25-02 CC packetCity Council Item
March 24, 2025
Item Consider Preliminary Plat, Wetland Alteration Permit, and Land Disturbance
and Tree Removal Contract for Pleasant View Pointe (Project 25-02)
File No.Planning Case 25-02 Item No: H.3
Agenda Section GENERAL BUSINESS
Prepared By Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner
Reviewed By Laurie Hokkanen
SUGGESTED ACTION
“The Chanhassen City Council approves the requested preliminary plat, wetland alteration permit for
the subdivision on Pleasant View Road subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached
Findings of Fact and Decision and approves the land disturbance and tree removal contract.”
Motion Type Simple Majority Vote of members present
Strategic
Priority Development & Redevelopment
SUMMARY
The Applicant is proposing the subdivision of 13.65 acres of properties, zoned Single-Family
Residential and guided for Low-Density Residential into twenty lots.
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission reviewed this proposed development at their meeting on March 4th, 2025.
Since that meeting, the proposed development plans have been revised such that Nez Perce Drive is
shown to connect to Peaceful Lane. This resulted in additional roadway frontage and the opportunity for
an additional buildable lot bringing the total lots within the proposed subdivision from 19 lots to 20 lots.
Each of the 20 lots shown adhere to the City's base zoning ordinance requirements for the Residential
Single Family (RSF) zoning district. The potential for a roadway extension of Nez Perce Drive to
Peaceful Lane was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting on March 4th, 2025.
283
DISCUSSION
As shared on the project page and via email to subscribers of the Proposed Developments list on
Tuesday, March 19:
During the review of this proposed development — including discussions at the March 4th Planning
Commission meeting — the potential connection of Nez Perce Drive to Peaceful Lane has been
considered. Based on prior feedback, the Applicant originally proposed a development plan that omitted
this connection in favor of a cul-de-sac extension of Peaceful Lane. However, after further review and
advisement from the City Attorney, staff will now propose approval of the preliminary plat with the
extension of Nez Perce Drive to Peaceful Lane.
The City Attorney has raised concerns regarding the proposed plat and the variance recommendation by
the Planning Commission, citing City Code requirements. The City Council will consider this item on
March 24, 2025.
BUDGET
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the requested Preliminary Plat, Cul-de-sac length
variance, and Wetland Alteration Permit.
As detailed above and in the attached materials, the staff recommendation is for the City Council to
approve the requested preliminary plat and wetland alteration permit. (The variance request has been
withdrawn.)
ATTACHMENTS
Pleasant View Pointe Application
Pleasant View Pointe - Pre-Plat Narrative
Pleasant View Pointe - Updated Site Plan
Preliminary Plat Plan Set
Staff Report - Preliminary Plat and Wetland Alteration Permit
Findings of Fact
Trip Generation Analysis
Adopted - March 4, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Antonio_Fricano_3.7.25_Redacted
Letter to Mayor Ryan and City Council
Land Disturbance and Tree Removal Contract
March 12, 2025 letter from ELLRNA
284
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning Division - 7700 Market Boulevard
Mailing Address - P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317
Phone: (952) 227 -1100 I F ax.. (952) 227-1110 *ffrror
APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Submittal Dale \L-ZO.Z'I PC Date y L\ -L5
""Date:
L- v -15 60-Day Review Datel Z'W 15
(Refer to the apprc.piate Awlicalion Check st fot requted submiftal information that must accompany this application)
! Comprehensive Plan Amendment....... . . .. . ... . $7OO E Subdivision (SUB)
! condirionaruse permit(cup) E ;i:l:J::r::[l'- ....... .. .. .! Single-Family Residence . ... .. ................... $400
E I,otn".. $60'
=
X;:::,flNTJ:'(.] "I.]
E lnterim use permit (tup) E Administrative subd. (Line Adjustment)
E ln conjunction with single-Family Residence.. $4oo ! rinal Plat " "'"'"'
E All others. ... ............. ........ $600 g vacation of Easements/Right-of-way (vAC)
n Rezoning (REz) (Additional recording fees mav applv)
E Planned Unit Development (PUD) .................. $750 E Variance (VAR)..................
n Minor Amendment to existing PUD................. $1 OO
n All Others...... ...................... $60o E Wetland Alteration Permit (wAP)
E Single-Family Residence.......................
E Sign Plan Review.................. . . . . .... ............. $150 E A[ Otners......
E Site Plan Review (SPR) ! Appeal of Administrative Decision...............E Administrative .. .. .............. $1OO
E Residentiaucommercial/lndustrial Districts.. $750-- n Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA).........
NqIE: When multiple applications are processed concuftenuy, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application
E Notificatlon Sign (ciryto insrart and remove). ....
E Escrow for Recording Documents (check all that apply)...........
fl Conditional Use Permit - $50 E lnterim Use Permit - $50
f] Wetland Alteration Permit - $50 [ Easements (_ easements) - $85
! Variance - $50 ! Metes & Bounds Sub (2 deeds) - $250
. $500
$12s0
$300
$150
. s1s0
$700-
$300
$200
$150
$275
$200
$500
$200
.... $ per document
E Site Ptan Agreement - $85
E Vacation - $85
n Deeds - $100
TOTAL FEE:
"lncludes $450 escrow for attorney costs.
'"Additional escrow may be required for other applications through the development contract.
Description of proposat: Proposing a RSF compliant neighborhood/ development plan for 'lg homesites
955, 1015 Pleasant View Ave and 6535 Peaceful
I
Section 1: Application Type (check all that apply)
Section 2: Required lnformation
Property Address or Location
Parcel #;
13.25Total Acreage:
Present Zoning RSF
Legal Description PID's 258700063, 258700062, 258690130, 258710190
Wetlands Present?EYesENo
Requested Zoning
Low Density Res Low Density Besidential
RSF
Vacant and Sinqle Familv
B Check box if separate narrative is attached
Present Land Use Designation:Requested Land Use Designation:
Existing Use of Property:
285
Property Owner and Applicant lnformationSection 3
APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing this application, l, as appticant, represent to have obtained
authorization from the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions oi approval, subject only to
the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. lf this application has not been slgnej by
the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to fite the application. This appliiation '
should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this
application. lwill keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progiess of ttris applic;tion. I
further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibjlity studies, eic. with an esiimate prior to
any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct.
Name Rachel Developmenl, lnc Contact. Paul Bobinson
Address: 4'180 Napier Court NE Phone 763.488.9650
City/Stateizip St, Mi ce 612.791.7080
Email Probin racheld nt.com Fax
Signature Date. 12t10t2024
PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing this application, !, as property owner, hav€ full legal capacity to, and hereby do,
authorize the filing of this application. I understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those
conditions, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will keep myself informed of
the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that ;dditional fees may
be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with thestudy. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct.
Name. Beddor Enterprises, LLP Contact
P hon e:
Steve Beddor
Address: 12555 Salem Ave
Norwood Young America, I\,4N 55368 Cell:
Fax.
Date
6ta 3.jq 6J70
Er-air. steve@beddor
Signature e-0-2
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all
information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, refer io the
appropriate Application Checklist and confer with the Planning Depa(ment to determine the specific ordinance and
applicable procedural requirements.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A
written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application.
PROJECT ENGINEER (if aoplicable)
1rr" Alliant Engineering, lnc.Contact
Phone:
Mark Rausch
Address: 733 lvlarquette Ave, Suite 700 763.213.9775
City/State/Zip Minneapolis, MN 55402 Cell
FaxEmail. mrausch@alliant-inc.com
Who should receive copies of staff reports?'Other Contact lnformation :
EEEE
Property
Applicant
Engineer
Othert
Owner Email steve@beddor.com Name
Emai I e'obnen@r&ierd*€brn6' 60 Address
Email m6ueh.ca ,Enr-m mn city/state/zip
Email:Email dr,.d'@h@,&h€'de.befr 6d @m
INSJRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT: Complete all necessary form fields, then selectSAVE FORM to save a copy to your
device. PRINT FORM and deliver to city along with required documents and payment. suBMtT FoRM to send'a digital
copy to the city for processing.
Section 4: Notification lnformataon
city/state/zip:
286
4180 Napier Ct NE Michael, MN 55376
Office: 763.424.1500
www.racheldevelopment.com
Pleasant View Pointe – Preliminary Plat Narrative
To: City of Chanhassen
From: Rachel Development, Paul Robinson – Development Director
Date: 12/20/2024
A. Submittal Documents
1. Narrative
2. Pre-Plat Plan Set
3. Site Plan Rendering
4. Easement Vacation Exhibit
5. Storm Wa ter Management Plan
6. ALTA Survey
B. Applicant and Consultants
1. Developer – Rachel Development, Paul Robinson, Development Director
2. Builder – Charles Cudd Co., Rick Denman, Charles Cudd, Matt Olson
3. Civil Engineer(s) – Alliant Engineering - Tyler Stricherz, Mark Rausch
4. Survey – Alliant Engineering - Dan Ekrem
5. Wetland Consultant – Kjolhaug Engineering, Melissa Barrett
6. Attorneys – Larkin Hoffman, Peter Coyle, Ryan Boe
C. Site Basics
• Land Use Plan Guiding – Low Density Residential – 1 - 4 units/acre
• Zoning – RSF
• Development Acres – 14.046
• Owner – Beddor Enterprises, LP
• PID’s: 258700063, 258690130, 258710190, 258700060, and 258700062.
287
Pleasant View Pointe – Preliminary Plat
December 20, 2024
Page 2
2
D. Introduction
On October 14th at the City Council work session, we presented the City Council with a concept
plan for developing the Beddor property at 955,1015 Pleasant View Rd. There were two items in
particular that we were seeking guidance on as a part of that review. Item one was if we should
extend Nez Perce to connect to the Troendle Addition and item two was how, if at all, we should
provide an alternative access point to the water tower. After some discussion, the general Council
direction was to not connect Nez Perce to the Troendle neighborhood and that staff was going to
review the need for an alternative water tower access.
Our Concept Plan continues to comply with or exceed the requirements of the RSF zoning district.
That said, one variance is required for cul-de-sac length. This comes from listening to the desires of
288
Pleasant View Pointe – Preliminary Plat
December 20, 2024
Page 3
3
the adjacent neighbors at the neighborhood meeting and from subsequent City Council direction to
not connect Nez Perce Drive. This is addressed in greater detail below.
E. Site Characteristics
1. Woodlands
We have completed a tree survey and inventory. There are 777 trees that qualifled as signiflcant
for the survey. The City enforces tree preservation by evaluating the percentage of tree canopy
being removed. The tree preservation plan, inventory and calculations are included on pages
14-18 of the preliminary plat submittal. Based on the City canopy preservation calculations we
will be required to plant 91 trees, shown on our landscaping plan, to offset the project impact to
the existing canopy.
As we mentioned in our concept plan, we did try to keep the majority of trees that boarder the
property and we are preserving the two endangered White Walnut (Butternut) trees shown on
our survey on Lot 1, Block1 of the Preliminary Plat.
2. Topography
The high point on the property is 1046 on the
south end of the site near the water tower and the
lowest point is 993 in the north pond area. The
majority of the southern property generally fiows
to the north and to the existing pond offsite to the
west, with smaller site areas fiowing offsite to the
east and south. Overall, there is around 50 ~ feet
of topographical change across the property
depending on existing pond depth. Post
development the drainage patterns will be
similar, however, more area will be captured and
routed to a new stormwater management system
and areas currently discharging offsite to the
west, south and east will be reduced.
289
Pleasant View Pointe – Preliminary Plat
December 20, 2024
Page 4
4
3. Wetlands
There was much conversation between us and the Technical Advisory Panel (TEP) regarding
the status of Pond 1. We felt that there was enough evidence of previous impacts and City
approvals to call the pond a pond versus a wetland. In large part that was due to a grading
permit issued by the City of Chanhassen on September 4, 1992 which authorized the
construction of a new pond (Pond 1 currently on the Beddor property). This permit
approved fllling an existing pond on the property and expanding and reconflguring the
approved Troendle addition pond. The new pond met the NURP standards for storm water
treatment for Troendle Addition but also expanded the ponding area to accommodate
future roadway work and additional future development of the Beddor property. Without
getting lost in the technical arguments the TEP believed that based on historical aerial
photo reviews, not the grading
plan approved in 1992, that a
portion of the existing pond is
historic wetland. At the time we
are writing this narrative we have
not yet received the formal
Notice of Decision from the TEP.
What we have heard is that the
TEP was comfortable
recommending that Wetland 1
and the Historic portion of Pond
1 as shown in our plans be
considered wetlands in the
Notice of Decision so this is what
is included as wetlands in the
Preliminary Plat Plan Set and
calculations.
4. In our concept narrative we noted that we would be requesting a wetland alteration permit for
wetland #1. We are now also expanding that request to include the area now shown as historic
remnant wetland within existing Pond 1. We are submitting a wetland alteration
permit/replacement plan concurrent with our preliminary plat application.
290
Pleasant View Pointe – Preliminary Plat
December 20, 2024
Page 5
5
F. Plan Details
• Lots – 19
• Lot Sizes
o North Portion 32,745 – 64,625 sf –
averaging 42,830 sf
o Southern Portion 18,123 – 42,541 sf –
averaging 22,746 sf
• The set-backs used for the lots follow the
required setback of the RSF and are
shown on the site plan – see page 5 of
the preliminary plat plan set.
1. Roadways
• Nez Perce – As mentioned in the introduction the preliminary plat does not include a
Nez Perce connection to the Troendle neighborhood. A number of neighbors at the
neighborhood meeting mentioned not wanting the connection for fear of cut through
traffic and that changing the exiting traffic pattern which has been in place for over 30
years did not seem necessary. A neighborhood representative also explained the
neighborhood’s desires during the concept review with the City Council.
The exhibit shown on the next page and a sperate plan provided with the submittal
illustrates how a portion of the existing Nez Perce Drive right of way (ROW) will be
vacated and a portion of the Nez Perce ROW will be retained. Within the New Perce
ROW being retained, the existing roadway will be removed and replaced with a trail.
Connected and adjacent to the portion of the Nez Perce ROW being retained is an
Outlot A. This Outlot will be dedicated to the City and is 50’ wide to match the width of
the ROW. A trail connection to the Troendle Addition will be included within Outlot A
and the unvacated portion of Nez Perce. Additionally, the Outlot/ROW corridor will be
used for utility connections, portions of driveways accessing homesites within Pleasant
View Pointe and could also serve as a roadway connection in the future if there ever was
a need for such a connection.
291
Pleasant View Pointe – Preliminary Plat
December 20, 2024
Page 6
6
With the removal of the Nez Perce Drive connection Peaceful Lane will now continue
south terminating in a cul-de-sac. While the ROW width has historically been 50’ in this
area, the ROW width will be 60’ and roadway 31’ wide consistent with current City
standards. No sidewalk is proposed which is consistent with the surrounding
neighborhoods.
• Redman Lane/Peaceful Lane - A portion of peaceful land(AKA Redman Lane) which
extends to the water tower was previously approved to be vacated by the City. It
appears that vacation may never have been recorded. We are working with our title
company to determine the official status and will either vacate Redman Lane or
incorporate it into our plat as needed.
2. Easements and Vacations
With our Preliminary Plat there will be a number of vacations needed to move and relocate
roadways and other various easements beyond those described above. These are shown
below on the following page and also on a separate exhibit provided with the submittal.
292
Pleasant View Pointe – Preliminary Plat
December 20, 2024
Page 7
7
3. Variance Request
With the changes described above to Nez Perce the length of cul-de-sac for Peaceful Lane will
now be roughly 1,040’ long, exceeding the city standard of 750’. During concept review, it
appeared that the Council and Staff would accept this variance and understood that it was a
necessity if Nez Perce Drive was not connected. There was also discussion about other similar
precedents within the City. A couple examples include: Della Drive at the Bluffs at Lake Lucy
1,350’ cul-de-sac approved in 2020, Gunfiint Trail 1,210’ in Highcrest Meadows approve in 2005,
and Preserve Court 1,230’ in Preserve at Rice Creek approved in 2015 to name a couple.
293
Pleasant View Pointe – Preliminary Plat
December 20, 2024
Page 8
8
4. Traffic
Comments received from residents who participated at the neighborhood meeting are attached
as an exhibit.
a. Lake Lucy Road - There were a number of residents living along Lake Lucy Road, in
particular, that were concerned about increased traffic creating further dangerous
conditions on Lake Lucy Road. It appears to us that not connecting Nez Perce
should help ameliorate those concerns.
b. Peaceful Lane/Pleasant View Road – Similarly a resident on Peaceful Lane and on
Pleasant View Road expressed concerns about traffic onto Pleasant View Road and
asked that a direct connection to Powers Blvd should be considered. Adding an
additional intersection onto Power Road (County Road 17) does not seem practical
or likely to be approved by the City or County vs using Pleasant View Road which is
already classifled by the City as a collector roadway.
5. Storm Water
The proposed stormwater management plan will modify and enlarge the existing pond. The
storm sewer inlet from Troendle additional will remain (alignment will be modifled) and
proposed pond outlet will be installed in the same location as the existing pond storm sewer
outlet. Currently the pond is sized to handle the wet volume NURP storage for the onsite
drainage area as well as for the portion of the Troendle addition already draining to the pond. In
addition to the NURP treatment there is a flltration bench that will treat the required watershed
water quality volume of 1” over the proposed impervious surfaces. The flltration bench will
include an underdrain/fllter submersed within a specially designed soil mix.
As a part of the revised storm pond and storm water treatment system we will need to vacate a
portion of the City’s previous drainage and utility easement . It will be reconflgured to coincide
with the new treatment system. Additionally, we will be looking at if and how the pond could be
expanded in the future to help provide additional storm water treatment from Pleasant View
Road in the future when that roadway is reconstructed. The image on the next page shows and
how the D & U is being modifled and expanded from 1.28 acres to 1.81 acres to accommodate
additional area and work with the development plans.
294
Pleasant View Pointe – Preliminary Plat
December 20, 2024
Page 9
9
6. Utilities
Pleasant View Pointe will be served by existing sanitary sewer and watermain adjacent to the
site. Sanitary sewer will be connected to existing sewer within Peaceful Lane with the addition
of a new manhole and new trunk sewer extending south within the proposed cul-de-sac to
service proposed lots 4-5, block 1 and lots 1-13, block 2. Proposed lots 1-3, block 1 will have
right of way frontage along Pleasant View Lane and will make use existing sewer services
previously installed. Proposed lot 6, block 1 will make use of the existing sewer service
provided to the lot from Nez Perce Drive. Trunk watermain will be installed, extending an
existing watermain within Nez Perce Drive west to the proposed cul-de-sac connecting to the
existing watermain within Peaceful Lane. Proposed lots, 4-5, block 1 and lots 1-13, block 2 will
connect to new watermain services on a new trunk watermain. Proposed lots 1-3, block 1 will
use the existing services provided from Pleasant View Lane watermain and lot 6, block 1 will
use the existing water service provided from Nez Perce Drive.
There are existing sanitary sewer and watermain and services along the west property boundary
in Redmen Lane ROW. These utilities will not be connected to and will be abandoned for those
sections not currently servicing an existing resident. Sanitary sewer and water service will
remain for those utilities currently providing service to the existing homes along Peaceful Lane.
295
Pleasant View Pointe – Preliminary Plat
December 20, 2024
Page 10
10
7. Builder
As mentioned above we are working with Charles Cudd Co. on this neighborhood. Below are
some examples of the types homes that could be built in this neighborhood.
8. Outlots
In the concept plan there were two Outlots, however, the proposed plan only has one, Outlot A.
As described above, this outlot is for the connection between Pleasant View Pointe and
296
Pleasant View Pointe – Preliminary Plat
December 20, 2024
Page 11
11
Troendle for a trail, utility connections, driveways and possible a roadway if ever needed in the
future.
The second Outlot which was shown in the concept plan but is not included in the Preliminary
Plat was to provide a secondary connection to the water tower. Staff reviewed the need for this
connection after concept review and asked us not to include it in the preliminary plat. This was
also an item that a number of the Lake Lucy road residents had objected to at the neighborhood
meeting.
G. Neighborhood Meeting
As mentioned, several times in this narrative, on July 31 we held a neighborhood meeting on the
Pleasant View Pointe development plans. Approximately 30 people came to the meeting. We gave
a presentation and answered a number of questions. I summarized many of the questions in the
narrative we provided for the concept review. Attached is an exhibit with the same summary
provided with the concept review.
H. Closing
We are looking forward to discussing our development plans with you. Please let us know if there is
any additional information you would like to help inform your review.
297
Pleasant View Pointe – Preliminary Plat
December 20, 2024
Page 12
12
Exhibit A – Developer Comment Summary from the July 31, 2024 Neighborhood Meeting
1. Traffic Concerns - Concerns about traffic in general and construction traffic are combined.
There were slightly differing concerns about traffic during construction and traffic overall.
a. Residents on Peaceful Lane – NOTE: There are only two residences on Peaceful
Lane. The owners of one of the residences were in attendance and were concerned
about the Nez Perce connection to Peaceful Lane and the traffic that they would
now be experiencing. They would prefer no connection to Peaceful Lane. The
Peaceful Lane resident liked the idea from the Pleasant View resident(s) that there
should be a connection to Powers or that the development use Nez Perce going
south without a connection to Peaceful Lane. Concerned if a connection was made
to Peaceful that the roadway could not handle the wear and tear. Also, concerned
that the intersection of Peaceful and Pleasant view is dangerous and cannot handle
the additional traffic safely.
b. Residents on Pleasant View – There were not a lot of residents in attendance from
Pleasant View. Those there did not think there should be any connection to Pleasant
View but that the development should connect directly to Powers instead. There
was some mention of a promise made by the City Council to not connect to
Pleasant View and of actions made by Frank Beddor to make a connection to
Pleasant View more difficult. (NOTE: Pleasant View is considered a minor collector
in the City/County roadway system)
c. Residents on Nez Perce and Troendle Circle – In general concern about cut
through traffic. Residents do not see the beneflt or need to connect Nez Perce. They
think that all would be better off without this connection. Less traffic potential for
those on Nez Perce and for those on Pleasant View and Peaceful Lane. They said
they would support the project if Nez Perce was turned into a cul-de-
sac/hammerhead with no through connection to Nez Perce.
d. Residents on Lake Lucy Rd – In general residents on Lake Lucy Road have
concerns about the amount and speed of traffic on their roadway. Concerns about
safety and that connecting the development to Nez Perce will create more traffic
and a potential cut through for traffic after construction and create a route for
construction traffic during construction.
2. Stormwater Drainage into Lot 13 – The owner of the home adjacent to Lot 13 said they
currently receive a lot of water from the Beddor property (and also City water tower
property). There was a concern that this could get worse with development. Mark Rausch,
the developers engineer, let the homeowner know that the watershed area fiowing into her
property would actually be reduced and while there would still be some water it will be less
298
Pleasant View Pointe – Preliminary Plat
December 20, 2024
Page 13
13
water after development than prior to development. In general, we cannot control water
coming from areas not on our property.
3. Residents adjacent to Lot 11 – The residents of the two homes on Troendle Circle behind
Lot 11 were concerned about how close the homes would be to their homes. They asked if
there was any way that we could adjust to lots to make the distance larger. Our response
was that it may not be possible we are meeting the standards of the zoning district but that
we would look at additional plantings to help screen the lots from each other.
4. Water Tower Access Road – The residents along Lake Lucy Rd adjacent to, across from and
near this potential access strenuously object to having this become a water tower access.
They believe they were told by the City that this would never be needed or used as an
access. Some residents had called and talked to the City Engineer and were told that no
plans were being considered. We let residents know that this was coming from Charlie the
Public Works Director and that he would be the one to contact. There is a 50’ wide outlot in
this location. Another resident said he thought the adjacent neighbor was offered to buy
the property from the City at one point.
5. Existing Tree Lines – Owners of homes adjacent to the Beddor property implored us to save
the trees on the Beddor property adjacent to their properties. We said that it was generally
in our mutual interest to do so. We said will try to save as many of the trees along the
property lines as possible.
6. Storm Water
a. Concern about Christmas Lake – Do not want any water quality impacts to the lake
due to this development. We stated that we will be required to meet stormwater
management requirements of the City and MCWD for rate, quality and volume
control.
7. City Sanitary Sewer & Water
a. Concerns about Water Pressure – neighbor(s) stated that they have very low water
pressure (40 psi) and wanted to know how this could impact them.
b. General questions about how we would connect to City sewer and water.
8. General Questions
a. How will the lots along Pleasant View connect to the roadway system. We said that
they would directly access Pleasant View much like the neighboring properties.
b. Concern about lot sizes relative to neighborhood - We said they are the same if not
larger than the neighboring lots.
c. Is the existing home being torn down? – We indicated that the existing home would
be torn down.
299
Pleasant View Pointe – Preliminary Plat
December 20, 2024
Page 14
14
d. Would there be model homes or spec homes? – We said yes that there would likely
be a spec home/model home.
e. Questions about allowable work hours. We did not know exactly but said Monday –
Saturday with Saturday we thought 7:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m. and no work on Sunday.
f. Question about how long the development buildout would take. We mentioned we
thought it would take about 3 years.
9. Types & Price of Homes - We said in general we saw the homes on the 15,000 sf lots being
1 ½ story to 2 story homes starting in the 1.3 million range. The large lots would be custom
lots with a wider range of overall value above that.
10. Lot Layout/Density
a. Size of Lots - Residents asked why the lots south of Nez Perce are smaller than the
6 proposed north of Nez Perce – explanation was provided that all lots meet current
zoning and the design was created to match the existing lot sizes in each area.
b. Larger or Fewer Lots/No Development – In general if the residents could waive a
magic wand, they would have not development or would have fewer larger lots. We
let the residents know that we are meeting/exceeding the standards of the zoning
district and that we are on the very low end of what could be allowed based on the
Comprehensive Plan guiding which could allow up to 4 units/ ac.
300
12346123456789101112135BLOCK 2BLOCK 2BLOCK 1BLOCK 11000' Shoreland District BoundarySW WETLAND/FILTRATIONPEACEFUL LANE PEACEFUL LANE
739,006 sf32,828 sf29,930 sf26,462 sf30,599 sf36,504sf61,662 sf21,343 sf19,676 sf20,002 sf19,993 sf20,105 sf24,952 sf23,338 sf18,431 sf47,140 sf32,981 sf27,418 sf22,265 sf26,030 sfPLEASANT VIEW RDREDMAN LANE
TROENDLE CIRCLE
NEZ PERCE DRFile Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\SITE.dwg Plotted By: Mark Rausch on March 14, 2025 at 12:04:47 PMKnow what's below.Call before you dig.RDial 811FOR REV
IEW
ONLYPRELIM
INARYNOT FOR
CONSTRUCT
ION
City Submittal
Site Plan Update - Nez Perce Drive Connection
3-14-2025
12-19-2024
Chanhassen, Minnesota
Preliminary Plat Submittal
Pleasant View Pointe
Site PlanTyler Stricherz www.alliant-inc.comPROJECT TEAM DATAQA/QC CHECKDateByCERTIFICATIONDateLicense no.DATE DESCRIPTION
Project No.:Drafted By:Designed By:Sheetof TAS, MPRELL4000320-00I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or reportwas prepared by me or under my direct supervisionand that I am a duly Licensed ProfessionalCivil Engineer under the laws of theState of Minnesota. 5195N0SCALE IN FEET3060120LEGEND: TYPICAL LOT DETAILSITE PLAN DATA: 301
PLEASANT VIEW RD
REDMAN LANETROENDLE CIRCLENEZ PERCE DR
123
4
6
1
2
3
4
5
67
8
9
10
11
12
13
5
BLOCK 2BLOCK 2OUTLOT A
BLOCK 1
BLOCK 1
1000' Shoreland District Boundary
POND/FILTRATION
NWL:994.0
100 YEAR HWL:998.99
PEACEFUL LANEP
E
A
C
E
F
U
L
L
A
N
E
File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\COVER.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:55:16 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
N
N City Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointeCover Sheetwww.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
Tyler Stricherz
TAS
ELL
4000320-00
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed Professional
Civil Engineer under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
Cover Sheet
Existing Conditions
Preliminary Plat
Site Plan
Grading & Drainage Plan
Grading Profiles
Erosion & Sediment Control Plan
Sanitary Sewer & Watermain Plan
Storm Sewer Plan
PLAN SUBMISSION/REVISION MATRIX
#SHEET DESCRIPTION 2024-12-13DEVELOPER
Rachel Development
4180 Napier Court NE
Saint Michael, MN 55376
Email: probinson@racheldevelopment.com
Contact: Paul Robinson
CONSULTANT
Alliant Engineering, Inc.
Marquette Avenue South, Suite 700
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: 612.758.3080
Fax: 612.758.3099
ENGINEER
Tyler Stricherz
License No. 61993
Email: TStricherz@alliant-inc.com
SURVEYOR
Dan Ekrem
License No. 57366
Email: dekrem@alliant-inc.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
John Gronhovd
License No. 59233
Email: jgronhovd@alliant-inc.com
VICINITY MAP
Scale: 1"=3000'
N
Pleasant View Pointe
Chanhassen, Minnesota
CONTACT LIST
0
SCALE IN FEET
50 100 200
1 19
1
1 X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PROJECT
LOCATION
Wetland Management Plan
Pond Detail
Landscape Plan
Tree Preservation Plan
Tree Inventory
Demolition Plan
#
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Erosion & Sediment Control Notes
17-18
19
Tree Plan Enlargements15-16
2
302
1000
1010
994
10
1
0
100010161012
1010
1000
996
10041000
100010041006
9961026 1
0
2
2
10
2
0
10201022
101010201000998100610201030
1032
10361032103010301026102410
2
0
10
1
8 10181022101610
1
4
1008
PARCEL 1
GU
S83°48'28"W 147
.
0
2
N1°02'51"E 290.00PARCEL 2
PARCEL 3
PARCEL 3
S88°06'51"E 294.35
S0°47'27"W 222.50PARCEL 4
PARCEL 5
S88°06'51"E 379.08 S0°47'27"W 716.87N74°5
8
'
2
1
"
W
1
7
0
.
8
1
R=173.13 L=36.12
Δ=11°57'12"
C.Brg=N68°59'45"W
R=204.48 L=117.26
Δ=32°51'21"
C.Brg=S58°32'40"E
S54°
5
4'
1
9"
W
58.9
3
S18°02'55"W 198.74S36°38'01"W 457.20R=223.13 L=22.55
Δ=5°47'22"
C.Brg=N72°04'40"W
N74°5
8
'
2
1
"
W
1
7
0
.
8
1R=154.
4
8
L
=
17
6.77Δ=6
5
°
3
3'4
5"C.Br
g=S4
2
°
1
1'2
8"ES18°02'55"W 187.12S89°47'13"W 315.46
R=56 2 .5 4 L=81.1 3
Δ=8°15'4 6"C.Br g=S 8 6°0 4'5 4"E
S83°48'28"W
58.88 S1°02'51"W 7.06
S84°03'53"E 14
6
.
3
8
S1°02'51"W 4.86
N87°22'17"W 140.00
S1°02'51"W 232.41R=175.00
L=44.19
Δ=14°28'08"
C.Brg=S59°04'19"E
C=44.07
N
5
1
°
5
0
'
1
6
"
W
1
1
5
.
0
0
S0°47'27"W 3.06
PLEASANT VIEW RD
R=175.00 L=71.23
Δ=23°19'16"
C.Brg=N63°29'54"W
REDMAN LANENEZ
PERCE
DRIVE
TROENDLE CIRCLES89°47'13"W 118.22
Parcel 1
All of Lot 1 and that part of Lot 2, Block 3, "Vineland Forest", Carver County, Minnesota, lying Northerly of a line
drawn from a point on the East line of said Lot 2 a distance of 53.53 feet North of the Southeast corner of said
Lot 2 to a point on the West line of said Lot 2 distant 66.00 feet North of the Southwest corner of said Lot 2 and
there terminating.
Parcel 2
That part of Lots 5 and 6, “Vineland”, described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 5;
thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the south line of said Lot 5, a
distance of 168.62 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract of land to be herein described; thence North 0
degrees 43 minutes 26 seconds East 32.25 feet; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West 179.00
feet; thence South 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds East 129.57 feet; thence South 89 degrees 16 minutes 34
seconds East 160.63 feet; thence North 0 degrees 43 minutes 26 seconds East 96.01 feet to the actual point of
beginning, Carver County, Minnesota.
Together with an easement for ingress and egress over and across that part of Lot 5, “Vineland”, Carver County,
Minnesota lying Westerly of the following described line:
Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 5; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West,
assumed bearing, along the south line of said Lot 5 a distance of 168.62 feet; thence North 0 degrees 43
minutes 26 seconds East 32.25 feet; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West 179.00 feet; thence
South 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds East a distance of 32.57 feet, more or less, to a point on the south line
of said Lot 5, which point is the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence on a line running North 7
degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 160 feet, more or less, to the intersection of said line with the
westerly lot line of said Lot 5, and there terminating.
And
That part of Lots 5 and 6, "Vineland", Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: viz:
That part of the South 45.25 feet of Lot 5 and of the North 96.01 feet of Lot 6, "Vineland" lying Easterly of a line
drawn perpendicular to the South line of said Lot 5 from a point on said South line distant 168.62 feet Westerly
along said South line from the Southeast corner of said Lot 5.
Parcel 3
Lot 5, Vineland, Carver County, Minnesota, except that part thereof described as follows, viz:
Commencing on the Southeast corner of said Lot 5; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West,
assumed bearing, along the South line of said Lot 5 a distance of 168.62 feet to the actual point of beginning of
the parcel being described; thence North 0 degrees 43 minutes 26 seconds East 32.25 feet; thence North 89
degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West 179.00 feet; thence South 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds East a
distance of 32.57 feet, more or less, to a point on the South line of said Lot 5 (hereinafter referred to as “Point
A”); thence Easterly along the South line of said Lot 5 to the point of beginning.
Subject to an easement for ingress and egress and utility purposes, appurtenant to and for the benefit of the
above described Exception, which said easement is described as all that part of said Lot 5, Vineland, lying
Westerly of the following described line: Beginning on the South line of said Lot 5 described above as “Point A”;
thence on a line running North 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 160 feet more or less, to its
intersection with the Westerly line of said Lot 5 and there terminating.
Also excepting from said Lot 5 that part thereof described as follows, viz:
A 50.00 foot strip of land over and across Lot 5, Vineland, Carver County, Minnesota, the centerline of said strip
is described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of Lot 5; thence South 00 degrees 24 minutes 03 seconds East, on an
assumed bearing, along the East line of Lot 5, a distance of 380.86 feet to the point of beginning of the centerline
to be described; thence Westerly, a distance of 29.21 feet along a non-tangential curve concave to the South,
said curve having a radius of 198.13 feet, a central angle of 08 degrees 26 minutes 53 seconds and a chord
bearing of North 71 degrees 56 minutes 25 seconds West; thence North 76 degrees 09 minutes 51 seconds
West tangent to last described curve, a distance of 170.81 feet; thence Northwesterly, a distance of 124.92 feet,
along a tangential curve concave to the Northeast, said curve having a central angle of 39 degrees 52 minutes
43 seconds and a radius of 179.48 feet to a point hereinafter referred to as “Point B”; thence continue
Northwesterly and Northerly along the last described curve a distance of 124.92 feet and said centerline there
terminating.
Also excepting, a 50.00 foot strip of land over and across said Lot 5, Vineland, the centerline of said strip is
described as follows:
Beginning at the above described “Point B”; thence South 53 degrees 42 minutes 49 seconds West, a distance
of 100.00 feet and said centerline there terminating.
Parcel 4
Lot 6, Vineland, Carver County, Minnesota, except that part thereof described as follows, viz: Commencing at
the Northeast corner of said Lot 6, thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West, assumed bearing,
along the North line of said Lot 6, a distance of 168.62 feet to the actual point of beginning of the land to be
described; thence South 0 degrees 43 minutes 26 seconds West a distance of 96.01 feet; thence North 89
degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 160.63 feet; thence North 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds
West a distance of 97.00 feet to the North line of said Lot 6; thence Easterly along the said North line of Lot 6 to
the point of beginning.
Excepting from said Lot 5 and said Lot 6 the following described premises:
That part of the South 45.25 feet of Lot 5 and of the North 96.01 feet of Lot 6, “Vineland” lying Easterly of a line
drawn perpendicular to the South line of said Lot 5 from a point on said South line distance 168.62 feet Westerly
along said South line from the Southeast corner of said Lot 5.
And
Lot 7, Vineland, Carver County, Minnesota, except that part of said Lot 7 described as follows, viz: Commencing
at the Southwest corner of Lot 7, Vineland; thence North 1 degree 53 minutes 49 seconds East a distance of
76.37 feet to a point on the Southeasterly line of Peaceful Lane; thence North 36 degrees 53 minutes 34
seconds East along said Southeasterly line of Peaceful Lane a distance of 174.79 feet; thence South 87 degrees
50 minutes 55 seconds East a distance of 294.35 feet; thence South 1 degree 03 minutes 23 seconds West a
distance of 220.04 feet to the Southerly line of said Lot 7; thence South 87 degrees 50 minutes 55 seconds West
along said Southerly line of Lot 7 a distance of 397.82 feet to the point of beginning.
Together with an easement appurtenant to the foregoing Parcels 2, 3 and 4 for ingress and egress over and
across that part of Lot 5, Vineland, Carver County, Minnesota lying Westerly of the following described line:
Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Lot 5; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West,
assumed bearing, along the South line of said Lot 5 a distance of 168.62 feet; thence North 0 degrees 43
minutes 26 seconds East 32.25 feet; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West 179.00 feet; thence
South 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds East a distance of 32.57 feet, more or less, to a point on the South line
of said Lot 5, which point is the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence on a line running North 7
degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 160 feet, more or less, to the intersection of said line with the
Westerly lot line of said Lot 5, and there terminating.
Parcel 5
Outlot A, Troendle Addition, Carver County, Minnesota.
All Abstract Property
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
Sheet ofJOB NO.DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SCALEFIELD CREW:DATEDESCRIPTIONFIELD DATE:CLIENTDOCUMENTPROPERTY ADDRESSwww.alliant-inc.com
Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
0
SCALE IN FEET
30 60 120
N
I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am
a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the state of Minnesota.
Dan Ekrem___________________________________________________
Print Name
____________________________________________________________
Signature
12/19/2024 57366____________________________________________________________
Date License Number
File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\ECON.dwg Plotted By: Joshua Taylor on December 19, 2024 at 7:52:19 AM Chanhassen, MN2 154000320-00RS,MS,LB7/24/2024 RACHEL DEVELOPMENTJDT1"=60'DPEEXISTING CONDITIONSSURVEY2 LEGEND
HOUSE DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
1.This Survey and the property description shown here on based upon information found in the
commitment for title insurance prepared by DCA Title - The Title Team as agent for Old Republic
National Title Insurance Company file no. DC240228, dated January 9, 2024
2.The basis of bearings is assumed.
3.All distances are in feet.
4. The locations of existing public utilities on or serving the property are depicted based on Gopher State
One Call Ticket No. 241563124 & 241563143, available city maps, records and observed evidence
locations. Lacking excavation, underground utility locations may not be exact. Verify critical utilities
prior to construction or design.
5. Benchmark: MnDOT benchmark ROBERTQ MN053 RESET, located in Excelsior, 0.5 mile west along
2nd Street from the junction of 2nd Street (old Log Way Christmas Lake Road) and Trunk Highway 7,
then 0.8 mile south on County Road 82, 30.0 feet northeast of County Road 82, 54.0 feet south of
Christmas Lake, 93.2 feet southeast of a power pole, 45.5 feet northwest of a power pole, 36.5 feet
south of a corner fence post, 1.3 feet southwest of a witness post and have and elevation of 978.994
FT NAVD88.
NOTES
303
60193 (MAG FND)
PARCEL 1
PARCEL 2
PARCEL 3
PARCEL 3
PARCEL 4
PARCEL 5
R=223.13 L=22.55
Δ=5°47'22"
C.Brg=N72°04'40"WR=154.
4
8
L
=
176.77Δ=6
5
°3
3'4
5"C.Br
g=S4
2°
1
1'28"E
PLEASANT VIEW RD
R=175.00 L=71.23
Δ=23°19'16"
C.Brg=N63°29'54"W
REDMAN LANETROENDLE CIRCLENEZ PERCE DR
File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\DEMOLITION.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:55:33 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
N
0
SCALE IN FEET
30 60 120 City Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointeDemolition Planwww.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
Tyler Stricherz
TAS
ELL
4000320-00
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed
Civil Engineer under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
NOTES:
1.PRIOR TO STARTING CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE
RESPONSIBLE TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL REQUIRED PERMITS AND
APPROVALS HAVE BEEN OBTAINED. NO CONSTRUCTION OR
FABRICATION SHALL BEGIN UNTIL THE CONTRACTOR HAS RECEIVED AND
THOROUGHLY REVIEWED ALL PLANS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS
APPROVED BY ALL OF THE PERMITTING AUTHORITIES.
2.CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY GOPHER STATE ONE CALL, 800-252-1166, 48
HOURS PRIOR TO EXCAVATION WORK. CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE
PRIVATE UTILITIES LOCATED
3.CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY THE LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF
EXISTING UTILITIES AND TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES, SUCH AS EXISTING
GUTTER GRADES AT THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAYS, PRIOR TO THE START
OF SITE GRADING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE
ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES OR VARIATIONS FROM THE PLANS.
4.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROPERLY DISPOSE OF ALL MATERIAL REMOVALS.
CONTRACTOR TO SALVAGE ALL MATERIALS POSSIBLE AND COORDINATE
WITH OWNER ON FINAL USE.
5.PRIOR TO EARTH DISTURBANCE, INSTALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT
CONTROL AS NECESSARY TO PREVENT SEDIMENT TRANSPORT OFFSITE
DURING CONSTRUCTION WORK. INSTALL SILT FENCE AND INLET
PROTECTION TO AT DISTURBANCE LIMITS.
6.SEE TREE PRESERVATION SHEETS FOR TREE REMOVALS AND INDIVIDUAL
TREE LOCATIONS.
7.DEVELOPER OR CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE A COPY OF THE WELL
SEALING RECORDS ONCE WELL SEALING IS COMPLETE..
8.ALL REMOVALS IN AREAS OF NO MASS GRADING SHALL INCLUDE
RESTORATION OF AREA COMPLETE WITH SEEDING AND APPROPRIATE
EROSION CONTROL.
9.SEE SEPARATE EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN FOR FULL SITE SURVEY.
10.SEE ALSO SEPARATE EXHIBIT(S) FOR VACATED EASEMENTS/ROW.
LEGEND:
3 19
3
N
304
RLS 9018
PLEASANT VIEW RD
REDMAN LANETROENDLE CIRCLENEZ
PERCE
DR
123
4
6
1
2
3
4
5
67
8
9
10
11
12
13
5
BLOCK 2BLOCK 2OUTLOT A
BLOCK 1
BLOCK 1
PEACEFUL LANEP
E
A
C
E
F
U
L
L
A
N
E
=
=
=
=
=
S88°06'51"E 294.35'
=
S84°03'53"E
146.38'S1°02'51"W232.41'L
=4
4.19'
R
=175.00'
Δ
=
14°28'08"
N
5
1
°
5
0
'
1
6
"
W
1
1
5
.
0
0
'
L=71.23' R=175.00'
Δ=23°19'16"
=
S1°02'51"W
4.86'
N87°22'17"W
140.00'
=S36°38'01"W457.20'S89°47'13"W 315.46'S89°47'13"W
118.22'N1°02'51"E 290.00'S0°47'27"W 716.87'S88°06'51"E 379.08'S0°47'27"W 222.50'=
=
=
=
=S18°02'55"W 343.34'S18°02'55"W 195.82'PARCEL AREA TABLE
PARCEL
B1-L1
B1-L2
B1-L3
B1-L4
B1-L5
B1-L6
B2-L1
B2-L2
B2-L3
B2-L4
B2-L5
B2-L6
B2-L7
B2-L8
B2-L9
B2-L10
B2-L11
B2-L12
B2-L13
OUTLOT A
PEACEFUL LANE ROW
PLEASANT VIEW ROW
AREA SF
39,006
32,745
35,333
64,625
46,373
38,896
18,415
19,114
19,456
19,444
20,100
24,952
23,338
18,431
42,541
28,869
23,306
18,123
19,609
9,093
49,063
1,029
AREA AC
0.90
0.75
0.81
1.48
1.06
0.89
0.42
0.44
0.45
0.45
0.46
0.57
0.54
0.42
0.98
0.66
0.54
0.42
0.45
0.21
1.13
0.02
File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\PRELIMINARY PLAT.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:55:42 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
NCity Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointePreliminary Platwww.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
Tyler Stricherz
TAS
ELL
4000320-00
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed Professional
Civil Engineer under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
4 19
4
N
0
SCALE IN FEET
30 60 120
LEGEND:
PROPERTY LINE
LOT LINE
R.O.W
EASEMENT LINE
FOUND IRON MONUMENT
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS:
Being 5 feet in width and adjoining lot lines and 10 feet in
width and adjoining right of way lines, unless otherwise
indicated on the plat.
NOT TO SCALE
305
123
4
6
1
2
3
4
5
67
8
9
10
11
12
13
5
BLOCK 2BLOCK 2OUTLOT A
BLOCK 1
BLOCK 1
1000' Shoreland District Boundary
POND/FILTRATION
NWL:994.0
100 YEAR HWL:998.99
PEACEFUL LANEP
E
A
C
E
F
U
L
L
A
N
E
PLEASANT VIEW RD
REDMAN LANETROENDLE CIRCLENEZ PERCE DR
File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\SITE.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:55:52 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
NCity Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointeSite PlanTyler Stricherz
www.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
TAS
ELL
4000320-00
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed Professional
Civil Engineer under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
5 19
5
N
0
SCALE IN FEET
30 60 120
LEGEND:
TYPICAL LOT DETAIL
SITE PLAN DATA:
306
1000
1010
994
10
1
0
100010161012
1010
1000
996
10041000
100010041006
9961026 1
0
2
2
10
2
0
10201022
101010201000998100610201030
1032
10361032103010301026102410
2
0
10
1
8 10181022101610
1
4
1008
PLEASANT VIEW RD
REDMAN LANETROENDLE CIRCLENEZ PERCE DR
123
4
6
1
2
3
4
5
67
8
9
10
11
12
13
5
BLOCK 2BLOCK 2OUTLOT A
BLOCK 1
BLOCK 1
1000' Shoreland District Boundary
POND/FILTRATION
NWL:994.0
100 YEAR HWL:998.99
PEACEFUL LANEP
E
A
C
E
F
U
L
L
A
N
E
F
WW
WW
W
File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\GRADING.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:56:15 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
NCity Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointeGrading & Drainage Planwww.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
Tyler Stricherz
TAS
ELL
4000320-00
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed Professional
Civil Engineer under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
6 19
6
N
0
SCALE IN FEET
30 60 120
GRADING NOTES:
1.ALL FINISHED GRADES SHALL SLOPE AWAY FROM PROPOSED BUILDINGS AT
MINIMUM GRADE OF 2.0%. ALL SWALES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM SLOPE OF 2.00%.
2.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP THE ADJACENT ROADWAYS FREE OF DEBRIS AND
PREVENT THE OFF-SITE TRACKING OF SOIL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY AND WATERSHED.
3.NOTIFY GOPHER STATE ONE CALL, AT (800)252-1166, 48 HOURS PRIOR TO START OF
CONSTRUCTION.
4.ALL IMPROVEMENTS TO CONFORM WITH CITY OF CHANHASSEN CONSTRUCTION
STANDARDS SPECIFICATION, LATEST EDITION.
5.ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES SHALL BE PROVIDED AT ALL CONSTRUCTION
ACCESS POINTS.
6.REFER TO GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND PROJECT MANUAL, FOR SOIL CORRECTION
REQUIREMENTS AND TESTING REQUIREMENTS.
7.STRIP TOPSOIL PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION. REUSE STOCKPILE ON SITE.
STOCKPILE PERIMETERS MUST BE PROTECTED WITH SILT FENCE.
8.PRIOR TO STARTING CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE
TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS HAVE BEEN
OBTAINED. NO CONSTRUCTION OR FABRICATION SHALL BEGIN UNTIL THE
CONTRACTOR HAS RECEIVED AND THOROUGHLY REVIEWED ALL PLANS AND
OTHER DOCUMENTS APPROVED BY ALL OF THE PERMITTING AUTHORITIES.
9.IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING GRADING OF (3:1 OR GREATER) SIDE SLOPES AND
DRAINAGE SWALES, WOOD FIBER BLANKET OR OTHER APPROVED SOIL
STABILIZING METHOD (APPROVED BY ENGINEER) SHALL BE APPLIED OVER
APPROVED SEED MIXTURE AND A MINIMUM OF 6" TOPSOIL.
10.THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR MUST DISCUSS DEWATERING PLANS WITH ALL
SUBCONTRACTORS TO VERIFY NPDES REQUIREMENTS. IF DEWATERING IS
REQUIRED DURING CONSTRUCTION, CONTRACTOR SHOULD CONSULT WITH
EROSION CONTROL INSPECTOR AND ENGINEER TO DETERMINE APPROPRIATE
METHOD.
11.REFER TO STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP) FOR ALL
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICE LOCATION, DESCRIPTIONS, NOTES AND
DETAILS INCLUDING CONCRETE WASHOUT STATION INSTRUCTIONS.
12.SEE SHEET 7 FOR ROADWAY AND TRIAL CENTERLINE PROFILES.
13.SEE SHEET 7 FOR HOUSE PAD HOLDDOWNS & SEE SHEET 5 FOR CITY TYPICAL
ROADWAY/STREET SECTION.
14.FREEBOARD: THE LOWEST BUILDING OPENING MUST BE AT MINIMUM 1' ABOVE THE
EMERGENCY OVER FLOW ELEVATION (EOF) AND BUILDING ADJACENT TO
STORMWATER BASIN SHALL BE 3' ABOVE THE 100 YEAR HIGH WATER LEVEL (HWL)
RETAINING WALL NOTES:
1.ALL RETAINING WALLS SHALL BE ROUGH GRADED AT A 2:1 SLOPE WITH BASE OF
SLOPE AT PROPOSED WALL FACE.
2.THE RETAINING WALL SLOPE AREAS ARE TO BE MAINTAINED UNTIL RETAINING
WALL CONSTRUCTION OCCURS. ANY EROSION SHALL BE REMEDIED AND
RESTORED.
3.BUILDING PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL RETAINING WALLS 4 FEET IN HEIGHT
OR GREATER AND THE WALLS SHALL BE DESIGNED BY A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
WITH DESIGN REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE BUILDING PERMITS SHALL BE DIRECTED TO THE
CITY BUILDING INSPECTOR.
4.A SAFETY RAILING IS REQUIRED ATOP ALL WALLS PER BUILDING CODE.
5.RETAINING WALL CONTRACTOR AND/OR RETAINING WALL STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
ARE RESPONSIBLE TO REVIEW CIVIL SITE ENGINEERING DRAWINGS. ANY
OBSERVED CONCERNS WITH CIVIL SITE ENGINEERING DESIGN ELEMENTS RELATED
TO RETAINING WALLS THAT REQUIRE MODIFICATIONS TO THE CIVIL SITE DESIGN IS
THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO COORDINATE WITH PROJECT OWNER AND CIVIL SITE
ENGINEER. IF NO COORDINATION IS REQUESTED IT SHALL BE UNDERSTOOD THAT
ALL CONDITIONS WITHIN THE CIVIL SITE DESIGN AND PLANS ARE ACCEPTABLE AND
ABLE TO BE PROVIDED FOR IN THE RETAINING WALL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION.
6.RETAINING WALLS ARE TO BE FINAL DESIGNED AND PERMITTED BY OTHERS.
GRADING LEGEND:
307
PEACEFUL LANE PROFILE
Trail A PROFILE
BLOCK 2 HOLD DOWN DETAILS
WALKOUT PAD
SUBGRADE CORRECTION
FULL BASEMENT PAD
LOOKOUT PAD
BLOCK 1 HOLD DOWN DETAILS
WALKOUT PAD
SUBGRADE CORRECTION
FULL BASEMENT PAD
PLAN VIEW: HOLD DOWN DETAIL
FULL BASEMENT File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\PROFILES.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:56:25 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
NCity Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointeGrading Profileswww.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
Tyler Stricherz
TAS
ELL
4000320-00
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed Professional
Civil Engineer under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
0
SCALE IN FEET
25 50 100
7 19
7
PEACEFUL LANE
10' BIT TRAIL
308
3
BLOCK 1
POND/FILTRATION
NWL:994.0
100 YEAR HWL:998.99
WA
A'1000
1010
994
10
1
0
100099610041006996PEACEFUL LANEPLEASANT VIEW
A A'File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\POND DETAILS.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:56:42 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
N
0
SCALE IN FEET
15 30 60 City Submittal 12-19-2024 8Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointePond-Filtration Detailwww.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
Tyler Stricherz
TAS
ELL
4000320-00
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed
Civil Engineer under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
8 19819
FILTRATION TRENCH DETAIL
(NOT TO SCALE)
N
OCS 101
N.T.S
NOTE:
309
GU
1000
1010
994
10
1
0
100010161012
1010
1000
996
10041000
100010041006
9961026 1
0
2
2
10
2
0
10201022
101010201000998100610201030
1032
10361032103010301026102410
2
0
10
1
8 10181022101610
1
4
1008
GU
PLEASANT VIEW RD
REDMAN LANETROENDLE CIRCLENEZ PERCE DR
123
4
6
1
2
3
4
5
67
8
9
10
11
12
13
5
BLOCK 2BLOCK 2OUTLOT A
BLOCK 1
BLOCK 1
POND/FILTRATION
NWL:994.0
100 YEAR HWL:998.99
PEACEFUL LANEP
E
A
C
E
F
U
L
L
A
N
E
DND
DND
DND
DND
DND
DND
DND
DND DNDDNDDND
DND
DND
DND
File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\EROSION CONTROL.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:56:57 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
NCity Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointeErosion & Sediment Control Planwww.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
Tyler Stricherz
TAS
ELL
4000320-00
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed Professional
Civil Engineer under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
9 19
9
N
0
SCALE IN FEET
30 60 120
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
TBD: MPCA CERTIFIED
SWPPP INSPECTOR
INSPECTOR:
EROSION CONTROL PARTIES
LEGEND:
DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE
PROPOSED CONTOUR
EXISTING CONTOUR
PROPERTY LINE
LOT LINE
RIGHT-OF-WAY
EXISTING TREE
PROPOSED SEDIMENT SILT FENCE PRE SF
DO NOT DISTURB AREASDND
PST SF
EROSION CONTROL BLANKET
(CATEGORY 3N)
DESIGNER:
ALLIANT ENGINEERING
733 MARQUETTE AVE.
STE. 700
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
CONTACT: TYLER STRICHERZ
PH: 612-767-9330
INSTALLER:
(PRE GRADING)
PROPOSED SEDIMENT SILT FENCE
(POST GRADING)
ROCK CONSTRUCTION
ENTRANCE
TBD: MPCA CERTIFIED
SWPPP INSTALLER
RESPONSIBLE PARTY:
DISTURBED AREA 11.1 AC
EROSION CONTROL BLANKET 3,458 SY
SILT FENCE 6,676 LF
INLET 13 EA
SWPPP BMP QUANTITIES
(PER PLAN):
RACHEL CONTRACTING
THE MASS GRADING CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTALLATION OF ALL EROSION AND
SEDIMENT CONTROL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS) AS SHOWN IN THE SWPPP. THE
BMPS ARE TO BE INSTALLED AT A MINIMUM AS SHOWN IN THE PLAN, IF CONDITIONS ARISE,
ADDITIONAL BMP SUPPLEMENTATION TO PREVENT SITE EROSION OR SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MAY
BE NECESSARY. THE MASS GRADING CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL BMPS REQUIRED
TO COMPLETE THE MASS GRADING ACTIVITIES. THE MASS GRADING CONTRACTOR IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR FINAL SITE STABILIZATION. UTILITY CONTRACTOR INSTALLING UTLITIES MUST
MAINTAIN ALL BMPS IN PLACE. STREET CONTRACTOR INSTALLING STREETS MUST MAINTAIN ALL
BMPS IN PLACE. AT THE COMPLETION OF PROJECT WORK AND SATISFACTORY SITE SOIL
STABILIZATION A NOTICE OF TERMINATION (NOT) SHALL BE FILED ON MPCA WEBSITE. A NOTICE
OF TERMINATION WILL CLOSE OUT THE PERMIT.
NOTE TO CONTRACTOR:
1. SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG
ANTI-TRACKING CONTROL
TEMPORARY SEED MIX
1. MnDOT-100
(OATS 20-120 DAY STABILIZATION)
PERMANENT SEED MIX/STABILIZATION
1. MnDOT 34-271
2. MnDOT 35-241
STABILIZATION BMP'S
1. STRAW/HAY
MnDOT TYPE 1 MULCH
2. EROSION CONTROL BLANKET
MnDOT CAT. 3N
3. HYDROMULCH
MnDOT TYPE 42. MnDOT-150 (1-2 YEAR STABILIZATION)
4. TURF REINFORCEMENT MAT
SC250 NORTH AMERICAN GREEN
1. 2" CRUSHED CLEAR ROCK (LAND
DEVELOPMENT)
OR EQUAL-MNDOT CAT 6
SEDIMENT BARRIERS
ACTIVE SWPPP LEGEND
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR
MULCH BERM
FIBER ROLLS / MULCH SOCKS
SILT FENCE
TEMPORARY MULCH COVER
TEMPORARY HYDROMULCH
EROSION CONTROL BLANKET
ROCK DRIVEWAY / ROCK PADS
INLET PROTECTION DEVICES
PAVEMENT (DRIVEWAY/ROADS)
SOD
STOCKPILES
NOTE: CONTRACTOR, GENERAL CONTRACTOR OR SWPPP INSPECTOR TO COMPLETE TABLE AS GRADING PROGRESSES
NOTE:
1.SEE SHEET 10 FOR ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT
CONTROL NOTES AND DETAILS.
A.ALL EXPOSED SOIL AREAS MUST BE STABILIZED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO LIMIT SOIL EROSION
BUT IN NO CASE LATER THAN SEVEN (7) DAYS AFTER CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IN THAT
PORTION OF THE SITE HAS TEMPORARY OR PERMANENTLY CEASED.
B.TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASIN REQUIREMENTS DESCRIBED IN PART III, B.1.5 MUST BE USED
FOR COMMON DRAINAGE LOCATIONS THAT SERVE AN AREA WITH FIVE (5) OF MORE ACRES AT
A TIME.
DURING CONSTRUCTION:
IMPAIRED WATER REQUIREMENT
3. MnDOT 22-112
2. SILT FENCE
1 MILE
INLET PROTECTION
310
ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
WASHED ROCK OR
WOOD/MULCH PER
SPECIFICATIONS
18" MINIMUM CUT OFF BERM TO
MINIMIZE RUNOFF FROM SITE
NOTES:
1. MnDOT 3733 TYPE 4 FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE PLACED UNDER ROCK OR MULCH TO
STOP MUD MIGRATION THROUGH MATERIAL.
2. FUGITIVE ROCK OR MULCH WILL BE REMOVED FROM ADJACENT ROADWAYS
DAILY OR MORE FREQUENTLY AS NECESSARY.
3.CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE MUST BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO THE
COMMENCEMENT OF GRADING OPERATIONS ON THE SITE.
4.THE ENTRANCE MUST BE MAINTAINED IN PROPER CONDITION TO PREVENT
TRACKING OF MUD OFF THE SITE. THIS MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOPDRESSING
WITH ADDITIONAL ROCK, WOOD/MULCH, OR REMOVAL AND REINSTALLATION OF
THE PAD.
5.THIS ENTRANCE WILL BE USED BY ALL VEHICLES ENTERING OR LEAVING THE
PROJECT.
6.THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE WILL BE REMOVED PRIOR TO THE PLACEMENT OF
BITUMINOUS SURFACING.
PUBLI
C
R
O
A
D
50'
M
I
N
I
M
U
M
L
E
N
G
T
H
ROCK-6" MINIMUM DEPTH
WOOD/MULCH- 12" MINIMUM DEPTH
20' MI
N
I
M
U
M
W
I
D
T
H
NOTE:
ALL SLOPES WITH A GRADE EQUAL TO OR STEEPER THAN 3:1
REQUIRE SLOPE TRACKING. SLOPES WITH A GRADE MORE GRADUAL
THAN 3:1 REQUIRE SLOPE TRACKING IF THE STABILIZATION METHOD
IS EROSION CONTROL BLANKET OR HYDROMULCH.
UNDISTURBED VEGETATION
TRACKED EQUIPMENT
TREADS CREATE GROOVES
PERPENDICULAR TO SLOPE
DIRECTION.
SLOPE
SLOPE TRACKINGEROSION CONTROL BLANKET
INSTALLATION
OVERLAP
LONGITUDINAL JOINTS
MINIMUM OF 6"
OVERLAP END JOINTS
MINIMUM OF 6" AND STAPLE
OVERLAP AT 1.5' INTERVALS.
ANCHOR TRENCH
(SEE DETAIL AND NOTES BELOW)
ANCHOR TRENCH
1. DIG 6" X 6" TRENCH
2. LAY BLANKET IN TRENCH
3. STAPLE AT 1.5' INTERVALS
4. BACKFILL WITH NATURAL SOIL AND COMPACT
5. BLANKET LENGTH SHALL NOT EXCEED 100'
WITHOUT AN ANCHOR TRENCH
6"
6"
1' TO 3'
DI
R
E
C
T
I
O
N
O
F
SU
R
F
A
C
E
F
L
O
W
NOTE:
SLOPE SURFACE SHALL BE FREE OF ROCKS, SOIL CLUMPS,
STICKS, VEHICLE IMPRINTS, AND GRASS. BLANKETS SHALL
HAVE GOOD SOIL CONTACT.
STAPLE PATTERN/DENSITY SHALL
FOLLOW MANUFACTURERS
SPECIFICATIONS
File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\EROSION NOTES.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:57:08 PMFOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
NCity Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointeErosion & Sediment Control Noteswww.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
Tyler Stricherz
TAS
ELL
4000320-00
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed Professional
Civil Engineer under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
10 19
10
EROSION CONTROL SCHEDULE:
FINAL STABILIZATION:
EROSION CONTROL GENERAL NOTES:
POLLUTION PREVENTION MANAGEMENT MEASURES:
SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES:
THE CONTRACTOR MUST ENSURE FINAL STABILIZATION OF THE SITE. THE CONTRACTOR MUST SUBMIT A NOTICE OF TERMINATION (NOT) WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER FINAL
STABILIZATION IS COMPLETE, OR ANOTHER OWNER/OPERATOR (PERMITTEE) HAS ASSUMED CONTROL OF ALL AREAS OF THE SITE THAT HAVE NOT UNDERGONE FINAL
STABILIZATION. FINAL STABILIZATION CAN BE ACHIEVED IN THE FOLLOWING WAY:
ALL SOIL DISTURBING ACTIVITIES AT THE SITE HAVE BEEN COMPLETED AND ALL SOILS MUST BE STABILIZED BY A UNIFORM PERENNIAL VEGETATIVE COVER WITH A DENSITY OF 70
PERCENT OVER THE ENTIRE PERVIOUS SURFACE AREA, OR OTHER EQUIVALENTMEANS NECESSARY TO PREVENT SOIL FAILURE UNDER EROSIVE CONDITIONS AND;
A.ALL DRAINAGE DITCHES, CONSTRUCTED TO DRAIN WATER FROM THE SITE AFTER CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE, MUST BE STABILIZED TO PRECLUDE EROSION;
B.ALL TEMPORARY SYNTHETIC, AND STRUCTURAL EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPS (SUCH AS SEDIMENT CONTROL LOGS) MUST BE REMOVED AS PART OF
THE SITE FINAL STABILIZATION; AND
C.THE CONTRACTORS MUST CLEAN OUT ALL SEDIMENT FROM CONVEYANCES AND FROM TEMPORARY SEDIMENTATION BASINS THAT ARE TO BE USED AS PERMANENT WATER
QUALITY MANAGEMENT BASINS.
D.SEDIMENT MUST BE STABILIZED TO PREVENT IT FROM BEING WASHED BACK INTO THE BASIN, CONVEYANCES OR DRAINAGE WAYS DISCHARGING OFF-SITE OR TO SURFACE
WATERS. THE CLEAN OUT OF PERMANENT BASINS MUST BE SUFFICIENT TO RETURN THE BASIN TO DESIGN CAPACITY.
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMPLEMENT THE FOLLOWING POLLUTION PREVENTION MANAGEMENT MEASURES ON THE SITE:
1. SOLID WASTE: COLLECTED SEDIMENT, ASPHALT AND CONCRETE MILLINGS, FLOATING DEBRIS, PAPER, PLASTIC, FABRIC, CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS AND OTHER
WASTES MUST BE DISPOSED OF PROPERLY AND MUST COMPLY WITH MPCA DISPOSAL REQUIREMENTS.
2. HAZARDOUS MATERIAL: OIL, GASOLINE, PAINT AND ANY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES MUST BE PROPERLY STORED, INCLUDING SECONDARY CONTAINMENT, TO PREVENT SPILLS,
LEAKS OR OTHER DISCHARGE. RESTRICTED ACCESS TO STORAGE AREAS MUST BE PROVIDED TO PREVENT VANDALISM. STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MUST
BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH MPCA REGULATIONS.
3. CONCRETE WASHOUT IS DONE TRUCK BY TRUCK WITH A MOBILE WASHOUT SYSTEM PROVIDED AND COMPLETED BY THE CONCRETE CONTRACTOR. RUNOFF MUST BE
CONTAINED AND WASTE PROPERLY DISPOSED OF.
4. NO ENGINE DEGREASING IS ALLOWED ON SITE.
1. SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES MUST MINIMIZE SEDIMENT FROM ENTERING SURFACE WATERS, INCLUDING CURB AND GUTTER SYSTEMS AND STORM SEWER INLETS.
2. SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES MUST BE ESTABLISHED ON ALL DOWN GRADIENT PERMITERS BEFORE ANY UPGRADIENT LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES BEGIN. THESE
PRACTICES SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL FINAL STABILIZATION HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
3. THE TIMING OF THE INSTALLATION OF SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES MAY BE ADJUSTED TO ACCOMMODATE SHORT-TERM ACTIVITIES SUCH AS CLEARING OR GRUBBING, OR
PASSAGE OF VEHICLES. ANY SHORT-TERM ACTIVITY MUST BE COMPLETED AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE AND THE SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES MUST BE INSTALLED IMMEDIATELY
AFTER THE ACTIVITY IS COMPLETED. HOWEVER, SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES MUST BE INSTALLED BEFORE THE NEXT PRECIPITATION EVENT EVEN IF THE ACTIVITY IS NOT
COMPLETE.
4. TEMPORARY SOIL STOCKPILES MUST HAVE SEDIMENT BARRIERS OR OTHER EFFECTIVE SEDIMENT CONTROLS, AND CANNOT BE PLACED IN SURFACE WATERS, INCLUDING
STORM WATER CONVEYANCES SUCH AS CURB AND GUTTER SYSTEMS, OR CONDUITS AND DITCHES.
5. SITE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES SHALL BE LOCATED AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN.
1. PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION OR DEMOLITION, SEDIMENT BARRIERS AND CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SHALL BE INSTALLED AS SHOWN TO INTERCEPT RUNOFF.
2. ALL EROSION CONTROL INSTALLATIONS SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE AND BE MAINTAINED IN GOOD CONDITION BY THE CONTRACTOR UNTIL THE SITE HAS BEEN RE-VEGETATED.
3. SUFFICIENT TOPSOIL SHALL BE STOCKPILED TO ALLOW FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF 6" OF TOPSOIL FOR DISTURBED AREAS TO BE RE-VEGETATED.
4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SCHEDULE SITE GRADING, SO THAT THE GENERAL SITE CAN BE STABILIZED AND SEEDED SOON AFTER DISTURBANCE. SITE SHALL BE STABILIZED AND
SEEDED WITHIN SEVEN (7) DAYS AFTER DISTURBANCE OCCURS.
5. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL EROSION CONTROL DEVICES AS INDICATED ON THIS EROSION CONTROL PLAN AND ANY ADDITIONAL REQUIRED BASED ON MEANS, METHODS AND
SEQUENCES OF CONSTRUCTION.
1. NO LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY SHALL OCCUR UNTIL A GRADING PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED FROM THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN AND THE WATERSHED DISTRICT. UNLESS
EXPRESSLY EXTENDED BY A PERMIT.
2. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP'S) REFER TO EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES DEFINED IN THE MPCA PROTECTING WATER QUALITY IN URBAN AREAS AND
THE MINNESOTA CONSTRUCTION SITE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANNING HANDBOOK.
3. ALL BMP'S SELECTED SHALL BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE TIME OF YEAR, SITE CONDITIONS, AND ESTIMATED DURATION OF USE.
4. ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ACCORDING TO THE APPROVED PLANS. ANY DEVIATION FROM THE APPROVED PLANS SHALL REQUIRE WRITTEN
APPROVAL FROM THE ENGINEER OF RECORD.
5. A COPY OF THESE PLANS MUST BE ON THE JOB SITE WHENEVER CONSTRUCTION IS IN PROGRESS. PLANS, SWPPP TO BE LOCATED ONSITE IN MAILBOX.
6. THE BOUNDARIES OF THE LAND DISTURBANCE LIMITS SHOWN ON THE PLANS SHALL BE CLEARLY FLAGGED IN THE FIELD PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. NO DISTURBANCE BEYOND
THE DISTURBED LIMITS.
7. WHEREVER POSSIBLE, PRESERVE THE EXISTING TREES, GRASS AND OTHER VEGETATIVE COVER TO HELP FILTER RUNOFF.
8. ESTABLISH A PERMANENT VEGETATIVE COVER ON ALL EXPOSED SOILS WHERE LAND IS COMING OUT OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION. PLANT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO
ESTABLISH DENSE GRASS FILTER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND TO MINIMIZE WEED GROWTH.
9. ALL TREES NOT LISTED FOR REMOVAL SHALL BE PROTECTED. DO NOT OPERATE EQUIPMENT WITHIN THE DRIPLINE, ROOT ZONES OR WITHIN TREE PROTECTION FENCE AREAS.
10. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES (BMP'S) SHALL BE INSTALLED AND IN OPERATION PRIOR TO LAND DISTURBANCE ACTIVITIES AND THEY SHALL BE
SATISFACTORILY MAINTAINED UNTIL CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED AND THE POTENTIAL FOR EROSION HAS PASSED.
11. SEDIMENT BARRIERS ARE REQUIRED AT DOWN GRADIENT PERIMETER OF DISTURBED AREAS AND STOCKPILES. PROTECT WETLANDS, WATERCOURSES AND ADJACENT
PROPERTIES FROM SEDIMENTATION AND STORMWATER RUNOFF.
12. THE BMP'S SHOWN ON THE PLANS ARE THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ANTICIPATED SITE CONDITIONS. AS CONSTRUCTION PROGRESSES AND UNEXPECTED OR
SEASONAL CONDITIONS DICTATE, THE PERMITTEE/CONTRACTOR SHALL ANTICIPATE THAT MORE BMP'S WILL BE NECESSARY TO ENSURE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ON
THE SITE. DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION, IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PERMITTEE/CONTRACTOR TO ADDRESS ANY NEW CONDITIONS THAT MAY BE CREATED BY
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND/OR CLIMATIC EVENTS AND TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL BMP'S OVER AND ABOVE THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS, AS MAY BE
NEEDED TO PROVIDE EFFECTIVE PROTECTION OF WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES.
13. THE BMP'S SHALL BE INSPECTED DAILY BY THE PERMITTEE/CONTRACTOR AND MAINTAINED AS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THEIR CONTINUED FUNCTIONING.
14. LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES SHALL OCCUR IN INCREMENTS OF WORKABLE SIZE SUCH THAT ADEQUATE BMP CONTROL CAN BE PROVIDED THROUGHOUT ALL PHASES OF
CONSTRUCTION. THE SMALLEST PRACTICAL AREA SHALL BE EXPOSED OR OTHERWISE DISTURBED AT ANY ONE TIME.
15. OPERATE TRACK EQUIPMENT (DOZER) UP AND DOWN EXPOSED SOIL SLOPES ON FINAL PASS, LEAVING TRACK GROOVES PERPENDICULAR TO THE SLOPE. DO NOT BACK-BLADE.
LEAVE A SURFACE ROUGH TO MINIMIZE EROSION.
16. ALL AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE STABILIZED FROM EROSION WITHIN 7 DAYS OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION OF GRADING IN THAT AREA. TEMPORARY
SEED AND MULCH SHALL COVER ALL EXPOSED SOILS IF GRADING COMPLETION IS DELAYED LONGER THAN 7 DAYS.
17. GENERAL TEMPORARY SEED SHALL BE MNDOT MIX 190 @ 100 LBS. PER ACRE OR APPROVED EQUAL. PERMANENT SEED SHALL BE MNDOT MIX 270 @ 120 LBS. PER ACRE OR
APPROVED EQUAL. (PLANTING DATES PER SPEC 2575) MULCH SHALL BE MNDOT TYPE 1 (CLEAN OAT STRAW) @ 2 TONS PER ACRE AND DISK ANCHORED IN PLACE OR APPROVED
EQUAL. FERTILIZER SHALL BE 80-80-80 NPK PER ACRE (UNLESS P RESTRICTIONS APPLY) AND INCORPORATED INTO THE SEED BED.
18. POND SHALL BE SEEDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LANDSCAPE PLAN.
19. ALL TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE PROPERLY DISPOSED OF WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER FINAL SITE STABILIZATION IS ACHIEVED
OR AFTER THE TEMPORARY MEASURES ARE NO LONGER NEEDED.
MAINTENANCE PROGRAM:
1. INSPECT SEDIMENT BARRIERS IMMEDIATELY AFTER EACH RAINFALL AND AT LEAST DAILY DURING PROLONGED RAINFALL. IMMEDIATELY REPAIR FAILED OR FAILING
SEDIMENT CONTROL LOGS.
2. REPLACEMENT - SHALL BE REPLACED PROMPTLY WHEN IT DECOMPOSES OR BECOMES INEFFECTIVE BEFORE THE BARRIER IS NO LONGER NECESSARY.
3. SEDIMENT REMOVAL - SEDIMENT DEPOSITS SHOULD BE REMOVED AFTER EACH STORM EVENT. THEY MUST BE REMOVED WHEN DEPOSITS REACH APPROXIMATELY
ONE-THIRD THE HEIGHT OF THE BARRIER.
4. REMOVAL OF SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG - SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG SHALL BE REMOVED WHEN THEY HAVE SERVED THEIR USEFUL PURPOSE, BUT NOT BEFORE THE UPWARD
SLOPING AREA HAS BEEN PERMANENTLY STABILIZED. IF THE UPWARD SLOPING AREA IS TO BE EXPOSED LONGER THAN SIX (6) MONTHS, THAT AREA SHALL BE COVERED WITH
TEMPORARY VEGETATION WHEN FIRST EXPOSED.
5. THE CONTRACTOR MUST ROUTINELY INSPECT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE ONCE EVERY SEVEN (7) DAYS DURING ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION AND WITHIN 24 HOURS AFTER A
RAINFALL EVENT GREATER THAN 0.5 INCHES IN 24 HOURS.
6.ALL INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE CONDUCTED DURING CONSTRUCTION MUST BE RECORDED IN WRITING AND THESE RECORDS MUST BE RETAINED WITH THE SWPPP
RECORDS OF EACH INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY SHALL INCLUDE:
A. DATE AND TIME OF INSPECTIONS;
B. NAME OF PERSON(S) CONDUCTING INSPECTIONS;
C. FINDINGS OF INSPECTIONS, INCLUDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CORRECTIVE ACTIONS;
D. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN (INCLUDING DATES, TIMES, AND PARTY COMPLETING MAINTENANCE ACTIVIES.
E. DATE AND AMOUNT OF ALL RAINFALL EVENTS GREATER THAN 1/2 INCH (0.5 INCHES) IN 24 HOURS:
F. DOCUMENTS OF CHANGES MADE TO THE SWPPP AS REQUIRED IN PART III.A.4.
7.WHERE PARTS OF THE CONSTRUCTION SITE HAVE UNDERGONE FINAL STABILIZATION, BUT WORK REMAINS ON OTHER PARTS OF SITE, INSPECTIONS OF THE STABILIZED
AREAS MAY BE REDUCED TO ONCE PER MONTH. WHERE WORK HAS BEEN SUSPENDED DUE TO FROZEN GROUND CONDITIONS, THE REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE
MUST TAKE PLACE AS SOON AS RUNOFF OCCURS AT THE SITE OR PRIOR TO RESUMING CONSTRUCTION, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST.
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
DEWATERING:
1.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A PLAN TO THE CITY AND
PROJECT ENGINEER FOR REVIEW. THE PLAN AT MINIMUM SHALL BE
A DEWATERING PLAN INCLUDING WATER ROUTING, STORAGE, AND
DISCHARGE LOCATION.
2.IF ANY TEMPORARY DEWATERING IS REQUIRED ONSITE THE
CONTRACTOR SHALL DISPOSE OF STORMWATER OR GROUND
WATER BY USE OF PUMPS AND HOSES TO ACCEPTABLE DISCHARGE
POINTS APPROVED BY THE CITY AND PROJECT ENGINEER.
Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
311
GU
PLEASANT VIEW RD
REDMAN LANETROENDLE CIRCLENEZ PERCE DR
123
4
6
1
2
3
4
5
67
8
9
10
11
12
13
5
BLOCK 2BLOCK 2OUTLOT A
BLOCK 1
BLOCK 1
POND/FILTRATION
NWL:994.0
100 YEAR HWL:998.99
PEACEFUL LANEP
E
A
C
E
F
U
L
L
A
N
E
File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\SAN-WM.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:57:18 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
NCity Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointeSanitary Sewer & Watermain Planwww.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
Tyler Stricherz
TAS
ELL
4000320-00
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed Professional
Civil Engineer under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
11 19
11
N
0
SCALE IN FEET
30 60 120
LEGEND:
|
>
PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER
PROPOSED WATERMAIN
PROPOSED STORM SEWER
|
>>
EXISTING GATE VALVE
EXISTING HYDRANT
EXISTING WATERMAIN
EXISTING CATCH BASIN
EXISTING STORM MANHOLE
EXISTING STORM SEWER
EXISTING SANITARY MANHOLE
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER
PROPOSED CATCH BASIN
PROPOSED SANITARY MANHOLE
UTILITY NOTES:
1.EXISTING UTILITIES, SERVICE LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS SHALL BE VERIFIED IN
FIELD PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
2.MAINTAIN A MIN 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION AT ALL WATERMAIN PIPE CROSSINGS.
WATER LINES TO MAINTAIN 10' HORIZONTAL SEPARATION FROM SANITARY SEWER
AND STORM SEWER. LOWER WATERMAIN AS NECESSARY.
3.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL PERMITS PRIOR TO THE START OF
CONSTRUCTION.
4.PROVIDE POLYSTYRENE INSULATION FOR ALL WATERMAIN CROSSINGS WHERE
VERTICAL OR HORIZONTAL SEPARATION IS LESS THAN 18".
5.ALL UTILITY WORK WITHIN THE R.O.W. SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF
CHANHASSEN ENGINEERING GUIDELINES.
6.NOTIFY GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF ANY UTILITY WORK.
7.PROVIDE TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL IN COMPLIANCE WITH MNDOT
"TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL ZONE LAYOUTS-FIELD MANUAL" LATEST REVISION,
FOR ANY CONSTRUCTION WITHIN PUBLIC R.O.W.
8.ALL SANITARY MANHOLES TO BE 48" DIAMETER CONCRETE W/NEENAH R-1642
CASTING, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.
9.WATERMAIN, SERVICES, AND VALVES SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH MINIMUM 7.5' OF
COVER.
10.WATER SERVICES SHALL BE 1" DIA. HDPE SDR-9 W/1" CORP. STOP AND 1" CURB
BOX.
11.SEWER SERVICES SHALL BE 6" PVC, SDR 26, MINIMUM 2% SLOPE UNLESS
OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE PLANS.
12.ALL 6" AND 8" WATERMAIN SHALL BE PVC C900.
SANITARY SEWER SCHEDULE:
HYDRANT RADII - 250' RADIUS
312
PLEASANT VIEW RD
REDMAN LANETROENDLE CIRCLENEZ PERCE DR
123
4
6
1
2
3
4
5
67
8
9
10
11
12
13
5
BLOCK 2BLOCK 2OUTLOT A
BLOCK 1
BLOCK 1
POND/FILTRATION
NWL:994.0
100 YEAR HWL:998.99
PEACEFUL LANEP
E
A
C
E
F
U
L
L
A
N
E
File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\STORM SEWER.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:57:26 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
NCity Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointeStorm Sewer Planwww.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
Tyler Stricherz
TAS
ELL
4000320-00
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed Professional
Civil Engineer under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
12 19
12
N
0
SCALE IN FEET
30 60 120
LEGEND:
|
>
PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER
PROPOSED WATERMAIN
PROPOSED STORM SEWER
|
>>
EXISTING GATE VALVE
EXISTING HYDRANT
EXISTING WATERMAIN
EXISTING CATCH BASIN
EXISTING STORM MANHOLE
EXISTING STORM SEWER
EXISTING SANITARY MANHOLE
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER
PROPOSED CATCH BASIN
PROPOSED SANITARY MANHOLE
DT PROPOSED DRAINTILE
PROPOSED DRAINTILE STRUCTURE
STORM SEWER SCHEDULE:
UTILITY NOTES:
1.EXISTING UTILITIES, SERVICE LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS SHALL BE VERIFIED IN
FIELD PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
2.MAINTAIN A MIN 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION AT ALL PIPE CROSSINGS, LOWER
WATERMAIN AS NECESSARY. WATER AND SANITARY SEWER LINES TO MAINTAIN 10'
HORIZONTAL SEPARATION.
3.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL PERMITS PRIOR TO THE START OF
CONSTRUCTION.
4.PROVIDE POLYSTYRENE INSULATION FOR ALL STORM SEWER AND WATERMAIN
CROSSINGS WHERE VERTICAL OR HORIZONTAL SEPARATION IS LESS THAN 2'.
5.ALL UTILITY WORK WITHIN THE R.O.W. SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF
CHANHASSEN ENGINEERING GUIDELINES.
6.NOTIFY GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF ANY UTILITY WORK.
7.PROVIDE TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL IN COMPLIANCE WITH MNDOT
"TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL ZONE LAYOUTS-FIELD MANUAL" LATEST REVISION,
FOR ANY CONSTRUCTION WITHIN PUBLIC R.O.W.
313
PLEASANT VIEW RD
REDMAN LANETROENDLE CIRCLENEZ
PERCE
DR
123
4
6
1
2
3
4
5
67
8
9
10
11
12
13
5
BLOCK 2BLOCK 2OUTLOT A
BLOCK 1
BLOCK 1
POND/FILTRATION
NWL:994.0
100 YEAR HWL:998.99
PEACEFUL LANEP
E
A
C
E
F
U
L
L
A
N
E
File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\WETLAND.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:57:34 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
NCity Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointeWetland Management Planwww.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
Tyler Stricherz
TAS
ELL
4000320-00
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed Professional
Civil Engineer under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
13 19
13
N
0
SCALE IN FEET
30 60 120
WETLAND SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACT CALCULATION
LEGEND:
314
GU
1000
1010
994
10
1
0
100010161012
1010
1000
996
10041000
100010041006
9961026 1
0
2
2
10
2
0
10201022
101010201000998100610201030
1032
10361032103010301026102410
2
0
10
1
8 10181022101610
1
4
1008
GU
PLEASANT VIEW RD
REDMAN LANETROENDLE CIRCLENEZ
PERCE
DR
POND/FILTRATION
NWL:994.0
100 YEAR HWL:998.99
PEACEFUL LANEP
E
A
C
E
F
U
L
L
A
N
E
1
2
3
4
5
6
78
9
10 11
12 13
14
15
16
17
18
1920
2122
23
24
25
26
2728
29
3031
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39 40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47 48
49 50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57 5859
60 61
62
6364 65
66
67 68 69
70
71 72
73
74 75
76
7778 79
80
81
8283
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
9293
94 95
96
97
9899100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124 125
126127
128
129130
131 132
133
134
135
136137
138
139
140141142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157158
159160
161
162
163
164
165166
167168
169170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
301
302
303
304
305306
307 308309
310
311
312313
314
315316317318
319
320 321
322
323324 325
326
327328 329
330331
332333334335
336337
338339340341
342
343
344345
346347
348
349350 351
352
353354 355356357
358
359360361 362363364365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389390
391
392
393
394
395396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418 419
420
421 422
423 424
425
426427 428
429
430
431
432 433
434
435 436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447 448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
1588
15891590
15911592
15931594
1595159615971598
1599
160016011602
160316041605
1606160716081609161016111612
1613
1614
1615 1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
1631
1632
1633 1634
1635
1636
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
16501651
1652 1653
1654
1655
16561657
16581659
1660
1661
1662
1663
1664
1665
16661667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
1675
1676
1677
1678 1679
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
1686
1687
1688 1689 1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697
1698 1699
1700
1701
17021703
1704
1705
17061707
1708
1709
1710
1711
1712
1713
1714
1715
1716
1717
1718
1719
1720
1721
1722
1723
1724
1725
1726
17271728
17291730
1731
1732
1733
1734
1735 1736
1737
1738
1739
1740
1741
17421743
1744
17451746
1747
1748
1749
1750
1751
1752
1753
1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759
1760
1761
1762
1763
1764
1765
1766
1767
1768
1769
17701771
1772
1773
1774
17751776
1777
1778
1779
1780
1781
1782
17831784
1785
178617871788
1789
1790
1791
1792
1793
1794
1795
1796
1797
1798
1799
1800
180118021803
1804
1805
18061807
1808
18091810
18111812
1813
1814
181518161817
18181819
1820
1821
1822
18231824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
18311832
183318341835
183618371838
1839 1840
18411842
1843
1844
1845
184618471848
1849
1850
18511852
1853
18541855
1856
1857
1858
1859
18601861
1862
18631864
18651866
1867
1868
1869 1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877 1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887 1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
18991900
1901
1902
1903 1904
1905
1906
1907 1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
19371938
19391940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956 1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
19671968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974197519761977
1978 1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
19891990
1991
1992
1993
19941995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
969
970
File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\TREE - INV.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:57:52 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
NCity Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointeTree Preservation PlanTyler Stricherz
TAS
TLM
4000320-00
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed Professional
Civil Engineer under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
14 19
14
N
0
SCALE IN FEET
30 60 120
www.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
CANOPY CALCULATIONS:
TREE PRESERVATION NOTES:
LEGEND:
PLAN
NOTE: TREE PROTECTION SHALL BE PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR AS REQUIRED
TO ENSURE SURVIVABILITY OF EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN. NO HEAVY EQUIPMENT
SHALL BE STORED WITHIN THE TREE DRIP LINE AS DESIGNATED ABOVE.
ELEVATION
4' ORANGE SNOW FENCE WITH
POSTS 8' O.C. AT DRIP
LINE OF OUTER MOST
BRANCHES
DRIP LINE
TREE PROTECTION FENCE
NO SCALE2
www.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
315
1000
1010
994
10
1
0
100010161012
1010
1000
996
10041000
100010041006
9961026 1
0
2
2
10
2
0
10201022
10101020101610
1
4
1008
PLEASANT VIEW RD
NEZ
PERCE
DR
POND/FILTRATION
NWL:994.0
100 YEAR HWL:998.99
P
E
A
C
E
F
U
L
L
A
N
E
1
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157158
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447 448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
1588
1589
1590
15911592
15931594
1595159615971598
1599
1600
16011602
160316041605
1606
16071608
16091610
16111612
1613
1614
1615 1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
1635
1636
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650 1651
1652 1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
1664
1665
1666
1667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
1675
1676
1677
1678 1679
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
1686
1687
1688
1689
1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697
1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
17061707
1708
1709
1710
1711
1712
1713
1714
1715
1716
1717
1718
1719
1720
1721
1722
1723
1724
1725
1726
17271728
17291730
1731
1732
1733
1734
1735 1736
1737
1738
1739
1740
1741
1742
1743
1744
17451746
1747
1748
1749
1750
1751
1752
1753
1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759
1760
1761
1762
1763
1764
1765
1766
1767
1768
1769
17701771
1772
1773
1774
1775
1776
1777
1778
1779
1780
1781
1782
17831784
1785
17861787
1788
1789
1790
1791
1792
1793
1794
1795
1796
1797
1798
1799
1800
180118021803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1808
18091810
1811
1812
1813
1814
181518161817
18181819
1820
1821
1822
18231824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
183318341835
183618371838
1839 1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
18461847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
18541855
1856
1857
1858
1859
18601861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869 1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
18991900
1901
1902
1903 1904
1905
1906
1907 1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1925
1926
1927
1928
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1972
1996
1997
File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\TREE - INV.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:57:56 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
NCity Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointeTree Perservation Plan - Enlarged - NorthTyler Stricherz
TAS
TLM
4000320-00
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed Professional
Civil Engineer under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
15 19
15
N
0
SCALE IN FEET
15 30 60
www.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
LEGEND:
www.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
316
GU 10101020998100610201030
1032
10361032103010301026102410
2
0
10
1
8 101810221016GU
REDMAN LANEPEACEFUL LANE2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1920
21
22
23
24
25
26
2728
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57 58
59
60 61
62
6364
65
66
67 68 69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78 79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124 125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
159160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167168
169170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
301
302
303
304
305
306
307 308309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316 317
318
319
320 321
322
323
324
325
326
327328 329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338339340341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361 362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421 422
423 424
425
426427 428
429
430
431
432 433
434
435 436
437
438
462
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
18991900
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956 1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978 1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
19891990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
969
970
File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\TREE - INV.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:58:01 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
NCity Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointeTree Perservation Plan - Enlarged - SouthTyler Stricherz
TAS
TLM
4000320-00
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed Professional
Civil Engineer under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
16 19
16
N
0
SCALE IN FEET
15 30 60
www.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
LEGEND:
www.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
317
File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\TREE - INV.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:58:04 PMFOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
NCity Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointeTree Inventory ScheduleTyler Stricherz
TAS
TLM
4000320-00
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed Professional
Civil Engineer under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
17 19
17
www.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
318
File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\TREE - INV.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:58:09 PMFOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
NCity Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointeTree Inventory ScheduleTyler Stricherz
TAS
TLM
4000320-00
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed Professional
Civil Engineer under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
18 19
18
www.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
319
GU
1000
1010
994
10
1
0
100010161012
1010
1000
996
10041000
100010041006
9961026 1
0
2
2
10
2
0
10201022
101010201000998100610201030
1032
10361032103010301026102410
2
0
10
1
8 10181022101610
1
4
1008
123
4
6
1
2
3
4
5
67
8
9
10
11
12
13
5
BLOCK 2BLOCK 2OUTLOT A
BLOCK 1
BLOCK 1
1000' Shoreland District Boundary
POND/FILTRATION
NWL:994.0
100 YEAR HWL:998.99
PEACEFUL LANEP
E
A
C
E
F
U
L
L
A
N
E
GU
PLEASANT VIEW RD
REDMAN LANETROENDLE CIRCLENEZ
PERCE
DR
1 - RO
1 - SL
1 - NF
1 - SL
1 - BF
1 - RB
1 - BF
1 - SL
1 - RB
1 - RO
3 - BF
1 - NS
1 - RB
1 - NF
2 - CH
1 - RB
1 - NS
1 - AB
1 - BF
1 - NF
1 - CH
1 - RO
1 - RB
1 - AB
1 - SL
1 - NF
1 - AB
1 - CH1 - RO
3 - WP
3 - WP
1 - RO
1 - SL
1 - AB
1 - NF
1 - CH
1 - AB
1 - RO
1 - AB
1 - SL
1 - NF
3 - NS
1 - RB
GU
1000
1010
994
10
1
0
100010161012
1010
1000
996
10041000
100010041006
9961026 1
0
2
2
10
2
0
10201022
101010201000998100610201030
1032
10361032103010301026102410
2
0
10
1
8 10181022101610
1
4
1008
3 - WP
3 - BF
2 - CH
1 - SL
1 - NF
1 - AE
1 - SW
1 - RO
1 - SW
1 - NS
1 - RB
1 - CH
1 - NS
1 - SW
1 - SL
1 - SW
1 - AE
1 - AB 1 - SW
1 - AE
1 - NF
1 - RB
1 - NF
1 - SW
1 - RO
1 - AB
1 - AE
1 - SW
1 - CH
1 - NS
1 - RO
1 - RB
1 - AB
1 - SW
1 - NS
1 - AE
1 - AE
1 - AE
1 - SW
File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\LANDSCAPE.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:58:30 PMKnow what's below.
Call before you dig.
R Dial 811
FOR
R
E
VI
E
W
O
N
L
Y
PRE
LI
MI
N
A
R
Y
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
NCity Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointeLandscaping Planwww.alliant-inc.com
PROJECT TEAM DATA
QA/QC CHECK
DateBy
CERTIFICATION
Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.:
Drafted By:
Designed By:
Sheet of
4000320-00
John Gronhovd
59233
JG
TLM
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed
Landscape Architect under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
19 19
19
N
0
SCALE IN FEET
30 60 120
PLANTING NOTES:
LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS:
SEEDING NOTES:
LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE:
LEGEND:
1 TREE PLANTING
NOT TO SCALE
NOTES:
1.TREE STAKING IS OPTIONAL.
2.DO NOT PRUNE THE TREE AT PLANTING. PRUNE ONLY CROSSOVER LIMBS, CO-DOMINANT LEADERS AND
BROKEN OR DEAD BRANCHES.
3.FOR TREES IN CONTAINERS, REMOVE CONTAINER PRIOR TO PLANTING. FOR BARE ROOT TREES, PLACE
TREE IN MIDDLE OF PLANTING HOLE, SPREAD ROOTS OUT RADIALLY FROM THE TRUNK AROUND THE
PREPARED HOLE.
PREPARE PLANTING AREA 3X THE
DIAMETER OF THE ROOTBALL OR PER
PLAN IF PLANTED IN A BIORETENTION
OR LARGER PLANTING AREA
PLACE ROOTBALL ON UNEXCAVATED OR TAMPED SOIL
EXPOSE TRUNK FLARE,
DO NOT PILE MULCH AGAINST TREE TRUNK
MULCH RING, DIAMETER PER PLAN OR
LANDSCAPE NOTES. PLACE MULCH SO NOT IN
CONTACT WITH BASE OF TREE.
COMPLETELY REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF ALL
TWINE, ROPE AND BASKETS. DISPOSE INTO
PROPER LOCATION.
TAMP SOIL AROUND ROOTBALL BASE FIRMLY WITH FOOT
PRESSURE SO THAT THE ROOT BALL DOES NOT SHIFT.
PLANTING SOIL, BACKFILL PLACED IN 6" LIFTS
GUYING PLAN
SOD
UNDISTURBED SUBSOIL
ROOTBALL
PRUNE DEAD AND BROKEN BRANCHES
16" POLY STRAP, 40 MIL. 1-1/2" WIDE
1 FLAG PER WIRE
3-GUY CABLES, DOUBLE STRAND, 14 GA. WIRES
AT 120° SPACING, SEE GUYING PLAN
18" MIN.MACHINE EDGE V-DITCH AROUND
ALL TREES IN SODDED AREAS
2"X2"X24" WOODEN STAKE AT AN ANGLE
320
Application: Preliminary Plat & Wetland Alteration Permit.
(Planning Case #2025-02)
Staff Report Date: March 19, 2025
Drafted By: Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner
Joe Seidl, Water Resources Engineer
Mackenze Grunig, Project Engineer
Planning Commission Review Date: March 4, 2025
City Council Review Date: March 24, 2025
APPLICATION SUMMARY: The Applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval to subdivide
the property at and around 6535 Peaceful Lane into twenty lots. The City Council is requested
to review the preliminary plat and wetland alteration permit.
MARCH 18, 2025 PROJECT UPDATE:
During the review of this proposed development, including discussions at the March 4th
Planning Commission meeting, the potential connection of Nez Perce Drive to Peaceful Lane
has been considered. Based on prior feedback, the Applicant originally proposed a
development plan that omitted this connection in favor of a cul-de-sac extension of Peaceful
Lane. However, after further review and advisement from the City Attorney, staff is proposing
approval of the preliminary plat with the extension of Nez Perce Drive to Peaceful Lane.
As a result, this removes the requirement of a variance to cul-de-sac length. The Applicant has
formally rescinded their variance application in the event that the City Council approves a
preliminary plat that extends Nez Perce through to Peaceful Lane and that action makes a
variance for the cul-de-sac length moot.
PROPOSED MOTION:
“The Chanhassen City Council approves the requested preliminary plat, and wetland alteration
permit for the subdivision on Pleasant View Road subject to the conditions of approval and
adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision and approves the land alteration and tree
removal contract.”
321
Page 2 of 14
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
LOCATION: 955 Pleasant View Road, 1015
Pleasant View Road, & 6535
Peaceful Lane
PID: 258710190, 258690130,
258700063, 258700060, &
258700062
APPLICANT: Rachel Development, Inc.
PROPERTY OWNER: Beddor Enterprises, LLP
PRESENT ZONING: Single-Family Residential, RSF
2040 LAND USE PLAN: Residential – Low Density (1.2 – 4.0 units/net acre)
ACREAGE: 13.65 Acres
DENSITY: 1.46 Units/Acre
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
The city’s discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the
proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning
Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the city must approve the preliminary plat. This is a
quasi-judicial decision.
The city’s discretion in approving or denying a wetland alteration permit is limited to whether
the proposal meets the standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these
standards, the city must approve the wetland alteration permit. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Notice of the public hearing at Planning Commission was mailed to all property owners within
500 feet.
The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on July 31, 2024. This neighborhood meeting was
conducted entirely by the Applicant to gather feedback from adjacent property owners prior to
the City Council workshop on October 14. This development application went to Planning
Commission for public hearing on March 4, 2025.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Chapter 18, Subdivision
Chapter 18, Section 18-22 Variances
Chapter 20, Article XXII, RSF Single-Family Residential District
322
Page 3 of 14
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The Applicant is proposing the subdivision of 13.65 acres of properties, zoned Single-Family
Residential and guided for Low-Density Residential into twenty lots.
HISTORY
The properties are divided into three prior plats: Vineland, Vineland Forest, and Troendle
Addition.
First is the historical Vineland plat in 1887; due to the age of this plat, the roads do not match
currently existing, nor do the street names. The scale of the area it once included is unknown
due to the missing measurement units. Four of the parcels included in this subdivision and the
water tower parcel next door have not been replatted since this plat.
The next plat is the Vineland Forest platted in 1990. There is only one parcel in the proposed
new subdivision that is from this plat, and it has since gone through a lot line adjustment and
lot combination in 1996.
The final plat Troendle was platted in 1991; one parcel in the new proposed subdivision is
included in this previous plat as an outlot. As a condition of the Troendle plat approval the
developer was required to create a temporary cul-de-sac with a sign affixed at the end notifying
residents of the future extension of Nez Perce. Additionally, the developer was required to
place a notice on each lot’s chain of title that Nez Perce will be ultimately extended as a
through street to Pleasant View. These conditions were due to the fact the plat included a
dead-ending cul-de-sac 1,400 feet long. The requirements at the time of approval were vague,
stating the maximum length of a dead end shall be determined as a function of the expected
development density along the street, thus resulting in the conditions of approval.
City Code section 18-III-(7) states that one or two family residential developments where the
number of dwelling units exceeds 30 shall be provided with two separate and approve fire
apparatus access road, and shall meet the requirements of section 18-57(u)(4)(iii) with the
following exceptions:
1. Where there are more than 30 dwelling units on a single public or private fire apparatus road
and all dwelling units are equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system in
accordance with section 903.3.1.1, 903..3.1.2, or 903.1.3 of the International Fina Code, access
from two directions shall not be required.
2. The number of dwelling units on a single fire apparatus road shall not be increased unless fire
apparatus access roads will connect with future development, as determined by the fire code
official.
Currently Nez Perce/Troendle Circle and Vineland Court have 33 homes on a single fire
apparatus road which was approved based upon the potential for a future secondary access
with future development of the Beddor property which is currently contemplated for
323
Page 4 of 14
development. If Nez Perce does not connect to Peaceful lane as a result of development of the
Beddor property, the existing 33 homes will no longer be in compliance with Chapter 18 of the
Chanhassen city code.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DISTRICTS
• Wetland Protection – There are two wetlands on this property.
• Bluff Protection – There is a bluff on the SW corner of the property.
• Shoreland Management – Lots 1-6, Block 1 are within this district.
• Floodplain Overlay – Not within FEMA Flood Zones 2018.
SUBDIVISION REVIEW
There are 20 lots proposed in this subdivision along with extended right-of-way for Peaceful
Lane and Nez Perce Drive.
COMPLIANCE TABLE
Parcel Area Frontage Depth Lot Cover Notes
B1-L1 39,006 147.02 270.97 9,751.5
B1-L2 32,828 131.25 250.28 8,207
B1-L3 29,930 198.9 192 7,482.5
B1-L4 61,662 140.83 (shortest
frontage)
303.22 15,415.5 Corner Lot
B1-L5 36,504 104 350 9,126 Double
Frontage
B1-L6 30,599 108 282.26 7,649.75 Double
Frontage
B1-L7 26,462 126 249 6,615.5
B2-L1 21,343 124 172 6,402.9
B2-L2 19,676 112.25 175.5 5,902.8
B2-L3 20,002 109.16 182 6,000.6
B2-L4 19,993 113 175.5 5,997.9
B2-L5 20,105 118.49 134.5 6,031.5
B2-L6 24,952 90.01 178.5 7,485.6
B2-L7 23,338 90.01 170.1 7,001.4
B2-L8 18,431 114.48 125.19 5,529.3
B2-L9 47,140 92.1 431.5 14,142
324
Page 5 of 14
B2-L10 32,981 90.16 367.7 9,894.3
B2-L11 27,418 90.25 304.62 8,225.4
B2-L12 22,265 90.1 246 6,679.5
B2-L13 26,030 105 193.6 7,809
Setbacks: Front - 30 ft., Side - 10 ft., Rear - 30 ft.
Staff notes that the lot proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning
ordinance.
LANDSCAPING
The developer is proposing to remove the existing trees in areas to be graded and plans to save
the trees around the perimeter of the lots and development as a whole.
The plans for development include canopy calculations to establish the number of replacement
trees required to be planted per city code, currently 96 trees will need to be planted, these are
shown on the landscaping plan.
The landscaping plan dated 12-19-2024
adheres to the City’s species diversity
requirements which states that the
landscaping plan shall consist of no more
than 10% of the trees can be from one
tree species, no more than 20% of the
trees can be from one genus, and no
more than 30% of the trees can be from
one family.
ROADS
The development proposes a road extension of Peaceful Lane which connects to Pleasantview
Road. It also shows an extension of Nez Perce Drive to Peaceful Lane. The City of Chanhassen
2040 Comprehensive Plan includes a chapter focused on transportation. Within that chapter is
325
Page 6 of 14
a section on local street improvements which includes the “Nez Perce/Pleasant View Road
Connection” as an improvement. That section of the Comprehensive Plan states as follows:
“During review of the Vineland Forest plat, it was evident that a connection between Nez
Perce/Lake Lucy Road and Pleasant View Road was warranted since there was no north-
south connection between Powers Boulevard (CSAH 17) and Lotus Lake. Improved
access is needed for local trips and to ensure the adequate provision of emergency
services. At the same time, there were concerns voiced regarding the introduction of
additional trips onto Pleasant View Road since the street already suffers from capacity
and design constraints. Therefore, it was determined that the Pleasant View Road
intersection should be located as far west as possible at the Peaceful Lane Intersection.”
Based on the information included within the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the proposed
preliminary plat for Pleasant View Pointe is shown with the Nez Perce Drive extension to
Peaceful Lane which connects to Pleastview Road.
The resulting cul-de-sac of Peaceful Lane is measured at approximately 540 feet. City Code
allows for cul-de-sacs up to 750 feet in length. As shown the roadway network proposed with
the Preliminary Plat is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
PROJECT OVERVIEW – ENGINEERING AND WATER RESOURCES
The Applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval to subdivide the property at and around
6535 Peaceful Lane into twenty lots. Construction plans developed by Alliant Engineering Inc.
dated December 19, 2024 were reviewed by staff. The plans show alteration and filling of the
two onsite wetlands which require a Chanhassen wetland alteration permit and associated joint
permit sequencing application to meet requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act. A
sequencing application was submitted with the preliminary plat application. After review and
comment from the City and Technical Evaluation Panel an updated sequencing application was
submitted on January 29, 2025. This application was reviewed, and additional comments were
provided to the applicant. Revised application materials were provided to the City on February
21st and 24th. This memo reflects all the wetland alternation permit submittals to date.
GRADING & DRAINAGE
The project site is located south of Christmas Lake and consists of five parcels with one single
family residence located onsite along with a driveway, and outbuildings. The project site is
bounded by Pleasant View Road to the north, Peaceful Lane to the West and single-family
homes on the South and East. In the existing condition the majority of the surface runoff from
the site flows into the pond/wetland on the northern portion of the site. This pond/wetland
drains west through an 8 inch culvert into a wetland complex east of Powers Blvd. Runoff from
the wetland/pond ultimately drains to Christmas Lake through a series of wetlands, stormwater
ponds, and stormwater infrastructure. A small portion of the site drains to the east between
existing homes into public storm sewer on Troendle Circle which ultimately drains into the
pond/wetland located onsite. A small portion of the site drains south through properties
326
Page 7 of 14
located on Lake Lucy Road and ultimately drains to Lake Susan through a wetland complex east
of Powers Blvd.
In the proposed condition the site would be mass graded to facilitate the construction of public
roads, utilities and homes. The proposed drainage patterns remain similar to existing
conditions. The majority of the site will be captured and routed by storm sewer and drainage
swales to the proposed stormwater management feature located where the existing
pond/wetland is today. Drainage from the Troendle Addition will be routed to the proposed
basin. Small portions of the site that are not routed to the stormwater basin would sheetflow
west, south, and east similar to that in existing conditions. The proposed conditions are
capturing runoff from portions of Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View Road and routing the
stormwater to the basin via storm sewer. The proposed impervious treatment for the
development is accounting for the maximum impervious for each lot.
The proposed design would alter how stormwater runoff would leave the site to the south
through existing home side yards. The proposed design is attempting to route stormwater
through City owned property, however there does not appear to be a defined drainage channel
on the property that would convey the runoff to the City’s drainage system along Lake Lucy
Road. Additional design, survey and a drainage memo is required to confirm that the proposed
development will not adversely impact downstream properties on the south end of the
development. The applicant shall submit a memo that verifies the proposed design will not
adversely impact the adjacent properties with the final plat application.
327
Page 8 of 14
EROSION CONTROL
The proposed development will impact one (1) acre of disturbance and will, therefore, be
subject to the General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with
Construction Activity Under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination/State Disposal System
(NPDES Construction Permit). A Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) was included
in the preliminary plat submittal. The SWPPP is a required submittal element for final plat
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 an approved SWPPP is
developed. 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 approved SWPPP shall be submitted prior to
recording the final plat. All erosion control shall be installed and inspected prior to initiation of
site grading activities.
WETLANDS
The proposed plans show two (2) wetlands onsite that were delineated by Kjolhaug
Environmental Services on July 3, 2024. 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 types and sizes on site were determined to be:
• Wetland 1 - 0.08 acre wetland meadow depression
• Wetland 2 – 0.67 acre wet meadow of which 0.16 areas are historic and governed by WCA
The applicant submitted a no-loss application which asserted that Wetland 2 was manmade
and therefore incidental. Portions of Wetland 2 were determined to be an incidental wetland
by the TEP. It was determined that earth moving activities associated with past projects onsite
modified the area and altered the wetland, however there were areas of historic wetland that
while altered still have wetland characteristics today and are therefore governed by WCA
regulations. As such only 0.16 acres of wetland 2 is governed by WCA regulations. During the
design process the applicant’s Engineer discovered the grading plans associated with the
Troendle Addition that showed that Wetland 1 was likely created with the grading of the
subdivision. As such, the LGU and TEP support the determination that wetland 1 is incidental.
The findings will be memorialized with a formal WCA decision processed concurrently with the
sequencing application.
The proposed plan would fill wetlands 1 and 2. The grading and filling over the wetlands would
facilitate the construction of the homes and stormwater treatment best management practices
(BMPs), associated with the development. WCA regulations and City Ordinance were created to
328
Page 9 of 14
protect wetlands because of their value as a water resource and their numerous benefits to the
surrounding area (water quality, flood mitigation, wildlife habitat, etc.). The main principles of
the WCA are to avoid wetland impacts, then minimize impacts, and finally replace filled
wetlands where wetland altering activities could not be avoided. The process of filling wetlands
and showing the avoidance and minimization are defined in State Statue 8420 and submitted to
the LGU as a Joint Permit Sequencing Application. The applicant must secure permits for the
wetland impacts from the LGU prior to construction. The applicant submitted a sequencing
application with the preliminary plat application which was reviewed by the TEP. The
sequencing application outlines why the applicant needs the specific design, alternative designs
reviewed, and actions to minimize wetland impacts. The application and review are a rigorous
process. The original application was determined to be deficient with regards to demonstrating
the need for the project and the quality of the avoidance and minimization alternatives
provided. Staff met with the applicant to outline initial comments and requested an updated
and more robust application focusing on the engineering challenges of why the wetlands could
not be designed around.
An updated application was submitted on January 29, 2025. The updated application focused
on the water quality benefit of the proposed revised constructed wetland treatment BMP. The
TEP reviewed the updated application and discussed findings during a coordination meeting on
February 14th. Remaining comments were sent over to the applicant on February 17th. The
applicant revised the submittal and sent over additional review materials on February 21st and
24th that answered most of the TEP’s questions. The City requested a design modification which
would minimize impacts to the historic wetland area which the applicant’s Engineer completed
(scenarios 1 and 2). This area would remain as a shallow pond type wetland that would function
in similar fashion as it does today. The applicant also sent over a draft maintenance proposal
for the native vegetation around the BMP which outlines that an HOA would be created for this
purpose.
329
Page 10 of 14
Scenario 2 Schematic
Scenario 2 Grading
The applicant’s preferred design (scenario 2) would fill a small portion of the historic wetland
but the majority would not be graded. Additionally, the constructed wetland proposed would
330
Page 11 of 14
result in higher pollutant removals than other options reviewed and would be a net benefit to
local water quality. Scenario 2 would likely increase the amount of untreated stormwater
drained through the historic wetland, as such it would still result in a permanent wetland
impact which requires mitigation with the purchase of wetland banking credits. The applicant’s
Joint Permit Application did outline the purchase of wetland banking credits.
Impacting wetlands in Chanhassen requires a wetland alteration permit as defined in Article VI,
Chapter 20 of City Ordinance which must be approved by City Council. The intent of this section
of code was to give the city additional control of wetland impacting activities within the city of
Chanhassen and ensure that the WCA was followed by all activities that could impact wetlands.
Staff and the TEP members have reviewed the updated sequencing application.
TEP comments from the last submittal are still outstanding but will be provided at the March 4
Planning Commission Meeting. The Water Resources Department does not have
recommendation to Planning Commission and City Council on the wetland sequencing
application decision. Staff will present the facts to the Commissioners at the March 4th Planning
Commission meet so an informed decision can be made.
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Article VII, Chapter 19 of City Code describes the required stormwater management
development standards. Section 19-141 states that “these development standards shall be
reflected in plans prepared by developers and/or project proposers in the design and layout of
site plans, subdivisions and water management features.” These standards include 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 Stormwater Management Report was submitted for review to confirm all
applicable stormwater management requirements are being met. This includes rate control,
volume abstraction and water quality requirements among others. All comments on the
proposed design from both the city and MCWD will need to be addressed. The applicant shall
provide final versions of all modeling (HydroCAD and MIDS) and Stormwater Management
Report to address remaining comments and confirm rate, volume and water quality
requirements are met as part of the final plat application. Additionally conditional approval
from the watershed district shall be provided with the final plat application to confirm the
design is meeting all applicable stormwater management requirements.
The applicant is proposing to meet stormwater regulations with the construction of a
constructed wetland type stormwater best management practice (BMP) with incorporated
filtration located on the northwest corner of the site where the existing pond/wetland is
located. An approved wetland alteration permit and associated WCA sequencing application is
required to construct the stormwater management system shown in the construction plans.
The BMP is located within an existing drainage and utility easement (D&U) that serves to
protect the existing pond/wetland located in the area. The existing easement is larger than the
current area of the pond/wetland. There are limited opportunities for stormwater management
331
Page 12 of 14
in this part of Chanhassen. The city intends to utilize the existing D&U for treatment associated
with the future Pleasant View Road reconstruction project which is scheduled for 2026-2027
construction. If the design is approved and the applicant secures the required wetland permits
the easement would be vacated by the city and then reconfigured. In order to approve the use
of the existing D&U for the subdivision drainage the applicant must show that the proposed
design will be oversized to accommodate the existing and future stormwater management
needs of the city. The applicant shall complete an analysis of the area that outlines the existing
and future stormwater management needs of the city in this area and shows that the proposed
basin is sized appropriately. The analysis shall be submitted with the final plat application.
There appears to be approximately 1 acre of the development which routes untreated
stormwater to the south that ultimately drains to a wetland complex north of Carver Beach
Road. There is a small city-owned wet pond that would provide some level of treatment before
the stormwater discharges to the downstream wetland. Standard engineering practice is to
route and treat a site's runoff to the maximum extent practicable. There appears to be
opportunities to optimize the design or add/enhance downstream BMPs to provide treatment
so that the water leaving the site would achieve city water quality standards. As such the
applicant shall work with staff to optimize the stormwater design. Additional water quality
modeling and potentially a private BMP installation may be required.
The proposed BMP systems shown in the preliminary plat are to be publicly owned and
maintained, however there may be the need for private stormwater infrastructure with the
final plans. A maintenance plan for any proposed BMPs will be required and should include the
maintenance schedule, responsible party, and should include information on how the system
will be cleaned out as necessary. The applicant shall submit a stormwater operations and
maintenance plan as part of the final plat submittal.
RECOMMENDATION
Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat, variance (now rescinded),
and wetland alterations permit subject to the conditions and findings of fact.
APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTS
PLANNING:
1. Conservation signage shall be required to be placed along the boundary of the
stormwater facility south of Pleasant View Road encompassing portions of proposed lots
3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of Block 1. Signage shall be placed on a post no smaller than 4"x4" with
a concrete footing and the location of signage is at the sole discretion of the city.
2. Applicant shall update corresponding plan sheets including the cover sheet, demolition
plan, preliminary plat, grading and drainage plan, grading profiles, erosion and sediment
control plan, sanitary sewer and watermain plan, storm sewer plan, wetland
management plan, tree preservation plan, tree inventory schedule, and landscaping
plan based upon the updated site plan which extends Nez Perce Drive through the
proposed development and connects to Peaceful Lane.
332
Page 13 of 14
3. Public sidewalk may be required along Peaceful Lane and Nez Perce drive at the sole
discretion of the city. The city will assess this improvement with final design plans.
FORESTRY
1. Developer must update the tree survey to include condition of all significant trees.
2. Developer must add tree protection fencing symbols to the legend on the Tree
Preservation plan sheet.
3. Ash trees that are marked to be saved must be inspected by the Environmental
Resources Specialist.
ENGINEERING:
1. The developer shall enter into Encroachment Agreements for all private improvements
located within public drainage and utility easements or right-of-way, as approved by the
City Engineer, prior to issuance of building permits.
2. 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 plat.
3. Final plans shall include current City Standard Details.
4. 8” sanitary sewer main shall be at a minimum 0.5% grade.
5. Correct the jog in the Lot 1 R/W.
6. Lot 1 grading contours do not tie into existing residential lot to the East.
7. Provide D&U Easement over drainage swales where applicable.
8. If there are retaining walls with this project, they shall be HOA or privately owned.
9. The Developer and their Engineer must amend the construction plans, to fully address
construction plan comments and concerns. Final construction plans will be subject to
review and approval by staff prior to the recording of the final plat.
10. The Developer will be required to clean & televise all sanitary sewer at connection point
and submit the CCTV footage and reporting to the City Engineer for review prior to
paving.
11. Many typical details were not included in the plans. Engineer to show private services,
pipe profiles, pipe sizes, grade of existing driveway tie-in.
12. Lot 6 appears to push drainage onto existing residential lot to the south.
13. Developer to remove water main and sanitary sewer pipe and structures along Redman
Lane R/W that no longer is necessary.
14. Developer shall coordinate relocations & installations with private utilities prior to final
restoration.
WATER RESOURCES:
1. The Developer shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide
necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of subdivision
approval and construction of infrastructure onsite.
333
Page 14 of 14
2. 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.
3. The Developer and their Engineer shall work with City staff in amending the
construction plans, dated December 19, 2024 prepared by Alliant Engineering, Inc., to
fully satisfy construction plan comments and concerns. Final construction plans will be
subject to review and approval by staff prior to recording final plat.
4. An analysis of stormwater treatment shall be submitted with the final plat application
that verifies that the design meets the existing and future needs of the City. The
treatment volume shall be noted and broken down into what is provided for the existing
condition, proposed subdivision, and future roadway projects.
5. The Developer shall secure a wetland alteration permit and associated joint permit
sequencing application prior to or in conjunction with the final plat approval.
6. An Operations and Maintenance plan for all proposed BMPs including the inspection
frequency, maintenance schedule, and responsible party shall be submitted with the
final plat application.
7. The Developer shall work with staff to optimize the drainage design and verify that
stormwater runoff to the south meets water quality standards.
8. The Developer shall revise the design and provide a memo which verifies that the
development will not adversely impact the drainage of adjacent properties.
9. The Developer shall provide updated H&H and water quality modeling with the final plat
submittal.
10. The Developer shall secure condition approval from the watershed district prior to
submitting the final plat application to the City. Verification of conditional approval shall
be provided with the final plat application.
BUILDING:
1. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that proposed building
meets all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code, additional comments or
requirements may be required after plan review.
2. Building permits must be obtained before beginning any construction.
3. Private 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.
4. A building permit must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site.
5. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division
before building permits will be issued.
334
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDATION
IN RE: Application of Rachel Development for a Twenty Lot Subdivision
On March 4th, 2025, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled
meeting to consider the application to subdivide 13.65 acres into nineteen single-family lots and
one outlot. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed preliminary plat
which at the time included a variance request for cul-de-sac length which that was preceded by
published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons
wishing to speak and recommended approval of the preliminary plat, and variance, based upon the
city ordinances in effect at the time.
On March 24th, 2025, the City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the
subdivision and wetland alterations applications for the subdivision of the land but without the
previously requested cul-de-sac variance as the proposed preliminary plat was modified such that a
cul-de-sac variance was no longer required and which increased the proposed development from 19
lots to 20 lots as a result of an increase in roadway frontage. Based on the preliminary plat and
wetland alteration permit applications before the City Council, the City Council makes the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On December 20, 2024, the City received a land use application for the property legal
described in attachment Exhibit A for the following:
A. A preliminary plat application for a 20-lot subdivision for residential single-family.
2. The property is currently zoned Single-Family Residential - RSF.
3. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Low Density Residential.
PRELIMINARY PLAT FINDINGS
4. The Subdivision Ordinance directs the City Council to consider seven possible adverse
effects of the proposed subdivision. The seven effects and our findings regarding them are:
a. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single-
Family District and the zoning ordinance if the conditions of approval are met.
b. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans
including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
subdivision ordinance if the conditions of approval are met.
335
c. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils,
vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and stormwater
drainage are suitable for the proposed development;
Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified
in this report.
d. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage,
sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this
chapter;
Finding: The proposed subdivision will provide adequate urban infrastructure subject to
the conditions specified in this report.
e. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage;
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental damage
subject to the conditions of approval. The proposed subdivision contains adequate open
areas to accommodate house pads.
f. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record; and
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather
will expand and provide all necessary easements.
g. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the
following exists:
1) Lack of adequate stormwater drainage.
2) Lack of adequate roads.
3) Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
4) Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems.
Finding: The proposed subdivision will have access to public utilities and streets if the
specified conditions of approval are met.
5. The planning report Planning Case 2025-02, dated March 19, 2025, prepared by Rachel
Arsenault, et al, is incorporated herein.
336
DECISION
The City Council approves the Preliminary Plat and Wetland Alteration Permit.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this _____ day of _____________, 202_.
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
BY:___________________________________
Its Mayor
BY:_ __________________________________
Its City Manager
337
EXHIBIT A
PID #258710190 (955 Pleasant View Road)
All of Lot 1 and that part of Lot 2, Block 3, "Vineland Forest", Carver County, Minnesota, lying Northerly of a line
drawn from a point on the East line of said Lot 2 a distance of 53.53 feet North of the Southeast corner of said
Lot 2 to a point on the West line of said Lot 2 distant 66.00 feet North of the Southwest corner of said Lot 2 and
there terminating.
PID # 258700060 (6535 Peaceful Lane)
That part of Lots 5 and 6, “Vineland”, described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 5;
thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the south line of said Lot 5, a
distance of 168.62 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract of land to be herein described; thence North 0
degrees 43 minutes 26 seconds East 32.25 feet; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West 179.00
feet; thence South 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds East 129.57 feet; thence South 89 degrees 16 minutes 34
seconds East 160.63 feet; thence North 0 degrees 43 minutes 26 seconds East 96.01 feet to the actual point of
beginning, Carver County, Minnesota.
Together with an easement for ingress and egress over and across that part of Lot 5, “Vineland”, Carver County,
Minnesota lying Westerly of the following described line:
Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 5; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West,
assumed bearing, along the south line of said Lot 5 a distance of 168.62 feet; thence North 0 degrees 43
minutes 26 seconds East 32.25 feet; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West 179.00 feet; thence
South 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds East a distance of 32.57 feet, more or less, to a point on the south line
of said Lot 5, which point is the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence on a line running North 7
degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 160 feet, more or less, to the intersection of said line with the
westerly lot line of said Lot 5, and there terminating.
And
That part of Lots 5 and 6, "Vineland", Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: viz:
That part of the South 45.25 feet of Lot 5 and of the North 96.01 feet of Lot 6, "Vineland" lying Easterly of a line
drawn perpendicular to the South line of said Lot 5 from a point on said South line distant 168.62 feet Westerly
along said South line from the Southeast corner of said Lot 5.
PID # 258700063 (No Address Assigned)
Lot 5, Vineland, Carver County, Minnesota, except that part thereof described as follows, viz:
Commencing on the Southeast corner of said Lot 5; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West,
assumed bearing, along the South line of said Lot 5 a distance of 168.62 feet to the actual point of beginning of
the parcel being described; thence North 0 degrees 43 minutes 26 seconds East 32.25 feet; thence North 89
degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West 179.00 feet; thence South 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds East a
distance of 32.57 feet, more or less, to a point on the South line of said Lot 5 (hereinafter referred to as “Point
A”); thence Easterly along the South line of said Lot 5 to the point of beginning.
Subject to an easement for ingress and egress and utility purposes, appurtenant to and for the benefit of the
above described Exception, which said easement is described as all that part of said Lot 5, Vineland, lying
Westerly of the following described line: Beginning on the South line of said Lot 5 described above as “Point A”;
thence on a line running North 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 160 feet more or less, to its
intersection with the Westerly line of said Lot 5 and there terminating.
Also excepting from said Lot 5 that part thereof described as follows, viz:
A 50.00 foot strip of land over and across Lot 5, Vineland, Carver County, Minnesota, the centerline of said strip
is described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of Lot 5; thence South 00 degrees 24 minutes 03 seconds East, on an
assumed bearing, along the East line of Lot 5, a distance of 380.86 feet to the point of beginning of the centerline
to be described; thence Westerly, a distance of 29.21 feet along a non-tangential curve concave to the South,
said curve having a radius of 198.13 feet, a central angle of 08 degrees 26 minutes 53 seconds and a chord
bearing of North 71 degrees 56 minutes 25 seconds West; thence North 76 degrees 09 minutes 51 seconds
West tangent to last described curve, a distance of 170.81 feet; thence Northwesterly, a distance of 124.92 feet,
along a tangential curve concave to the Northeast, said curve having a central angle of 39 degrees 52 minutes
43 seconds and a radius of 179.48 feet to a point hereinafter referred to as “Point B”; thence continue
Northwesterly and Northerly along the last described curve a distance of 124.92 feet and said centerline there
338
terminating.
Also excepting, a 50.00 foot strip of land over and across said Lot 5, Vineland, the centerline of said strip is
described as follows:
Beginning at the above described “Point B”; thence South 53 degrees 42 minutes 49 seconds West, a distance
of 100.00 feet and said centerline there terminating.
PID #258700062 (No Address Assigned)
Lot 6, Vineland, Carver County, Minnesota, except that part thereof described as follows, viz: Commencing at
the Northeast corner of said Lot 6, thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West, assumed bearing,
along the North line of said Lot 6, a distance of 168.62 feet to the actual point of beginning of the land to be
described; thence South 0 degrees 43 minutes 26 seconds West a distance of 96.01 feet; thence North 89
degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 160.63 feet; thence North 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds
West a distance of 97.00 feet to the North line of said Lot 6; thence Easterly along the said North line of Lot 6 to
the point of beginning.
Excepting from said Lot 5 and said Lot 6 the following described premises:
That part of the South 45.25 feet of Lot 5 and of the North 96.01 feet of Lot 6, “Vineland” lying Easterly of a line
drawn perpendicular to the South line of said Lot 5 from a point on said South line distance 168.62 feet Westerly
along said South line from the Southeast corner of said Lot 5.
And
Lot 7, Vineland, Carver County, Minnesota, except that part of said Lot 7 described as follows, viz: Commencing
at the Southwest corner of Lot 7, Vineland; thence North 1 degree 53 minutes 49 seconds East a distance of
76.37 feet to a point on the Southeasterly line of Peaceful Lane; thence North 36 degrees 53 minutes 34
seconds East along said Southeasterly line of Peaceful Lane a distance of 174.79 feet; thence South 87 degrees
50 minutes 55 seconds East a distance of 294.35 feet; thence South 1 degree 03 minutes 23 seconds West a
distance of 220.04 feet to the Southerly line of said Lot 7; thence South 87 degrees 50 minutes 55 seconds West
along said Southerly line of Lot 7 a distance of 397.82 feet to the point of beginning.
Together with an easement appurtenant to the foregoing Parcels 2, 3 and 4 for ingress and egress over and
across that part of Lot 5, Vineland, Carver County, Minnesota lying Westerly of the following described line:
Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Lot 5; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West,
assumed bearing, along the South line of said Lot 5 a distance of 168.62 feet; thence North 0 degrees 43
minutes 26 seconds East 32.25 feet; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West 179.00 feet; thence
South 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds East a distance of 32.57 feet, more or less, to a point on the South line
of said Lot 5, which point is the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence on a line running North 7
degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 160 feet, more or less, to the intersection of said line with the
Westerly lot line of said Lot 5, and there terminating.
PID #258690130 (1015 Pleasant View Road)
Outlot A, Troendle Addition, Carver County, Minnesota.
All Abstract Property
339
Memorandum
TO: City of Chanhassen Planning and Engineering Department
CC: Paul Robinson, Rachel Development
FROM: Mark Rausch, PE
DATE: 3/7/2025
SUBJECT: Pleasant View Pointe Development – Trip Generation Summary
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition) was utilized
to determine average trip generation rates for existing and proposed land use types, and in turn
develop an estimated trip generation for the existing and the two proposed development conditions.
Estimated trip generation data is shown in the tables below and estimated for: Existing Conditions,
No Nez Perce Drive Connection and Nez Perce Drive Connection:
Table 1. Existing Trip Generation1
Weekday ADT2 AM Peak 3 PM Peak 4
Existing Site Single-Family
Detached Housing 210 1 9.4 0.7 0.9
9.4 0.7 0.9
0.0 0.0 0.0
1. Estimates Per Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.
2. Weekday Generation rate = 9.43 trips / dwelling unit
3. Weekday Generation rate = 0.70 trips / dwelling unit / 7-9 am Peak Hour
4. Weekday Generation rate = 0.94 trips / dwelling unit / 4-6 pm Peak Hour
Net Existing Total to Nez Perce Drive
Trips Generated:Number of Units
for Generation
ITE Land
Use CodeLand Use
Net Existing Total to Pleasant View Road (Via Peaceful Ln)
340
Pleasant View Pointe
March 7, 2025 Page 2 of 3
Table 2. Proposed Trip Generation1 - No Road Connection to Nez Perce Drive
Weekday ADT2 AM Peak 3 PM Peak 4
Proposed Site -
To Pleasant
View Rd Via
Peaceful Ln
Single-Family
Detached Housing 210 15 141.5 10.5 14.1
Proposed Site -
To Pleasant
View Rd - Direct
Single-Family
Detached Housing 210 3 28.3 2.1 2.8
Proposed Site -
To Nez Perce Dr
Single-Family
Detached Housing 210 1 9.4 0.7 0.9
169.7 12.6 16.9
160.3 11.9 16.0
9.4 0.7 0.9
1. Estimates Per Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.
2. Weekday Generation rate = 9.43 trips / dwelling unit
3. Weekday Generation rate = 0.70 trips / dwelling unit / 7-9 am Peak Hour
4. Weekday Generation rate = 0.94 trips / dwelling unit / 4-6 pm Peak Hour
Net Total Difference to Pleasant View Drive
Land Use ITE Land
Use Code
Number of Units
for Generation
Trips Generated:
Net Proposed Total to Pleasant View Road
Net Total Difference to Nez Perce Drive
Table 3. Proposed Trip Generation1 - Road Connection made to Nez Perce Drive
Weekday ADT2 AM Peak 3 PM Peak 4
Proposed Site -
To Pleasant
View Rd Via
Peaceful Ln
Single-Family
Detached Housing 210 14 132.0 9.8 13.2
Proposed Site -
To Pleasant
View Rd - Direct
Single-Family
Detached Housing 210 3 28.3 2.1 2.8
Existing Troendle
- To Pleasant
View Rd Via
Peaceful Ln
Single-Family
Detached Housing 210 13 122.6 9.1 12.2
Proposed Site -
To Nez Perce Dr
Single-Family
Detached Housing 210 2 18.9 1.4 1.9
282.9 21.0 28.2
273.5 20.3 27.3
-103.7 -7.7 -10.3
-103.7 -7.7 -10.3
1. Estimates Per Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.
2. Weekday Generation rate = 9.43 trips / dwelling unit
3. Weekday Generation rate = 0.70 trips / dwelling unit / 7-9 am Peak Hour
4. Weekday Generation rate = 0.94 trips / dwelling unit / 4-6 pm Peak Hour
Trips Generated:
Net Proposed Total to Pleasant View Road (Via Peaceful Ln)
Net Proposed Total to Nez Perce Drive
Net Total Difference to Nez Perce Drive
Net Total Difference to Pleasant View Drive
Land Use ITE Land
Use Code
Number of Units
for Generation
341
Pleasant View Pointe
March 7, 2025 Page 3 of 3
The estimated trip generation is summarized as follows for each scenario:
No Roadway Connection to Nez Perce Drive
An estimated increase in weekday Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 160 trips is expected to Pleasant View
Road from existing conditions with increase in AM and PM peak hour traffic of 12 and 16 trips,
respectively.
An estimated increase in weekday Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 9 trips is expected to Nez Perce Drive
from existing conditions with increase in AM and PM peak hour traffic of 1 and 1 trips, respectively.
Roadway Connection to Nez Perce Drive
In making a trip generation estimate for a possible roadway connection to Nez Perce Drive, engineering
judgement and assumption has been made that 2 homes would use Nez Perce Drive for their typical route
and 13 Troendle Addition homes would change behavior and use a new roadway connection to access
Pleasant View Road. The corresponding graphics highlight specific homes, however, for analysis
purposes the specific homes are not critical, the exhibit shall be used to highlight how many total homes
could use each route. Actual driver behavior will vary based on routes users need to travel, this study
attempts to assume the likely average or typical route taken.
An estimated increase in weekday Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 274 trips is expected to Pleasant View
Road from existing conditions with increase in AM and PM peak hour traffic of 20 and 27 trips,
respectively.
An estimated decrease in weekday Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 104 trips is expected to Nez Perce
Drive from existing conditions with increase in AM and PM peak hour traffic of 8 and 10 trips,
respectively.
342
12346123456789101112135BLOCK 2BLOCK 2OUTLOT ABLOCK 1BLOCK 1PLEASANT VIEW ROADPOWERS BOULEVARDLAKE LUCY ROADNEZ PERCE DRPEACEFUL LN1464 AADT (MNDOT 2023)PLEASANT VIEW POINTE - TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS EXHIBIT - NO ROAD CONNECTLEGEND: 343
12346123456789101112135BLOCK 2BLOCK 2OUTLOT ABLOCK 1BLOCK 1PLEASANT VIEW ROADPOWERS BOULEVARDLAKE LUCY ROADNEZ PERCE DRPEACEFUL LN1464 AADT (MNDOT 2023)PLEASANT VIEW POINTE - TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS EXHIBIT - ROAD CONNECTLEGEND: 344
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
MARCH 4, 2025
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Noyes called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Eric Noyes, Edward Goff, Steve Jobe, Jeremy Rosengren,
Perry Schwartz, Ryan Soller, and Katie Trevena.
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner; Eric Maass, Community
Development Director; and Joe Seidl, Water Resource Engineer.
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Ed Szalapski Jr. 850 Pleasant View Road
Paul Haik 261 Hidden Lane
Paul Robinson Rachel LLC Development Director
Christine Haissig 6370 Pleasant View Cove
Tony Fricano 980 Lake Lucy Road
Sarah Zaccarine 6431 Pleasant Park Drive
Thomas Kraker 801 Pleasant View Road
Alexander Westlind 825 Pleasant View Road
Eric Anderson 6580 Troendle Circle
Martha Noll 7214 Frontier Trail
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. CONSIDER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR PID 25-4070020,
GENERAL GAPLIN BLVD (PLANNING CASE #25-03)
Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner, presented the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment
for 6651 Galpin Boulevard. She stated that the proposal was scheduled to go before City Council
on March 24. She shared that the Planning Commission's scope for Comprehensive Plan
amendments was large because they act in its legislative or policy-making capacity.
She explained information on the lot, including that the lot is currently zoned rural residential
and that the Comprehensive Plan Guidance is for a residential large lot. The lot size is 2.50 acres
with a net density of 2.22 unit per acres. Mrs. Arsenault explained the 2040 Comprehensive Plan
Future Land Use. She stated that the applicant wanted to go to a residential low-density
designation, which was like neighboring properties outside of a pocket of four properties. She
reviewed the Comprehensive Plan Guidance, which allowed for appropriate re-guiding of
property upon the availability of city utilities. She explained that the current home was on well
345
Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025
2
and septic but did not have to connect until a large-scale repair was required. She stated that two
sewer and water stubs were added to the property with the 2024 Galpin Boulevard
reconstruction. She said that the applicant was looking to subdivide and build a new house on the
subdivided portion of the property in the future.
Chairman Noyes asked if it was a common occurrence to change the designation of a property to
take advantage of the city’s utilities. Mrs. Arsenault answered that a lot of people inquire about
lot splits, and when utilities are newly introduced to an area it is not uncommon for the city to
receive a request for an amendment to land use designations for newly serviced properties.
Commissioner Soller asked if the Comprehensive Plan is the strategic vision only set every so
often and rarely changed. He said that this change would just change the specific lot, but the
other lots would be guided in a different way. He said normally the Comprehensive Plan would
not be changed, so he asked if the request was normal. Eric Maass, Community Development
Director, answered that the request was normal as the current designation of the lot was
residential large lot which was appropriate as they did not previously have access to sewer and
water but the request to reguide to residential lot density was now the appropriate designation
because of the availability of public water and sewer utilities to the property. He stated that the
Comprehensive Plan allowed for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to re-guide for a denser
designation when sewer and water were available.
Vice Chair Jobe asked if the other lots guided residential large lot along Galpin Boulevard would
be able to reguide as well with the new utilities installed. Mr. Maass confirmed the information.
Chairman Noyes opened the public hearing. There were no public comments.
Chairman Noyes closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Goff moved, Commissioner Schwartz seconded that the Chanhassen
Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve amending the 2040
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from Residential – Large Lot to Residential – Low
Density for PID 25-4070020, generally located at 6651 Galpin Boulevard. All voted in favor
and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
2. CONSIDER PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH VARIANCE TO CUL-DE-SAC LENGTH
AND WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR PLEASANT VIEW POINTE
(PROJECT 25-02).
Eric Maass, Community Development Director, said that the presentation would be
collaborative. The applicant also had a presentation.
Mrs. Arsenault introduced the project to be discussed. She reviewed the location of the property
at approximately 6535 Peaceful Lane. She stated that the 13.65-acre property was a combination
of six properties and is zoned with a single residential family. The Comprehensive Plan
Guidance is Residential Low Density. She reviewed the different steps for community
engagement, including the public hearing notice postcards and public hearing notice in the Sun
346
Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025
3
Sailor. Additionally, the applicant held a neighborhood meeting at the Chanhassen Recreation
Center on July 31, 2024, and the development was discussed at the City Council workshop on
October 14, 2024.
Mrs. Arsenault described the Planning Commission Scope for a preliminary plat review,
including that the proposed subdivision was consistent with the zoning ordinance, with all
applicable City, County, and regional plans, the physical characteristics of the site, and the area
has access to all necessary utilities. Mrs. Arsenault displayed a photo to show the existing
conditions of the property. She stated that the developer proposed 19 single-family lots, with one
outlot and public trail access that would also provide access to emergency services. She said the
density was 1.4 units/acre, and the lots conformed to the RSF zoning district standards.
She reviewed the staff comment about lot 5 changing into a flag lot to get the driveway out of an
outlot owned by the city. She showed the landscaping plan for the development and noted the
landscaping schedule to show the trees that would be planted. She noted that the developer did a
good job to ensure existing trees on the development remained. She summarized the water and
sanitary sewer utility plan and noted that an old, unused sanitary sewer and water main would be
removed with the vacation of public right of way for the former road referred to as Redman
Lane. Mrs. Arsenault showed the storm sewer utility plan, which would reach into the storm
pond area.
Eric Maass, Community Development Director, reviewed the Planning Commission Scope for
the approval of variances which is more prescriptive criteria to meet for approval. He reviewed
the property history to provide context. The general development area had plats for Carver Beach
Estates in 1986, Vineland Forest in 1990, and Troendle Addition in 1991. He reviewed the prior
development conditions for Nez Perce. He said the city condemned the right-of-way through the
property being considered for the preliminary plat. The city took future assessments from the
property to pay for the future road extension of Nez Perce. If the road is not extended, there
would be a potential that the city would have to pay it back with interest.
Mr. Maass reviewed the neighborhood feedback about the Nez Perce connection with concerns
that the connection of Nez Perce would create a cut-through path for drivers not wanting to drive
on Powers Boulevard, and in the opinion of those residents, such a connection would change the
character of the neighborhood. He presented the two options that the developer brought forward
to the City Council and asked for the preferences. Option two would require a variance for the
cul-de-sac length. He showed a drawing of the cul-de-sac and explained the variance request for
the dead-end cul-de-sac of 1,040 feet long. He reviewed the comments from Emergency Services
about the access at the cul-de-sac. Mr. Maass reviewed the proposed findings for
recommendation.
Joe Seidl, Water Resource Engineer, reviewed the existing conditions of the property, stating that
it was an open prairie with managed turf grass. He said that the stormwater generally flows from
the southeast to the northwest, with a majority of the water draining into Christmas Lake. He
noted that a small portion of the site drains to the south. He said that the property takes water
from the Troendle Addition. He reviewed the large drainage and utility easement to protect and
347
Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025
4
allow access to the wetland area and the treatment area. He stated that the area would be graded
to facilitate the development and construction of roads, utilities, and building pads.
A SWPPP Plan was provided to show how they will mitigate impacts during the construction. He
said that the project would maintain the major flow patterns and indicated the various stormwater
features on the site, with a majority of the water draining into Christmas Lake. The Troendle
Addition would be routed through the pond/wetland area. He explained the stormwater design
and how it would utilize a combination of wet pond/filtration basin, storm sewers, and swales to
maintain the existing drainage patterns and meet design requirements. He noted that the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District requires double the filtration volume when infiltration is
deemed impractical. He said that the applicant shifted to a constructed wetland design to meet
WCA and City Regulations. He reviewed the stormwater design considerations, including the
existing drainage and utility easement.
Mr. Seidl said that there is a planned project for Pleasant View Road Reconstruction from 2026
to 2027, which would trigger stormwater treatment rules. The city would investigate their needs
for the area and work with the applicant to reconfigure the easement if the applicant would do an
analysis to show how the proposed design would meet the regulations. He expressed concern
about drainage to the south, which would have some risk of impacting adjacent residents. The
engineer is working with the applicant’s engineer to mitigate the concerns. He stated that the best
practice when building out a subdivision is to treat all the stormwater created by the impervious
areas to the best extent possible. He explained that there are areas in the subdivision that aren’t
being routed to the proposed water management system due to multiple factors, such as grade
and current conditions. He recognized the need to increase the treatment of the Troendle
Addition.
Mr. Seidl stated that a Wetland Delineation was completed in July 2024, which located two
wetlands on site. One wetland was 0.08 acres, and one wetland was 0.67 acres. The larger
wetland was historic and governed by the Wetland Conservation Act, which protected wetlands,
habitats, stormwater detention and flood protection, and groundwater recharge. He stated that
typical designs try to avoid wetlands. Mr. Seidl reviewed the wetland background, which noted
that wetland two is incidental created by manmade activities. The Technical Evaluation Panel
reviewed historical information about the wetland, which showed that a portion of the wetland
was highly modified, but a small portion was still jurisdictional. He stated that any alterations to
the wetland require a Sequencing Application, which was submitted by the applicant in
December 2024. He stated that wetland one did not require a sequencing application, but the
Technical Evaluation Panel is still reviewing information.
Mr. Seidl reviewed the process for the Sequencing Joint Application Permit, which looks at what
the applicant does to avoid the impact of wetlands, minimize impacts on wetlands, and mitigate
wetland impacts. He stated that the application included two alternatives, including a no-build
option and a berm to preserve the wetland. The applicant preferred a constructed wetland, which
would have a lot of benefits, such as honoring the historic wetland and enhancing the overall
local water quality. He said the challenges would include the temporary and permanent impacts
on wetlands, and that the wetland would not meet the quality control regulations. He said a
decision was needed to provide direction to the applicant and meet application review timelines.
348
Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025
5
He explained that the applicant has done a lot of work, but that there was no clear-cut decision
from the Water Resource Department. Mr. Seidl read the regulations from the State Statute, Joint
Permit Application, and the Chanhassen City Ordinance that related to constructed wetlands.
Paul Robinson, Development Director with Rachel Development, introduced himself and
provided examples of projects he completed. He introduced the Charles Cudd Company, the
home builder for the project. Mr. Robinson reviewed the land use plan and the current zoning for
the property, noting that the minimum lot size was 15,000 square feet. He provided a site
analysis of the property, including the wetland delineation for wetlands one and two. He
recognized the right-of-way for Nez Perce. He reviewed the topography of the site and noted the
bluff area on the property.
Mr. Robinson showed the overland drainage on the property and said most of the drainage goes
to the north and northeast. He pointed out where Pleasant View Road was located on the map.
He said that Troendle Addition drains into the pond and then goes into Powers. He reviewed the
drainage and utility easements with Troendle Addition in 1991 and the pond expansion in 1992.
He reviewed the tree survey and showed images of the overall tree canopy. He explained the
utility connections. He explained that the preliminary plat had 19 lots, and all the lots exceed the
RSF standards. He said they are trying to respect the lot sizes in the area already, with a majority
of the lots ranging from 22,438 square feet to 42,830 square feet. He noted that Troendle Circle
had 15,919 average square foot lots. He reviewed the depth and width of the lots and explained
that they exceeded the requirements.
Mr. Robinson showed photos of houses that would be similar to what would be built. He
reviewed the top issues raised at the neighborhood meeting, including the future access to a
water tower, general traffic concerns, and the connection to Nez Perce. He explained the
responses to staff comments, including the flag lot for lot 5 for the driveway, moving lot 6
driveway for snow storage, and adding a sidewalk along Pleasant View. He noted that the
sidewalk would take twelve trees. He discussed the desire to preserve the trees in the
development and requested additional dialogue about the sidewalk. He reviewed the southern
drainage area, which would reduce the drainage to 1.6 acres, but they are looking for additional
ways to reduce drainage. He stated that one option for the drainage would be to install a storm
pipe to take drainage to the water tower. He reviewed the desire to add additional access to
Pleasant View and said that they understood the City Code and the desire to limit driveways on
Collector Roads. He did not think that the driveway would impact the collector road and said that
there were turnarounds for each driveway. He provided options for a shared driveway but noted
the importance of preserving the trees.
Mr. Robinson reviewed the original proposed pond/filtration system, and they worked with the
LGU to create a win-win option to create a constructed stormwater wetland treatment system. He
showed an aerial photo of the wetland, which showed that in 1937, there was a wet meadow, but
in 1956, the property was 100% farmed. In 1962, there was a small wet area visible, and in 1967
a pond was created. In 1979, he said that a culvert may have been plugged when the road was
created. In 1989, a majority of the wetland was filled, and then in 1992, the Troendle addition
was started, and they built a pond. He reviewed the 1992 grading permit staff memo. He said that
the evidence indicated no wetlands were on the property originally. He thought that the
349
Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025
6
constructed wetland stormwater treatment system seemed like a win-win, and it included deep
water zones, high marsh zones, low marsh zones, filtration strips, and a native upland buffer. He
stated that the proposed treatment would help the water quality. He summarized the final points,
including the request for one additional driveway on Pleasant View, the concerns about the
impact of sidewalk construction, and Nez Perce.
Commissioner Trevena asked if the proposed constructed stormwater wetland would result in a
net gain in water quality. Mr. Seidl confirmed this information.
Commissioner Trevena said that WAC’s recommendation was not a clear-cut approval. She
asked if it was not clear-cut because of the subdivision. Mr. Seidl answered that the first part of
the sequencing application demonstrated the need for the project. He said that a subdivision was
difficult to prove because there were a lot of different things that could be done. He stated that
the developer did a good job on the presentation, but from a water resources perspective, it is
frowned upon to place your storm water treatment facilities in the area that you are trying to
preserve. He explained that the construction of the wetland would have benefits and
enhancements to the area. He requested direction from the Planning Commission for guidance on
future projects, as well.
Commissioner Jobe asked about the runoff going up to the adjacent cul-de-sac and if the trees
were preventing putting a drainage ditch to redirect the runoff from the runoff change. Mr.
Robinson said that the developer was trying to be cognizant to save the trees.
Commissioner Schwartz asked if the wetland and a stormwater drainage and retention pond
could co-exist in the same physical space. Mr. Seidl responded yes and no. He said that
historically, wetlands were stormwater treatment. The wetlands provided some level of treatment
before the current rules and regulations. He explained that if the two are adjacent to each other
and not separated by a berm or some other separated feature, they are mixing untreated
stormwater from the development with stormwater that would be from the wetland area. He said
that the untreated stormwater going into the wetland is the impact and would degrade the
wetland over time.
Commissioner Schwartz asked about the projected five-, ten-, and one-hundred-year flood
consequences would be to the proposed treatment pond. Mr. Seidl asked for clarification.
Mr. Seidl answered that the stormwater facility would be large enough to hold stormwater from a
two, ten, and one-hundred-year storm events. He said the subdivision would be designed around
the one-hundred-year storm event to mitigate impacts on downstream resources and nearby
residents.
Commissioner Schwartz asked if the pond had the capacity. Mr. Seidl thought it did, but it would
be a better question for the plan’s engineer.
Chairman Noyes asked about feedback from the Department of Natural Resources and how it
would be weighed in situations like this. Mr. Seidl said that the specific application would not
impact public water, and the Department of Natural Resources would not be involved. The
350
Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025
7
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Administrator weighed in on the application and initially
expressed concerns about the proposal of a stormwater management facility where there is a
current wetland. He said that there is a long history with the wetland. There could be net benefits
with the overall design. The watershed district can provide comments, but they do not get to vote
on the plan. They received recent comments that the updated plan was headed in the right
direction.
Chairman Noyes asked if the design solution would be considered a complex solution or if it was
standard. He asked about the chances if it was not appropriately sized or effectively designed.
Mr. Seidl answered that the professional engineer designed the plan because he thought it would
work. He explained that the project could be calculated, so there could be confidence that it
would work. He voiced concerns about the vegetation. He asked who would take care of the
vegetation. He explained it would be ideal to plant native vegetation, but the city would have
limited resources for native vegetation management. He said there could be a possibility of a
Homeowners' Association to manage the vegetation.
Commissioner Schwartz asked if the wetland was private, if the city would have a maintenance
easement. Mr. Seidl responded that he did not see it becoming private since there was mixing of
public and private stormwater. He explained that when there is a mixing of stormwater, the city
takes ownership of the management of the stormwater facilities.
Commissioner Schwartz voiced concerns about his personal experience with Homeowner’s
Associations and the management of the ponds. He explained that the city would have passive
maintenance of the ponds. He explained concerns related to when the visual water quality was
dirty and filled with algae, property owners might try to treat the water with chemicals. He asked
for input from the applicant. Mr. Robinson responded that he has set up multiple Homeowners'
Association with complicated stormwater systems and restoration. He said that it would be
difficult for the developer to be there twenty years down the road, but the Homeowners’
Association could be set up with a lot of teeth. He suggested rather than requiring an impact to
the wetland, they could put funds into the Homeowners’ Association fund for vegetation
management. He thought it would be a win-win. He thought the buffer area would be managed
by the Homeowners Association, but they need to figure out additional details. They put together
a disclosure when the homes are sold about how ponds can be green, and the water levels can
fluctuate. He explained that this effort could be lost on future owners.
Commissioner Schwartz explained the process of restoring the pond in their neighborhood and
explained how difficult it is to maintain these water features in future years.
Commissioner Goff asked about future easement from the drainage and if it was being changed
in the proposal. Mr. Robinson answered that the overall easement was growing. They are trying
to reconfigure it to get lots, but also to ensure that it takes care of the one-hundred-year storm
event and modeling a portion of Troendle Addition and Pleasant Creek Road.
Commissioner Trevena asked if the Planning Commission recommends the approval of the water
alteration permit, but there are still comments coming in from TEP, what the process would look
like. Mr. Seidl explained that a majority of the TEP members are not opposed to the approval.
351
Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025
8
The city would follow up with a finding of fact and an additional WAC decision to memorialize
everything.
Commissioner Soller asked if TEP had an authority role or a recommending role. Mr. Seidl
explained that the TEP voted on the decision, but it was up to the local governing unit to make
the decision. He explained that if there was a history of bucking the TEP guidance, there could
be challenges to the local governing unit status. He said the Chanhassen role must memorialize
decisions rather than decisions by staff.
Commissioner Soller asked about the current professional opinions by the TEP members and
asked if they were disregarding the historical court ruling. Mr. Seidl explained that when the
staff looked at the ruling 30 years later, when WAC was in its infancy, there were additional
historical photos and data to analyze the existing conditions. He said that they can determine if
there was a historical wetland. He explained that the question directed to the Board of Soil and
Water Resources was whether the previous court ruling mattered or the current conditions. He
stated that the legal purview was not in his authority.
Commissioner Soller talked about the pros and cons displayed by Mr. Seidl earlier. He asked
about the challenges with the constructed wetland, specifically about the quality control
regulations with the water. He asked about the net increase of the status quo and discussed how
the current increase and the status quo did not meet regulations. Mr. Seidl responded that if the
wetland existed without any confusion, the designer would have to design around it. The
designer would have to build a treatment facility in the upland to treat the stormwater before it
got there. He said the proposed wetland did not have a separation, so the dirty stormwater from
the development can make it into the overall treatment area. The net benefit comes from the
water leaving the overall constructed wetland complex. He said there was untreated stormwater
that got into the wetland today because it is an addition to the current pond from the Troendle
Addition into the area. He said it was difficult to separate the overall water quality benefits.
Commissioner Soller expressed the difficulties with the gray areas about what was practically
acceptable versus not. He said there was no definitive thumbs up or thumbs down about the
practical alternatives for the developer. This made the decision hard for the Planning
Commission, especially since they are not experts. Mr. Seidl answered that there were metrics to
consider when looking at applications. He explained that it was complicated since there was a net
benefit to the overall site, but they would have to fill portions of a wetland that already had
untreated stormwater conveyed to it. He explained that it was not a slam-dunk application for the
TEP because of the need to prove the need, but there was no clear recommendation for denial.
Chairman Noyes asked for Mr. Maass to review the Planning Commission’s roles with wetlands.
Mr. Maass answered that the Planning Commission would have to review the application and
provide a recommendation, and then the City Council would make the decision.
Commissioner Schwartz asked if there was anything different that the developer could do to
increase the benefits to the wetland beyond what they already proposed. He said the developer
already found a good solution to the problem. Mr. Seidl responded that there was a scope
problem. The larger the stormwater management practices get, the more benefits they have. He
352
Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025
9
said it would be better to build two homes and have a larger stormwater management practice,
but would that be practical? He requested guidance on what was practical.
Commissioner Soller asked if there were alternatives to the plan brainstormed by the developer
before they selected the plan. Mr. Robinson said that the developer was trying to go above and
beyond what was proposed. He said that they were in a precarious situation. He explained that
they are not maximizing the number of lots and they are trying to create a neighborhood that fits
in with the area's homes today. He said they put all they could into the pond.
Commissioner Soller clarified the purview of the Planning Commission and what they should
consider. He referred to the final slide from the developer with the request of the additional
driveway. He asked if that was included in the preliminary plat and if the Planning Commission
had the purview to consider yes or no. Mr. Maass answered that the Planning Commission would
recommend approval or denial of the plat. He said that the developer showed multiple options
with the driveways that the city would consider. He explained that they try to limit the number of
access points onto collector roads since they are to have as few as are practical. There are three
other alternatives that the staff would consider, and they think they can provide a solution for
access to the lots. There are multiple factors to think about, but the biggest importance is that
drivers are not backing onto the collector road.
Commissioner Soller asked about the connection of Nez Perce Drive based on previous
comments submitted. He said that there was a City Council directional vote in a working session
that was 3-2. He reviewed the three items in the variance and asked where the connection or non-
connection of that road fell within the purview of the Planning Commission. Mr. Maass
responded that the conversation around the Nez Perce connection was similar. There is a
preliminary plat with both options. He did not think it would be beneficial for the Planning
Commission to table based on this subject since there is a plat with both options. Mr. Maass
reviewed the triangle of discretion. He said that the Planning Commission was presented with
drafts of findings of fact and the staff’s job is to provide technical expertise and information. The
Planning Commission and City Council provide direction to the city staff.
Chairman Noyes said that the Planning Commission would provide a recommendation about Nez
Perce Drive, and the City Council would confirm the decision or disagree with the decision.
Commissioner Rosengren clarified if the recommendation was for the connection to be made, a
variance was no longer necessary. Mr. Maass answered that a variance would no longer be
required since the depth of the cul-de-sac road would be below the 750 feet threshold required by
City Code.
Chairman Noyes opened the public hearing.
Ed Szalapski Junior, 850 Pleasant View Road, stated he has been a resident of Chanhassen for 31
years. He was speaking as a private citizen and a representative of the Christmas Lake Home
Association Board. He voiced concern about traffic on Pleasant View Road since it was a narrow
road with natural obstacles and sharp turns. He stated that some places on Pleasant View Road
could not accommodate speeds of 25 to 30 miles per hour, even with the proposed upgrade to the
353
Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025
10
road. He expressed concerns about the increased amount of traffic, but the concern would be
resolved if Nez Perce Road was not connected to Peaceful Lane. He expressed concerns with
increased runoff, as residents have spent time and money to work on invasive species. He said
when there is increased development, there is an increase in run-off, which decreases water
quality. He expressed the need to apply the highest standard possible to water management. He
said Christmas Lake was the cleanest lake in an 11-county area and voiced the need to preserve
the water quality.
Paul Haik, 261 Hidden Lane, said he was the Riley Purgatory Watershed District Attorney for 20
years. He said that one of the pieces they were missing in the presentation was the dynamic in
expanding the pond. He said that the water would come in, but the water would warm, which
would trigger soluble release of phosphorus. He asked about the volume of water that would
leave and the soluble phosphorus that would be generated by the warming in the wetland. He
said that the city has an MS-4 Permit, which regulates all the pipes. The city has liability for
State agencies, which set the standards of what can be sent to Christmas Lake. He requested that
the city share the water management plan, the MS-4 obligations, and additional information
about these questions to make an informed decision. He stated that once there is a water quality
problem, it is hard to fix it, but the developer was able to change what might result. He voiced
favor for the Planning Commission to have a deeper understanding of how the pipe fits into the
current water management program.
Christine Haissig, 6370 Pleasant View Cove, expressed concerns about the traffic. She said that
there would be 19 additional households flowing into Pleasant View Road. She expressed
concerns about the safety of the intersection with Powers Boulevard. She said that there were no
turn lanes, shoulders, or room for pedestrians. She stated that there was a major improvement
project a few years ago to help get traffic onto Pleasant View Road safely, but there were still
challenges with getting off Pleasant View Road. She said that the hill going into the cul-de-sac
made a blind entry. She stated that traffic off Powers Boulevard makes it difficult to turn into the
cul-de-sac. She said that 19 additional houses is a large increase. She requested a qualitative
analysis to build on the data to understand the impact on this road and to understand the potential
safety issues. She did not know how this information was analyzed by the city but expressed the
importance of the city looking into the data.
Tony Fricano, 980 Lake Lucy Road, said that there was a lot of speeding on Lake Lucy Road,
and the traffic is a problem. He expressed the importance of spreading out the traffic. He said his
house would be impacted by the additional traffic flow. He mentioned the lots on Lake Lucy
Road having effects of water from the development, the engineering team clarified the water
would be lower than what is currently shed today from no development on the site. He corrected
himself and said that there was less water flowing and said he misheard the City Engineer.
Commissioner Soller asked if spreading the traffic out meant they were in favor of the Nez Perce
Connection. Mr. Fricano responded that if there were multiple roads connecting to a main road,
the traffic would be spread out and people would drive from multiple areas to get to Powers
Boulevard. He stated that no one would be hit hard.
354
Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025
11
Sarah Zaccarine, 6431 Pleasant Park Drive, expressed concerns about moving the wetland into
public property in individual lots. She said it would be distributed among the two to four lots.
She said if it was city-owned or an easement, the property owner might feel they could do
something to the native vegetation at the wetland.
Thomas Kraker, 801 Pleasant View Road, stated that he has lived on the road for twenty years.
He was not able to attend the July introduction meeting. He expressed enjoying walking on
Peaceful Lane and the large tract of undeveloped land. He reiterated the dangers of the curves on
Pleasant View Road, especially with the vehicles traveling over the speed limit. He said it was
unique that this large tract of land was undeveloped. He stated that there were too many lots, not
because they do not like development. He commented that there was room on Powers Boulevard
to make a turning lane. He said it was important to have fewer lots to maintain the beauty of the
land and to help with the traffic flow. He stated it was good to have opportunity for development
in Chanhassen, but expressed the need to be realistic about what was overkill. He said that fewer
lots could help with the water runoff.
Alexander Westlind, 825 Pleasant View Road, voiced agreement with the comments about water
quality, not connecting to Nez Perce, and the comment about performing a traffic study about the
additional homes on Pleasant View Road. He asked about the environmental impacts with the
development. He said that there was a lot of wildlife on Pleasant View Road in the undeveloped
area. He asked if the hard cover infrastructure would be capable of handling the additional flow
of water and if there were any studies performed for endangered, rare, or special concerned
species of pollinators or vegetation. He expressed concerns about the habitat being rerouted onto
Pleasant View Road, which already has traffic issues. He asked about the provisions in the
Homeowners Association rules that would limit the amount of fencing that could potentially
reroute wildlife and habitat and if the Homeowners Association would expand to existing lots.
He appreciated the developer’s concern with maintaining trees. He discussed the non-connector
road for the development and stated that the precedent would be for Pleasant View lot sizes.
Pleasant View Road has development with larger size lots, so the lots seem smaller than the
existing lot sizes.
Martha Noll, 7214 Frontier Trail, said that she agreed with the importance of saving Christmas
Lake and the watershed ideas. She asked if everyone was concerned with the wetland area and
the builder took their $3600 to plant and maintain the trees for ten years, then the city could
come back in and maintain the area. She stated if they were to redo Pleasant View and the
developer was taking on the expense of the filtration, it could be a good opportunity for the city
to relieve the taxpayers.
Eric Anderson, 6580 Troendle Circle, said he spent many years as the City Administrator for
Edina and then a real estate developer. He stated he attended the City Council Work Session and
sent letters. He commented that his neighborhood, including Troendle Circle, Nez Perce north of
Lake Lucy, and Violet Court, was made up of 33 homes. He said that they did not want to see the
road connected. Nez Perce from Kerber to Lake Lucy is a narrow and dangerous road with cut-
through traffic. He commented that Lake Lucy and Carver Beach Road were easy outlets to
Powers Boulevard. He analyzed various cul-de-sac dead-end lengths and presented various
355
Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025
12
examples of streets that exceeded 750 feet maximum. He said it was a reasonable variance
request. He asked that they strongly consider leaving the cul-de-sac as it currently exists.
Chairman Noyes closed the public hearing.
Mr. Maass offered a brief recess since the meeting had been going for a little over two hours.
Chairman Noyes asked about the MS-4 obligations and the modeling that is being completed. He
said he saw Mr. Seidl taking notes of the comments and he requested more information. Mr.
Seidl said that the City of Chanhassen had an MS-4 permit, which stood for a municipal separate
storm sewer system. This permit allowed the city to discharge stormwater into public waters of
the State. The city had to inspect their infrastructure, have rules and regulations, have public
engagement and education, and other responsibilities. Mr. Seidl said the resident was asking if
the city was looking at the downstream water quality when a development came in and to what
level. He said that the city is bound by the rules and regulations in place, and they are used in
assessing developments. There are water quality standards and rate standards to meet the MS-4
rate regulations. He said that the watershed also has rules and regulations that need to be met. He
explained that there are also standard engineering practices. He explained that if the water
regulations are being met at the site, the downstream water quality will be improved. Mr. Seidl
commented that Chanhassen cannot infiltrate water, so there will be more stormwater volume
generated by the site. He said that the developer cannot mitigate this when building impervious
surfaces in lieu of a reuse system. He commented that this was not written in the regulations or a
part of the MS-4 Permit. He said if a development meets the city’s rules and the watershed rules,
that is how he considers if it is approvable or not.
Commissioner Jobe asked about the phosphorus level and if it could be managed by a
Homeowner’s Association, the amount of fertilizer used on lawns, and the amount of runoff. Mr.
Seidl answered that a Homeowner’s Association could in theory have a rule about the chemicals
used on a lawn, but that was not a part of the city’s rules when looking at subdivisions.
Commissioner Schwartz said that a Homeowner’s Association could not effectively regulate the
amount of fertilizer a property owner is putting on their lawns or in their plantings.
Chairman Noyes responded that a Homeowner’s Association could manage it if they were
responsible for the lawns.
Commissioner Schwartz stated that a Homeowner’s Association could indirectly manage the
fertilizer, but it would be more likely that the vendor hired would put the fertilizer down. The
Homeowner’s Association relies on the vendor to know how much fertilizer and weed killer to
put on the lawns.
Commissioner Soller asked about the risks associated with the wetland on Christmas Lake. He
asked for a summary of the thoughts and said that once the water quality was lost, it is hard to
get back. Mr. Seidl stated that the current design set forth by the developer was an improvement
to the water quality over the existing condition. He commented that the stormwater was currently
treated to older standards as it is leaving the site. He said the development would generate more
356
Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025
13
volume, but it would be mitigated by the stormwater infrastructure. He was hesitant to quantify
what was happening at Christmas Lake. The water quality was improved when leaving the site
and would go through other facilities and benefit from treatment before it got to Christmas Lake.
Commissioner Goff said that there was a passion about road extension. He asked if the sign at
the end belonged to the city. He thought it would be in the city plan to someday extend it when it
was developed but asked if the city decided not to. Mr. Maass responded that the sign was a city
sign and read the future extension of Nez Perce Road. He commented that the prior City Council
approved the Troendle Addition in 1991, with the condition to connect Nez Perce to Peaceful
Lane to connect to Pleasant View Road. He explained the City Council condemned the right-of-
way to facilitate the construction of the road and took a minor assessment to fund the extension.
He said that the land stood undeveloped for many years. The applicant can make the project
work in any scenario, but a majority of the current City Council, based on feedback, wanted to
not connect Nez Perce and just extend Peaceful Lane.
Commissioner Goff said if it was connected, it would route more traffic and said he assumed the
city did research to show that the streets could safely handle the additional traffic, and it would
alleviate traffic on roads that travel south. Mr. Maass confirmed that the road could be safely
extended but it was ultimately a policy decision for the City Council.
Chairman Noyes said he understood both sides of the dilemma and did not know if extending the
road was the right idea. He said one issue he had was that in the past, assurances were made that
the road would be extended. He commented that people made decisions based on these
assurances, so it does not feel right. He said he understood that people would be upset if it was
not put through since there was a message for so long about it happening. He did not know the
reason behind the original decision and recognized that times had changed. There needs to be
discussions about the repercussions of the changes. He said that the City Council would have to
put it in their own decision-making process.
Commissioner Schwartz requested the slide that showed the pond. He asked Mr. Seidl how much
the size of the pond would need to increase for him to say yes. Mr. Seidl answered that it was not
the size of the infrastructure, but there would have to be a design change that completely saved
the wetland. He said he applauded the design team with what was brought forward and their
effort but made note that he struggled with the conflicting regulations that seemed to be at odds.
Commissioner Schwartz said he understood the conflict and the work the developer put into the
work. He asked if lots three, five, six, and four were not there to impede the ability to increase
the size of the wetland.
Mr. Seidl said that the reduction of scope would not necessitate a wetland replacement plan,
since they would meet all the rules and regulations. He did not know how many lots that would
be since there is a myriad of different scenarios that the developer could go through. He is trying
to provide the facts to make an educated decision.
Mr. Maass explained that there was an element of wetland preservation and mitigation, which
was important and outlined in the City Code. He said another aspect to consider was the city’s
357
Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025
14
Comprehensive Plan, which required that land to be developed was guided for residential low
density had to be between 1.2 units per acre and 4 units per acre. The plan was at 1.4 units per
acre, so they could only reduce it by 0.2 units per acre. He said that they wanted to serve the
Comprehensive Plan and the wetlands.
Commissioner Schwartz said that they could request the developer to reduce the depths of the
lots to increase the size of the pond. Mr. Maass answered that he was not an engineer, so he
could not comment on the size of the pond. He said it was important to consider the long-term
maintenance, and the responsibility and ownership of the pond and vegetative buffer. He said
that lots four and five are an acre each. He said that the city could have the pond placed in an
outlot deeded to the city so that they could have additional oversight. He said some residents
might mow areas they should not if they do not know where their drainage and utility easement
lies, but if their property line ends, it is more obvious about their maintenance responsibilities.
Mr. Seidl said that the sizing of the pond meets water requirements standards, but there is a
reduction of benefit with regards to the size if it is sized appropriately. He said he had no
additional comments.
Chairman Noyes said the developer mentioned a sidewalk, which was not in the staff report. He
asked if the Planning Commission had to weigh in on this information. Mr. Maass responded that
city staff was wrestling with Outlot A. He said it would be a publicly owned and maintained
trail. He stated that the city maintains a public trail on the east side of Powers Boulevard. They
would use the same equipment on this trail to maintain the trail on Outlot A. There was a
conversation about promoting neighborhood connectivity and safety and providing an off-road
trail from Outlot A to Pleasant View Road to provide connectivity. He said that the city wanted
to add additional off-road pedestrian facilities, but that Pleasant View Road was tight and would
be a difficult project. He noted that there were complications with the property, but they wanted
to find a reasonable solution to have trails. He said they were open to feedback from the Planning
Commission.
Commissioner Rosengren asked about a technical point and if the little road that currently ends
would be turned into a path. Mr. Maass said that the area was an existing right-of-way that the
city condemned for the Nez Perce connection. The city would retain the right-of-way to place a
public trail.
Commissioner Soller said that the variance of the cul-de-sac felt easy compared with the
presented evidence of other variances. He said that the wetland alteration was difficult, but the
net increase to water quality and the way that the technology could make it a better situation over
a status quo that does not meet water quality standards to begin with, he did not know how much
more data they could get there to sway the opinion. He said they had seen proposals that fit
houses in small spaces, but there seemed to be a balance in the density proposal. He also
discussed the high-quality and premium nature of the homes being built. He asked if others had
opinions that they wanted to share. He did not know if he had the expertise in the connection
with Nez Perce. He said that it has been signaled for thirty years, but history should not be the
only consideration in the decision. He agreed that the City Council should assess the facts and
make the final decision about the connections.
358
Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025
15
Mr. Maass said any recommendation did not create a precedence for future applications for
variance requests for a cul-de-sac.
Commissioner Goff said he was good with the proposal, but the outstanding decision was the
Nez Perce decision. He stated the developer did a great job, but the City Council needs to decide
between options one and two.
Chairman Noyes asked if he were to pretend to be on the City Council, how would he vote? He
said the Planning Commission had to make a recommendation to provide to the City Council so
they would understand their thoughts.
Commissioner Goff asked how many people were for the extension and how many people were
against it. He said people were in favor of or against the extension based on traffic.
Commissioner Rosengren said that the Planning Commission was looking for assurance about
the impacts. The Planning Commission could not always get to that level of assurance, and they
could only make the best recommendation possible. He commented that there needs to be trust
that the city staff and developer were making proposals based on what they best knew after
working with experts. He said that the Planning Commission asked for certainty, which was not
always possible. He stated that the proposal, as presented, should stand. He thought it was
reasonable to not connect Nez Perce, and there was no certainty about the impact. He asked
about what to do with the driveway on Pleasant View. He said that shared driveways do not
work, so he suggested not following that option. He did not think it seemed like a big hardship to
add one driveway on a road that already had sixteen driveways.
Commissioner Jobe thought a pathway or a trail would be a great thing to have to get along the
road and to allow for neighborhood connectivity. He stated that the amount of paper that the
project had taken had already consumed the twelve trees that would be removed from the trail.
Commissioner Schwartz mentioned his only concern was the wetland and if it made sense to
narrow the depth of the lots on block one to increase the size of the wetland and improve the
water quality going into Christmas Lake.
Chairman Noyes said he was not convinced that a larger wetland would greatly impact the
efficiency and outcomes of the water. He said that there were limiting factors. He said all the
work to come up with a solution was impressive, and it was better than what they were going in
with. He said that the solution was a step forward, and he did not know if they would get a
second step forward. He said if there were guarantees that it would improve the water quality, he
would consider it, but he did not know if that was the case. He discussed the connection between
Nez Perce. He said he would prefer to connect Nez Perce. He wanted the City Council to explain
the logic behind the decision change and he wanted to force the conversation. He said the City
Council might have great ideas which were not expressed to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Trevena said she felt like they were missing valuable information from the City
Council as it relates to the Nez Perce connection.
359
Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025
16
Mr. Maass shared information that was shared with the City Council during their work session
which was open to the public and the topic was on the agenda. The City Council received
neighborhood feedback that there was a preference for the connection not to be made. He
thought it was a fair summary to say the decision was based on the information the City Council
received to the point of the area development.
Commissioner Soller asked if the staff expressed their opinion and whether there was an
engineering opinion about whether or not to connect. Mr. Maass responded that there was an
engineering solution in either scenario. It comes down to a policy decision about long cul-de-
sacs or interconnected neighborhoods.
Commissioner Soller asked if there was guidance in the Comprehensive Plan about what type of
city they wanted to engineer. Mr. Maass answered that the Comprehensive Plan had a
transportation chapter that classified roads based on the levels of traffic they were meant to carry
and the design type they should receive when they build new or reconstruct. He said that
interconnection was a good thing, but it is not always required. It does say that the right-of-way
provided to the edge was a requirement if there is developable property directly adjacent to land
being platted to facilitate future road extensions. He showed an example of how right-of-way
locations were brought to the edge on other properties. He said it was whether or not they
utilized the right-of-way. He commented that there would likely be policies in the
Comprehensive Plan that could be used in support of either option.
Commissioner Soller said without objectivity and data it was difficult to make claims about the
traffic.
Commissioner Schwartz said that there seemed to be a disconnect between the scientific
observations and residents’ lived experiences in traffic studies. He asked if it was reasonable to
combine both areas to find a compromise. He stated that there was no ability to overlap, which
he found disturbing.
Chairman Noyes said connector streets were made to handle large levels of traffic. He did not
know which roads were connectors before this conversation. The objectives of the roads might
not fit into residents’ desires because they do not fit into the way of life.
Commissioner Rosengren said that he would prefer not to make the connection because Nez
Perce would operate similarly to a connector road, which Peaceful Lane was not set up to handle
the extra traffic. He said he would not support turning Nez Perce into a connection unless there
was support to redo roads. He voiced concerns about future problems.
Chairman Noyes clarified that Outlot A was in the city right-of-way. Mr. Maass responded that
the city currently owns the condemned right-of-way.
Chairman Noyes asked if the opportunity existed to make the connection in the future, if it was
desired by other Planning Commissions or City Council. Mr. Maass answered that a connection
could be made in the future, but that it was not common for this to occur with future street
360
Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025
17
reconstruction projects. If it was to be connected, it would likely be during the initial
development of the property.
Commissioner Schwartz asked if the city was considering widening Pleasant View. He said it
was a scary road. Mr. Maass answered that Pleasant View is planned for reconstruction in the
coming years. He said that the city staff knew the challenges that Pleasant View presented and
hoped to address many of them in a future reconstruction project.
Commissioner Soller said that it seems as if the Planning Commission was ready to consider
what was on the table.
Mr. Maass said that the Planning Commission could take each item on its own as a
recommendation or make a single recommendation.
Commissioner Trevena moved, Commissioner Jobe seconded that the Chanhassen
Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested preliminary plat, wetland
alteration permit, and recommends approval of the variance, for the subdivision on
Pleasant View Road subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings
of Fact and Decision. 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 FEBRUARY 18,
2025
Commissioner Goff moved, Commissioner Jobe seconded to approve the Chanhassen
Planning Commission summary minutes dated February 18, 2025 as presented. All voted
in favor, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
1. DISCUSSION ONLY: ORDINANCE XXX: DENSITY BONUSES AMENDMENT
Mr. Maass reviewed Housing Policy 1.7.2 in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. He bolded the “as
defined by the City” since the City Code did not specify the details. He showed two prospective
developments, Santa Vera Phase II and 6440 Hazeltine Boulevard, that would like to utilize the
density bonus. Mr. Maass said that the density bonus is within the Comprehensive Plan but is not
something that can be used until the details of a density bonus are outlined in city code. He
presented the income limits for the metro area determined by the United States Housing of Urban
Development. He said that the staff reached out to other cities for example ordinances for similar
bonuses. They discussed potential bonuses with private developers to gauge usability. They
drafted an ordinance based on this feedback and said that the density bonus would be eligible for
use in R-8, R-12, R-16, PUD-R, and the Central Business District. He said that developers
361
Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025
18
indicated that 80 percent of Area Median Income was aligned with common Metro area market
rents. He discussed that the city would require that the bonus units would remain affordable for a
period of twenty years.
Chairman Noyes asked where the money came from in this situation. Mr. Maass said that as
drafted the density bonus is a non-fiscal tool and the city would not be required to participate
financially in the project and offset reduced rental revenue. He commented that the city does not
often give housing TIF.
Chairman Noyes asked if other cities were similar in economic terms and residents’ background
as Chanhassen. Mr. Maass responded that they looked at the spectrum. They were proposing the
density bonus as an option for high density housing, rather than a requirement which is what is
seen with inclusionary housing ordinances.
Chairman Noyes asked how they knew it was affordable for twenty years. Mr. Maass answered
that the developer would have to provide annual reports to the city to make sure that they met
compliance for the Area Median Income. It was similar to the senior housing TIF requirements.
Commissioner Schwartz asked if there was a difference between the size and the quality of the
affordable units. Mr. Maass reviewed the requirements for the bonus units, including that they
needed to be distributed throughout the building, and should be the same design, size, and
materials as the market rate units. He said that the unit type should be consistent as a percentage
with the rest of the development. He said that the city would look at the geographic distribution
if it seemed like an incorrect fit. He commented that they did not require every multi-family area
to have bonus units, but there would be benefits to having affordable housing throughout the
community. He said that over ninety percent of workers commuted into Chanhassen. He
commented that they were setting up guidelines to follow if developers wanted to include the
information. Mr. Maass reviewed the timeline for the project.
Commissioner Rosengren clarified that the ordinance was granting that the developer could have
greater density than the zoning allows. Mr. Maass provided an example and confirmed this
information.
Commissioner Rosengren asked what would happen if they stopped meeting the eighty percent
and were out of compliance with their zone. Mr. Maass answered that compliance with
affordability requirements would be outlined in a contract between the City and developer and if
a developer failed to abide by that contract, the city would have grounds to sue the property
owner for failure to operate by the contract.
Commissioner Jobe asked about the thirty percent run-off area. Mr. Maass responded that it
would not preclude any property from meeting other zoning requirements of the city including
maximum impervious lot coverage.
Commissioner Schwartz asked if the city had a population base that would qualify for affordable
housing. Mr. Maass answered that there is a need for affordable housing.
362
Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025
19
Commissioner Schwartz asked about the twenty-five percent threshold. Mr. Maass answered that
it would be at least eight units per acre.
Commissioner Schwartz asked about transferring the property to a market rate if the housing sat
vacant. Mr. Maass said that the bonus units are required to be held for renters with qualifying
income levels.
Commissioner Rosengren highlighted the need to encourage the development of the style so
people who work here would also live here. He expressed the positive of the suggestion since it
was not a mandate.
Mr. Maass asked if there was anything they wanted to be added.
Chairman Noyes asked about how the Area Median Income was calculated. Mr. Maass explained
that HUD utilized the Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington area to determine Area Median
Income.
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION: None.
OPEN DISCUSSION:
Eric Maass, Community Development Director, provided an update to Pioneer Ridge. He said
that it would be on the City Council Work Session on March 10. The City Staff issued a sixty-
day extension for the project. The developer submitted an updated concept that revised the
northern portion to a detached villa. He said that the City Code did not have a detached villa
definition, so there would be a process to go through for it to be approvable. He said it could be
on the City Council agenda as early as March 24.
Commissioner Rosengren asked about the removal of trees for bats and if it would push out the
start of the project until next year. Mr. Maass responded that the federal government had
recommendations for tree removal that were potential habitats for the bat. The developer was
meeting with their engineer to see if there were restrictions related to the timing of tree removal.
ADJOURNMENT:
Commissioner Soller 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 9:24 p.m.
Submitted by Eric Maass
Community Development Director
363
Complete this form and submit it prior to the City Council meeting date you wish to present your request.
The City of Chanhassen invites citizens to submit a request in their native or preferred language. Upon doing so, the city will utilize its resources and do everything in its
power to translate the request appropriately.
Select City Council Meeting date you would like to attend:
03/10/2025
In 2024, the Chanhassen City Council meets on the second and fourth Mondays of each month.
Printable Meeting Calendar
View and/or print this calendar to assist with determining when city council meetings are held in order to make your date selection above.
Resident Information
* Name
Antonio Fricano
* Address
980 LAKE LUCY RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
* Phone
* Email
Council Action Requested
* Provide a brief description of the action you are requesting from the City Council.
I will be speaking on behalf of the East Lake Lucy Road Neighborhood Association with respect to the request under Project 25-02 to Consider Preliminary Plat, Wetland
Alteration Permit, and Variance to cul-de-sac length for Pleasant View Pointe and the potential variance that would eliminate the planned extension from Nez Perce Drive to
Peaceful Lane.
Summary of Information
* Provide a narrative of the request including need, costs, timetable, background, etc.
I will provide a detailed letter late Sunday or first thing Monday morning detailing the reasons why the City should not reverse its prior decision to extend Nez Perce Drive to
Peaceful Lane.
What Happens Next?
Immediately upon submission of this form, staff will be notified by email and will provide copies to the City Council prior to the selected meeting date.
Contact
Questions? Contact City Clerk Jenny Potter at 952-227-1107 or by email.
Page | 1 364
East Lake Lucy Road Neighborhood Association
March 18, 2025
Sent Via Email to council@chanhassenmn.gov; eryan@chanhassenmn.gov
Re: Nez Perce/ Pleasantview Road Connection- Project 25-02 Request for Variance to cul-de-sac
Honorable Mayor Elise Ryan and City Council Members:
We are writing to provide a supplement to the letter that was sent on March 12, 2025, on behalf of
the East Lake Lucy Road Neighborhood Association (the “March 12th Letter”). We would like to
supplement that letter with a citation to Section 20-58(a) of the Chanhassen Municipal Code that states in
pertinent part:
Sec 20-58 General Conditions For Granting
A variance may be granted if all of the following criteria are met:
(a) Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes
and intent of this chapter and when the variances are consistent with the
comprehensive plan. […] [emphasis added]
As we noted in the March 12th Letter, page 130 of the City of Chanhassen 2040 Comprehensive
Plan states as follows:
Nez Perce/ Pleasant View Road Connection- During review of the Vineland Forest plat it
was evident that a connection between Nez Perce/ Lake Lucy Road and Pleasant View Road
was warranted since there was no north/south connection between County Road 17 and
Lotus Lake. Improved access is needed for local trips and to ensure adequate provision of
emergency services. At the same time, there were concerns voiced regarding the
introduction of additional trips onto Pleasant View Road since the street already suffers
from capacity and design constraints. Therefore, it was determined that the Pleasant View
Road intersection should be located as far west as possible at the Peaceful Lane
intersection.
We hope that this additional information is helpful, and we ask that this letter, along with the March
12th Letter be added to the record, when this matter is taken under consideration at the March 24, 2025, City
Council Meeting.
Thank you for your consideration of the foregoing.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Antonio J. Fricano
Antonio (Tony) Fricano
Association Secretary
East Lake Lucy Road Neighborhood Association
Resident of 980 Lake Lucy Road
/s/Bryce Fier
Bryce Fier
Association President
East Lake Lucy Road Neighborhood Association
Resident of 1040 Lake Lucy Road
Cc: East Lake Lucy Road Neighborhood Association
365
1
225440v7
LAND DISTURBANCE AND TREE REMOVAL
AUTHORIZATION
LAND DISTURBANCE AUTHORIZATION dated ______ _, 20__, issued by the
CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"), to
__________________, a Minnesota corporation (the "Developer").
1. Request for Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a plat for
PLEASANT VIEW POINTE (referred to in this Contract as the "plat"). The land is situated in
the County of Carver, State of Minnesota, on the land legally described on Exhibit A attached
hereto (“Property”).
2. Conditions of Approval. The plat has received preliminary plat approval and the
Public Works Director hereby approves the proposed Land Disturbance and tree removal activity
on the Property on condition that the Developer abides by the terms of this agreement as well as
furnishes the security required by it subject to the following conditions:
A. Land Disturbance activities shall be in compliance with tree removal and
erosion control plans identified under Paragraph 3 of this Agreement which shall include the
following: mobilization, tree clearing and grubbing, stabilization of exposed soils, perimeter
sediment controls around the disturbed areas; and
B. If applicable, Developer shall obtain all necessary permits from roadway
authorities for mobilization to the Property.
3. Plans. The Property shall be disturbed and tree removals completed in accordance
with the following plans. The plans shall not be attached to this authorization.
Plan A - Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Schedule dated March 12,
2025, revised March 19, 2025 prepared by Alliant Engineering.
Plan B - Tree Inventory, Removal and Land Disturbance Plan dated March 12,
2025, revised March 19, 2025 prepared by Alliant Engineering.
366
2
225440v7
4. Time of Performance. The Developer shall complete the tree removal, Land
Disturbance and stabilization activities by April 15, 2025. The Developer may, however, request
an extension of time from the City. If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating
the security posted by the Developer to reflect cost increases and the extended completion date.
5. Erosion and Sediment Control. Plan A shall be implemented by the Developer
and inspected and approved by the City. The City may impose additional erosion and sediment
control requirements as they deem necessary. All areas disturbed by the Land Disturbance and
tree removal operations shall be stabilized forthwith after the completion of the work in that area.
If the Developer does not comply with the erosion and sediment control plan and schedule or
supplementary instructions received from the City or the MPCA, the City may take such action as
it deems appropriate to mitigate erosion and control sediment on site. The City will endeavor to
notify the Developer in advance of any proposed action, but failure of the City to do so will not
affect the Developer's and City's rights or obligations hereunder. If the Developer does not
reimburse the City for any cost the City incurred for such work within thirty (30) days, the City
may draw down the letter of credit or cash escrow to pay any costs. No development will be
allowed and no building permits will be issued unless the property is in full compliance with the
erosion and sediment control requirements.
Street sweeping shall be required as necessary to address any vehicle tracking onto public roads.
Stump grubbing and further Land Disturbance operations may not proceed until erosion and
sediment control BMPs are in place.
City Code chapter 19-145 Erosion And Sediment Control states that an Earthwork Permit is
required for land disturbance that is equal to or greater than 5,000 square feet. The developer is
required to adhere to City of Chanhassen Erosion and Sediment Control regulations with the tree
clearing operations. Inspection records shall be submitted to the City Engineer not less than every
two weeks.
6. Clean up. The Developer shall promptly clean dirt and debris from streets that has
resulted from construction work by the Developer, its agents or assigns.
7. Security. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this authorization, the
Developer shall furnish the City with a cash escrow in the total amount of $15,000. The security
shall be released upon the earlier of: (i) the date the Land Disturbance and tree removal work set
forth in the Land Disturbance and tree removal plan is complete and the site is stabilized in
conformance with the NPDES General Stormwater Permit (vegetation uniformly established to
70% or better of the intended density) and the approved Plans; or (ii) the plat and accompanying
development contract have been recorded and the security provided as required under the
development contract has been received by the City which also covers the work contemplated
under this Agreement.
367
3
225440v7
8. Responsibility for Costs.
A. Except as otherwise specified herein, the Developer shall pay all costs incurred
by it or the City in conjunction with the Land Disturbance and/or erosion and sediment control,
including but not limited to legal, planning, engineering and inspection expenses incurred in
connection with approval and acceptance of the permit, the preparation of this permit, and all costs
and expenses incurred by the City in monitoring and inspecting the Land Disturbance and erosion
control. The City will deduct costs incurred by the City from the posted cash escrow outlined in
Section 8.
B. The Developer shall hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from
claims made by it and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from permit
approval and work done in conjunction with it. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its
officers and employees for all costs, damages, or expenses which the City may pay or incur in
consequence of such claims, including attorney's fees.
C. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of
this permit, including engineering, site inspections, and attorney's fees by a reduction of the cash
escrow.
D. In the event that the cash escrow funds are fully diminished, the Developer shall
pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City for obligations incurred under this permit within
thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the City may halt all work and
construction.
9. Developer's Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work
to be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer
shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer is
first given notice of the work in default, not less than 48 hours in advance. This authorization is a
license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a court order for
permission to enter the land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its
other remedies, assess the cost in whole or in part.
10. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Developer agrees to
defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, and its employees, officials, and agents from and
against all claims, actions, damages, losses and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees,
arising out of Developer’s negligence or its performance or failure to perform its obligations under
this Agreement. Developer’s indemnification obligation shall apply to Developer’s general
contractor, subcontractor(s), or anyone directly or indirectly employed or hired by Developer, or
anyone for whose acts Developer may be liable. Developer agrees this indemnity obligation shall
survive the completion or termination of this Agreement.
11. Third Parties. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this
Agreement.
368
4
225440v7
12. License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and
contractors a license to enter the Property to perform all work and inspections deemed appropriate
by the City in conjunction with this Agreement.
13. Acknowledgment. Developer acknowledges that approval of a Land Disturbance
and tree removal activities for the Property under the terms of this Agreement does not constitute
a guarantee by the City of any future subdivision approvals and that Developer grades the Property
at its own risk.
14. Laws. Developer shall comply with all federal, state and local laws in connection
with the Land Disturbance and excavation work on the Property and shall be responsible for
obtaining all necessary permits for such work.
15. Termination of Prior Land Disturbance Approvals. This Agreement shall
terminate all prior Land Disturbance approvals by the City for the Property.
16. Recording. The Developer agrees that the terms of this Land Disturbance and Tree
Removal Development Authorization Agreement shall be a covenant running with the Property.
The Developer agrees that the City shall have the right to record a copy of this Agreement with
the Carver County Recorder to give notice to future purchasers and owners.
17. Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either
hand delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by certified
mail at the following address: ____________________________________., Attn:
_____________, _________________________________. Notices to the City shall be in writing
and shall be either hand delivered to the City Manager, or mailed to the City by certified mail in
care of the City Manager at the following address: City of Chanhassen, 7700 Market Boulevard,
P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317.
369
5
225440v7
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
By: _______________________________
Elise Ryan,, Mayor
And: ______________________________
Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OFCARVER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ________ day of
______________, 2025, by Elise Ryan and Laurie Hokkanen, respectively the Mayor and City
Manager, of the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on its behalf.
_________________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
370
6
225440v7
DEVELOPER:
_______________________.
BY: _________________________________
Its
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF _________ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ________ day of
_____________________, 2025, by ___________________________________________ the
____________________________________ of ____________________., a ______________
corporation, on its behalf.
_________________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
DRAFTED BY:
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON
Professional Association
Grand Oak Office Center I
860 Blue Gentian Road, Suite 290
Eagan, MN 55121
Telephone: 651-452-5000
AMP/smt
371
7
225440v7
FEE OWNER CONSENT
TO
LAND DISTURBANCE and tree removal AUTHORIZATION
Beddor Enterprises LP, fee owner of all or part of the subject property, the development of
which is governed by the foregoing Land Disturbance and Tree Removal Authorization, affirms and
consents to the provisions thereof and agrees to be bound by the provisions as the same may apply
to that portion of the subject property owned by it.
Dated this _____ day of ____________, 2025.
Beddor Enterprises LP
By
_________________________ [print name]
Its ______________________ [title]
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF __________ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of
_____________________, 2025, by _____________________________________________, the
______________________________________________ of Beddor Enterprises, LP, a
_________________________________, on behalf of said entity.
________________________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
DRAFTED BY:
CAMPBELL KNUTSON
Professional Association
Grand Oak Office Center I
860 Blue Gentian Road, Suite 290
Eagan, Minnesota 55121
651-452-5000
AMP/smt
372
8
225440v7
EXHIBIT A
TO
LAND DISTURBANCE AUTHORIZATION AGREEMENT
Legal Description
PID #258710190 (955 Pleasant View Road)
All of Lot 1 and that part of Lot 2, Block 3, "Vineland Forest", Carver County, Minnesota, lying Northerly of a line
drawn from a point on the East line of said Lot 2 a distance of 53.53 feet North of the Southeast corner of said
Lot 2 to a point on the West line of said Lot 2 distant 66.00 feet North of the Southwest corner of said Lot 2 and
there terminating.
PID # 258700060 (6535 Peaceful Lane)
That part of Lots 5 and 6, “Vineland”, described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 5;
thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the south line of said Lot 5, a
distance of 168.62 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract of land to be herein described; thence North 0
degrees 43 minutes 26 seconds East 32.25 feet; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West 179.00
feet; thence South 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds East 129.57 feet; thence South 89 degrees 16 minutes 34
seconds East 160.63 feet; thence North 0 degrees 43 minutes 26 seconds East 96.01 feet to the actual point of
beginning, Carver County, Minnesota.
Together with an easement for ingress and egress over and across that part of Lot 5, “Vineland”, Carver County,
Minnesota lying Westerly of the following described line:
Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 5; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West,
assumed bearing, along the south line of said Lot 5 a distance of 168.62 feet; thence North 0 degrees 43
minutes 26 seconds East 32.25 feet; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West 179.00 feet; thence
South 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds East a distance of 32.57 feet, more or less, to a point on the south line
of said Lot 5, which point is the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence on a line running North 7
degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 160 feet, more or less, to the intersection of said line with the
westerly lot line of said Lot 5, and there terminating.
And
That part of Lots 5 and 6, "Vineland", Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: viz:
That part of the South 45.25 feet of Lot 5 and of the North 96.01 feet of Lot 6, "Vineland" lying Easterly of a line
drawn perpendicular to the South line of said Lot 5 from a point on said South line distant 168.62 feet Westerly
along said South line from the Southeast corner of said Lot 5.
PID # 258700063 (No Address Assigned)
Lot 5, Vineland, Carver County, Minnesota, except that part thereof described as follows, viz:
Commencing on the Southeast corner of said Lot 5; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West,
assumed bearing, along the South line of said Lot 5 a distance of 168.62 feet to the actual point of beginning of
the parcel being described; thence North 0 degrees 43 minutes 26 seconds East 32.25 feet; thence North 89
degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West 179.00 feet; thence South 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds East a
distance of 32.57 feet, more or less, to a point on the South line of said Lot 5 (hereinafter referred to as “Point
A”); thence Easterly along the South line of said Lot 5 to the point of beginning.
Subject to an easement for ingress and egress and utility purposes, appurtenant to and for the benefit of the
above described Exception, which said easement is described as all that part of said Lot 5, Vineland, lying
Westerly of the following described line: Beginning on the South line of said Lot 5 described above as “Point A”;
thence on a line running North 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 160 feet more or less, to its
intersection with the Westerly line of said Lot 5 and there terminating.
Also excepting from said Lot 5 that part thereof described as follows, viz:
A 50.00 foot strip of land over and across Lot 5, Vineland, Carver County, Minnesota, the centerline of said strip
is described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of Lot 5; thence South 00 degrees 24 minutes 03 seconds East, on an
assumed bearing, along the East line of Lot 5, a distance of 380.86 feet to the point of beginning of the centerline
to be described; thence Westerly, a distance of 29.21 feet along a non -tangential curve concave to the South,
said curve having a radius of 198.13 feet, a central angle of 08 degrees 26 minutes 53 seconds and a chord
bearing of North 71 degrees 56 minutes 25 seconds West; thence North 76 degrees 09 minutes 51 seconds
West tangent to last described curve, a distance of 170.81 feet; thence Northwesterly, a distance of 124.92 feet,
373
9
225440v7
along a tangential curve concave to the Northeast, said curve having a central angle of 39 degrees 52 minutes
43 seconds and a radius of 179.48 feet to a point hereinafter referred to as “Point B”; thence continue
Northwesterly and Northerly along the last described curve a distance of 124.92 feet and said centerline there
terminating.
Also excepting, a 50.00 foot strip of land over and across said Lot 5, Vineland, the centerline of said strip is
described as follows:
Beginning at the above described “Point B”; thence South 53 degrees 42 minutes 49 seconds West, a distance
of 100.00 feet and said centerline there terminating.
PID #258700062 (No Address Assigned)
Lot 6, Vineland, Carver County, Minnesota, except that part thereof described as follows, viz: Commencing at
the Northeast corner of said Lot 6, thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West, assumed bearing,
along the North line of said Lot 6, a distance of 168.62 feet to the actual point of beginning of the land to be
described; thence South 0 degrees 43 minutes 26 seconds West a distance of 96.01 feet; thence North 89
degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 160.63 feet; thence North 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds
West a distance of 97.00 feet to the North line of said Lot 6; thence Easterly along the said North line of Lot 6 to
the point of beginning.
Excepting from said Lot 5 and said Lot 6 the following described premises:
That part of the South 45.25 feet of Lot 5 and of the North 96.01 feet of Lot 6, “Vineland” lying Easterly of a line
drawn perpendicular to the South line of said Lot 5 from a point on said South line distance 168.62 feet Westerly
along said South line from the Southeast corner of said Lot 5.
And
Lot 7, Vineland, Carver County, Minnesota, except that part of said Lot 7 described as follows, viz: Commencing
at the Southwest corner of Lot 7, Vineland; thence North 1 degree 53 minutes 49 seconds East a distance of
76.37 feet to a point on the Southeasterly line of Peaceful Lane; thence North 36 degrees 53 minutes 34
seconds East along said Southeasterly line of Peaceful Lane a distance of 174.79 feet; thence South 87 degrees
50 minutes 55 seconds East a distance of 294.35 feet; thence South 1 degree 03 minutes 23 seconds West a
distance of 220.04 feet to the Southerly line of said Lot 7; thence South 87 degrees 50 minutes 55 seconds West
along said Southerly line of Lot 7 a distance of 397.82 feet to the point of beginning.
Together with an easement appurtenant to the foregoing Parcels 2, 3 and 4 for ingress and egress over and
across that part of Lot 5, Vineland, Carver County, Minnesota lying Westerly of the following described line:
Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Lot 5; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West,
assumed bearing, along the South line of said Lot 5 a distance of 168.62 feet; thence North 0 degrees 43
minutes 26 seconds East 32.25 feet; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West 179.00 feet; thence
South 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds East a distance of 32.57 feet, more or less, to a point on the South line
of said Lot 5, which point is the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence on a line running North 7
degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 160 feet, more or less, to the intersection of said line with the
Westerly lot line of said Lot 5, and there terminating.
PID #258690130 (1015 Pleasant View Road)
Outlot A, Troendle Addition, Carver County, Minnesota.
All Abstract Property
374
10
225440v7
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454