <> wrote: We live in the area of a proposed apartment complex and our children attend the middle school there. Unable to attend the meeting, but wondering if there’s anything you’ll be doing to help contribute to the traffic and pedestrian in that area? A roundabout was suppose to go at that intersection. The chanhassen city council has recently voted not to pursue it because of a funding shortfall after the bid came in. You can read about that here. https://www.chanhassenmn.gov/government/projects/state- highway-projects/th41-minnetonka-middle-school-west-intersection- improvements MNDOT will not allow a traffic light there. It’s nearly impossible to turn out of the middle school already at peak traffic times Even in the summer the traffic down Hwy 41 backs up quite a ways. Will your entrance/exit be Hwy 41? You will have a lot of complaints from your residents in the complex who try to exit. Thanks for any insight you can share on this issue. Kathleen Heimermann Sent from my iPhone 123 1 John A. Dragseth – 6480 Oriole Avenue, Chanhassen, MN 55331 August 9, 2025 Via e-mail @ emaass@chanhassenmn.gov (published contact for Planning Commission) RE: Comments on Proposed Minnewashta Apartments Development Dear Members of the Chanhassen Planning Commission: I own property just off the Northwest corner of the proposed “Minnewashta Apartments” development (“the Development”) that you are scheduled to consider at your August 12 mee/ng. I write because the Development is inconsistent with proper zoning, and Developer’s applica/on contains a fundamental misrepresenta/on. The only proper approach for the Commission/Council is to deny the applica/on and permit the Developer to apply for R-4 zoning. That would provide the Developer with a zoning increase from single-family residen/al (SFR) to R-4, which is fully consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. It would avoid unreasonably and illegally jumping the zoning of the property mul/ple levels (from SFR to R- 8) and would avoid the SuperMax approach the Developer has taken within R-8, which pushes to the maximum (and beyond) every relevant project parameter, i.e., number of units, water use, steepness of slope, structure height, and traffic danger. Just one example (discussed in more detail below) shows a view from behind a 6-foot man facing East and standing at the lot line between Herman Field Park and the SuperMax project, looking up the ~43- foot-high hill at the ~45-foot-high (four-story) West wall of the building: 124 2 The Developer wants you to put this giant beast on a property that is currently zoned single-family residen/al. It is a property that abuts single-family lots that the current owners purchased before the Comprehensive Plan opened any possibility of higher zoning. I and other neighbors do not demand that the property be kept single-family residen/al, but we fairly expect a reasonable middle ground, and there is no legal reason for the Commission to accept the Developer’s SuperMax approach. There are, in contrast, many reasons Developer’s applica/on should be, and must be, rejected under the law. I address par/cular problems with the Developer’s proposal next. Developer Gives Only a False Premise for R-8, so the Commission Cannot Go R-8 An applicant that seeks to obtain a property right from the government, at the expense of others, bears the burden of providing evidence and reasoning for why it should be given such a privilege. Here, Developer’s request is a rezoning from SFR, up mul/ple levels, to R-8. From my review of Developer’s filings with the city, I see a single explana/on, and that is that the Developer asserts it has the “right” to 44 units. Specifically, Developer states, in its “Minnewashta Apartments SubmiEal Narra/ve”: The Residen/al Medium Density guidance allows up to 44 units by right. Developer’s asseron is crically and demonstrably false . And it is the central reason the applica/on must be denied (not merely should be denied). A simple review of the city’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan shows this. Specifically, the Plan explicitly says that the various “Residen/al – Medium Density” areas on the plan map (which is what the map marks the Development property as) can be R-4, RLM, R-8, or PUD-R. It is up to the City Council to iden/fy which of these is proper in each area, not for a Developer to dictate which. Developer can get 44 units only by presen/ng evidence and reasoning that R-8 is the proper zoning, and by the City Council accep/ng that. Developer has provided only its one-sentence asser/on, which is false. Developer has provided no evidence, discussion, or reasoning to get an R-8. The city cannot back-fill evidence or argument for Developer, so the applica/on must be denied because Developer’s only reason is a faulty reason.1 The wording of Developer’s asser/on implies that it could take legal ac/on if it is not given its “right” to a 44-unit SuperMax apartment. Just the opposite. On the current record, the Commission and City Council cannot legally give Developer R-8 zoning, and doing so would open the city to legal liability. I discuss in the next sec/on why R-4 is the only proper choice here for upward re-zoning, but the Commission need not and cannot get there because Developer chose only a terse legally-improper ground for its R-8 SuperMax approach. A semi-judicial administra/ve body like a City Council (or a 1 More generally, to my understanding, a Comprehensive Plan cannot compel anything. It is instead a document that discusses goals, and it is then up to a city council to amend its City Code to codify any goals it deems sufficiently important. See Zoning Guide for Ci/es, at 2-4 (League of Minnesota Ci/es July 26, 2024) (available at hEps://www.lmc.org/wp-content/uploads/documents/Zoning-Guide-for-Ci/es.pdf). Cf. Chanhassen City Code Sec. 20-110. Developer has not cited the Chanhassen City Code on Zoning or provided any reason from that code that it has a “right” to R-8 and 44 units, and its applica/on must be denied as a maEer of law for that reason also. 125 3 Planning Commission suppor/ng a City Council) cannot sua sponte provide evidence and ra/onale for a zoning selec/on that an applicant never provided. R-8 is the Wrong Zoning Even Apart from Developer’s Failure of Proof A neighbor is not required to prove the proper zoning when a Developer fails to do so. But to help the Commission, I’ll try. In par/cular, the 2040 Comprehensive Plan hammers home that R-8 is a wrong zoning for this property:  It Jumps Mul1ple Levels, and Doesn’t Transi1on: The Comprehensive Plan’s “Land Use” sec/on emphasizes: “Transi/ons should be created between different land uses. The more incompa/ble the land uses, the more important the transi/on zone.” A SuperMax R-8 solu/on is not a “transi/on” at all from SFR—it is an at-least-two-step jump in zoning that is surrounded by quieter/lesser uses. Even worse, it is a maximized (SuperMax) use of R-8. It s/cks out; it does not transi/on.  It’s inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s Defini1on for Medium Density Proper1es: In the Comprehensive Plan’s defini/on of “Residen/al—Medium Density” (at page 32), the Plan states: “Medium density areas ae used to create transi/onal zones between [a] low-density residen/al and [b] commercial, office, or high-density residen/al areas.” The Development here is surrounded by (a) single-family on the North and East, (b) single-story school on East, (c) parks on the South and West, and (d) the single-story Trouvaille Memory Care on the North. The Development is a much, much higher-intensity use than any of its neighbors—contrary to the Comprehensive Plan’s requirement that it by a transion between single-family and a higher use.  It’s Unprecedented: I’ve pored over the Chanhassen Zoning map and cannot find another loca/on where SFR jumps to R-8, let alone where an R-8 was created from an exis/ng SFR zoning. Historically, R-8 zoning appears to have been used for single-story senior homes—i.e., the BeeHive/Trouvaille memory care next to the Development and Elysian Senior Homes in the SW part of the city. And even Elysian is single-story, next to apartments rather than SFR, and buffered by lots of trees: And cri/cally, such dense apartment housing is not seen outside the city’s Central Business District. This makes perfect sense from a planning perspec/ve, because zoning types should 126 4 change gradually, such that one level of zoning does not offend its neighbor by being too different.  It Violates the Comprehensive Plan’s Requirement to Maintain the Aesthe1c of Single-Family Areas: In Sec/on 1.7.1 on “Land Use,” the 2040 Comprehensive Plan list the goals of: “Support low-density residen/al development in appropriate areas of the community in such a manner as to maintain the aesthe/c exis/ng single-family areas, and to create new neighborhoods of similar character and quality. Designate sufficient land to provide for a wide spectrum of housing. Adequate land should be set aside for medium and high-density land uses.” Taken together, these goals point to not having this property be mul/ple zoning steps above its residen/al neighbors (R-8), but something that fits with the residen/al (R-4).  It Violates the Comprehensive Plan’s Requirement to “Preserve Natural Slopes,” to the Harm of Neighboring Single-Family Proper1es: Under “Natural Resources” in the Comprehensive Plan, the first policy is to “Preserve natural slopes wherever possible.” Directly contrary to this policy, the SuperMax nature of the Development radically increases slopes in the NW corner of the property to maximum values (33.3%), and that is where private neighbors are located downhill from the Development (which I discuss in more detail below).  It’s An Extreme Change Without Buffer: Sec/on 2.13.1 of the Comprehensive Plan, on “Buffer Yard Concept,” states that buffers should be used between areas of different usage. The SuperMax apartment towers over the Dog Park, and Herman Field Park, and is not buffered at all (see below).  It’s Inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s Transit Goals: The 2040 Comprehensive Plan notes that developments will be reviewed based on their ability to make use of mass transit resources. No one in this apartment building is going to use transit—i.e., Metro Transit’s own map shows it is in a mass transit desert (with the Developed in red/yellow) and mass transit miles away at the very top, very boEom, and very East edge of the map: That simply highlights that a large apartment building is out-of-place in this loca/on, and belongs in or near a commercial/urban area.  It’s Inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s Traffic Plan: The 2040 Comprehensive Plan, in Sec/on 1.7.5 on “Transporta/on,” notes the importance of discouraging development in roadway corridors, especially principal arterials. That is because it’s dangerous for cars to just pull onto a principal arterial. (For example, that is why interstate highways have only long entry ramps.) But highway 41 is one of the few roads in Chanhassen designated as a “principal 127 5 arterial,” see Chanhassen City Code, so indiscriminately adding 44 units that would pull right onto it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.  It’s Inconsistent With Site History: When the city council permiEed the next-door memory care facility a decade ago (Bee Hive, née Trouvaille), it re-zoned only that par/cular memory care part of the property. Presumably, it did so to maintain control over what happened on the rest of the property—i.e., to make sure a developer would not take advantage of the higher zoning and then boldly announce that it had a “right” to the super-maximum of 44 units. If the Council had gone R-8 all the way at that /me, perhaps Developer would have the “right” that it now says it does. But the Council did not. Therefore, the Commission and Council should con/nue their careful stewardship of the public good now and require a reasonable proposal, not a SuperMax plan.  It’s Inconsistent with the Larger Context: If you step back and look at the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and zoning map more generally, you’ll see apartments, hotels, commercial, retail and other “higher” uses generally arrayed in the center of the city—along highways 5 and 212. Such heavier development falls as you move away from 5/212—with the excep/on of a handful of senior homes (which really are not “heavy” uses in reality). That is the sort of development that makes sense on this property, and is consistent with the broader plan for the city. The city certainly needs a mix of housing types, but it needs them in the right loca/ons. Indeed, the property is named “Lot 2, Block 1, Beehive Home 2nd Addi/on”—where “Beehive” was the original name of the memory care center, and the first Beehive lot was to have a sister building. That was the plan, and it was a good plan. Something’s changed, and now they are going SuperMax. Congratula/ons to them from a business perspec/ve if they can get away with it, but they shouldn’t get away with it. (I don’t see that they are even having to plant any great number of trees or make any other nod to the neighborhood, and are in fact sneaking in a liEle trail to the Dog Park—which is otherwise fenced and inaccessible for security—to further take advantage without giving anything back.) In sum, Staff told me at the public mee/ng that they had not addressed the issue of whether R-4 or R-8 is the right change in zoning, and the Commission need not and should not reach the issue. But if it does, the evidence in the /mely-filed record reflects only the points above, which all show why R-8 SuperMax is wrong for this loca/on. The SuperMax Project Creates Water Problems for Private and Public Neighbors The SuperMax project violates both city prac/ce and the 2040 Comprehensive Plan in terms of run-off. Specifically, I have been told by city staff that property owners are not allowed to change their land such that they push addi/onal water to a neighbor or block drainage of a neighbor. More importantly, the 2040 Comprehensive Plan states, as its top Policy under its top “Natural Resources” Goal (Sec/on 1.7.3): “Preserve natural slopes wherever possible.” Developer’s plan wholly fails on this requirement because it re-directs substan/al water flow onto neighboring land to the North and Northwest, when that run-off currently goes to the Southwest corner of the lot. For current water flow, Developer’s July 11, 2025, leEer to the Watershed District confirms that all current drainage to the North is only toward the Trouvaille Memory Care Facility, and the remainder is to the Southwest corner of the property—i.e., no run-off occurs to the other neighboring 128 6 proper/es. But as to future flow, a large por/on of run-off will be pushed onto single-family proper/es to the North and Northwest. The first image below shows such flow as red arrows in a satellite view, to beEer see the Development in context with the neighbors. The second image shows the same red flow arrows superimposed over Developer’s topographic map to beEer show the steep slopes. It’s a lot of water. The steeply-sloped storm pond is the main cause of this problem. Its walls rise as much as 20 feet higher than the Northern property border (from 975’ to 995’), and you can see the steepness on the downslope surrounding the pond by how densely-packed the topographic lines are. Those steep walls push run-off to the North and Northwest, directly toward the neighboring proper/es. They do this at an extreme grade of 33.3% (in viola/on of the explicit city requirement to “preserve natural slopes wherever possible”), thus giving that run-off maximum velocity directed to the North and Northwest. That water 129 7 moving North on the side of the pond then redirects the West-flowing water in the swale toward the North as soon as the swale ends, and the combined water pushes onto 2461 W 64th Street and 6480 Oriole Avenue (the property to the Northwest, which I own). The changes in slope also violate Chanhassen City Code Sec. 20-110, which requires “preserva/on of the site in its natural state to the extent prac/cable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed or developing areas.” There are no corresponding super-steep slopes in the neighboring areas, and so this aspect of the Development violates both the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and City Code. I have found nothing in Developer’s applica/on that addresses this problem.2 Developer’s maps simply show one Southwest-facing arrow near the spillway area for the pond, and ignore the Northern part of the topography. It is not a de minimus problem either, because the captured area is significant, and the land con/nues to drop 20 or more ver/cal feet (where the long red arrow points). That is my property. It will be eroded, and will be where all of this run-off eventually pools on 6480 Oriole Ave aVer a hard rain. It is inappropriate, and the law prevents the Commission from allowing it. This problem exists if everything goes perfectly. But there are bigger problems if the pond overflows or fails. Developer’s submission appears to calculate a size for the pond, and I’ve not had /me to review that. But rainfall is becoming more unpredictable with climate change, the 6” depression for a spillway on the Southwest side of the pond won’t keep up in a downpour, and the pond will spill even more run- off toward the neighboring proper/es at 2461 W 64th Street and 6480 Oriole Avenue. I suppose at that point, I could complain to the apartment manager and/or the city—but you know that won’t get me anywhere. And I should not be forced to take on the cost of suing, which will quickly equal the flood- diminished value of my property. Rather, the Commission and the City Council should recognize this proposal as a problem now—taking any of the many routes I’ve provided—and force a reasonable development. I’ve not seen much of anything in Developer’s submission about the design of the pond (as opposed to its sizing). My brief study has raised two par/cular problems there. First, a well-designed stormwater pond—especially one that just dumps over its top edge when it overflows—should have a “forebay” where ini/al seEling can occur. See Minnesota Stormwater Manual Wiki: Design criteria for stormwater ponds (available at hEps://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Design criteria for stormwater ponds ). For the Development, my concern is that a substan/al por/on of the run-off is going to come from a parking lot, where cars sit for days and drip oil and other such fluids. Oil floats, so it will float on the top of the pond. And the pond releases via overflow from its top (where the oil would be floa/ng as a sheen), down into the wetland. I see nothing in the applica/on materials that address this problem. 2 At the public mee/ng, Developer suggested that there was some sort of swale on the downhill side of the pond wall. I don’t think that is accurate, because all the topo numbers where my red arrows cross are descending in height, so straight hill and no swale or trough. 130 8 Second, a pond needs to be surrounded by impermeable material like clay that is not only placed on exis/ng ground, but that extends into and is carefully packed into a “core trench” in exis/ng clay or similar material: “Ponds—Planning, Design, and Construc/on,” USDA, Agriculture Handbook 590, p. 1 (available at hEps://nrcspad.sc.egov.usda.gov/distribu/oncenter/pdf.aspx?productID=115 ). This is par/cularly true for any side of a pond that are on a downhill side of the pond, as is the case here. The use of clay or similar impervious material throughout decreases the chances that the pond will leak through its walls (seepage). And the use of a properly-constructed core trench (e.g., made of clay and surrounded by clay) lessens the chance that the wall of the pond will simply slip over the exis/ng soil due to pressure of the water pushing out and down, and lessens the chance that water will leak through the interface between old and new soil. I don’t see anything in the applica/on about this, and I don’t see core samples having been taken in the loca/on where the cri/cal core trench would need to go. As the owner of land that is 20 feet or more lower than the boEom of the pond and downhill from it, just 20 feet from the Development’s NW corner—and who will bear the brunt of any leakage or failure— this is an important issue to me. I don’t see it addressed in the applica/on. More fundamentally, no one should be allowed to build a retaining pond above another person’s property, where it could flood that property. Applicant avoids this concern by never discussing or even showing 6480 Oriole Avenue, even though it’s about 20 feet from the Development’s NW corner, and severely downhill. Apart from my personal run-off and flooding concerns, there should be a great public concern over this project—especially for lovers of Lake Minnewashta. The run-off for this project is not just directly into some random wetland. Rather, it passes into the wetland’s SE corner then out its nearby SW corner into a stream directly into Lake Minnewashta. 131 9 To me, the fundamental problem is that the pond will pick up oil and other petrochemicals because it is mainly catching water from streets and parking lots. Those chemicals float on top of water, and the pond emp/es over its top edge. So an oily film will wash from the paved areas, will float on top of the pond, will slide down the hill onto the surface of the wetland, and will flow through the stream to the surface of Lake Minnewashta. Developer may have experts, but they don’t address any of that, to my understanding. There is addi/onally the problem of the soon-to-come (or maybe not) pond for the Highway 41 traffic circle. Developer’s plan leaves liEle room or flexibility for that pond, which is years away, and whose design may be affected by any number of seen or unforeseen changes in the coming years. In short, allowing construc/on of a parking lot right up to that pond will handcuff what the city can do in the future. And even if the traffic circle designers are confident that their design is set, they were no doubt equally confident just a few months ago that the traffic circle would be under construc/on right now. This is just another in the long line of reasons that Developer’s applica/on should and must be denied. There is one more detailed, but very important, water problem with the submission. Specifically, the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) by Braun Intertec is five years old—incredibly out-dated. On this one, I’ll rely on Google AI, which explains that there is no set /me for expira/on of an ESA, but gives 6-18 months as a typical /me frame: 132 10 Even if there is some flexibility in that number, five years is way, way longer than 6-18 months. That is especially so for a property like Developer’s property, which has been vacant land next to a busy highway that whole /me. So there is maximum access for any member of the public to see the land and put pollutants on it. And there is effec/vely no ability for the absent owner to observe such ac/on. Perhaps most cri/cally, I see nothing in the applica/on indica/ng that Braun Intertec (and its E&O carrier) is s/ll willing to stand by the report aVer all this /me. So this is an area (vouching for the 5-year-old ESA) where the Developer is missing an expert, but where an expert is needed. The SuperMax Project is a Four-Story Building That Exceeds Even R-8 Limits Even if Developer gets R-8 re-zoning (and it should plainly not, for all the reasons discussed above), such zoning is limited to buildings whose primary façade is three stories or less. Some/mes the determina/on of a primary façade is easy, and some/mes it is complex. Here, it is complex, and Developer has simply assumed the issue away without ever addressing it. If the primary façade is at any other direc/on than East, the applica/on must be denied because every other façade is plainly 3+ stories (and I don’t think even Developer would dispute that). And even if the primary façade is East-only, the applica/on should be denied because the building is more than 3-stories even from the East. Here is the analysis: Developer picked the proper view of the building when making its rendering, and what you see should be considered the primary façade (excluding the roof and ground, of course): Why is this (the NE façade) the appropriate primary façade?  It provides the most complete and contextual view of the building, which presumably is why Developer picked it.  It views the building from the Northeast (facing SW), and that is the angle that people will view it as they enter the property at its NE corner. It is also the angle Southbound drivers will see from Highway 41 as they look from their vehicles. (Hopefully, drivers only look over at a 45-degree angle and not a 90-degree angle—and Northbound drivers will see liEle of the building because it will be blocked by Minneswastha Park trees and berming.)  This façade shows the longest face of the building, which is the North face. The building is longer and of much greater area (because its average height is greater) when viewed from the North as 133 11 compared to when it is viewed from the East. So the North face is the dominant face in terms of size.  This view shows the door—the parking garage door—that is the most visually-dominant entrance to the building and is where the bulk of the entry will be made into the building. Specifically, every unit in the building will have at least one car because there is no mass transit op/on within miles of the building. Residents with a single car will park that car, naturally, in the protected underground parking, and will use the garage door on the North face to enter and leave the building. Residents with two cars will park their primary car in the garage, and the majority of their trips will be with that primary car through the comfort of the garage and garage door. Even secondary cars and all visitors will enter the parking lots from the North side of the building, while seeing primarily the North face of the building. So the vast majority of the coming/goings will be through the North face of the building. Even arrivals that don’t enter the garage will be aimed at the North face of the building as they arrive, and the East face has just a walk-in entry, though one is hard-pressed even to see that entry when looking at the building, so its role is both secondary in usage and secondary in visual importance. Every relevant factor thus points to a Northeast façade being the proper primary façade of the building, and the building is over 3-stories when measured along that façade. If one insists that only the North face or the East face can be the primary façade, then the right answer is the North face for the reasons just discussed, e.g.: (a) the North face is where the bulk of the coming/going will occur; (b) it is the longest and much-largest face of the building; (c) it has the largest and most visually-dominant entry; and (d) it beEer reflects the other faces of the building because it shows the garage surface and materials that are visible from the surrounding parks, and thus should also be considered relevant façades of the building (even though they are not primary façades). The fact that Highway 41 is toward the East of the building changes nothing, and certainly cannot control the analysis. Specifically, the loca/on of nearby roads is only one factor and is essen/ally a non-factor in the present context. Even if the Commission gives full weight to Highway 41, it is only a single factor and is overcome by all the factors just discussed. The building here is set back far from the highway, and will further be blocked by the collec/on pond for the traffic circle. Moreover, Easter views of the building will be flee/ng at best because there is no sidewalk or other path by which slower movers (like pedestrians and cyclists) will pass that side of the building. In short, this is not a typical house that fronts on a street and sidewalk, but is instead an L-shaped building who greatest size and dominant visual features face North, not East. The proper façade is North, and the building is too tall even for R-8. Even viewed solely from the East, the building exceeds three stories, as shown in red circle-ish area below: 134 12 Even if one were to give Developer R-8 (which would be wrong); even if one allowed Developer to ignore the proper primary and dominant façade (which would be wrong); and even if one were to allow Developer to go SuperMax on all of this (which also would be wrong)—the Commission s/ll does not have power under R-8 zoning to go over three stories, and thus, Developer’s applica/on must be rejected as a maEer of law. Three stories is a hard limit; there is no “close enough.” But regardless of what face is selected as the primary façade, the above exercise shows why this SuperMax approach is the wrong approach. At its extreme edge, it could sneak in as almost a 3-story building, but it is primarily a 4-story building and should be viewed as such whether one considers R-4 or R-8 to be the relevant zoning. And more generally, it’s the wrong building for this site. The SuperMax Project Creates Traffic Dangers You will no doubt hear from others about how dangerous traffic is in this par/cular loca/on of Highway 41. I will try to s/ck with points I don’t an/cipate others to make. For a start, Developer’s single-page from its supposed traffic expert does not move the ball at all—for many reasons. First, it pulls a number from the ITE Trip Genera/on Manual, and although I can’t pay $499 to get a copy of that manual, it appears this was nothing more than a number that pops out of “3- story building with 44 units” lookup—with no more context than that. So the Manual would pop out the same number for people entering/leaving a site by car as (a) a building in ManhaEen with no on-site parking and a subway sta/on next door, (b) a building in a suburb that has only 44 parking spaces instead of 88, or (c) an apartment building in the most rural town you can imagine. Now, I’m not an expert, but super-experts have cri/cized the ITE Manual for lacking such context. For example, well-known UCLA urban planning professor Donald Shoup in Access Magazine centers on ITE data hiding lack of accuracy by presen/ng data with high levels of supposed precision even though it lacks context: ITE’s stamp of authority relieves planners from the obliga/on to think for themselves— the answers are right there in the book. ITE offers a precise number without raising difficult public policy ques/ons, although it does warn, “Users of this report should exercise extreme cau/on when u/lizing data that is based on a small number of studies.” …. To unsophis/cated users, the precise rates look like constants, similar to the boiing 135 13 point of water or the speed of light. Many planners treat parking and trip genera/on like physical laws and the reported rates like scien/fic observa/ons. But parking and trip genera/on are poorly understood phenomena. Shoup, Roughly Right or Precisely Wrong, Access Magazine at 20-25 (Spring 2002). In other words, this is not a simple plug-and-chug issue, as Developer’s submission would imply. Others have noted that much of the ITE data is 20 or more years old, and thus unreliable (especially with lifestyle changes caused by Covid). Moreover, apart from pulling a number and sta/ng the result “is an/cipated to be minimal,” the “expert” does absolutely no analysis. He certainly is able to do an analysis, because he appears to have done so for the Santa Vera Apartments project that you will also review Tuesday night. And in any event, an expert cannot simply say “I’m an expert” and state a conclusion—he must explain himself. Here, he does not men/on the school, does not men/on studying its traffic or anything related to it, does not men/on when the peak traffic /mes from the Development are and how they relate to school peak /mes (or how he determined what each of those peak /mes were), he does not men/on the unique situa/on of an apartment entering onto a 55 mph highway across from a school doing the same, or any other relevant factor. We’re just supposed to take his word. My ul/mate point is that every site is unique, and Developer’s submission ignores the important context of this site. I’ve not seen anyone studying the area recently, and I have a personal exper/se for the area because it is along my regular walking path. Its uniquely dangerous features include:  Cars leaving the Development dump right onto a highway, not a city street. The speed limit is 55 mph for Southbound traffic and effec/vely 55 mph for Northbound traffic, because only a small percent of Northbound vehicles slow to the 45 mph limit. (I oVen check the electronic road-side speed sign on my walks, and typically 6 to 12 cars exceed the limit before even one meets it— i.e., speed compliance is about 10% for Northbound traffic.)  It is a uniquely dangerous area, as the city, parents, and school have recognized—owing to a combina/on of mul/ple problems. The primary problem is traffic coming South from Westbound 7. There are two lanes of traffic turning leV off 7, they get impa/ent at the red arrow, and they come off that turn like NASCAR racers. They are then faced with the problem of merging as they accelerate, and simultaneously dealing with cars going into and out of the Speedy/Caribou/NorthCoop area. So there is speeding, accelera/ng, merging, jostling, and informa/on overload. Way too frequently, they don’t merge at all, and they cruise illegally down the cross-hatched part of the road—and that is today a huge risk to kids in the pedestrian crosswalk. If you approve this plan, a mul/plied risk when entering traffic from the Development will amp the chaos up even further. A secondary problem is that Northbound traffic comes in steaming hot, well over the 45 mph limit.  And I haven’t even added the problem of school traffic yet. As others will tell you, traffic backs up in the Southbound leV turn lane (right in front of the Development) and complicates things for everyone during both pick-up and drop-off and other /mes, and pedestrian traffic is high (and will create issues even aVer the traffic circle is complete).  The traffic has increased greatly since Covid, and its aggression has increased also. For example, a larger number of people prefer to keep driving in the illegal cross-hatched area rather than 136 14 merge before the crosswalk. Adding more complica/on to that area will not help anything, and the complica/on cannot just be waived away whether one is an “expert” or not.  Highway 41 is also a thoroughfare for heavy, mul/-axle dump trucks that pick of gravel and similar products in the pits near the South end of Highway 41, because it is the straightest path for distribu/on and development along highway 7. The same is true of other traffic from Highway 212 going onto Highway 7. Sit at the pedestrian crosswalk for an hour some/me. It’s craaaazy. It is also definitely not enough to say that the problems will be fixed by a round-about. That project is years away, so its uncertainty is a magnitude more than when Staff believed this Spring that it would be a “go,” and wasn’t. Cri/cally, experts and economists expect tariffs to increase infla/on for road construc/on considerably, such that a project years out cannot be viewed with any confidence. For example, the Senior Managing Editor of Roads & Bridges Magazine recently explained how Kansas’ secretary of transporta/on noted, “If tariffs go up, if prices con/nue to go up, if revenues go down, if more money is transferred away, then there are projects that will likely have to be sacrificed.” Gavin Jenkins, “Trump’s Tariffs and the Cost of Construc/on,” Roads & Bridges (Apr. 3, 2025) (available at hEps://www.roadsbridges.com/road-construc/on/news/55279591/trumps-tariffs-and-the-cost-of- construc/on). Similar reports are legion. E.g., Sebas/an Orbando, “Sweeping New Tariffs Put Future Construc/on Jobs at Risk,” Construc/on Dive (Apr. 3, 2025) (available at hEps://www.construc/ondive.com/news/trump-tariffs-construc/on-risk-libera/on-day/744334/ ). So it’s not enough to fill the overage from the recent bidding, but one would need to add substan/ally more to the budget to have any confidence at all. Moreover, the traffic circle will be only a par/al fix that helps cars, but not the young pedestrians we should care most about. If you’ve used a traffic circle like the one by Costco on Highway 41, you’ll know it really smooths vehicle traffic. But you’ll also know that your aEen/on as a driver is filled up with whether cars from the leV will hit you, and whether cars from the right will yield to you. The problem is that you don’t see the pedestrians—who have the right-of-way—at the loca/on where you exit the circle. That’s fine for a circle like the Costco one, where there are few pedestrians. But it’s a problem where there are more pedestrians. A traffic engineer might point out that traffic circles have fewer fatali/es, but if you dig deeper, you learn that is because traffic circles push pedestrians to yield to cars (even though the pedestrians have the right-of-away). But this doesn’t work as well with young pedestrians—especially those on e-bikes—who are less likely to stop when they know the cars are supposed to stop. In any event, a glib answer of “it will be alright when the traffic circle is in,” is no answer at all—but that’s what Developer provides. In sum, Developer is much too flippant about a traffic problem it doesn’t live around and that it has failed to even study—hiding behind a naked asser/on that its addi/on to the problem is too small to maEer. The SuperMax Project Creates Visual Problems for Neighbors The Developer’s submissions lack informa/on about surrounding proper/es that would provide context showing that the SuperMax proposal is wrong for the site visually—both in crea/ng light pollu/on that is 137 15 wholly at odds with the surrounding SFR zoning, and for being much too large and imposing because of how big it is and how it is sited. First, the project will create unreasonable light pollu/on for the houses to the North—light pollu/on that the owners of those houses never expected and that they should not have to endure. For example, the image below shows how these neighbors have a direct line-of-sight (indicated by yellow arrows) out all their back or side windows toward the five parking lot lights (indicated by red dots). These are the back rooms of a house (typically, living room and bedrooms) where one least expects to look out and have bright dots of light burning away: The following image roughly shows how the neighbors will be looking up at the lights, and how fencing will not fix the problem of the parking lot lights: This image also provides a disturbing idea of how badly the SuperMax project will violate their privacy. This is par/cularly troublesome because these houses are on a cul-de-sac and were thus built to be back- yard-oriented. Specifically, cul de sac houses naturally have a wedge shape, and thus a smaller front yard and larger back yard—so focus occurs for the back yard (which will now face a huge apartment building). Imagine si‘ng down any /me aVer 5 p.m. in the Winter to read or watch TV, and mul/ple bright, yellow 138 16 dots are burning back at you through your back windows (perhaps accompanied in the Summer with some boom-boom from the outdoor party deck).3 Staring out at parking lot lights may be okay if you’re staying at a Residence Inn for one night, and it may be funny in Na/onal Lampoon’s Christmas vaca/on… But it’s not okay for people who moved to an edge area of Chanhassen and who reasonably expected something else. The residents of the cul de sac—vo/ng and tax-paying residents of Chanhassen—did not buy into that, were not in any way warned about it, and should not have it thrust on them by the Commission or the City Council. R-8 zoning is not the Developer’s right, and a brightly-lit parking lot is not the Developer’s right. “But….but…the trees will cover for this problem.” Wrong. First, to the extent there are trees between the lights and the houses next door, they are not trees on Developer’s property. As far as I can see, the Northwest side of the Development is naked—because of the holding pond that the SuperMax approach has required. The neighboring residents should not be required to maintain tree cover to address Developer’s light pollu/on. Second, most of the trees in this area are dead or dying ash trees, and the rest are threatened. The building will be there 80 years, but the trees likely will not be. As just one example of tree death, Developer’s plans show major tree canopy coverage along the West border of its property, but I took this picture (from just West of the property’s NW corner—from the NE corner of Herman Field Park) last week, showing that all the actual trees are 100% dead, and all that is leV is low- lying sumac and buckthorn weeds. 3 To the extent Developer tries to focus on the cone of light thrown down by the lights, the point is not that these houses are outside that par/cular cone. Rather, the point is that these residents—who purchased in a single-family residen/al area with single-family residen/al behind them, will now have to see these high, bright lights any /me they look out the backs of their houses. 139 17 Further on the depressing dying tree phenomenon, the Commission members might also be aware that the Minnewashta Dog Park immediately adjacent to the Development had a full crew spends 6 weeks this Spring cu‘ng down and chopping up dead ash and other trees. The trees are thinning to-the- extreme. Third, and perhaps most important, the light pollu/on will occur mostly in the Winter, when darkness predominates, and when the trees have no leaves to block the light pollu/on. Aside from light pollu/on, the SuperMax project will also visually pollute the users of nearby parks— both because of how tall (about 45 feet) and otherwise massive the building is, but also because (a) it is sited high on a hill (about 43 feet tall) that towers over Herman Field Park, and (b) it almost touches the Dog Park trail (about 40 feet away) and towers over it. As for Herman field park, the first image below shows a view from behind a 6-foot adult (you have to strain to see him because the Development is so massive) looking at the West face of the Development from the East edge of Herman Field Park. The second image shows a map view so you can beEer understand where this person is standing and where they are looking: 140 18 This is horrible. Really. How could anyone think it is not? Par/cularly on a lot that has never been zoned higher than single-family residen/al. It calls to mind the enormous mansions of Newport, Rhode Island, except those look nice. It also calls to mind Joseph Welch’s famous ques/on of Senator McCarthy: “Have you no sense of decency?” Developer is not en/tled to R-8, its SuperMax approach abuses the idea of R- 8 zoning, and the Development is simply too massive and urban/commercial of a building for this rural- like se‘ng. The building is just as problema/c when viewed from the Lake Minnewashta Dog Park that sits to the South. For those unfamiliar, that dog park is not just an open area of grass, but a beau/ful meandering nature trail through the woods. And although Developer’s applica/on does not show it, Carver County public records show the dog trail located right by the property line: With the apartment building set back from the South property line by only 40 feet, the following image shows the effect of the building on anyone using the dog park. 141 19 Notably, the apartment’s open party deck towers over the dog park, and will provide visual annoyance to users of the park, and also likely loud music that could disturb both the dogs and their owners. To summarize, the building, again, is massive, and wholly out of context with the area. This is not a downtown Chanhassen dog park; it is, by its feel, a rural dog park, and that is why it is so in demand. I am also not aware if the Minnewashta Regional Park Board has had a chance to understand what Chanhassen is doing 40 feet away. Even if Minnewashta Park has no direct legal say in this construc/on, it certainly seems prudent for the city, as a good municipal neighbor, to give that Park Board a full opportunity to hear from its stakeholders and provide input to the city. The Architectural Style is Inconsistent with the Area, and is Instead Cut-and- Paste from Urban and Commercial Architecture The design of the SuperMax building does not fit with the neighborhood, as the City requires. The neighborhood is a mix of classic styles, with angled/shingled roofs, lap and stucco siding, dormers, and the like. One need merely look next door to the memory care facility to see a building that is large, but that reflects the neighborhood style and is a good neighbor. 142 20 In contrast, Developer’s proposed building is a cut-and-paste of hundreds of other apartment buildings in urban/commercial areas—a style called “MinecraVism” and “Simcityism.” The “style” is a flat-roofed box, with a mélange of randomly earth-tone-colored rectangles. Below are just a few examples from the same architects in commercial/urban areas—though the Commission members have surely seen this same apartment design in many other commercial/urban areas. My point is that, even if you like this style, it is an urban/commercial style, and has not been designed to fit into our area one whit. The Morrison Apartments (by Kaas Wilson) in a commercial district in Rosemount: Axle Apartments (by Kaas Wilson), at a major intersec1on in Fridley: 143 21 The Exchange Apartments (by Kaas Wilson), in a commercial area in New Brighton: Sonder Point (by Kaas Wilson), in a Brooklyn Center office park and commercial district: Chanhassen does not have a high architectural hurdle, but it does require some minimal sensi/vity to the site and surroundings. 144 22 Whatever the design’s merits or demerits, it is urban/commercial and is not adapted to its mostly- residen/al environment. The exis/ng memory care shows proper design; in contrast, the proposed SuperMax building shows inten/onally-blind design. Developer has made no explana/on about how this design fits in any way with the largely-residen/al neighborhood. Conclusion The one-story memory care center next door is a logical use of the land and is what we were told would be the use of the vacant remainder (Beehive phase 2). Developer is trying to change that and maximize its profits by maximizing every parameter of the Development. This is a building in size and design that should be in an urban or commercial area (e.g., in or near the Central Business District and transit)— both as a general maEer and as to how Chanhassen is otherwise arranged. Developer’s effort to push a giant structure in a residen/al area should be rejected and must be rejected. Let them come back with something reasonable, like they had been planning in 2017 and 2020. Best Regards, John Dragseth John Dragseth 145 CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss COT]N'TY OF CARVER ) I, Jenny Potter, being first duly swom. on oath deposes that she is and was on July 30,2025, the duly qualified and acting City Clerk ofthe City olChanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy ofthe attached notice Consider request to construct a 44-unit apartment building located at 6440 Hazeltine Boulevard' Owner: Clover Investments, LLC; Applicant: Headwaters Development, LLC to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy ofsaid notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with posrage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses ofsuch owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. l/,,=- Jenny , City Clerko Subs this c ribLI ed and swom to before me day of .2025. I t I AMY K. WEIDMAN Notary Public-Minnesota My co(nmL.ioo Erdr€. J.n 31, 2027 Notary Public I(L 146 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Date & Time: Tuesday, August 12, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Consider request to construct a 44-unit apartment building located at 6440 Hazeltine Boulevard. Applicant: Headwaters Development, LLC Property Location: 6440 Hazeltine Boulevard A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans for the project. 3. Planning Commission discusses the proposal. 4. Public hearing is opened taking comments from the public, up to 5 minutes per person. 5. Public hearing is closed and the Planning Commission continues discussion on the project prior to voting on the project. Questions & Comments: To view project information before the meeting, please visit the city’s proposed development webpage: www.chanhassenmn.gov/proposeddevelopments Sign up to receive email updates about this or other projects. Go to https://www.chanhassenmn.gov/i-want-to/subscribe Date & Time: Tuesday, August 12, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Consider request to construct a 44-unit apartment building located at 6440 Hazeltine Boulevard. Applicant: Headwaters Development, LLC Property Location: 6440 Hazeltine Boulevard A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans for the project. 3. Planning Commission discusses the proposal. 4. Public hearing is opened taking comments from the public, up to 5 minutes per person. 5. Public hearing is closed and the Planning Commission continues discussion on the project prior to voting on the project. Questions & Comments: To view project information before the meeting, please visit the city’s proposed development webpage: www.chanhassenmn.gov/proposeddevelopments Sign up to receive email updates about this or other projects. Go to https://www.chanhassenmn.gov/i-want-to/subscribe 147 Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. «Tax_name» «Tax_add_l1» «Tax_add_l2» Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. «Next Record»«Tax_name» «Tax_add_l1» «Tax_add_l2» Subject Parcel Subject Parcel 148 Tax name Tax add l1 Tax add l2 ADAM G LUKENS 2444 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 AMANDA LYNN SUTTER 2300 MELODY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 AMY DIESBURG-STANWOOD 6275 CHASKA RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 BENJAMIN BRATLAND 2511 ORCHARD LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 BRET CORRICK 2625 ORCHARD LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 BRETT LONG 2629 ORCHARD LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 BRUCE OLSON AND H HANSEN OLSON TRUST 2432 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CAROL JEAN GOOD 6245 CHASKA RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CARRIE C NORTH 2446 W 64TH ST EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CARVER COUNTY 602 4TH ST E CHASKA MN 55318 CHANHASSEN CITY PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHRISTOPHER J MARA 749 RED OAK DR OCONOMOWOC WI 53066 CHRISTOPHER OHLAND 6285 CHASKA RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CLOVER INVESTMENTS LLC 6080 CLUB VALLEY RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DAMON M JOHNSON 6366 MELODY LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DANIEL KELLY 6361 MELODY LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DANIEL M LINDA L CONNER RATHMAN 2521 ORCHARD LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DANIEL M PESCHEL 2220 MELODY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DANIEL REICH 6378 MELODY LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DENNIS L & SHIRLEY M PETERSON 6269 CHASKA RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DENNIS M & JOAN E CLARK 6651 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DEVIN A SCHERER 2461 W 64TH ST EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DONALD H DUEFFERT 2451 W 64TH ST EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EDWARD KNUTSON 6450 ORIOLE AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ERIN WILBUR HEARST 2014 TRUST 17001 THE STRAND MINNETONKA MN 55345 FAZEL HARIS 6260 CHASKA RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 GARRETT TRAPNELL 2280 MELODY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 GARY A & MARIE C BRIDGE 2449 64TH ST W EXCELSIOR MN 55331 GARY SCOTT REED 2471 64TH ST W EXCELSIOR MN 55331 GLENN D JR SHERRY L JOHNSTON JOHNSTON 6263 CHASKA RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 HEIDI L CARLSON 6440 ORIOLE AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 HPA BORROWER 2016-1 LLC PO BOX 4900 SCOTTSDALE AZ 85261 149 IND SCHOOL DIST 276 5621 COUNTY ROAD 101 MINNETONKA MN 55345 JACOB POMPLUN 2630 FOREST AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JASON REYNOLDS 6390 MELODY LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOEY ALLAN IRINA LARSON LARSON 6235 CHASKA RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOHN & RENA DRAGSETH 2600 FOREST AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOSEPH G FISCHER REV INTERVIVOS TRUST 6251 CHASKA RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JUSTIN MILLER 2445 64TH ST W EXCELSIOR MN 55331 KATARZYNA KUPINSKA 6421 ORIOLE AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 KATHRINE FISHER 6461 ORIOLE AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 KATHRYN BEYER 6470 ORIOLE AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 KENNETH J & BETTY L LANG 2631 FOREST AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 KIM KAMRATH 6441 ORIOLE AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LAURA J LAMBERT LIMITED ACCESS TRUST 6300 CHASKA RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LESLIE A ALICE M HAUSLADEN POLTRACK 6354 MELODY LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LINDSAY PETERSON 6240 CHASKA RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LUKE STECK 6239 CHASKA RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LYNN SUZANNE MILLER 6405 MELODY LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MICHAEL C TOBIN 6377 MELODY LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MOHAMED JUHAAN JOHAR-PREISLER 6280 CHASKA RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MOUNT OLIVET ROLLING ACRES INC 7200 ROLLING ACRES RD VICTORIA MN 55386 NANCY JO PERKINS-BROOKS 2448 64TH ST W EXCELSIOR MN 55331 NARAYANAN KRISHNAMURTHY 6270 CHASKA RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PAMELA A SIMNING REVOCABLE TRUST 2290 MELODY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RACHEL L POPKEN 2460 64TH ST W EXCELSIOR MN 55331 REALTY INCOME PROPERTIES 3 LLC 16220 N SCOTTSDALE RD STE 650 SCOTTSDALE AZ 85254 REBECCA MCKENZIE DAVIS 6257 CHASKA RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RHONDA L STUDER 5925 MCKINLEY PL EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RICHARD D GAIL ANN PRATT BLISS PO BOX 100 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ROBERT E LEE III 16827 WILLOW LN SW PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 RR EXCELSIOR WAG LLC PO BOX 1159 DEERFIELD IL 60015 RUSSELL J & LYNN F PAULY 2447 64TH ST W EXCELSIOR MN 55331 SCOTT ROOKE 6250 CHASKA RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 SCP PE CHAN LLC 606 WASHINGTON AVE N STE 400 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55401 150 STANLEY J BARTON III 2350 MELODY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 STEPHANIE K PHILLIPS 2627 ORCHARD LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 STEPHEN J LEVOIR 6393 MELODY LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 THOMAS G & NEYSA L WINTERER 2210 MELODY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 TODD M LANG 2625 FOREST AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 TR OF WAYNE AND KELLY PETERSON 2444 W 64TH ST EXCELSIOR MN 55331 TROUVAILLE PROPERTY LLC 6600 CITY WEST PKWY STE 205 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 WIETSE BOTTEMA 2240 MELODY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 WILLIAM CROCKER 6290 CHASKA RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 151 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ss I do solemly swear that the notice, as per the proof, was published in the edition of the SS Mtka-Excelsior-Eden Prairie with the known offrce of issue being located in the county of: HENNEPIN with additional circulation in the counties oft HENNEPIN and has full knowledge of the facts stated below: (A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualifica- tion as a qualified newspaper as provided by Minn. Stat. $3314.02. (B) This Public Notice was printed and pub- lished in said newspaper(s) once each week, for I successive week(s); the hrst insertion being on 0713112025 and the last insertion being on 0713112025. MORTGAGE FORECLOSI.]RE NOIICES Pursuant to Minnesota Stat. $580.033 relating to the publication of mortgage foreclosure notices: The newspaper complies with the conditions described in $580.033, subd. l, clause (l) or (2). If the newspaper's known oflice of issue is located in a county adjoining the county where the mortgaged premises or some part of the mortgaged premises described in the notice are located, a substantial portion of the newspaper's circulation is in the latter county. By: Desipated Agent Subscribed and sworn to or affrrmed before me ot07l3ll2025 Notary Public Rate Information: (l) Lowest classilied rate paid by commercial users for comparable space: $999.99 per column inch CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNT!ES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PI.ANNING cAsE NO.2025.11 NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commis- sion will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, August 12, 2025, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Ma*et Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider requests related to con- structing a,[4-unit apartrnent build- ing m property generally located at 6440 Hazehine Boulevad. Poper- ty Owner Clover lnvestments, LLC; Applicant: Headwaters. Prolect documents for this rcquost are available for public rcview on the ci$s website at www.chanhassenmn.gov/ oioposeddewlopments or at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and expiess their opinions with rcspect to this proposal. Flachel Arsenauh Associate Planner Email: rarsenault(lchanhassenmn. gov Phonei 952-227-1'|'32 Published in the Sun Sailor July 31, 2025 1483156 Ad rD 14831s6 >r- MacPhersonMarieDarlene PublicNotary lvlinnesota NN31,Jan. 152 CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COLNTYOFCARVER ) l, Jenny Potter, being first duly sworn. on oath deposes that she is and was on September 4,2025. the duly qualified and acting City Clerk ofthe City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy ofthe attached notice Consider request to construct a 44-unit apartment building located at 6440 Hazeltine Boulevard. Owner: Clover Investments, LLC; Applicant: Headwaters Development, LLC to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage f'ully prepaid thereon: that the names and addresses ofsuch owners were those appearing as such by the records ofthe County Treasurer. Carver County. Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Jenny Pott City Clcrk Subscribed and swom to before me AMY K. WEIDMAN Notary Public-Minnesota My Commb.lon ExPir$ J.n 31,2027 this t1 duy b .2025.of .5 j< t 4 lend^ Notary Public 153 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Date & Time: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Consider request to construct a 44-unit apartment building located at 6440 Hazeltine Boulevard. Applicant: Headwaters Development, LLC Property Location: 6440 Hazeltine Boulevard A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans for the project. 3. Planning Commission discusses the proposal. 4. Public hearing is opened taking comments from the public, up to 5 minutes per person. 5. Public hearing is closed and the Planning Commission continues discussion on the project prior to voting on the project. Questions & Comments: To view project information before the meeting, please visit the city’s proposed development webpage: www.chanhassenmn.gov/proposeddevelopments Sign up to receive email updates about this or other projects. Go to https://www.chanhassenmn.gov/i-want-to/subscribe Date & Time: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Consider request to construct a 44-unit apartment building located at 6440 Hazeltine Boulevard. Applicant: Headwaters Development, LLC Property Location: 6440 Hazeltine Boulevard A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans for the project. 3. Planning Commission discusses the proposal. 4. Public hearing is opened taking comments from the public, up to 5 minutes per person. 5. Public hearing is closed and the Planning Commission continues discussion on the project prior to voting on the project. Questions & Comments: To view project information before the meeting, please visit the city’s proposed development webpage: www.chanhassenmn.gov/proposeddevelopments Sign up to receive email updates about this or other projects. Go to https://www.chanhassenmn.gov/i-want-to/subscribe 154 Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. «Tax_name» «Tax_add_l1» «Tax_add_l2» Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. «Next Record»«Tax_name» «Tax_add_l1» «Tax_add_l2» Subject Parcel Subject Parcel 155 Tax name Tax add l1 Tax add l2 ADAM G LUKENS 2444 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 AMANDA LYNN SUTTER 2300 MELODY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 AMY DIESBURG-STANWOOD 6275 CHASKA RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 BENJAMIN BRATLAND 2511 ORCHARD LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 BRET CORRICK 2625 ORCHARD LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 BRETT LONG 2629 ORCHARD LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 BRUCE OLSON AND H HANSEN OLSON TRUST 2432 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CAROL JEAN GOOD 6245 CHASKA RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CARRIE C NORTH 2446 W 64TH ST EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CARVER COUNTY 602 4TH ST E CHASKA MN 55318 CHANHASSEN CITY PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHRISTOPHER J MARA 749 RED OAK DR OCONOMOWOC WI 53066 CHRISTOPHER OHLAND 6285 CHASKA RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CLOVER INVESTMENTS LLC 6080 CLUB VALLEY RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DAMON M JOHNSON 6366 MELODY LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DANIEL KELLY 6361 MELODY LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DANIEL M LINDA L CONNER RATHMAN 2521 ORCHARD LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DANIEL M PESCHEL 2220 MELODY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DANIEL REICH 6378 MELODY LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DENNIS L & SHIRLEY M PETERSON 6269 CHASKA RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DENNIS M & JOAN E CLARK 6651 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DEVIN A SCHERER 2461 W 64TH ST EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DONALD H DUEFFERT 2451 W 64TH ST EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EDWARD KNUTSON 6450 ORIOLE AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ERIN WILBUR HEARST 2014 TRUST 17001 THE STRAND MINNETONKA MN 55345 FAZEL HARIS 6260 CHASKA RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 GARRETT TRAPNELL 2280 MELODY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 GARY A & MARIE C BRIDGE 2449 64TH ST W EXCELSIOR MN 55331 GARY SCOTT REED 2471 64TH ST W EXCELSIOR MN 55331 GLENN D JR SHERRY L JOHNSTON JOHNSTON 6263 CHASKA RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 HEIDI L CARLSON 6440 ORIOLE AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 HPA BORROWER 2016-1 LLC PO BOX 4900 SCOTTSDALE AZ 85261 156 IND SCHOOL DIST 276 5621 COUNTY ROAD 101 MINNETONKA MN 55345 JACOB POMPLUN 2630 FOREST AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JASON REYNOLDS 6390 MELODY LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOEY ALLAN IRINA LARSON LARSON 6235 CHASKA RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOHN & RENA DRAGSETH 2600 FOREST AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOSEPH G FISCHER REV INTERVIVOS TRUST 6251 CHASKA RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JUSTIN MILLER 2445 64TH ST W EXCELSIOR MN 55331 KATARZYNA KUPINSKA 6421 ORIOLE AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 KATHRINE FISHER 6461 ORIOLE AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 KATHRYN BEYER 6470 ORIOLE AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 KENNETH J & BETTY L LANG 2631 FOREST AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 KIM KAMRATH 6441 ORIOLE AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LAURA J LAMBERT LIMITED ACCESS TRUST 6300 CHASKA RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LESLIE A ALICE M HAUSLADEN POLTRACK 6354 MELODY LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LINDSAY PETERSON 6240 CHASKA RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LUKE STECK 6239 CHASKA RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LYNN SUZANNE MILLER 6405 MELODY LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MICHAEL C TOBIN 6377 MELODY LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MOHAMED JUHAAN JOHAR-PREISLER 6280 CHASKA RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MOUNT OLIVET ROLLING ACRES INC 7200 ROLLING ACRES RD VICTORIA MN 55386 NANCY JO PERKINS-BROOKS 2448 64TH ST W EXCELSIOR MN 55331 NARAYANAN KRISHNAMURTHY 6270 CHASKA RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PAMELA A SIMNING REVOCABLE TRUST 2290 MELODY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RACHEL L POPKEN 2460 64TH ST W EXCELSIOR MN 55331 REALTY INCOME PROPERTIES 3 LLC 16220 N SCOTTSDALE RD STE 650 SCOTTSDALE AZ 85254 REBECCA MCKENZIE DAVIS 6257 CHASKA RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RHONDA L STUDER 5925 MCKINLEY PL EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RICHARD D GAIL ANN PRATT BLISS PO BOX 100 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ROBERT E LEE III 16827 WILLOW LN SW PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 RR EXCELSIOR WAG LLC PO BOX 1159 DEERFIELD IL 60015 RUSSELL J & LYNN F PAULY 2447 64TH ST W EXCELSIOR MN 55331 SCOTT ROOKE 6250 CHASKA RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 SCP PE CHAN LLC 606 WASHINGTON AVE N STE 400 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55401 157 STANLEY J BARTON III 2350 MELODY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 STEPHANIE K PHILLIPS 2627 ORCHARD LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 STEPHEN J LEVOIR 6393 MELODY LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 THOMAS G & NEYSA L WINTERER 2210 MELODY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 TODD M LANG 2625 FOREST AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 TR OF WAYNE AND KELLY PETERSON 2444 W 64TH ST EXCELSIOR MN 55331 TROUVAILLE PROPERTY LLC 6600 CITY WEST PKWY STE 205 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 WIETSE BOTTEMA 2240 MELODY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 WILLIAM CROCKER 6290 CHASKA RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 158 a AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN I do solemly swear that the notice, as per the prool, was published in the edition of the SS M tka_Excelsior_Eden Prairie with the known office of issue being located in the county of: HENNEPIN with additional circulation in the counties of: HENNEPIN and has full knowledge ol the facts stated below: (A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualifica- tion as a qualified newspaper as provided by Minn. Stat. $331A.02. (B) This Public Notice was printed and pub- lished in said newspaper(s) once each week, for I successive week(s); the first insertion being on 0910412025 and the last insertion being on 0910412025. MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE NOTICES Purcuant to Mirmesota Stat. $580.033 relating to the publication of mortgage foreclosure notices: The newspaper complies with the conditions described in 9580.033, subd. l, clause (l) or (2). Ii the newspaper's known office ol issue is located in a county adjoining the county where the mortgaged premises or some part of the mortgaged premises described in the notice are located, a substantial portion ol the newspaper's circulation is in the latter county. By:G- Designated Agent Subscribed and swom to or affirmed before me on09l(412025 Ndary Public Rate Information: (l) l.owest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space: 5999.99 per column inch CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PTANNING cAsE NO.2025-11 NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commis- sion will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, September 16,2025, al 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Mar- ket Blvd. The purpose of this hear- ing is to consider requests related to constructing a 44-unit apartment building on property generally lo- cated at 6440 Hazehine Boulevard. Property Owner: Clover lnvest- ments, LLC; Applicant: Headwaters Development. LLC. Projecl documents for this request are available ,or public review on the city's website at www.chanhassenmn.gov/ oroposeddevelooments or at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and exprcSs their opinions with respect to this proposal. Rachel Arsenault Associate Planner Email: rarsenault@chanhassenmn.gov Phone: 952-227-1132 Published in the Sun Sailor September 4, 2025 1 4891 38 c<,. Ad tD 1489t38 159 Planning Commission Item September 16, 2025 Item Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated September 2, 2025 File No.Item No: D.1 Agenda Section APPROVAL OF MINUTES Prepared By Amy Weidman, Senior Admin Support Specialist Applicant Present Zoning Land Use Acerage Density Applicable Regulations SUGGESTED ACTION "The Chanhassen Planning Commission approves its September 2, 2025 meeting minutes." SUMMARY BACKGROUND DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION 160 "The Chanhassen Planning Commission approves its September 2, 2025 meeting minutes." ATTACHMENTS Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated September 2, 2025 161 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 2, 2025 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Noyes called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Eric Noyes, Steve Jobe, Jeremy Rosengren, Ryan Soller, Mike Olmstead, Dave Grover, and Katie Trevena. MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner; Eric Maass, Community Development Director; Rachel Jeske, Planner; and Joe Seidl, Water Resource Engineer. PUBLIC PRESENT: Deena Laugen Pioneer Trail Joy Gora Chanhassen, MN Linda Boerboom 2020 Clover Court Eric Reiners Eden Prairie, MN Logan Stein Plymouth, MN Andrew Altstatt Lakeville, MN C Henson Prior Lake, MN Scot Lacek Chanhassen, MN PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. CONSIDER A VARIANCE FOR A DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 3630 HICKORY ROAD (PLANNING CASE #25-13) Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner, reviewed Planning Case #2025-13 for rebuilding a garage at 3630 Hickory Road. She stated that the location was in the Red Cedar Point Neighborhood and was zoned residential single-family with a low-density residential land use. She noted specific lot attributes, including that it was 0.24 acres, 40 feet wide, bisected by Hickory Road, and was platted in 1913. She noted that the lot size is smaller than what is required by today’s standards. She explained the layout of the proposed garage, which would take the place of the existing garage. The expansion portion beyond what currently exists results in a variance that needs to be approved in order for the garage to be constructed as proposed. She said that the side setbacks were the same as the current setbacks. She reviewed the variance criteria and stated that the proposed garage met the criteria. Commissioner Jobe asked about the ten-foot drop on the topographical and if there would be any special landscaping built into the plan. Mrs. Arsenault answered that topographical changes 162 Planning Commission Minutes – September 2, 2025 2 would be addressed in the building plans, but any structures with the variance would have to meet the setbacks proposed in this variance plan. Chairman Noyes said that the owner is doing what they can reasonably do with the property, so the proposal seems the best way to go about it. Chairman Noyes opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Noyes closed the public hearing. Commissioner Jobe moved, Commissioner Rosengren seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the requested decreased side yard setbacks, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. 2. CONSIDER A SITE PLAN AND VARIANCE FOR A MEMORY CARE FACILITY AT 1620 ARBORETUM BLV (#25-10) Rachel Jeske, Planner, stated that Planning Case #2025-10 would go before the Planning Commission tonight and the City Council on September 22. She stated that the proposed development location is zoned high-density residential now and in the 2040 Land Use Guidance. She stated that the Moments of Chanhassen project was approved in January 2020, and the Eden Springs proposal was applied for in August 2025. She reviewed the proposed communications, including the proposed development sign placed on the property, an email sent on various dates to the proposed development's email group, postcards sent to neighbors within 500 feet, and a public hearing notice posted in the Sun Sailor. Ms. Jeske summarized the level of city discretion in approving or denying a site plan and noted that it was a quasi-judicial decision. She reviewed the definition of a continuing care facility and the standards required by the city. She noted the proposed architecture and the landscaping and stated that the planting plan did not meet the planting diversity requirements and would need to be updated before final construction plan approval. She commented that the proposed lighting plan meets the standards, and the proposed light pole height was less than 35 feet. She commented that the project requested a variance for the front yard parking setback and the wetland setback. She stated that the applicant proposed 30 parking spaces, including two garage stalls. She reviewed the variance standards and provided additional details about the variance requests. She noted that Riley Creek was located along the northern edge of the site, and that a reasonable solution was to average the buffer around the wetlands and reduce the setback in return. The second variance request was the reduced parking setback, and the applicant noted that they would provide adequate screening to accomplish the intent of the ordinance, but the wetland made it difficult to meet the 25-foot setback in the front of the property. She provided an overview of the utilities and stated that sanitary and water main services were located adjacent to the site. She commented that staff would require the water main to be looped within the site 163 Planning Commission Minutes – September 2, 2025 3 rather than accessing it in two separate locations. She stated the project would be required to connect to the sewer line in the adjacent city right-of-way if an easement is not acquired. Joe Seidl, Water Resources Engineer, stated that the site is currently undeveloped and is similar to an open prairie with a wooded area. He stated that a majority of the site runoff went directly into Riley Creek, and some of the runoff on the southern end of the project made its way to West 78th Street. He stated that there was one jurisdictional wetland onsite near the center of the site, which made development difficult. He stated that it was a managed type two and that the wetland and creek buffer was in poor condition because of debris and buckthorn. He stated that the project would maintain the major flow patterns and that there would be 58,000 square feet of new impervious area. He stated that the project would meet stormwater requirements for abstraction, rate control, and water quality by means of the filtration system and the jellyfish filter system. He commented that a wetland delineation was approved in May 2025, which found that there were 0.08 acres of a type 1/2 wetland adjacent and upgradient to Riley Creek. He stated that due to the site constraints, the applicant proposed placing the building within the wetland building setback. He stated that the proposed plans show a minimum buffer associated with a managed two-wetland classification, and the building and sidewalks were well within the 30-foot setback measured from the buffer edge, which requires a variance. He stated that the wetland delineators go out and determine the wetland line, and the Technical Evaluation Panel reviews the information. He said that the Water Resource department recommends an enhanced buffer reestablishment plan, which meets City Code 20-412, and the plan does have notes to the effect within the plan set. Ms. Jeske said that the site plan meets all the requirements for the site plan review. Commissioner Rosengren asked them to indicate where the back edge of the building would be. Mr. Seidl explained that the back end of the building would sit near a specific contour. Commissioner Jobe asked about City Code and water, and if they would use a retention pond for stormwater management, and if they would require or allow any fencing. He specifically referred to an individual with dementia entering the pond. Mr. Seidl said that it was a filtration basin; it should be dry most of the time, but a fence or other landscaping could be allowed by City Code. Commissioner Soller asked if there were additional requirements that the site would have to meet for the watershed district. Mr. Seidl responded that the site received conditional approval from the watershed district. He said that the watershed district had similar buffer requirements but allowed more averaging. He stated that the watershed district did not have any setback requirements, but the city does, which requires a variance. Commissioner Soller asked if averaging was spelled out in City Code to understand what was allowable, or if it was just best practice. Mr. Seidl answered that it was left to staff discretion, but the watershed district had a stricter methodology for the minimum buffer widths. Commissioner Soller asked if, given the trade-off in exchange for the variance, the city would receive a net benefit with the increased quality of the creek and buffer. Mr. Seidl confirmed this information. He said that they manage the impervious area, so they would balance the building 164 Planning Commission Minutes – September 2, 2025 4 being close to the wetland and the creek by buffering around the wetland. He said that there were areas outside of the wetland buffer, and they would look to them to establish native vegetation. Chairman Noyes asked about removing the buckthorn and construction debris, if there were any long-term maintenance requirements, and how they would be included. Mr. Seidl said it was discussed and outlined in the City Code. He requires that the applicants follow the MnDOT seeding manual, which provides a maintenance plan of three years for planting, prepping, mowing, and weeding until the establishment is complete. He stated it would be up to the owner of the site to maintain the area to meet the standards of the City Code. He said if the commissioners desired more from the applicant to ensure that it was taken care of, it could be added to the maintenance plan. Commissioner Olmstead asked how access management is regulated by the city. Ms. Jeske answered that the city engineer and the subdivision ordinance provides guidance on access management. Commissioner Olmstead asked who made the final decisions. He voiced concerns about two access points on a 40-mile-per-hour road, but it is coming from a controlled intersection with an all-way stop, and MnDOT did not express concerns about the plan. He said he was excited about access management, but he was not excited about the access point one hundred feet from a controlled intersection. Ms. Jeske said that the City Engineer determines the final plan. Commissioner Trevena said that they discussed the conditions outlined in the staff report that they want to be a part of the variance, and when they would see the conditions. She asked about the enhanced buffer and the developer’s responsibility. Ms. Jeske said that by approving the variance with the staff’s proposed conditions, they would apply to the variance approval. Commissioner Rosengren noted that this was reviewed and accepted by the city, but if they discovered anything, they are doing better this time around with the requirements and site review, even though the proposal was similar. Ms. Jeske responded that the variance proposals and the way the staff reviewed them were similar, but the staff previously recommended a five- foot wetland setback, when zero was originally proposed, which the new applicant included with their request. Deena Laugen, the applicant, stated that Eden Springs had a purpose to create a small home-like community in a luxury boutique setting. She stated that many people were hesitant when taking the first step to assisted living or memory care. She said it would be a place people can spend time together, building relationships and a community, and they can tailor the care to the individual. She stated that they would feel like it is the resident’s home, and they just work there. She reviewed the two current types assisted living homes in the market, like large apartments and retrofitted homes. She said that Eden Springs would be a different option and would fit the needed middle. She stated that loneliness was present in the elderly population, and individuals would not be isolated in their rooms. She commented that they were designed to spend the day interacting with everybody. She said that they would have a more favorable resident and 165 Planning Commission Minutes – September 2, 2025 5 caregiver ratio. She expressed excitement in bringing Eden Springs to Chanhassen to allow residents to experience a city for life. Chairman Noyes opened the public hearing. Joy Gora welcomed Deena Laugen to the industry. She wished her the best of luck and noted that there were a lot of rules and requirements. She stated that their industry always had staff shortages. She said that there are 1,900 assisted living homes in Minnesota. She said that people would need to tour multiple places to see the differences. She commented that there are tremendously great individuals in the industry. She said that she would face challenges in Chanhassen. She encouraged that the staff ratio was a quality ratio, so she did not look like a predator in the industry. She thought the location would be a wonderful place to have a dementia unit. She stated that if a dementia client slipped out of the facility, they would likely have a wander guard on the patient. She commented that if they left the facility, they hoped they would receive support from the sheriff’s department to locate the client. Linda Boerboom, 2020 Clover Court, stated that she traveled the frontage road every day. She expressed concerns about dementia with the street out there and if there would be any safeguards put in place to protect the drivers on the road and the residents. She asked if they would need gates or to reduce speed in that area. She expressed concern because they have winters in Minnesota, so there could be ice. She commented that the plot of land was very small. She said she wanted to look at safety. Deena Laugen mentioned on the site plan in the back, there would be gates with locks, along with locks on any exterior door. She stated that there was constant improvement with AI to keep residents safe while maintaining their rights. Chairman Noyes closed the public hearing. Commissioner Olmstead stated as they saw additional development and traffic demand on the roadways, they had an approach to assess the traffic and roadways. He asked about traffic control, such as four-way stops. Ms. Jeske said that all accesses are considered by the engineering team during a development proposal. She said a resident could submit concerns to the traffic safety committee about specific intersections. She stated that there were city-wide initiatives, such as speed limits. She said it was determined on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Seidl commented that there were engineering standards for sightlines and intersections for safe travel on roadways. He said there was traffic counting to see if a roadway could handle the amount of traffic proposed. He stated that the engineering department is looking at these with each development. He commented that they are looking at these things to make sure they do not impede traffic and that residents stay safe. Commissioner Soller stated that as development happens, roadways will get busier. He commented that certain areas of the city meet engineering standards, but not the expectations of residents who want to live in a safe and quiet neighborhood. He wants to understand the process. 166 Planning Commission Minutes – September 2, 2025 6 Commissioner Grover said that there was a large area that was farmland west of the property. He asked about what uses were allowed for the area and if this was compatible with other developments that might occur. Ms. Jeske said that the 2040 comprehensive plan was guided for residential and housing, but it would be dependent on the landowner. She said that the guidance could change in the future. Chairman Noyes commented that they received three emailed public comments about the case. He summarized the first, which thought that the development was too close to Lake Ann Park, another that said the cost of memory care was too high, and the third wanted a golf course. He stated that the Planning Commission had to make sure the site plan and variances met the requirements of the city code. He commented that they were not here to make a judgment on the good or bad of the proposal. Commissioner Soller stated that any project that would have a traffic impact or impact on pedestrians, he asked if they could highlight whether this project would provide a net or neutral benefit to pedestrian access along the road. Ms. Jeske responded that the additions would be two driveways and additional landscaping. She said it was a net neutral benefit to pedestrians. Commissioner Soller clarified that both access points would have a pedestrian crosswalk through the access point. Ms. Jeske confirmed they will likely have crosswalks across them. Commissioner Soller asked if this was a requirement in the City Code. Ms. Jeske answered that it was up to the discretion of the engineering department. Commissioner Rosengren said a similar plan was previously approved. Chairman Noyes asked if they needed to have a written-out condition related to the landscaping maintenance plan. Ms. Jeske answered that the water resources department did a good job with their plans but asked for feedback from Mr. Seidl. Mr. Seidl answered that the watershed district required a buffer management plan, so he thought they would be covered. He did not see an issue with the applicant since they have to work with the watershed district. Commissioner Olmstead moved, Commissioner Rosengren seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission approve the requested variances and recommended approval of the requested site plan for the 42-bed Eden Springs Assisted Living & Memory Care facility, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0, with Commissioner Jobe abstaining from this item. GENERAL BUSINESS: 1. EXTENSION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) PREVIOUSLY ISSUED FOR A CONTRACTOR’S YARD AT 1591 PARK ROAD 167 Planning Commission Minutes – September 2, 2025 7 Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner, reviewed Planning Case #2024-09, which is requesting an extension to the conditional use permit for a contractor’s yard at 1591 Park Road. She stated that the new owner purchased the property in the winter and was working through the stormwater management plan to move on to the permit to install stormwater management, gutters, and paving. She stated that the lapse condition was nearing for the conditional use permit and that the staff recommends a one-year extension to the conditional use permit. Commissioner Jobe moved, Commissioner Trevena seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council grant the proposed conditional use permit extension for the contracting yard at 1591 Park Road. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED AUGUST 12, 2025 Commissioner Soller moved, and Commissioner Grover seconded to approve the Chanhassen Planning Commission summary minutes dated August 12, 2025, as presented. All voted in favor, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Eric Maass, Community Development Director, stated that the city remains on schedule to move into the new City Hall building, so the September 16 meeting will likely be held in the new City Hall. Chairman Noyes asked about a picture of the Planning Commission in the new meeting. Mr. Maass asked if all were available, and if not, they would target the first meeting in October for a photograph. Commissioner Jobe asked when the city approves a site plan with tree covers and a mature tree was damaged and was likely to die, what would happen. Mr. Maass responded that they require a grading fence and a tree save fence to protect the root area of the tree from grading activities. He said that if grading activities occur outside of where it was supposed to be or the fencing is not installed and trees that were required to be saved are removed, then the development contract stipulates penalties such as replanting at a two-to-one ratio. Commissioner Soller asked if there was an agenda for the September 16 meeting. Mr. Maass confirmed the information. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION: None. OPEN DISCUSSION: None. 168 Planning Commission Minutes – September 2, 2025 8 ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Jobe moved, Commissioner Trevena seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:10 p.m. Submitted by Eric Maass Community Development Director 169 Planning Commission Item September 16, 2025 Item Accessory Structure Ordinance Discussion File No.Item No: F.1 Agenda Section ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS Prepared By Eric Maass, Community Development Director Applicant Present Zoning Land Use Acerage Density Applicable Regulations SUGGESTED ACTION No formal action; general information only. SUMMARY The City Council will discuss possible amendments to the ordinances related to accessory structures at their work session meeting on September 22. A public hearing on a proposed ordinance amendment could be held at the October 7 Planning Commission meeting. Buildings defined as "Agricultural Buildings" as outlined by state statute are exempt from building permit requirements, but that exemption does not apply to local zoning ordinance requirements. Currently, the city's ordinances limit the total square footage of all accessory structures to 1,000 square feet for all residential zoning districts, including the agricultural district. A draft ordinance would exempt an "Agricultural Building" located on a property zoned for Agricultural Use from the 1,000 170 square foot maximum, but would still require adherence to all other applicable standards, including but not limited to, minimum setbacks, building height and impervious lot cover. The City Council was generally supportive of such an exemption based on discussion at their September 8 work session meeting. The City Council requested that this item be brought back to their September 22 work session meeting to review whether any additional ordinance amendments that would revise accessory structure limitations more broadly may be supported. Staff is seeking general questions that the Planning Commission may have regarding possible accessory structure ordinance revisions in advance of a potential public hearing on October 7 and a request for a formal Planning Commission recommendation. BACKGROUND DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION No formal recommendation; discussion only. ATTACHMENTS Accessory Structure Ordinance ReOrganization and Ag Structure Exemption 171 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. XXX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 20-904 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended as follows: Sec 20-904 Accessory Structures a) A detached accessory structure shall be located in the buildable lot area or required rear yard. No accessory use or structure in any residential district shall be located in any required front, side or rear setback with the following exceptions: 1. In the A2, RR, RSF, RLM and R4 districts the total square footage of all accessory structures shall not exceed 1,000 square feet. In the RSF, RLM and R4 districts these structures may encroach into the rear setback as follows: a. Less than 140 square feet, minimum rear setback is five feet. b. One hundred forty-one to 399 square feet, minimum rear setback is ten feet. c. Four hundred square feet and above, minimum rear setback is 30 feet, except in the RLM district where the minimum rear setback is 25 feet. 2.1.On riparian lots, detached garages and storage buildings may be located in the front or rear yard but must comply with front, side and applicable ordinary high water mark setbacks and may not occupy more than 30 percent of the yard in which it is built. 3.2.Tennis courts and swimming pools may be located in rear yards with a minimum side and rear yard setback of ten feet, but must comply with applicable ordinary high water mark setbacks. b) In the RR, RSF, RLM and R4 districts the total square footage of all accessory structures shall not exceed 1,000 square feet. Agricultural buildings, as defined by Minnesota State Statute, shall be exempt from the 1,000 square feet maximum but shall adhere to all other applicable standards, including but not limited to impervious lot cover and minimum building setbacks. 172 c) In the RR, RSF, RLM and R4 districts the total square footage of all accessory structures shall not exceed 1,000 square feet. 1. On riparian lots, detached garages and storage buildings may be located in the front or rear yard but must comply with front, side and applicable ordinary high water mark setbacks and may not occupy more than 30 percent of the yard in which it is built. d) A detached accessory structure may occupy not more than 30 percent of the area of any rear yard. b)e) For parcels with less than three acres in any residential or agricultural district, no accessory structure or use shall be erected, constructed or commenced prior to the erection, construction or commencement of the principal permitted structure or use, but may be erected or commenced simultaneously. If the principal structure or use is subsequently removed, destroyed or discontinued, the accessory structure or use must be removed or discontinued within 12 months. c)f) Shall comply with the Freedom to Breathe Provision of the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act contained in M.S. §§ 1144.411 to 1144.417. d)g) Docks, which shall comply with section 20-920. e)h) Pursuant to authority granted by M.S. § 462.3593 subdiv. 9, the City of Chanhassen opts-out of the requirements of M.S. § 462.3593. Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED this ___day of _______, 2025, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota _____________________________ ________________________________ Jenny Potter, City Clerk Elise Ryan, Mayor (Published in the ______________________________ on ______________________________) 173