Loading...
CAS-07_CHANHASSEN APARTMENTS - OPPIDAN/3-a7 Chanhassen City Council — August 12, 2013 can they do to help their neighbors and all of those type of things so yeah, I think this is an award that just kind of re-emphasizes and shows that Chanhassen is a community, well as the mayor says for life and we're planning for tomorrow and trying to do everything we can to make this kind of an oasis in a very difficult region and world so well deserved. Mayor Furlong: Thank you for those comments. I guess just real quick, I often when I see people that recently moved to town I ask them why, because you want to know, and the comments are very similar. It's the parks. It's the open space. It's the small town feel. It's our downtown and some people recognize if they're moving to the region, to the area for the first time, these types of rankings. This Money Magazine. The Family Circle magazine are things that they look at so they come and look at Chanhassen to see what, you know what makes the difference. That's important. I've had a few people say, and this is to me really makes the difference for me is, you know we moved here for my job and we came to Chanhassen because of what we saw and we came out and we liked everything but then we changed jobs so we could stay here and when they say it's that connectiveness that we have, and that's a credit I agree to others who have mentioned it, to the neighborhoods. All the people. The individuals. The businesses. It's not what happens at City Hall but it's everybody who lives here because we are a welcoming community it's easy to get connected. It's easy to set roots I've been told and I believe here in town and so when people come here for reasons that they've heard and what they see and like but then they stay here, that to me is the testament so. You know we should all be proud. We should all be pleased and honored for this and humbled by the recognition at the same time but I think we have some cake, do we not Mr. Gerhardt? Todd Gerhardt: Yes we do. Mayor Furlong: Excellent and obviously I came back from vacation just in time for the cake because if I wasn't here I'm sure we'd have cake anyway. Right Councilwoman Tjornhom? So with that, let's take a short recess and we have a number of people here in the council chambers and if anybody's watching at home and wants to come down quickly for cake they can do that too so, let's take a short recess and just enjoy this time for a little bit then we'll resume with our council meeting in a few moments. The City Council meeting was recessed at this point to share cake with audience members. Mayor Furlong: Let's go ahead and reconvene the council meeting this evening and move on with the business before us this evening. First of all I'd ask members of the council if there are any changes or modifications to the agenda. If not, without objection we'll proceed with the agenda as published. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Laufenburger moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: 1. Approval of Minutes: -City Council Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated July 22, 2013 2. Receive Commission Minutes: -Planning Commission Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated July 16, 2013 3. Approve Summary Ordinance for Publication Purposes for Rezoning of the Chanhassen Apartments Site from Agricultural Estate (A-2) to Planned Unit Development -Residential (PUR- R) 4. Resolution #2013-38: Approve Certificate of County Board, Classification of Tax Forfeited Lands. SCANNED Chanhassen City Council — August 12, 2013 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. 960 CARVER BEACH ROAD, APPLICANT: DAVID D. MOORE, INCJOWNER: ANITA BENSON: REOUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 20-615 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. This request is for a variance on a lot at 960 Carver Beach Road. Applicant's David Moore, representing the property owner Anita Benson. The variance from the Section 20-615 of the Chanhassen City Code to construct a single home. There's 1,888 square feet of living area and a two car garage and a 5% hard cover variance for the 25%. Again there is a minimum standard for a home size in the city of Chanhassen depending on the type. The location is Carver Beach. Carver Beach Road. It's a combination of 3 lots. So the non -conforming lots of record. There's no variance required to construct a detached single family dwelling on a non- conforming lot of record, excluding platted lots and outlots provided that it fronts on a public street or approved private street and provided that the structure meets the minimum requirements. So the requirement that this home does not meet is the impervious surface requirement. As I stated before, this Carver Beach, this is the original plat for the Carver Beach area. It includes 3 lots. So those 3 lots are 20 feet wide, 100 feet deep for the total of the 6,000 square feet. Again a standard lot would be RSF would be 15,000. Some of the subdivisions that we've been approving recently, and some you'll see tonight are at the 10,000 square foot lot size. So again the, it's zoned RSF. Minimum lot size of the 15,000. The setbacks, 30 in the front, 30 in the rear and 10 on the side which it meets. This lot meets all that. The one deficiency then would be the hard surface coverage, the 25%. This then would be at the 30%. So here's how the house sits on the lot meeting the setbacks again just except for the 30% hard surface coverage. So again the optimum house design for this would be, and this was something that was brought up in the neighborhood before about keeping a lower profile. I think at one previous attempt that did go through, it's in the staff report for a variance request. There was desire in the neighborhood to have a rambler and it was also brought up at the Planning Commission too that they would like to see a rambler but really the optimum for this size of a lot would have been a two story because that would reduce your hard surface coverage but in working, trying to meet the setbacks and get a reasonable sized house for the neighborhood, this was the direction the applicant went with the coverage as proposed. Again the staff believes it's well suited home style for that area and believe it's consistent with the ordinance. One of the questions that came up at the Planning Commission meeting was that, you know there was never any service ties to this lot. Any stub services to this lot, therefore it was never intended to be built but throughout the city and I just focused on a couple in Carver Beach so people can split off part of their lot and some of it with another lot. Combine certain, to make an actual buildable lot and there is the example on 1661 63 d Street. An example where there's not a tie put in and the owner of that lot had to provide the sewer and water tie in as there was on Broken Arrow so it does happen in the city. Not every lot as it's platted comes in, particularly in this area, but there's some other older parts of town too but I just focused on two that were in Carver Beach. So with that when this item did go to the Planning Commission on July 16d' they did recommend support for the variance. The reason why this is before you tonight is the neighbors filed the petition to appeal the recommendation so that is why it is before you tonight so with that staff is recommending that you approve the 5% hard cover and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Ms. Aanenson, could you go back to the ordinance that you had at the beginning of your presentation regarding nonconforming lots. What constitutes or what creates, what meets the condition that would be a non -conforming lot of record. 4 E1- c CITY OF CHANNAS3EN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952,227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax:952.227.1190 Engineering Phone:952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone:952.227.1140 Fax:952,227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax:952.2271404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 7901 Park Place Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax:952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Kate Aanenson, AlCP, Community Development Director DATE: August 12, 2013 cm SUBJ: Approval of Summary Ordinance for Publication Purposes Chanhassen Apartments — Planning Case #2013-07 PROPOSED MOTION "The Chanhassen City Council approves the publication of Summary Ordinance 584 for the Chanhassen Apartments PUD." City Council approval requires a 4/5 vote for approval of the summary ordinance. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On April 22, 2013, the City Council approved Ordinance 584 amending Chapter 1 to add the definition for Conservation Area; and amending Chapter 20 rezoning the Chanhassen Apartments property, located at the northwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard, from Agricultural Estate (A-2) to Planned Unit Development - Residential (PUD-R). As Ordinance 584 is five pages long due to lengthy legal descriptions, staff is requesting that city council approve the publication of a summary ordinance for the Chanhassen Apartments PUD. Staff recommends approval of the summary ordinance for publication purposes. ATTACHMENT Summary Ordinance 584 gAplan\2013 planning cases\2013-07 chanhassen apartmenhkc staff report 08-12-2013 approve smmnary ordinance.doc Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Todayand Planning for Tomorrow SCANNED N CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.584 AMENDING CHAPTERS 1 AND 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE The purpose of this ordinance is to Amend Chapter 1 to include a definition for Conservation Area; and Amend Chapter 20 by rezoning the Chanhassen Apartments property located at the northwest comer of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard from Agricultural Estate (A-2) to Planned Unit Development -Residential (PUD-R) to include the unique development standards. A printed copy of Ordinance No. 584 is available for inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office of the City Manager/Clerk. PASSED, ADOPTED, AND APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION this 12`h day of August, 2013, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen. (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on ) CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA CI ,_1 I►: ► ► 1 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 1 AND 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE, BY REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 1-2 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding the following definition: Conservation Area an area of land that remains in a natural state by means of preservation of existing features and vegetation as well as by means of city -approved restoration of selected species and targeted features. No buildings or structures are allowed except essential services and public improvements. SECTION 2. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code, the City's Zoning Ordinance, is hereby amended by rezoning the following described property from Agricultural Estate District, A- 2, to Planned Unit Development Residential, PUD-R: That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116, Range 23 and the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest comer of said Section 10; thence on an assumed bearing of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West along the West line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1026.89 feet; thence South 79 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 177.77 feet; thence South 86 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 100.40 feet; thence South 78 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 194.14 feet; thence South 74 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 150.00 feet; thence South 47 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 75.43 feet; thence North 82 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds East, a distance of 74.98 feet; thence South 58 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 84.58 feet; thence south 89 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 164.63 feet; thence South 18 degrees 17 minutes 40 seconds West, a distance of 824.19 feet to the northerly right of way line of Trunk Highway 5; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 33.08 feet; thence South 56 degrees 40 minutes 55 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 158.95 feet; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 518.22 feet to the west line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23; thence North 1 degree 37 minutes 50 seconds West along said west line of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 9.12 feet to the point of Doc. #169929v.1 RNK: 4/22/2013 beginning. This tract contains 18.1 acres of land, more or less, and is subject to right of way in existing county road and subject to any and all easements of record. SECTION 3. Intent. The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD for the Chanhassen Apartments. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. Ancillary uses may be permitted as listed below once a primary use has occupied the site. Except as modified by the Chanhassen Apartments PUD ordinance, the development shall comply with the requirements of the RI District. SECTION 4. Permitted Uses. The permitted uses in this zone shall be residential and their ancillary uses. The type of uses to be provided on common areas shall be outdoor play area and outdoor patio. Parcel A (description attached) Conservation Area Parcel B (description attached) 155 Apartments, including surface parking SECTION 5. Lot Requirements and Setbacks. The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The following table displays those setbacks: Setback Standards Highway 5 50 feet (Perimeter) Lot Line 50 feet Collector Road, etc. 50 feet (Perimeter) Lot Line 50 feet Hard Surface Coverage 50 % over 14 acres Height 38 feet Parking setback for perimeter property line 25 feet Wetland and Buffer Setback Parcel B 31.5 feet SECTION 6. Signage. Signage shall comply with city standards for R12 Zoning District 20-1301(2) Agricultural and Residential Districts. SECTION 7. Landscaping. Landscaping shall comply with the landscaping plan prepared by Mark Kronbeck, ASLA, dated March 15, 2013. SECTION 8. The zoning map of the City of Chanhassen shall not be republished to show the aforesaid zoning, but the Clerk shall appropriately mark the zoning map on file in the Clerk's Office for the purpose of indicating the rezoning hereinabove provided for in this ordinance, and all of the notations, references, and other information shown thereon are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this ordinance. SECTION 9. This ordinance shall be effective upon the recording of a conservation easement on Parcel A satisfactory to the City. Doe. #169929v.1 RNK: 4/22/2013 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22"d day of April, 2013, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota. Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on Doc. #169929v.1 RNK: 4/22/2013 PARCEL A Conservation Area That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116, Range 23 and the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest comer of said Section 10; thence on as assumed bearing of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West along the West line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1023.08 feet, to a point on said west line distant 1668.88 feet south of the west quarter comer of said Section 10; thence South 79 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 177.77 feet; thence South 86 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 100.40 feet; thence South 78 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 194.14 feet; thence South 74 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 150.00 feet; thence South 47 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 75.43 feet; thence North 82 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds East, a distance of 74.98 feet; thence South 58 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 84.58 feet; thence South 89 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 163.25 feet; thence South 18 degrees 17 minutes 40 seconds West, a distance of 820.19 feet to the northerly right of way line of Tmnk Highway 5; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 33.08 feet; thence South 56 degrees 40 minutes 55 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 158.95 feet; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 518.22 feet to the west line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23; thence North 1 degree 37 minutes 50 seconds West along said west line of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 9.12 feet to the point of beginning. Which lies northwesterly of that particular northwesterly right-of-way line of Parcel 216, as shown on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-08, recorded as Document No. 265755 and as amended on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-14, recorded as Document No. 279658, described as follows: Commencing at the southwest comer of said Section 10; thence on an assumed bearing of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West, along the west line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 10, a distance of 401.19 feet, to a particular right -of --way line of said Parcel 216 and the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 47 degrees 18 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 175.14 feet, to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 47 degrees 18 minutes 19 seconds East a distance of 22.71 feet, to a point of curvature in said right- of-way line; thence easterly a distance of 662.60 feet, along a non -tangential curve concave to the south having a radius of 633.04 feet and a central angle of 59 degrees 58 minutes 14 seconds and having a chord of 632.76 feet which bears North 77 degrees 17 minutes 27 seconds East to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 56 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds East, not tangent to said curve a distance of 114.28 feet, to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 22 degrees 13 minutes 10 seconds East, along said right-of-way line, a distance of 116.13 feet and said line there terminating. Doc. #169929v.1 RNK: 4/22/2013 r PARCEL B 155 Apartments, including surface parkins That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116, Range 23 and the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of said Section 10; thence on as assumed bearing of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West along the West line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1026.89 feet; thence South 79 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 177.77 feet; thence South 86 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 100.40 feet; thence South 78 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 194.14 feet; thence South 74 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 150.00 feet; thence South 47 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 75.43 feet; thence North 82 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds East, a distance of 74.98 feet; thence South 58 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 84.58 feet; thence South 89 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 164.63 feet; thence South 18 degrees 17 minutes 40 seconds West, a distance of 824.19 feet to the northerly right of way line of Trunk Highway 5; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 33.08 feet; thence South 56 degrees 40 minutes 55 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 158.95 feet; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 518.22 feet to the west line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23; thence North I degree 37 minutes 50 seconds West along said west line of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 9.12 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPT that part of the above described property which lies northwesterly of that particular northwesterly right-of-way line of Parcel 216, as shown on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-08, recorded as Document No. 265755 and as amended on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-14, recorded as Document No. 279658, described as follows: Commencing at the southwest comer of said Section 10; thence on an assumed bearing of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West, along the west line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 10, a distance of 401.19 feet, to a particular rigbt-of-way line of said Parcel 216 and the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 47 degrees 18 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 175.14 feet, to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 47 degrees 18 minutes 19 seconds East a distance of 22.71 feet, to a point of curvature in said right- of-way line; thence easterly a distance of 662.60 feet, along a non -tangential curve concave to the south having a radius of 633.04 feet and a central angle of 59 degrees 58 minutes 14 seconds and having a chord of 632.76 feet which bears North 77 degrees 17 minutes 27 seconds East to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 56 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds East, not tangent to said curve a distance of 114.28 feet, to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 22 degrees 13 minutes 10 seconds East, along said right-of-way line, a distance of 116.13 feet and said line there terminating. Also EXCEPT said Parcel 216 Doc. #I69929v.I RNK: 4/22/2013 g:\admin\or&chanhassen apartments ordin e.dm Doe. #169929v.1 RNK: 4/22/2013 FJ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 1 AND 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE, BY REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 1-2 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding the following definition: Conservation Area an area of land that remains in a natural state by means of preservation of existing features and vegetation as well as by means of city -approved restoration of selected species and targeted features. No buildings or structures are allowed except essential services and public improvements. SECTION 2. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code, the City's Zoning Ordinance, is hereby amended by rezoning the following described property from Agricultural Estate District, A- 2, to Planned Unit Development Residential, PUD-R: That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116, Range 23 and the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest comer of said Section 10; thence on an assumed bearing of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West along the West line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1026.89 feet; thence South 79 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 177.77 feet; thence South 86 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 100.40 feet; thence South 78 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 194.14 feet; thence South 74 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 150.00 feet; thence South 47 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 75.43 feet; thence North 82 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds East, a distance of 74.98 feet; thence South 58 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 84.58 feet; thence south 89 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 164.63 feet; thence South 18 degrees 17 minutes 40 seconds West, a distance of 824.19 feet to the northerly right of way line of Trunk Highway 5; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 33.08 feet; thence South 56 degrees 40 minutes 55 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 158.95 feet thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 518.22 feet to the west line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23; thence North 1 degree 37 minutes 50 seconds West along said west line of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 9.12 feet to the point of beginning. This tract contains 18.1 acres of land, more or less, and is subject to right of way in existing county road and subject to any and all easements of record. Doc. # 169929v.I RNK: 4/22/2013 t SECTION 3. Intent. The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD for the Chanhassen Apartments. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. Ancillary uses may be permitted as listed below once a primary use has occupied the site. Except as modified by the Chanhassen Apartments PUD ordinance, the development shall comply with the requirements of the R16 District. SECTION 4. Permitted Uses. The permitted uses in this zone shall be residential and their ancillary uses. The type of uses to be provided on common areas shall be outdoor play area and outdoor patio. Parcel A (description attached) Conservation Area Parcel B (description attached) 155 Apartments, including surface parking SECTION 5. Lot Requirements and Setbacks. The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The following table displays those setbacks: Setback Standards Highway 5 50 feet (Perimeter) Lot Line 50 feet Collector Road, etc. 50 feet (Perimeter) Lot Line 50 feet Hard Surface Coverage 50 % over 14 acres Height 38 feet Parking setback for perimeter roperty line 25 feet Wetland and Buffer Setback Parcel B 31.5 feet SECTION 6. Signage. Signage shall comply with city standards for R12 Zoning District 20-1301(2) Agricultural and Residential Districts. SECTION 7. Landscaping. Landscaping shall comply with the landscaping plan prepared by Mark Kronbeck, ASLA, dated March 15, 2013. SECTION 8. The zoning map of the City of Chanhassen shall not be republished to show the aforesaid zoning, but the Clerk shall appropriately mark the zoning map on file in the Clerk's Office for the purpose of indicating the rezoning hereinabove provided for in this ordinance, and all of the notations, references, and other information shown thereon are hereby incorporated by reference and made a art of this or mance. /4 P I /YI � .-/,n� QAII �, _, _ . OmT SECTION 9. Ti'so rnmance smart �("M�Y� atetyup n its passage and publication. PG„W..w/ Doc. #I69929v.I RNK: 4/2212013 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22"d day of April, 2013, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on Doc. H 169929v.I RNK: 4/2212013 PARCEL A Conservation Area That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116, Range 23 and the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest comer of said Section 10; thence on as assumed bearing of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West along the West tine of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1023.08 feet, to a point on said west line distant 1668.88 feet south of the west quarter comer of said Section 10; thence South 79 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 177.77 feet; thence South 86 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 100.40 feet; thence South 78 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 194.14 feet; thence South 74 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 150.00 feet; thence South 47 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 75.43 feet; thence North 82 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds Fast, a distance of 74.98 feet; thence South 58 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 84.58 feet; thence South 89 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 163.25 feet; thence South 18 degrees 17 minutes 40 seconds West, a distance of 820.19 feet to the northerly tight of way line of Trunk Highway 5; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 33.08 feet; thence South 56 degrees 40 minutes 55 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 158.95 feet; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 518.22 feet to the west line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23; thence North 1 degree 37 minutes 50 seconds West along said west line of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 9.12 feet to the point of beginning. Which lies northwesterly of that particular northwesterly right-of-way line of Parcel 216, as shown on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-08, recorded as Document No. 265755 and as amended on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-14, recorded as Document No. 279658, described as follows: Commencing at the southwest comer of said Section 10; thence on an assumed bearing of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West, along the west line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 10, a distance of 401.19 feet, to a particular right-of-way line of said Parcel 216 and the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 47 degrees 18 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 175.14 feet, to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 47 degrees 18 minutes 19 seconds East a distance of 22.71 feet, to a point of curvature in said right- of-way line; thence easterly a distance of 662.60 feet, along a non -tangential curve concave to the south having a radius of 633.04 feet and a central angle of 59 degrees 58 minutes 14 seconds and having a chord of 632.76 feet which bears North 77 degrees 17 minutes 27 seconds East to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 56 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds East, not tangent to said curve a distance of 114.28 feet, to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 22 degrees 13 minutes 10 seconds East, along said right-of-way line, a distance of 116.13 feet and said line there terminating. Doc. N169929v.1 RNK: 4/22/2013 PARCEL B 155 Apartments, includin! surface parking That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116, Range 23 and the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest comer of said Section 10; thence on as assumed bearing of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West along the West line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1026.89 feet; thence South 79 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 177.77 feet; thence South 86 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 100.40 feet; thence South 78 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 194.14 feet; thence South 74 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 150.00 feet; thence South 47 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 75.43 feet; thence North 82 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds East, a distance of 74.98 feet; thence South 58 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 84.58 feet; thence South 89 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 164.63 feet; thence South 18 degrees 17 minutes 40 seconds West, a distance of 824.19 feet to the northerly right of way line of Trunk Highway 5; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 33.08 feet; thence South 56 degrees 40 minutes 55 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 158.95 feet; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 518.22 feet to the west line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23; thence North 1 degree 37 minutes 50 seconds West along said west line of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 9.12 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPT that part of the above described property which lies northwesterly of that particular northwesterly right-of-way line of Parcel 216, as shown on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-08, recorded as Document No. 265755 and as amended on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-14, recorded as Document No. 279658, described as follows: Commencing at the southwest comer of said Section 10; thence on an assumed bearing of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West, along the west line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 10, a distance of 401.19 feet, to a particular right-of-way line of said Parcel 216 and the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 47 degrees 18 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 175.14 feet, to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 47 degrees 18 minutes 19 seconds East a distance of 22.71 feet, to a point of curvature in said right- of-way line; thence easterly a distance of 662.60 feet, along a non -tangential curve concave to the south having a radius of 633.04 feet and a central angle of 59 degrees 58 minutes 14 seconds and having a chord of 632.76 feet which bears North 77 degrees 17 minutes 27 seconds East to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 56 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds East, not tangent to said curve a distance of 114.28 feet, to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 22 degrees 13 minutes 10 seconds East, along said right-of-way line, a distance of 116.13 feet and said line there terminating. Also EXCEPT said Parcel 216 Doc. N169929%.1 RNK: 4/22/2013 0 CITY OF CHANHA3SEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227-1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone:952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952227.1110 Public Works 7901 Park Place Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Community Development Director DATE: April 22, 2013 SUBJ: Approval of City Code Amendment, Rezoning, Site Plan with Variances and a Land Use Map Amendment for Chanhassen Apartments Planning Case #2013-07 r1ROPOSED MOTION. 11 "The Chanhassen City Council approves an Amendment to the City Code, Rezoning, Site Plan with Variances, and a Land Use Map Amendment for the Chanhassen Apartments subject to the conditions in the staff report and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation." City Council approval requires a majority vote of City Council present. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a 155-unit apartment building. In December of 2012 the City Council made the following comments on the Concept PUD for the Chanhassen Apartments: • number of units was too high • need to address traffic and pedestrian safety • environmental protection • density transfer Based on the comments from the conceptual PUD review the applicant has made changes to the project including the number of units. To approve this project a land use amendment to high density residential, site plan with a parking variance and rezoning to PUD is required. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 16, 2013 to review the proposed development. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the project. The April 16 2013 Planning Commission meeting minutes are item ] a of the April 22, 2013 City Council packet. Chanhassen is a Community tot Life - Providing IorToday and Planning lorTomorrow Todd Gerhardt Chanhassen Apartments — Planning Case 2013-07 April 22, 2013 Page 2 Comments made at the public hearing included: • Traffic and safe pedestrian crossing • The number of U-turns needs to be addressed • Don't change the land use, the city should wait until the next comprehensive plan update • The number of units being proposed for the density transfer is too high • A number of questions focused on the methodology of the traffic study RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of an Amendment to the City Code defining a conservation area, Rezoning of approximately 14 acres from Agricultural Estate (A-2) to Planned Unit Development -Residential (PUD-R); approval of a Site Plan Review for a 155-unit Apartment Building with Variances to reduce interior parking by one stall; approval of a Land Use Map Amendment from Residential -Low Density and Office, to Residential -Low and High Density and Office and Residential -High Density Planned Unit Development (PUD); and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. ATTACIIMENTS 1. Staff Report Dated April 16, 2013. 2. Email from Lymi/Velma Wilder dated April 12, 2013. 3. Highway 5 Accidents Summary. 9Ap1an12013 planning case M13-07 chanhassen apartmentslexecutiw stu wydm Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 31 of 31 31. All parking areas, including parking garages, must be provided with accessible parking spaces dispersed among the various building entrances. 32. Accessible dwelling units must be provided in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341, 33. The building owner and/or their representatives should meet with the Inspections Division to discuss plan review and permit procedures (in particular, type of construction and allowable area issues must be addressed). 34. Due to the large size of this building, class III Fire Dept, standpipes will be required. Have developer contact Fire Marshal for exact locations. MSFC Sec. 905.3.9. 35. " No Parking Fire Lane " signs will be required. Have developer contact Fire Marshal for exact locations. MSFD Sec. 505.31 36. An additional on site fire hydrant will be required. Contact Fire Marshal for location. 37. A PIV ( post indicator valve ) will be required. 38. A three-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. MSFC Sec 508.5.4." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Recommendation. 2. Planned Unit Development Ordinance. 3. Development Review Application. 4. Reduced Copy Site Plan. 5. Traffic Study dated April 9, 2013. 6. Letter from MnDOT dated April 4, 2013. 7. Affidavit of Mailing. 9:lplan\2013 planning cases\2013-07 chantrmen apartmerosWaff report pc.doc Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 30 of 31 22. Both the Bluff Creek Total Maximum Daily Load Implementation Plan and the NPDES Permit require that a portion of the Water Quality Volume is infiltrated on -site. The Stormwater Management Study shall be modified to address this requirement and incorporated into the SWPPP. 23. Because the site discharges to an impaired water, the discharge rates for the one-year design event must also be equal to or less than the existing discharge rates. The Stormwater Management Study shall be modified to address this requirement and shall be incorporated into the SWPPP. 24. In order to protect Bluff Creek, meet the goals of the Bluff Creek N Resources Management Plan and the Bluff Creek TMDL Implementation P is mmending that the portion of the property north of West 78'h Street is . and that density should be transferred to that portion south of West 78 Stree . exlev 25. Sheet C-3 GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN shall be amended to include the following: a. The swale draining into the proposed pond shall be stabilized for its entirety as it is less than 200 feet -in length. b. An appropriate perimeter BMP shall be shown and installed around the proposed outlet modification for the southern wetland. c. Silt fence or another acceptable BMP shall be installed on the north end of the culvert under West 78's Street. d. The EOF from the pond to the wetland shall be permanently stabilized. This is addressed in the Drainage Report but is not included in the Grading and Erosion Plan. A turf reinforcement mat is an acceptable practice as is called out in the drainage report. 26. Minnesota Department of Transportation will need to review and approve the drainage plan. 27. The applicant shall revise the plans to incorporate sidewalk connections to existing trails. 28. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. A "Code Record" is required (Code Record schematic plans may be same scale as architectural). For "Code Record" information go to MN Dept. of Labor and Industry: htto://www.dli.nm.g v/CCLD/PlanConstruction.W 29. The building(s) must be protected with automatic fire sprinkler systems. 30. An accessible route must be provided to buildings, parking facilities, public transportation stops and all common use facilities. t • � 1r qL 7' a .•ir %lip -1 or ` ` *•� 4*AJo Cam, )a % �1 , l •••.� •� � s'••p ly(a ` O y '�- •"F41 \ � h MAL- a'/l S- 41 on L ME L. :::: �.._I. o n ^�." ice! vi n n n i ii all Sle■.a n'.1.=■: &-- .. n!i! olio Dui■ nin niln I:I:j non ii fl a !! I mI:i:Fii-ii=��=ii .� _ -_- __ Non -Scannable Item Item Description Colder Number Folder Nam® S Job Number Box Number � � i mem.:: ► ex CD-R 0%4P an,...., OPPIDAN INC. 21571 City of Chanhassen 3/20/2013 Projects & Reimburse in Process:Chanha Site Plan Review 500.00 Projects & Reimburse in Process:Chanha Variance - Recording Fees 110.00 RECEIVED MAR 2 0 2013 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 109 - Beacon Bank 610.00 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 1 AND 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE CTTY'S ZONING ORDINANCE, BY REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 1-2 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding the following definition: Conservation Area an area of land that remains in a natural state by means of preservation of existing features and vegetation as well as by means of city -approved restoration of selected species and targeted features. No buildings or structures are allowed except essential services and public improvements. SECTION 2. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code, the City's Zoning Ordinance, is hereby amended by rezoning the following described property from Agricultural Estate District, A- 2, to Planned Unit Development Residential, PUD-R: That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116, Range 23 and the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of said Section 10; thence on an assumed bearing of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West along the West line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1026.89 feet; thence South 79 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds Fast, a distance of 177.77 feet; thence South 86 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 100.40 feet; thence South 78 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 194.14 feet; thence South 74 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 150.00 feet; thence South 47 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 75.43 feet; thence North 82 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds East, a distance of 74.98 feet; thence South 58 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 84.58 feet; thence south 89 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 164.63 feet; thence South 18 degrees 17 minutes 40 seconds West, a distance of 824.19 feet to the northerly right of way line of Trunk Highway 5; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 33.08 feet; thence South 56 degrees 40 minutes 55 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 158.95 feet; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 518.22 feet to the west line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23; thence North 1 degree 37 minutes 50 seconds West along said west line of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 9.12 feet to the point of beginning. This tract contains 18.1 acres of land, more or less, and is subject to right of way in existing county road and subject to any and all easements of record. Doc. H 169929v.I RNK: 4/MOU SECTION 3. Intent. The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD for the Chanhassen Apartments. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. Ancillary uses may be permitted as listed below once a primary use has occupied the site. Except as modified by the Chanhassen Apartments PUD ordinance, the development shall comply with the requirements of the RI District. SECTION 4. Permitted Uses. The permitted uses in this zone shall be residential and their ancillary uses. The type of uses to be provided on common areas shall be outdoor play area and outdoor patio. Parcel A (description attached) Conservation Area Parcel B. (description attached) 155 Apartments, including surface parking SECTION 5. Lot Requirements and Setbacks. The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The following table displays those setbacks: Setback Standards Highway 5 50 feet (Perimeter) Lot Line 50 feet Collector Road, etc. 50 feet (Perimeter) Lot Line 50 feet Hard Surface Coverage 50 % over 14 acres Height 38 feet Parkin setback for perimeter pro rty line 25 feet Wetland and Buffer Setback Parcel B 31.5 feet SECTION 6. Signage. Signage shall comply with city standards for R12 Zoning District 20-1301(2) Agricultural and Residential Districts. SECTION 7. Landscaping. Landscaping shall comply with the landscaping plan prepared by Mark Kronbeck, ASLA, dated March 15, 2013. SECTION 8. The zoning map of the City of Chanhassen shall not be republished to show the aforesaid zoning, but the Clerk shall appropriately mark the zoning map on file in the Clerk's Office for the purpose of indicating the rezoning hereinabove provided for in this ordinance, and all of the notations, references, and other information shown thereon are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this ordinance. SECTION 9. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. Doc. N 169929v.I RNK: 4/22/2013 F� PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22"d day of April, 2013, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on Doc. # 169929v.I RNK: 4/22/2013 PARCEL A Conservation Area That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116, Range 23 and the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest comer of said Section 10; thence on as assumed bearing of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West along the West line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1023.08 feet, to a point on said west line distant 1668.88 feet south of the west quarter corner of said Section 10; thence South 79 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 177.77 feet; thence South 86 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 100.40 feet; thence South 78 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 194.14 feet; thence South 74 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 150.00 feet thence South 47 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 75.43 feet; thence North 82 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds East, a distance of 74.98 feet; thence South 58 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 84.58 feet; thence South 89 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 163.25 feet; thence South 18 degrees 17 minutes 40 seconds West a distance of 820.19 feet to the northerly tight of way line of Trunk Highway 5; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 33.08 feet; thence South 56 degrees 40 minutes 55 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 158.95 feet; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 518.22 feet to the west line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23; thence North I degree 37 minutes 50 seconds West along said west line of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 9.12 feet to the point of beginning. Which fies northwesterly of that particular northwesterly right-of-way line of Parcel 216, as shown on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-08, recorded as Document No. 265755 and as amended on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-14, recorded as Document No. 279658, described as follows: Commencing at the southwest comer of said Section 10; thence on an assumed bearing of North I degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West, along the west line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 10, a distance of 401.19 feet to a particular right-of-way line of said Parcel 216 and the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 47 degrees 18 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 175.14 feet, to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 47 degrees 18 minutes 19 seconds East a distance of 22.71 feet, to a point of curvature in said right- of-way line; thence easterly a distance of 662.60 feet, along a non -tangential curve concave to the south having a radius of 633.04 feet and a central angle of 59 degrees 58 minutes 14 seconds and having a chord of 632.76 feet which bears North 77 degrees 17 minutes 27 seconds East to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 56 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds East, not tangent to said curve a distance of 11418 feet, to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 22 degrees 13 minutes 10 seconds East, along said right-of-way line, a distance of 116.13 feet and said line there terminating. Doe. # 169929v. I RNK: 4/22/2013 PARCEL B 155 Apartments, including surface parking That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116, Range 23 and the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest comer of said Section 10; thence on as assumed bearing of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West along the West line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1026.89 feet; thence South 79 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 177.77 feet; thence South 86 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 100.40 feet; thence South 78 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 194.14 feet; thence South 74 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 150.00 feet; thence South 47 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 75.43 feet thence North 82 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds East, a distance of 74.98 feet; thence South 58 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 84.58 feet thence South 89 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East a distance of 164.63 feet; thence South 18 degrees 17 minutes 40 seconds West, a distance of 824.19 feet to the northerly right of way line of Trunk Highway 5; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 33.08 feet; thence South 56 degrees 40 minutes 55 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 158.95 feet; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 518.22 feet to the west line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23; thence North 1 degree 37 minutes 50 seconds West along said west line of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 9.12 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPT that part of the above described property which lies northwesterly of that particular northwesterly right-of-way line of Parcel 216, as shown on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-08, recorded as Document No. 265755 and as amended on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-14, recorded as Document No. 279658, described as follows: Commencing at the southwest comer of said Section 10; thence on an assumed bearing of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West, along the west line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 10, a distance of 401.19 feet to a particular right-of-way line of said Parcel 216 and the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 47 degrees 18 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 175.14 feet, to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 47 degrees 18 minutes 19 seconds East a distance of 22.71 feet, to a point of curvature in said right- of-way line; thence easterly a distance of 662.60 feet, along a non -tangential curve concave to the south having a radius of 633.04 feet and a central angle of 59 degrees 58 minutes 14 seconds and having a chord of 632.76 feet which bears North 77 degrees 17 minutes 27 seconds East to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 56 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds East, not tangent to said curve a distance of 114.28 feet, to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 22 degrees 13 minutes 10 seconds East, along said right -of --way line, a distance of 116.13 feet and said line there terminating. Also EXCEPT said Parcel 216 Doc. N 169929v.I RNK: 4/22/2013 Ai Metropolitan Council u July 25, 2013 Mr. Robert Generous, AICP Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan Amendment — Chanhassen Apartments Metropolitan Council Review File No. 20265-5 Metropolitan Council District 4 Dear Mr. Generous: At its meeting on July 24, 2013, the Metropolitan Council reviewed the City's Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA), based on the staff report. The amendment reguides 14 acres from Residential -Low Density/Office to Residential Low/High Density and Office/Residential-High Density located at the northwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard (CSAH 117). The purpose of the amendment is to provide dual guiding of property for a 155-unit market rate apartment building. The Council found that the CPA conforms to the regional system plans for transportation, wastewater, and parks; is consistent with the 2030 Regional Development Framework and Council policies; and is compatible with the plans of adjacent jurisdictions. Therefore, the City may place the CPA into effect. A copy of the staff report to the Council is attached for your records. The Council will append the amendment, submission form and supplemental information to the City's plan in the Council's files. If you have any questions, please contact Angela Torres, Principal Reviewer at 651-602-1566. Sincerely, �r LisaBethrBarajas, Ma ager Local Planning Assistance Attachment CC: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Todd Gerhardt, City Manager . Julie Monson, Minnesota Housing Tod Sherman, Development Reviews Coordinator, MnDOT Metro Gary Van Eyll, Metropolitan Council District 4 Angela Torres, Sector Representative/Principal Reviewer Raya Esmaeili, Reviews Coordinator . Aw .metrocouncil.org 390 Robert Street North • St. Paul. MN 55101-1805 • (6511 602-1000 • Fax (651) 602-1550 • =1651) 291-0904 An Equal Oy Iunity En fig r ii Metropolitan Council AA July 25, 2013 Mr. Robert Generous, AICP Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan Amendment —Chanhassen Apartments Metropolitan Council Review File No. 20265-5 Metropolitan Council District 4 Dear Mr. Generous: At its meeting on July 24, 2013, the Metropolitan Council reviewed the City's Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA), based on the staff report. The amendment reguides 14 acres from Residential -Low Density/Office to Residential Low/High Density and Office/Residential-High Density located at the northwest comer of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard (CSAH 117). The purpose of the amendment is to provide dual guiding of property for a 155-unit market rate apartment building. The Council found that the CPA conforms to the regional system plans for transportation, wastewater, and parks; is consistent with the 2030 Regional Development Framework and Council policies; and is compatible with the plans of adjacent jurisdictions. Therefore, the City may place the CPA into effect. A copy of the staff report to the Council is attached for your records. The Council will append the amendment, submission form and supplemental information to the City's plan in the Council's files. If you have any questions, please contact Angela Tones, Principal Reviewer at 651-602-1566. Sincerely, LisaBethrBarajas, Ma ager Local Planning Assistance Attachment CC: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Todd Gerhardt, City Manager . Julie Monson, Minnesota Housing Tod Sherman, Development Reviews Coordinator, MnDOT Metro Gary Van Eyll, Metropolitan Council District 4 Angela Torres, Sector Representative/Principal Reviewer Raya Esmaeili, Reviews Coordinator . mw .metrmouncll.org 390 Robert Street NorUl • St. Paul. UN 55101-1805 • (651) 602-1000 • Fax (6511602-1550 • T IY (651) 291-0904 An Fqud O,rprfwily En b,c, CITY OF CHANHASSEN SITE PLAN AGREEMENT 2013-07 SPECIAL PROVISIONS THIS AGREEMENT ("Site Plan Agreement") dated April 22, 2013, by and between the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City"), and OPPIDAN, INC., A Minnesota Corporation (the "Developer"). 1. Request for Site Plan Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve an Apartment site plan consisting of 155 units Planning Case 2013-07 (referred to in this Site Plan Agreement as the "Project"). The land is legally described as follows: Exhibit A 2. Conditions of Site Plan Approval. The City hereby approves the site plan on condition that the Developer enters into this Site Plan Agreement and f rmishes the security required by it. 3. Development Plans. The project shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the following plans. The plans shall not be attached to this Contract. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Permit, the written terms shall control. The plans are: PlanA: (C-O 1 of 15) Title Sheet dated Received March 15, 2013, prepared by Alliant Engineering, Inc. PlanB: (C-1 2 of 15) Existing Conditions dated Received March 15, 2013, prepared by Alliant Engineering, Inc. Plan C: (C-2 3 of 15) Overall Site Plan dated Received March 15, 2013, prepared by Alliant Engineering, Inc. Plan D: (C-3 4 of 15) Grading and Erosion Control Plan dated Received March 15, 2013, prepared by Alliant Engineering, hic. PlanE: (C-4 5 of 15) Utility Plan dated Received March 15, 2013, prepared by Alliant Engineering, Inc. PlanF: (C-5 6 of 15) Photometric Plan dated Received March 15, 2013, prepared by Alliant Engineering, Inc. PlanG: (L-I 7 of 15) Landscape Plan dated Received March 15, 2013, prepared by Alliant Engineering, Inc. Plan H: (Al00-A 8 of 15) Garage Level Plan dated Received March 15, 2013, prepared by Collage Architects, Inc. Plan I: (A100-B 9 of 15) Garage Level Plan dated Received March 15, 2013, prepared by Collage Architects, Inc. SP-1 Plan J: (A101-A 10 of 15) First Floor Plan dated Received March 15, 2013, prepared by Collage Architects, Inc. Plan K: (A101-B 11 of 15) First Floor Plan dated Received March 15, 2013, prepared by Collage Architects, Inc. Plan L: (A102-A 12 of 15) Typical Floor Plan dated Received March 15, 2013, prepared by Collage Architects, htc. Plan M: (A 102-B 13 of 15) Typical Floor Plan dated Received March 15, 2013, prepared by Collage Architects, Inc. Plan N: (A20014 of 15) Elevations dated Received March 15, 2013, prepared by Collage Architects, Inc. Plan O: (A201 15 of 15) Elevations dated Received March 13, 2013, prepared by Collage Architects, Inc. Plan P: Colored Retail Exterior Elevation Plan dated Received April 15, 2013, prepared by Architectural Consortium L.L.C. 4. Time of Performance. The Developer shall install all required screening and landscaping by July 31, 2014. 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. Security. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Site Plan Agreement, the Developer shall furnish the City with a letter of credit from a bank, cash escrow, or equivalent ("security") in the amount of $287,780.70. This amount has been calculated at a rate of 110% of the actual value of improvement (grading and erosion control $70,213.00, landscaping $54,464, storm water, sanitary, utilities, etc. $134,050.00). The City will release the security posted in accordance with the City Code. 6. Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by registered mail at the following address: Oppidan, Inc. Attn: Mr. Paul Tucci 5125 CR 101, Suite 100 Minnetonka, MN 55345 (952)294-1243 Pau1Ca,Opnidan.com SP-2 Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Manager, or mailed to the City by registered mail in care of the City Manager at the following address: Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Boulevard, P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317, Telephone (952) 227-1100. 7. Other Special Conditions. On April 22, 2013, the City Council adopted the following motion: Approval of a Site Plan for a 155-unit Apartment Building with a Variance for parking subject to the following conditions: A. Approval of the Land Use Amendment subject the Metropolitan Council determination of consistency with system plan. B. Adoption of the Chanhassen PUD Ordinance, which shall be created to govern the site and design standards. C. Execution of the Site Plan Permit. D. Payment of $294,500 park and trail fee and $116,500 stormwater fee prior to the issuance of a building permit. E. Parcel A shall be dedicated to the City, or have a conservation easement placed on it, for management consistent with the Bluff Creek Management Plan, the Bluff Creek TMDL and the 2°d Generation Surface Water Management Plan. F. The applicant and the City should work together to develop an appropriate mitigation scenario. G. Any portion of the wetland presumed to be impacted under an alternate development scenario, which would require the use of Parcel A and is subsequently transferred to Parcel B for density calculations, be mitigated for at a 1:1 ratio. This mitigation should occur within the Bluff Creek Overlay District but does need to be in the form of wetland. The developer must calculate the net developable acres of the site and wetland acreage. H. The wetland delineation report shall be finalized. I. All existing trees proposed to be saved must be protected with fencing during construction or replaced after construction if damaged or dead. The selections of Colorado spruce must be replaced by a different evergreen species in the plant schedule. K. Before final approval for the project, the applicant will need to determine future management plans for the existing ash trees. If preserved, the applicant will be required to chemically protect or, if infested, remove and replace the trees. If the applicant decides to remove and replace the trees at this time, a revised landscape plan will be required. SP-3 L. Staff recommends that the curb radius at the driveway access be increased to facilitate the turning movements of larger vehicles. M. Appropriate signage must be installed 10 days prior to and for the duration of the work within West 78th Street. N. The developer must coordinate the closure of West 78th Street with the Engineering Department minimum 72 hours prior to the closure. O. A $10,000 escrow must be provided to ensure that West 78th Street is properly restored. Once the street has been restored to satisfactory condition, 50% of the escrow will be released; the remaining 50% will be released if the patch is in satisfactory condition after one freeze -thaw cycle. P. Minimum 18-inch vertical separation is required between the private watermain and the private storm sewer crossing. Q. The developer shall submit $5,000 with the site plan agreement to cover half of the cost of the signal modification at TH 5 and Galpin Boulevard to accommodate a flashing yellow passive -permissive signal. R. The developer shall pay one-half the cost of the traffic study. S. City trunk sanitary sewer hookup fees (City SAC), City trunk watermain hookup fees (City WAC) and the Met Council Sanitary Access Charge (Met SAC) are due with the building permit at the rate in effect at that time and shall be based on the SAC unit determination per the Met Council. T. A "General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity Under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination" will be required for this project. Proof of permission from the PCA must be provided to the City before grading can commence. U. A Surface Water Management Plan is required and shall be submitted to the City for review and comment. This plan shall incorporate the required elements of Parts III, IV and Appendix A of the NPDES permit. V. Both the Bluff Creek Total Maximum Daily Load Implementation Plan and the NPDES Permit require that a portion of the Water Quality Volume is infiltrated on -site. The Stormwater Management Study shall be modified to address this requirement and incorporated into the SWPPP. W. Because the site discharges to an impaired water, the discharge rates for the one-year design event must also be equal to or less than the existing discharge rates. The Stormwater Management Study shall be modified to address this requirement and shall be incorporated into the SWPPP. SP-4 X. hi order to protect Bluff Creek, meet the goals of the Bluff Creek Natural Resources Management Plan and the Bluff Creek TMDL Implementation Plan, staff is recommending that the portion of the property north of West 78`s Street be preserved through an easement to the City and that this density should be transferred to that portion south of West 78°i Street. Y. Sheet C-3 GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN shall be amended to include the following: a. The swale draining into the proposed pond shall be stabilized for its entirety as it is less than 200 feet in length. b. An appropriate perimeter BMP shall be shown and installed around the proposed outlet modification for the southern wetland. c. Silt fence or another acceptable BMP shall be installed on the north end of the culvert under West 78d' Street. d. The EOF from the pond to the wetland shall be permanently stabilized. This is addressed in the Drainage Report but is not included in the Grading and Erosion Plan. A turf reinforcement mat is an acceptable practice as is called out in the drainage report. Z. Minnesota Department of Transportation will need to review and approve the drainage plan. A.A. The applicant shall revise the plans to incorporate sidewalk connections to existing trails. BB. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. A "Code Record" is required (Code Record schematic plans may be same scale as architectural). For "Code Record" information go to MN Dept. of Labor and Industry: htto://www.dli.mn.gov/CCLD/PlanConstruction.yo CC. The building(s) must be protected with automatic fire sprinkler systems. DD. An accessible route must be provided to buildings, parking facilities, public transportation stops and all common use facilities. EE. All parking areas, including parking garages, must be provided with accessible parking spaces dispersed among the various building entrances. FF. Accessible dwelling units must be provided in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. GG. The building owner and/or their representatives should meet with the Inspections Division to discuss plan review and permit procedures (in particular, type of construction SP-5 and allowable area issues must be addressed). HH. Due to the large size of this building, class III Fire Dept, standpipes will be required. Have developer contact Fire Marshal for exact locations. MSFC Sec. 905.3.9. II. "No Parking Fire Lane "signs will be required. Have developer contact Fire Marshal for exact locations. MSFD Sec. 505.31 JJ. An additional on site fire hydrant will be required. Contact Fire Marshal for location. KK. A PIV (post indicator valve) will be required. LL. A three-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. MSFC Sec 508.5.4. 8. General Conditions. The general conditions of this Site Plan Agreement are attached as Exhibit 'B" and incorporated herein. SP-6 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 0W (SEAL) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) Tom Furlong, Mayor Todd Gerhardt, City Manager The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this —day of 12013, by Tom Furlong, Mayor, and by Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. NOTARY PUBLIC SP-7 DEVELOPER: OPPIDAN, INC. m Its STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of 2013, by DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 NOTARY PUBLIC ME MORTGAGE HOLDER CONSENT TO SITE PLAN AGREEMENT which holds a mortgage on the subject property, the development of which is governed by the foregoing Site Plan Agreement, agrees that the Site Plan Agreement shall remain in full force and effect even if it forecloses on its mortgage. Dated this _ day of 12013. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of 2013,by DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 NOTARY PUBLIC SP-9 CITY OF CHANHASSEN SITE PLAN AGREEMENT EXHIBIT "B" GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. Right to Proceed. Within the site plan area, the Developer may not grade or otherwise disturb the earth, remove trees, construct improvements, or any buildings until all the following conditions have been satisfied: 1) Site Plan Agreement has been fully executed by both parties and filed with the City Clerk, 2) the necessary security and fees have been received by the City, 3) the Site Plan Agreement has been recorded with the County Recorder's and Registrar of Tities' Offices of the County where the project is located, and 4) the City Planner has issued a letter that the foregoing conditions have been satisfied and then the Developer may proceed. 2. Maintenance of site. The site shall be maintained in accordance with the approved site plan. Plants and ground cover required as a condition of site plan approval which die shall be promptly replaced. 3. License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and contractors a license to enter the plat to perform all work and inspections deemed appropriate by the City in conjunction with site plan development. 4. Erosion Control. Before the site is rough graded, and before any building permits are issued, the erosion control plan, Plan D, shall be implemented, inspected, and approved by the City. The City may impose additional erosion control requirements if they would be beneficial. All areas disturbed by the excavation and backfilling operations shall be reseeded forthwith after the completion of the work in that area. Except as otherwise provided in the erosion control plan, seed shall be certified seed to provide a temporary ground cover as rapidly as possible. All seeded areas shall be fertilized, mulched, and disc anchored as necessary for seed retention. The parties recognize that time is of the essence in controlling erosion. If the Developer does not comply with the erosion control plan and schedule or supplementary instructions received from the City, the City may take such action as it deems appropriate to control erosion at the Developer's expense. The City will endeavor to notify the Developer in advance of any proposed action, but failure of the City to do so will not affect the Developer's and Citys rights or obligations hereunder. No development will be allowed and no building pemvts will be issued unless there is full compliance with the erosion control requirements. Erosion control shall be maintained until vegetative cover has been restored. After the site has been stabilized to where, in the opinion of the City, there is no longer a need for erosion control, the City will authorize removal of the erosion control measures. 5. Clean up. The Developer shall maintain a neat and orderly work site and shall daily clean, on and off site, dirt and debris, including blowing materials, from streets and the surrounding area that has resulted from construction work by the Developer, its agents or assigns. GC-1 6. Warranty. All trees, grass, and sod required in the approved Landscaping Plan, Plan C, shall be warranted to be alive, of good quality, and disease free at the time of planting. All trees shall be warranted for twelve (12) months from the time of planting. The City shall retain $3,180.00 of the posted security for landscaping for twelve (12) months following planting to secure the warranties. Provided the landscaping is in the condition required herein following such twelve (12) month period, the City shall release the remaining security to Developer within ten (10) business days of request therefore. 7. Responsibility for Costs. A. The Developer shall hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from site plan approval and development. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers and employees for all costs, damages, or expenses, which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims, including attorneys' fees. B. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this Permit, including engineering and attorneys' fees. C. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City for obligations incurred under this Permit within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the City may halt all plat development work and construction. Bills not paid within thirty (30) days shall accrue interest at the rate of 8% per year. 8. Developer's Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer is first given notice of the work in default, not less than four (4) days in advance. This Site Plan Agreement is a license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a Court order for permission to enter the land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost in whole or in part. 9. Miscellaneous. A. Construction Trailers. Placement of on -site construction trailers and temporary job site offices shall be approved by the City Engineer. Trailers shall be removed from the subject property within thirty (30) days following the issuance of a certificate of occupancy unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. B. Postal Service. The Developer shall provide for the maintenance of postal service in accordance with the local Postmaster's request. C. Third Parties. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this Permit. D. Breach of Contract. Breach of the terms of this Permit by the Developer shall be grounds for denial of building permits. GC-2 E. Severability. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph, or phrase of this Permit is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Site Plan Agreement. F. Occupancy. Unless approved in writing by the City Engineer, no one may occupy a building for which a building permit is issued on either a temporary or permanent basis until the streets needed for access have been paved with a bituminous surface and the utilities tested and approved by the city. G. Waivers/Amendments. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Site Plan Agreement. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Site Plan Agreement shall not be a waiver or release. H. Recording. This Site Plan Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to the property. I. Remedies. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, express or implied, now or hereafter arising, available to City, at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to time as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy. J. Construction Hours. The normal construction hours under this Site Plan Agreement shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, with no such activity allowed on Sundays or any recognized legal holidays. Operation of all internal combustion engines used for construction or dewatering purposes beyond the normal working hours will require City Council approval. K. Soil Treatment Systems. If soil treatment systems are required, the Developer shall clearly identify in the field and protect from alteration, unless suitable alternative sites are first provided, the two soil treatment sites identified during the site plan process for each lot. This shall be done prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit. Any violation/disturbance of these sites shall render them as unacceptable and replacement sites will need to be located for each violated site in order to obtain a building permit. L. Compliance with Laws. Ordinances. and Regulations. In the development of the property pursuant to this Site Plan Agreement, the Developer shall comply with all laws, ordinances, and regulations of the following authorities to the extent any of the same have jurisdiction over the property's development: 1. City of Chanhassen; 2. State of Minnesota, its agencies, departments and commissions; 3. United States Army Corps of Engineers; 4. Watershed District; GC-3 5. Metropolitan Government, its agencies, departments and commissions. M. Proof of Title. Upon request, the Developer shall fimvsh the City with evidence satisfactory to the City that it has the authority of the fee owners and contract for deed purchasers too enter into this Site Plan Agreement. N. Soil Conditions. The Developer acknowledges that the City makes no representations or warranties as to the condition of the soils on the property or its fitness for construction of the improvements or any other purpose for which the Developer may make use of such property. The Developer further agrees that it will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its governing body members, officers, and employees from any claims or actions arising out of the presence, if any, of hazardous wastes or pollutants on the property, unless hazardous wastes or pollutants were caused to be there by the City. O. Soil Correction. The Developer shall be responsible for soil correction work on the property. The City makes no representation to the Developer concerning the nature of suitability of soils nor the cost of correcting any unsuitable soil conditions which may exist. GC-4 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 1 AND 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE, BY REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 1-2 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding the following definition: Conservation Area an area of land that remains in a natural state by means of preservation of existing features and vegetation as well as by means of city -approved restoration of selected species and targeted features. No buildings or structures are allowed except essential services and public improvements. SECTION 2. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code, the City's Zoning Ordinance, is hereby amended by rezoning the following described property from Agricultural Estate District, A- 2, to Planned Unit Development Residential, PUD-R: That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116, Range 23 and the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest comer of said Section 10; thence on an assumed bearing of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West along the West line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1026.89 feet; thence South 79 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 177.77 feet; thence South 86 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 100.40 feet; thence South 78 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 194.14 feet; thence South 74 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 150.00 feet; thence South 47 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 75.43 feet; thence North 82 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds East, a distance of 74.98 feet; thence South 58 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 84.58 feet; thence south 89 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 164.63 feet; thence South 18 degrees 17 minutes 40 seconds West, a distance of 824.19 feet to the northerly right of way line of Trunk Highway 5; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 33.08 feet; thence South 56 degrees 40 minutes 55 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 158.95 feet; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 518.22 feet to the west line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23; thence North 1 degree 37 minutes 50 seconds West along said west line of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 9.12 feet to the point of beginning. This tract contains 18.1 acres of land, more or less, and is subject to right of way in existing county road and subject to any and all easements of record. Doc. #169929v.I RW 4/22/2013 SECTION 3. Intent. The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD for the Chanhassen Apartments. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. Ancillary uses may be permitted as listed below once a primary use has occupied the site. Except as modified by the Chanhassen Apartments PUD ordinance, the development shall comply with the requirements of the RI District. SECTION 4. Permitted Uses. The permitted uses in this zone shall be residential and their ancillary uses. The type of uses to be provided on common areas shall be outdoor play area and outdoor patio. Parcel A (description attached) Conservation Area Parcel B (description attached) 155 Apartments, including surface parking SECTION 5. Lot Requirements and Setbacks. The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The following table displays those setbacks: Setback Standards Highway 5 50 feet Perimeter Lot Line 50 feet Collector Road, etc. 50 feet Perimeter Lot Line 50 feet Hard Surface Coverage 50 % over 14 acres HeiRht 38 feet Parking setback for perimeter property line 25 feet Wetland and Buffer Setback Parcel B 31.5 feet SECTION 6. Signage. Signage shall comply with city standards for R12 Zoning District 20-1301(2) Agricultural and Residential Districts. SECTION 7. Landscaping. Landscaping shall comply with the landscaping plan prepared by Mark Kronbeck, ASLA, dated March 15, 2013. SECTION 8. The zoning map of the City of Chanhassen shall not be republished to show the aforesaid zoning, but the Clerk shall appropriately mark the zoning map on file in the Clerk's Office for the purpose of indicating the rezoning hereinabove provided for in this ordinance, and all of the notations, references, and other information shown thereon are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this ordinance. SECTION 9. This ordinance shall be effective upon the recording of a conservation easement on Parcel A satisfactory to the City. Doc. #169929v.I RNK: 4/2212013 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22°d day of April, 2013, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota. Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on Doc. #169929v.1 RNK: 4/22/2013 EXHIBIT A That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116, Range 23 and the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest comer of said Section 10; thence on an assumed bearing of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West along the West line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1023.08 feet, to a point on said west line distant 1668.88 feet south of the west quarter corner of said Section 10; thence South 79 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 177.77 feet; thence South 86 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 100.40 feet; thence South 78 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 194.14 feet; thence South 74 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 150.00 feet; thence South 47 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 75.43 feet; thence North 82 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds East, a distance of 74.98 feet; thence South 58 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 84.58 feet; thence South 89 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 163.25 feet; thence South 18 degrees 17 minutes 40 seconds West, a distance of 820.19 feet to the northerly right of way line of Trunk Highway 5; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 33.08 feet; thence South 56 degrees 40 minutes 55 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 158.95 feet; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 518.22 feet to the west line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23; thence North 1 degree 37 minutes 50 seconds West along said west line of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 9.12 feet to the point of beginning. Which lies northwesterly of that particular northwesterly right-of-way line of Parcel 216, as shown on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-08, recorded as Document No. 265755 and as amended on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-14, recorded as Document No. 279658, described as follows: Commencing at the southwest comer of said Section 10; thence on an assumed bearing of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West, along the west line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 10, a distance of 401.19 feet, to a particular right-of-way line of said Parcel 216 and the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 47 degrees 18 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 175.14 feet, to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 47 degrees 18 minutes 19 seconds East a distance of 22.71 feet, to a point of curvature in said right- of-way line; thence easterly a distance of 662.60 feet, along a non -tangential curve concave to the south having a radius of 633.04 feet and a central angle of 59 degrees 58 minutes 14 seconds and having a chord of 632.76 feet which bears North 77 degrees 17 minutes 27 seconds East to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 56 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds East, not tangent to said curve a distance of 114.28 feet, to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 22 degrees 13 minutes 10 seconds East, along said right-of-way line, a distance of 116.13 feet and said line there terminating. 169977v2 6 PARCEL B 155 Apartments, including surface parking That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116, Range 23 and the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest comer of said Section 10; thence on as assumed bearing of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West along the West line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1026.89 feet; thence South 79 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 177.77 feet; thence South 86 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 100.40 feet; thence South 78 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 194.14 feet; thence South 74 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 150.00 feet; thence South 47 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 75.43 feet; thence North 82 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds East, a distance of 74.98 feet; thence South 58 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 84.58 feet; thence South 89 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 164.63 feet; thence South 18 degrees 17 minutes 40 seconds West, a distance of 824.19 feet to the northerly right of way line of Trunk Highway 5; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 33.08 feet; thence South 56 degrees 40 minutes 55 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 158.95 feet; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 518.22 feet to the west line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23; thence North 1 degree 37 minutes 50 seconds West along said west line of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 9.12 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPT that part of the above described property which hes northwesterly of that particular northwesterly right-of-way line of Parcel 216, as shown on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-08, recorded as Document No. 265755 and as amended on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-14, recorded as Document No. 279658, described as follows: Commencing at the southwest comer of said Section 10; thence on an assumed bearing of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West, along the west line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 10, a distance of 401.19 feet, to a particular right -of --way line of said Parcel 216 and the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 47 degrees 18 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 175.14 feet, to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 47 degrees 18 minutes 19 seconds East a distance of 22.71 feet, to a point of curvature in said right- of-way line; thence easterly a distance of 662.60 fcct, along a non -tangential curve concave to the south having a radius of 633.04 feet and a central angle of 59 degrees 58 minutes 14 seconds and having a chord of 632.76 feet which bears North 77 degrees 17 minutes 27 seconds East to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 56 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds East, not tangent to said curve a distance of 114.28 feet, to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 22 degrees 13 minutes 10 seconds East, along said right-of-way line, a distance of 116.13 feet and said line there terminating. Also EXCEPT said Parcel 216 Doc. #I69929v.I RNK: 4/22/2013 EASEMENT THIS INSTRUMENT, is made this day of , 2013, by AMERICANA COMMUNITY BANK, a Minnesota corporation ("Grantor"), for the benefit of the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"). The Grantor, in consideration of good and valuable consideration provided by the City, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, hereby grants the City a permanent easement ("Easement") for flowage and preservation and protection of wetlands, wetland buffer areas, steep slopes, woodlands and open spaces over, under, on and across the following land within the City of Chanhassen, County of Carver, State of Minnesota and legally described on the attached Exhibit "A" (the "Easement Property") and depicted on attached Exhibit `B". Grantor, its successors and assigns, hereby covenants and agrees as follows: 1. The following are prohibited within the Easement Property, except as permitted by this Agreement, unless the Grantor obtains the consent of the City or a release of this Easement or portion thereof by the City. A. Constructing, installing, or maintaining anything made by man, including but not limited to buildings, structures, walkways, fences, fireplaces, clothes line poles, playground equipment, roads or hardcover of any nature whatsoever, except: 1) feeders, bird houses, and other devices intended to foster wildlife; and 2) retaining walls when allowed by City ordinance and under a valid City permit. Creation and maintenance of non -hardcover walking paths may be allowed. B. Cutting, mowing or removing shrubs or other vegetation, and cutting or removing trees, except for tree disease control by or as directed by a governmental agency and except by special permit for maintenance or as part of an approved vegetation management plan. Grantors may remove brush, buckthorn, diseased or dead trees of any size, and noxious weeds. C. Excavation or filling or material alteration of grade, including changes to the size, depth or contour of the wetland; dredging, mining or removal of earth, loam, peat, gravel, soil or any other natural material. D. Free roaming of domestic animals (i.e., horses, sheep, chickens, etc.). E. The deposit of waste, yard waste, or debris. F. Activity detrimental to the screening of the neighboring properties. G. Application of fertilizers, whether natural or chemical. H. Application of chemicals for the destruction or retardation of vegetation. I. The application of herbicides, pesticides, and insecticides, except for noxious weed control by or as directed by a governmental agency. J. Outside storage of any kind. K. Activity detrimental to the preservation of the trees, slopes, scenic beauty, vegetation, and wildlife. 2. Grantor, its successors and assigns, further grants the City the affirmative right, but not the obligation to do the following on the easement premises: A. Preserve, improve, and enhance the wetland, creek, buffer, trees, vegetation, and natural habitat by altering, clearing, and removing trees or other vegetation, by changing the contour of the land, by planting trees or other vegetation, and taking all appropriate actions to comply with federal, state, and local regulations related to wetlands, including the Bluff Creek Management Plan, the Bluff Creek TMDL and the Second General Surface Water Management Plan. B. Enter upon the easement premises at any time to enforce compliance with the terms of this instrument. Further, the City may enforce the terms of this Easement by any proceeding in law or in equity to restrain violation, to compel compliance, or to recover damages, including attorneys' fees and costs of the enforcement actions. Grantor is not liable for the actions of any third party, other than its employees, agents or contractors, which may violate the terms of this Easement, unless Grantor, its employees, agents or contractors had actual knowledge of the violation and failed to take reasonable action to stop the violation. 169977v2 2 3. Failure to enforce any provision of this Easement upon a violation of it cannot be deemed a waiver of the right to do so as to that or any subsequent violation. 4. Invalidation of any of the terms of this Easement will in no way affect any of the other terms, which will remain in full force and effect. 5. This Easement does not convey a right to the public use of the Easement Property nor does it convey any right of possession in the Easement Property to the public or the City. Access by the City to the Easement Property is limited to access necessary for purposes of inspection and enforcement as specified in paragraph 2 above. The City is not be entitled to share in any award or other compensation given in connection with a condemnation or negotiated acquisition of all or any part of the Easement Property by any authority having the power of eminent domain. The City hereby waives any right it may have to such an award or compensation. 6. Acceptance of this Easement by the City and the recording of this document constitutes the City's consent to be bound by its terms. 7. This Easement runs with the Easement Property and be binding on the Grantor, its successors and assigns, and inures to the benefit of the City, its successors and assigns. 8. This Easement may be amended or released on whole or in part upon consent of the City. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has executed this instrument on the date first written above. [Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank] 169s77v2 3 GRANTOR: AMERICANA COMMUNITY BANK STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before . 2013, by , the Americana Community Bank, a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of Notary Public me this _ day of of corporation, Grantor. 16v977v2 4 GRANTEE: CITY OF CHANHASSEN By: Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor M STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) Todd Gerhardt, City Manager The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2013, by Thomas A. Furlong and by Todd Gerhardt, respectively the Mayor and ity CManager of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Telephone: (651)452-5000 AMP 169977v2 PARCEL A Conservation Area That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116, Range 23 and the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest comer of said Section 10; thence on as assumed bearing of North l degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West along the West line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1023.08 feet, to a point on said west line distant 1668.88 feet south of the west quarter comer of said Section 10; thence South 79 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 177.77 feet; thence South 86 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 100.40 feet; thence South 78 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 194.14 feet; thence South 74 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 150.00 feet; thence South 47 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 75.43 feet; thence North 82 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds East, a distance of 74.98 feet; thence South 58 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 84.58 feet; thence South 89 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 163.25 feet; thence South 18 degrees 17 minutes 40 seconds West, a distance of 820.19 feet to the northerly right of way line of Trunk Highway 5; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 33.08 feet; thence South 56 degrees 40 minutes 55 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 158.95 feet; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 518.22 feet to the west line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23; thence North 1 degree 37 minutes 50 seconds West along said west line of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 9.12 feet to the point of beginning. Which lies northwesterly of that particular northwesterly right-of-way line of Parcel 216, as shown on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-08, recorded as Document No. 265755 and as amended on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-14, recorded as Document No. 279658, described as follows: Commencing at the southwest comer of said Section 10; thence on an assumed bearing of North I degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West, along the west line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 10, a distance of 401.19 feet, to a particular right-of-way line of said Parcel 216 and the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 47 degrees 18 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 175.14 feet, to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 47 degrees 18 minutes 19 seconds East a distance of 22.71 feet, to a point of curvature in said right- of-way line; thence easterly a distance of 662.60 feet, along a non -tangential curve concave to the south having a radius of 633.04 feet and a central angle of 59 degrees 58 minutes 14 seconds and having a chord of 632.76 feet which bears North 77 degrees 17 minutes 27 seconds East to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 56 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds East, not tangent to said curve a distance of 114.28 feet, to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 22 degrees 13 minutes 10 seconds East, along said right-of-way line, a distance of 116.13 feet and said line there terminating. Doc. #I69929v.I RNK: 4/22/20I3 CITY OF CHANHASSEN PROPOSED MOTION: PC DATE: April 16, 2013 [4] CC DATE: April 22, 2013 REVIEW DEADLINE: May 14, 2013 CASE #: 2013-07 BY: KA "The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approves Rezoning approximately 14 acres from Agricultural Estate (A-2) to Planned Unit Development -Residential (PUD-R); Site Plan Review with Variances for a 155-unit Apartment Building; and a Land Use Map Amendment from Residential -Low Density and Office, to Residential -Low and High Density and Office and Residential -High Density Planned Unit Development (PUD), on property located at the northwest comer of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard — Chanhassen Apartments; and Adoption of the Attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation." PROPOSAL: 1. Rezoning of approximately 14 acres from Agricultural Estate (A-2) to Planned Unit 0k/ Development -Residential (PUD-R); 2. Site Plan Review for a 155-unit Apartment Building; with 3. Variances to reduce interior parking by one stall; and 4. Land Use Map Amendment from Residential -Low Density and Office, to Residential -Low and High Density and Office and Residential -High Density Planned Unit Development (PUD) on property located at the northwest comer of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard — Chanhassen Apartments. LOCATION: Northwest comer of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard (7750 Galpin Boulevard). PID 25-0101800 & PID 25-0101810 APPLICANT: Oppidan, Inc. 5125 CR 101, Suite 100 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Paul Tucci 952-294-1234 paulna oppidan.com ZONING: A2 Agricultural Estate District Americana Community Bank 600 Market Street, Suite 100 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Jim Swiontek 952-937-9596 jims@.mericanfinancial.com 2030 LAND USE PLAN: Office on the southern parcel; Residential Low Density (1.24 unitstacre) on the northern parcel. ACREAGE: Approximately 14 acres LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION MAKING: The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving or denying a rezoning because the City is acting in its legislative or policy -making capacity. A PUD must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 2 of 30 The City's discretion in approving or denying a site plan is limited to whether or not the proposed project complies with Zoning Ordinance requirements. If it meets these standards, the City must then approve the site plan. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a 155-unit apartment building. Additionally, the applicant is proposing the transfer of the development from the northern parcel to the southern parcel with the northern parcel then becoming permanent open space. The site is currently zoned Agricultural Estate (A2). With the adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan in 2008, the City Council guided the southern parcel to office. The request for a Planned Unit Development plan allows the applicant to seek relief from the standards of the conventional zoning districts by creating a unique zoning district rather than asking for variances. Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the city has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more -sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the other, more standard zoning districts. It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be realized as evaluated against nine criteria. BACKGROUND In December of 2012 the City Council made the following comments on the Concept PUD for the Chanhassen Apartments: • number of units was too high • need to address traffic and pedestrian safety • environmental protection • density transfer The applicant has made the following changes to the Site Plan: • The number of units has been reduced by 69 to a new proposed total of 155 units (a reduction of 31%). Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 3 of 30 • The building has been relocated farther to the northeast portion of the lot and is approximately 400 feet from the nearest home at Vasserman Ridge and 600 feet from the nearest home on the northeast side of the site. • The site has been modified to include only one access point. The access point was moved farther west in an attempt to allow for additional stacking at the intersection if required in the future. The internal circulation still allows for garage entrances on both ends of the building. • The building elevation has remained similar to the elevation presented at the Concept Stage. • The main material of the building is a cement board siding. The accents include glass, CMU, brick and stone. The upper level units are designed to incorporate balconies for the units with atypical rail and maintenance -free materials for the flooring. • The building remains designed with a three-story footprint and a gabled roof. The midpoint of the gabled roof is at 37' 7" (approximately) with the peak areas at approximately 46 feet. They have made a request for the PUD Design Standards permitting this building height. The 2008 Comprehensive Plan update changed the land use guiding the southern eight acres of property to Office. In May of 2006, the Chanhassen City Council approved the concept planned unit development for a10-unit twinhome development on the north side of West 78th Street, and a two-story office building development including a bank with drive-thru facilities with approximately 66,000 square feet of floor area on the south side of West 78m Street. On October 13, 2003, the Chanhassen City Council approved the Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) review for development of a recreational center or office on the eight (8) acres south of West 78a' Street. The land north of West 78a' Street, which was proposed for townhouse development, was not approved as part of the concept planned unit development. In 2000 and 2001, West 78s' Street was constructed through the property, bisecting it into six and eight -acre parcels. Additionally, the city extended sanitary sewer for the BC-7 and BC - sanitary sewer subdistricts across the northern portion of the property. Q�� APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Chapter 20: Article II, Division 3, Variances Article II, Division 6, Site Plan Review Article VI, Wetland Protection Article VIII, Planned Unit Development District, Article XXIII, Division 9, Design Standards for Multifamily Developments Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 4 of 30 EXISTING CONDITIONS The subject site is located adjacent to Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard. There are two parcels: the northern parcel is six acres and the southern parcel is eight acres. Bluff Creek runs along the northern property line of the six -acre parcel and a portion of this parcel is in the Bluff Creek Overlay District. Access is gained via West 78t' Street. The property to the east is zoned PUD and guided commercial and includes a gas station and pharmacy. The property to the north is guided Residential Low Density. It includes a farm and could be subdivided or developed in the future. The property to the west is zoned R4 Mixed Low Density Residential District including twin and single-family homes. South of the site across Highway 5 is Autumn Ridge, a townhouse development. Bluff Creek Elementary School is southeast of the site across Highway 5. The project proposes 155 units including 104 one -bedroom and 51 two -bedroom units. Building materials are cement board and brick. The building is three stories with underground parking. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The city has a lot of discretion in amending the comprehensive plan. The site currently has a low -density residential as well as office designation. The intent of the office/institutional district is to provide for public or quasi -public non-profit uses and professional businesses and administrative offices. The following elements of the comprehensive plan discuss land use policies that should be evaluated in changing the land use. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 5 of 30 Chapter 2 Land Use Element 2.5.4 Residential High Density The high density category i cludes units with a density ran ep�of g_l� r;nits per acre accommodating apartments on ommium units. Within this category, an average density of 10 units per acre is used for land use projections. The zoning options in the high density land uses include R-8 (Mixed Medium Density), R-12 and R-16 nsity Residential), and PUD-R (Planned United Development -Residential . density is ated on major transportation corridors that include transit, commie and employment centers. Density Calculation Gross Acres Net Acres Units/Acre Permitted No of Units Proposed No. of Units Parcel A 6.097 3.334 1 .�.(� q• 53 ' 32 3 Parcel B 7.868 7.713 I6 123 123 Total 14 it 176 (-1 Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 6 of 30 2. /0 Qfce Land Use The amount of Office Land use has increased since the last comprehensive plan was completed. In addition, the City has identified other property for this land use. In the 2020 Comprehensive Plan, less than 1 % of the City was guided Office. This has increased to 2.3% in the 2030 plan. With the increase in the number of dwelling units, the City has seen an increase in the number of "office" uses including medical uses and corporate headquarters. The City has given a dual land use designation for the 160 acres at the southeast comer of Powers and Lyman Boulevards. Should a lifestyle center not be feasible, then an office development or corporate headquarters site would be appropriate. The zoning district for the land is OI (Office Institutional District) or Planned Unit Development. Chapter 4 Housing Element In March of 2007, Maxfield Research Inc. completed a Comprehensive Housing Needs Assessment for Carver County Community Development agency for the years 2005-2015 and 2015-2030. A significant portion of the data comes from this study as well as from the U.S. Census, Metropolitan Council and the City of Chanhassen. 4.2 Housing Element Communities in eastern Carver County will see a greater percentage of seniors, young adults, and older adults. These increases will be due to the aging of the existing population, young adults and adults seeking rental housing near employment centers, and older adults with greater means purchasing more expensive housing. Chapter 7 Transportation 7.6.5 Major Collectors Major collectors are designed to serve shorter trips that occur entirely within the city and to provide access from neighbor hoods to the arterial system. These roads supplement the arterial system in the sense that they emphasize mobility over land access, but they are expected, because of their locations, to carry less traffic than arterial roads. The following roadways are classified as Major Collectors in Chanhassen: West 78th Street: This east/west route connects TH 41 to TH 101. It parallels TH 5 and provides local access to the properties adjacent to TH 5. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 7 of 30 Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 4.6 Housing Goals and Policies Goals: Provide housing opportunities for all residents, consistent with the identified community goals: • A variety of housing types for all people in all stages of the life cycle. • A community of well -maintained housing and neighborhoods, including ownership and rental housing. • Housing development that respects the natural environment of the community while striving to accommodate the need for a variety of housing types and costs. • The availability of a full range of services and facilities for its residents, and the improvement of access to a linkage between housing and employment. • Housing development methods such as PUD's, cluster development, and innovative site plans and building types should be encouraged to help conserve energy and resources for housing. • While density is given by a range in the comprehensive plan, the City shall encourage development at the upper end of the density range. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 8 of 30 SITE PLAN REVIEW B_. .... B' The structure is proposed to be located on the northwest comer of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard. The building has a pronounced entrance, utilizes durable exterior materials, and exhibits articulation. The building maintains all required setbacks. LIGHTING/SIGNAGE Lighting The applicant prepared a lighting plan and includes photometrics. The plan meets city ordinance which requires that light levels for site lighting shall be no more than one-half foot candle at the project perimeter property line. The applicant has not submitted a light fixture design. City ordinances require that light be cut off at a 90-degree angle. The plan is consistent with the city code requiring all fixtures be shielded. Decorative fixtures a maximum of 25 feet tall shall be required. Signage One monument sign is proposed to be located along West 78'h Street. The sign shall be limited in size to 24 square feet, maximum of 5 feet high, set back a minimum of 10 feet from the Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 9 of 30 property line, and outside of sight lines. The sign must comply with the sign ordinance. The letters shall be backlit and use individual dimension letters at least one-half inch deep. The sign materials shall be compatible with the building. The applicant must apply for a sign permit. Parkins ---------- -- — The ordinance requires one covered parking space for each unit resulting in 155 spaces in the parking garage; however, only 154 are provided. A parking variance is required for a one -stall reduction in covered parking. An additional 110 surface spaces are required and provided. The site can accommodate an additional 39 surface parking spaces, which are shown in the proof of parking - VARIANCE / VARIANCE _-- Sec. 20-58. - General conditions for granting. A variance may be granted if all of the following criteria are met: (1) Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The project could meet the parking standards by incorporating compact parking. This project does meet the city's requirements for the use of compact parking; however, staff believes the use of standard parking stalls is preferred. (2) When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: Because the recycling and the trash facilities for this project are located in the garage level, they are one stall short one of the required parking standard. The project is enhanced by having the trash and recycling incorporated in the building. (3) That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The developer could meet the standard, but would give up desired site enhancements. (4) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The reason for the request is to permit the trash and recycling inside the building. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 10 of 30 (5) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding. Because there will be outdoor surface parking it should not alter the character of the area. (6) Variances shall be granted for earth -sheltered construction> as defined in M.S. § 216C.06, subd. 14, when in harmony with this chapter. Finding. Not applicable. ARCHITECTURAL COMPLIANCE Design Standards for Multifamily Developments Article XXIII See. 20-1088. - Architectural style. (1) Architectural style shall not be restricted. Evaluation of the appearance of a project shall be based on the quality of its design and in relationship to its surroundings, guided by the provisions of this section. Site characteristics to be evaluated for this purpose include building and landscaping, colors, textures, shapes, massing of rhythms of building components and detail, height of roof line, setback and orientation. Designs that are incompatible with their surroundings or intentionally bizarre or exotic are not acceptable. (2) Monotony of design, both within projects and between adjacent projects and its surroundings, is prohibited. Variation in detail, form, and siting shall provide visual interest. Site characteristics that may be used for this purpose include building and landscaping, colors, textures, shapes, massing of rhythms of building components and detail, height of roof line, setback and orientation. (3) All building shall have a minimum of 20 percent of accent material. Accent material may include brick, stone cut face block or shakes. The use of any EFIS shall not be on the first story of any building or one story in height. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 11 of 30 Sec. 20-1089. - Land use. All development shall create a unified design of internal order that provides desirable environments for site uses, visitors and the community. The following design elements shall be incorporated into a project: (1) The project shall create a unique neighborhood identity. (2) Creation of interconnecting neighborhoods in collaboration with adjoining landowners (street, walkways, preservation of natural features, parks and gathering places). (3) Each neighborhood has a focal point or gathering place including parks, greens, squares, entrance monuments, historic structures (silos/barns) or public furniture (gazebos, benches, pergolas). (4) Recreation facilities (playgrounds, tot lots, swimming pools and gardens). (5) Diversity of product type and design to accommodate different age groups and individuals in different socio-economic circumstances. (6) Broad variety of housing choices —twin homes, row houses, town homes, flats above garages, apartments over shops, garden apartments, senior living opportunities and condominiums. Sec. 20-1090. - Curb appeal. To encourage roadway image or curb appeal projects shall create a variety of building orientation along the roadways; attractive streetscape and architectural detail. All projects shall incorporate two or more of the following design elements: (1) Orientation to the street or access road: (a) Setbacks (b) Spacing between buildings and view sheds. (2) Architectural detail/decorative features. (a) Windows. (b) Flower boxes. (c) Porches, balconies, private spaces. (d) Location and treatment of entryway. (e) Surface materials, finish and texture. (f) Roof pitch. (g) Building height and orientation. (3) Location of garages. (4) Landscaping including fencing and bemung. (5) Street lighting. (6) Screening of parking, especially in apartment and condominium developments. (7) Variations/differentiations in units including, but not limited to, color, material, articulation etc. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 12 of 30 Sec. 20-1091. - Transportation diversity. All developments shall be incorporate multi -modal transportation including two or more of the following elements: (1) Streets with trails incorporated. (2) Off road trials and bike paths. (3) Provisions for mass transit with bus stops and shelters incorporated into the developments. (4) Sidewalk connecting internal developments. (a) Undulating sidewalks. Use of pavers or stamped concrete. (b) On -street parking and use of roundabouts. (c) Landscaped boulevards or medians. Sec. 20-1092. - Integration of parks, open space, natural historic or cultural resources. (1) Integrate nature and wildlife with urban environment. (a) Trails and sidewalks. (b) Vistas. (c) Historic features. (d) Preservation of natural features that support wildlife and native plants (slopes, trees, wetlands). Architectural Compliance Findines The buildings are highly articulated and have a mixture of details in the use of materials and color. The buildings are connected to the neighboring properties through sidewalks. The internal orientation faces Bluff Creek and the preserved parcel to the north. The apartments have an indoor community room as well as a fitness center. There is an outdoor gazebo as well as an outdoor lav area Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 13 of 30 The building height permitted in the R-16 District is 35 feet, measured at the midpoint of the roof. The proposed building is 37.5 feet, measured at the midpoint of the roof. A flat roof could be utilized to meet ordinance. Staff believes a pitched roof has a more -residential character and enhances the architecture and recommend the PUD Ordinance permit a 38-foot building height. Streets and Traffic The site is located south of West 78th Street (a city collector street), west of Galpin Boulevard (a county road) and north of Trunk Highway 5 (a state highway). The existing street widths and right-of-way widths are adequate. Proposed access to the site is from West 78th Street, approximately 430 feet east of Vasserman Trail and approximately 550 feet west of Galpin Boulevard. The proposed access meets the minimum requirements. The sight distance at this location is acceptable. Staff recommends that the curb radius at the driveway access be increased to facilitate the turning movements of larger vehicles. At the public hearing for the concept plan, residents raised concerns about traffic impacts. The City's consultant has prepared a traffic study to identify potential impacts associated with the proposed development immediately after project build -out (2013) and in year 2033. The study findings are summarized below: Traffic Volume • It is estimated that the proposed 155-unit apartment building will generate an additional 1,031 trips per day. • The estimated increase in morning peak traffic is 16 vehicles in and 63 vehicles out. • The afternoon peak traffic is estimated to increase by 62 vehicles in and 34 vehicles out. • Delays are not expected on West 78th Street at Galpin Boulevard or at the apartment building intersection. • Delay at the Galpin Boulevard/Highway 5 intersection is forecasted to increase by 10 seconds but will remain within the acceptable range. • Turn lanes to/from the apartment building are not warranted. Galpin Boulevard/West 78th Street Intersection • Between 2010 and 2012 there were four, zero and two accidents, respectively. There were no injuries resulting from any of the accidents. Based on the accident history a four-way stop is not warranted. • The existing and projected traffic volumes do not warrant a four-way stop. • U-turn movements (northbound to southbound) on Galpin Boulevard at West 78th Street were analyzed. Improvements based on this turning movement are not warranted. Flashing yellow passive -permissive signals have been installed at various locations throughout the metro; this is a flashing yellow left turn arrow to allow left turn lanes to proceed with caution at specific times during the day. Staff will work with MnDOT and Carver County to have the existing signals at TH 5 and Galpin Boulevard modified to include the flashing yellow passive- Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 14 of 30 permissive. The developer shall submit $5,000 with the site plan agreement to cover half of the cost of the signal modification. The City s consultant will attend the public hearing to answer specific questions regarding the study. Utilities City water is available to the site. The developer proposes to extend an 8-inch private watermain from the existing 18-inch trunk watermain within West 78th Street. The location of the connection is such that West 78th Street between Galpin Boulevard and Vasserman Trail would be closed for approximately one day while the watermain connection is made. Appropriate signage must be installed 10 days prior to and for the duration of the work within West 78th Street. The developer must coordinate the street closure with the Engineering Department a minimum of 72 hours prior to the closure. A $10,000 escrow must be provided to ensure that West 78th Street is properly restored. Once the street has been restored to satisfactory condition, 50% of the escrow will be released, the remaining 50% will be released if the patch is in satisfactory condition after one freeze -thaw cycle. Minimum 18-inch vertical separation is required between the private watermain and the private storm sewer crossing. An 8-inch sanitary sewer is stubbed to the northeast comer of the site. The invert elevation of the sanitary sewer was not noted on the as -built utility plan. Based on the proposed grading plan the sanitary sewer stub should be deep enough to provide gravity service to the proposed building. In 2001 the property was assessed for the sanitary sewer and watermain laterals installed with City Project 97-6. This assessment has been paid. Based on the total amount assessed with City Project 97-6 and the cost to install the utilities, the lateral sanitary sewer and water connection charges are waived. City trunk sanitary sewer hookup fees (City SAC), City trunk watermain hookup fees (City WAC) and the Metropolitan Council Sanitary Access Charge (Met SAC) are due with the building permit at the rate in effect at that time and shall be based on the SAC unit determination per the Metropolitan Council. Wetlands Three wetlands were identified on the property identified from south to north as Basins 1 through 3. The boundaries were delineated by Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company on October 22, 2012 and the findings and application for review were submitted to the City on November 26, 2012. The City, as the LGU responsible for administration of the Wetland Conservation Act, noticed approval of the delineated boundaries on January 23, 2013 after modifications were made to the most southerly wetland basin. The delineation did not extend along the flood plain for Bluff Creek but this additional area was not pursued as there is no proposed development on the parcel north of West 78'" Street. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 15 of 30 Basin 2 and Basin 3 are considered one basin in the City's Wetland Protection Plan and is classified as a Manage 2 wetland. Basin 1 is not identified in the plan but, based upon the isolation from the corridor and the lack of a diverse plant community, it is anticipated that this basin would be a Manage 3. City staff, or should the applicant prefer, a consultant of their choosing, shall perform a MN Routine Assessment Methodology and verify the manage class. The applicant is not proposing any wetland impacts, either direct or indirect, in conjunction with this project. The drainage boundaries remain relatively unchanged and the stormwater will be treated prior to discharge into Basin 1. Basin I feeds into the more northerly wetlands before discharging into Bluff Creek. Shoreland Overlay District Bluff Creek flows along the northern property boundary. The majority of that portion north of West 78"' Street is within the shoreland overlay for Bluff Creek while that portion south of West 78* is predominantly outside of the shoreland overlay. The proposed development appears consistent with shoreland requirements. Bluff Creek Overlay District The Bluff Creek Watershed Natural resources Management Plan was completed by Chanhassen in 1996. This plan set forth a number of goals for the management of Bluff Creek. In summary, the intent Figure 2. Bluff Creek and the applicable overlays was to protect, restore and enhance the natural resources within the corridor to provide for a continuous greenway from the source to the confluence with the Minnesota River. This corridor would provide recreational, educational, and habitat opportunities for the community. It would also provide erosion, sediment and water quality benefits for Bluff Creek and the downstream receiving waters. Figure 1. Delineated Wetland Boundari� This overlay district is also an important tool for meeting the waste load allocation calculated as part of the Bluff Creek Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Plan. The method for meeting this goal was to create a primary zone, where no development was to occur, and a secondary zone to provide a buffer to the primary zone. While much of the parcel north of West 78th Street is encumbered by the Bluff Creek Overlay District, the entire area south of West 781s Street is unencumbered by the overlay district. Because of the need to balance the goals of the Bluff Creek Management Plan, the Bluff Creek TMDL and economic development, this site is an Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 16 of 30 excellent candidate for the transfer of density from the northern parcel to the southern parcel. It would be staffs recommendation that the northern parcel be dedicated to the city for the previously mentioned objectives. Grading and Erosion Control Bluff Creek is impaired as defined by the Federal Clean Water Act. There are two listed impairments: turbidity and fish indices of biological integrity. The turbidity standard for a water body of this type is 15 nephritic turbidity units (NTU). Any erosion and sediment control plan must consider this as it is designed. Further, as this site will disturb greater than one (1) acre, a "General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity Under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination" (NPDES construction permit) will be required and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be developed. This SWPPP must incorporate the required elements from Part III, Part IV and Appendix A of the NPDES construction permit. Because Bluff Creek is impaired, the SWPPP must incorporate the requirements listed in Appendix A, Part C of the permit. The applicant must provide a SWPPP to the city for review and comment. The SWPPP must be a stand-alone document and must include those elements listed in Part III. C. including: 1. Location and type of all temporary and permanent erosion prevention and sediment control BMPS. a. It must also discuss protocol for establishing additional or alternate BMPS as site conditions change. b. Standard plates and specifications for the BMPS used must be incorporated into the final plans and specs. c. Although no single drainage area exceeds five (5) acres, a temporary sediment pond should be constructed where the permanent pond is to be located. Upon completion of construction, this pond shall be dewatered and excavated to the original design conditions. An as -built survey shall be provided to the city for confirmation. d. This shall also include a description of any phasing of activities on -site including the installation of all BMPS and any intermediate BMPS. 2. Estimated quantities for erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs in the SWPPP. This should also include seed quantities and any materials for anticipated dewatering. Discharged water should never exceed 15 NTU. 3. The total area disturbed as well as the number of acres of impervious surface pre- and post - construction. 4. A site map showing the following: a. Existing and final grades; b. Drainage area boundaries and flow directions within the project limits. Additional areas may be needed to account for all drainage to the storm sewer system. c. Impervious surfaces and soil types. 5. Location of any areas to remain undisturbed. This should also show any methods used to prevent disturbance during construction. 6. Location of areas where construction will be phased, if any, to minimize the duration of exposed soil areas. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 17 of 30 7. Ail surface waters receiving drainage from the site within one (1) mile. a. This must identify Bluff Creek as an impaired water, indicate the pollutants identified in the TMDL and identify the area of the site which discharges to it. b. The SWPPP must include BMPs identified in the TMDL and any other implementation activities identified. 8. Methods to be used for final stabilization. The stormwater management plan must include a discussion of Part III. §B and §C of the NPDES Construction Permit. It must include a discussion of water quality volume requirements of the permit. In particular, 1-inch of the runoff from the new impervious surface created by this project must be treated and at least''/2 inch of the water quality volume must be infiltrated if site conditions allow. The permit is specific about when it is not necessary as volume is an identified stressor in the TMDL. As such, it is necessary to reduce volume discharging directly to Bluff Creek. Staff has reviewed the grading and erosion plan. Staff will reserve most comments specific to the erosion control plan until an updated plan is submitted with the SWPPP which incorporates the requirements of the NPDES Construction Permit. Until then, the following items shall be incorporated into the existing plan. 1. The swale draining into the proposed pond shall be stabilized for its entirety as it is less than 200 feet in length. 2. An appropriate perimeter BMP shall be shown and installed around the proposed outlet modification for the southern wetland. 3. Silt fence or another acceptable BMP shall be installed on the north end of the culvert under West 78m Street. 4. The EOF from the pond to the wetland shall be permanently stabilized. A turf reinforcement mat or other acceptable practice should be used. LandseaninE Minimum requirements for landscaping include 4,396 square feet of landscaped area around the parking lot, 9 landscape islands or peninsulas, 17 trees for the parking lot, and bufferyard plantings along the property lines. The applicant's proposed as compared to the requirements for landscape area and parking lot trees is shown in the following table. Required Proposed Vehicular use Ica area 4,396 square feet 8,414 square feet Trees/ king lot 17 trees 20 trees Islands or peninsulastparking lot 9 islands/peninsulas 9 islandstpeninsulas Applicant meets minimum requirements for trees and landscaping in the parking lot area. Bufferyard requirements: Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 18 of 30 Required plantings Proposed plantings Bufferyard B — south prop. Line, 420' 8 Overstory trees 31 Overstory trees 16 Understory trees 11 Understory trees 24 Shrubs 24 Shrubs Bufferyard B — east prop. Line, 420' 8 Overstory trees 19 Overstory trees 16 Understory trees 7 Understory trees 24 Shrubs 24 Shrubs Bufferyard B — north prop. Line, 620'F24 Overstory trees 14 Overstory trees Understory trees 24 Understory trees Shrubs 1 Shrubs The applicant meets minimum requirements for buffer plantings. All existing trees proposed to be saved must be protected with fencing during construction or replaced after construction. The applicant is proposing to save parts of an established tree line along Highway 5 and Galpin MIM.M he city supports this proposal, but also wants to note that the majority of trees are species that is under threat from an invasive pest These trees are vulnerable to ected and subsequently dying if not chemically protected indefinitely. Before it approval for the project the applicant will need to detemrine futuremanagement If preserved, the applicant will be required to treat or, if infested, remove and ees. If the applicant decides to remove and replace the trees at this time, a revised n will be required. PARK AND RECREATION Parks There are multiple existing parks in the area: Sugarbush Park and Lake Ann Park are situated north of Highway 5, and The Chanhassen Recreation Center/Bluff Creek Elementary School and the Chanhassen Nature Preserve South of Highway 5. No additional parkland dedication is recommended as a condition of approval for this proposal but park fees still apply at the 50% rate (1/2 of $3,800 per unit or $1,900 per unit). Trails Sidewalk connections between the site and the intersection of West 78 h Street and Galpin Boulevard and the intersection of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard should be provided to facilitate pedestrian trips between the apartment and adjoining trails and commercial areas. SITE PLAN FINDINGS In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the City shall consider the development's compliance with the following: Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 19 of 30 (1) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; (2) Consistency with this division; (3) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing areas; (4) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; (5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping; c. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. (6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light. and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. Finding: The proposed development is consistent with the City's design requirements, the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, the design standards, and the site plan review requirements. Staff is recommending approval of the request with conditions. The site design is compatible with the surrounding developments. It is functional and harmonious with the area. Staff regards the project as a reasonable use of the land. The overall design is sensitive to the City's image. Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending approval of the site plan with conditions outlined in the staff report. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 20 of 30 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT INTENT Sec. 20-501. Intent. Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the city has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the other, more standard zoning districts. It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be realized as evaluated against the following criteria. Planned unit developments are to encourage the following: Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. Analysis: The six acres to the north, which has a portion of the property in the Bluff Creek overlay district, will be protected with no development. In addition, the city will require donation or a conservation easement over the northern parcel to ensure preservation. 2. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels. Analysis: The developer proposes a transfer of development to the southern property creating a development that provides its own amenities while preserving the more -sensitive parcel. Development adjacent to Highway 5 could provide a buffer to the properties to the north. 3. High quality design and design compatibility with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. Analysis: The building will be of high -quality design and materials including cement board and brick as well as a landscaping and planting plan that provides a buffer and screening. 4. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city will be encouraged. Anal sis: The apartments will provide a transitional use between Highway 5 to the south, the commercial area to the east and the low -density residential to the west. 5. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis: Currently, a portion of the site is guided for Office. Aland use amendment to High Density Residential would be required to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 21 of 30 Municipal services are available to the site. The project furthers several goals and policies of the City's comprehensive plan including the land use and housing elements. 6. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city. Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and overall trail plan. Analysis: There are neighborhood and community parks as well as city trails adjacent to the subject site. The development proposes an exterior playground and gazebo area. The proposed development would preserve the Bluff Creek Corridor as permanent open space. Improving the creek by remeandering may be considered. 7. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD. Analysis: Not applicable with this application. This project will be market rate. 8. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and siting and the clustering of buildings and land uses. Analysis: The building adjacent to Highway 5 will provide noise and light attenuation to the neighboring residential low density lands to the north and northwest. 9. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate. Analysis: A traffic analysis was done comparing the current proposal with the Galpin Crossings proposal. The study found that the am and pm peak trips would be less, but there would bean increase in overall trips. A more -detailed traffic study would need to be completed to study the function of the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and West 78" Street. Sec. 20-502. - Allowed uses. Specific uses and performance standards for each PUD shall be delineated in a development plan. (1) Each PUD shall only be used for the use or uses for which the site is designated in the comprehensive plan. Specific uses and performance standards for each PUD shall be delineated in a PUD development plan. Findine: PUD design standards have been created that will control the development of the project. Sec. 20-503. - District size and location. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 22 of 30 Each PUD shall have a minimum area of five acres except the regional/lifestyle center commercial PUD, which must be a minimum of 30 acres, unless the applicant can demonstrate the existence of one of the following: (1) Unusual physical features of the property itself or of the surrounding neighborhood such that development as a PUD will conserve a physical or topographic feature of importance to the neighborhood or community. (2) The property is directly adjacent to or across a right-of-way from property which has been developed previously as a PUD or planned unit residential development and will be perceived as and will function as an extension of that previously approved development. (3) The property is located in a transitional area between different land use categories or on a collector, minor or principal arterial as defined in the comprehensive plan. Finding: The entire site is 14+ acres and is located in a transitional area between a commercial development (developed as a PUD), Highway 5, and low density development. Six acres of the site will be preserved as permanent open space. See. 20-504. - Coordination with other zoning regulations The development must comply with Article II, Division 6 of Chapter 20 addressing Site Plan Review as well as Articles V, VI and VII (Floodplain, Wetland and Shoreland District and the Bluff Creek Overlay District). Findine: The project will be required to meet these standards as described in the staff report. The development must receive a land use amendment, rezoning and site plan review approvals. Sec. 20-505. - Required general standards. Standards and purposes of the comprehensive land use plan to coordinate between the proposed development and the surrounding use. (a) The city shall consider the proposed PUD from the point of view of all standards and purposes of the comprehensive land use plan to coordinate between the proposed development and the surrounding use. The city shall consider the location of buildings, compatibility, parking areas and other features with response to the topography of the area and existing natural features; the efficiency, adequacy and safety of the proposed layout of streets; the adequacy and location of green areas; the adequacy, location and screening of non -compatible land uses and parking areas. Findine: The project meets elements of the city's comprehensive plan if amended including housing and transportation. The plans provide for preservation of the natural features and the building is efficient in its design location. (b) The applicant shall demonstrate that the PUD plan offers the city higher quality architectural and site design, landscaping, protection of wetlands, creeks and mature trees Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 23 of 30 and buffering for adjoining properties that represent improvements over normal ordinance standards. Finrrxd' P: With the application of density transfer, the natural features of the northern parcel will be preserved, and with some modifications, they could be enhanced The Bluff Creek Overlay District gives some recommendations for enhancement and management of the area. The development will meet the higher standards established for high density residential development by the city. (c) Density. An increase/transfer for density may be allowed at the sole discretion of the city utilizing the following factors: (1) Density within a PUD shall be calculated on net acreage located within the property lines of the site in accordance with the land use plan (2) The area where the density is transferred must be within the project area and owned by the proponent. (3) Density transfer in single-family detached area will be evaluated using the items listed in sections 20-506 or 20-508. Density transfer eligible for multiple -family areas are not permitted to be applied to single-family areas. (4) In no case shall the overall density of the development exceed the net density ranges identified in the comprehensive plan except as specified in policies supporting the city's affordable housing goals. Finding: The developer has calculated the net developable acres of the site and wetland acreage. The project proposes using the net developable acreage at 16 units an acre. The site could be 176 units; however, the developer is proposing 155. (d) The city may utilize incentives to encourage the construction of projects which are consistent with the city s housing goals. Incentives may include modification of density and other standards for developments providing low and moderate cost housing. Incentives may be approved by the city contingent upon the developer and the city entering into an agreement ensuring that the housing will be available to low and moderate income persons for a specific period of time. Findine: Not applicable with this request. The project will be market rate. (e) Hard surface coverage shall be limited as follows: Comprehensive Plan Designation Hard Surface Coverage (%) High density residential 50 Individual lots within PUD may exceed these standards as long as the average meets these standards. Findinr: The development has a hard surface coverage of 34% for Parcel Band 20% for the entire project. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 24 of 30 (f) Building and parking setbacks from public streets shall be determined by the city based on characteristics of the specific PUD. Parking lots and driving lanes shall be set back at least 20 feet from all exterior lot lines of a PUD. Where industrial uses abut developed platted or planned single-family lots outside the PUD, greater exterior building and parking setbacks, between 50 and 100 feet, shall be required in order to provide effective screening. The city council shall make a determination regarding the adequacy of screening proposed by the applicant. Screening may include the use of natural topography or earth berming, existing and proposed plantings and other features such as roadways and wetlands which provide separation of uses. PUD's must be developed in compliance with buffer yard requirements established by the comprehensive plan and chapter 20, article XXV, of the Chanhassen City Code. Findinr: The project exceeds the 50 foot perimeter building setback The apartments placed on the southeast corner of the site will provide a visual and sound barrier from Highway 5. The development will be held to these standards. MnDOT requires that all projects meet noise standards. This will be accomplished through design and construction. (g) More than one building may be placed on one platted or recorded lot in a PUD. Findine: The project proposes one apartment building on one parcel. The property will not be subdivided. Stormwater and park and trail fees are collected with a subdivision. Because there is no platting, the city is requesting payment of 50 percent of these fees in force at the time of building permit. Currently, stormwater fees are $116, 560.00 and park and trail fees are $294, 500.00 (h) At the time PUD approval is sought from the city, all property to be included within a PUD shall be under unified ownership or control or subject to such legal restrictions or covenants as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the approved master development plan and final site and building plan. After approval, parcels may be sold to other parties without restriction; however, all parcels will remain subject to the PUD development contract that will be recorded in each chain -of -title. Findinr: The project will be developed under singular ownership. (i) Signs shall be restricted to those which are permitted in the sign plan approved by the city and shall be regulated by permanent covenants or design standards established in the PUD development contract. Findinr: Signage will be consistent with the city's sign ordinance for residential development (Area identification/entrance signs. Only one monument sign may be erected at the entrance(s). Total sign area shall not exceed 24 square feet ofsign display area, nor be more than 5 feet high. More than one sign per entrance may be erected, provided that the total sign area does not exceed 24 square feet. Any such sign or monument shall be designed with low -maintenance, high -quality materials. The adjacent Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 25 of 30 property owner or a homeowners association shall be responsible for maintenance of the identifrcatfonlentrance sign and surrounding grounds and landscaped areas. Such sign shall be located so as not to conflict with traffic visibility or street maintenance operation, and shall be securely anchored to the ground.) (j) The requirements contained in Articles XXIII (Design Standards for Multifamily Buildings) and XXV (Landscaping and Tree Removal) of this chapter may be applied by the city as it deems appropriate. Finding: The project meets the city's design standards and landscaping, tree removal and buffering requirements. (k) The uniqueness of each PUD required that specifications and standards for streets, utilities, public facilities and subdivisions may be subject to modification from the city ordinances ordinarily governing them. The city council may therefore approve streets, utilities, public facilities and land subdivisions which are not in compliance with usual specifications or ordinance requirements if it finds that strict adherence to such standards or requirements is not required to meet the intent of this [article] or to protect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the PUD, the surrounding area or the city as a whole. Finding: The project will create public sidewalks. (1) No building or other permit shall be issued for any work on property included within a proposed or approved PUD, nor shall any work occur unless such work is in compliance with the proposed or approved PUD. Finding: A site plan permit will be executed and recorded to ensure the project is developed as proposed. (m) Buffer yards. (1) The city comprehensive plan establishes a requirement for buffer yards. ...in areas indicated on the plan where higher intensity uses interface with low density uses and shall comply with chapter 20, article XXV, of the Chanhassen City Code. (2) The buffer yard is not an additional setback requirement. The full obligation to provide the buffer yard shall be placed on the parcel containing the higher intensity use. (3) The buffer yard is intended to provide physical separation and screening for the higher intensity use. As such, they will be required to be provided with a combination of berming, landscaping and/or tree preservation to maximize the buffering potential. To the extent deemed feasible by the city, new plantings shall be designed to require the minimum of maintenance, however, such maintenance as may be required to maintain consistency with the approved plan, shall be the obligation of the property owner. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 26 of 30 F dine: The northern parcel is proposed for density transfer, thus maintaining the natural buffer by preserving this area as permanent open space. Buffer planting can be placed in the building setback area around the perimeter of the building as specified in city code_ Sec. 20-508. - Standards and guidelines for single-family attached or cluster -home PUDs. (a) Generally. Single-family attached, cluster, zero lot line, townhouses and similar type dwelling types may be allowed on sites designed for low, medium or high density residential uses by the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan. (b) Minimum lot sizes. There shall be no minimum lot size; however, in no case shall net density exceed guidelines established by the city comprehensive plan. (c) Setback standards/structures and parking: (1) PUD exterior: 50 feet. (2) Interior public right-of-way: 30 feet.' •The 30 foot front yard setback may be waived by the city council when it is demonstrated that environmental protection will be enhanced In these instances, a minimum front yard setback of 20 feet shall be maintained. (3) Other setbacks: Established by PUD agreement. Findine: With a land use amendment to high density residential and the rezoning of the property, the standard would be met. The perimeter setbacks have been modified to exceed the minimum 50 foot setback from propertyperimeter. The building is 81 feet from Highway 5 at the closest point. Along Galpin Boulevard the building setback is 60 to 65 feet On west 78th street the setback of the building is 58 feet. (d) Protection and preservation of natural features. The applicant must demonstrate that the flexibility provided by the PUD is used to protect and preserve natural features such as tree stands, wetlands, ponds and scenic views. These areas are to be permanently protected as public or private tracts or protected by permanently recorded easements. Findine: The northern six -acre parcel would be preserved with this PUD request. Without the application of a PUD and density transfer, the northern parcel could potentially provide development capacity. (e) Landscaping plan. An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall contain the following: (1) Boulevard plantings. Located in front yards shall require a mix of over -story trees and other plantings consistent with the site. Landscaped berms shall be provided to screen the site from major roadways, railroads and more intensive land uses. In place of mass grading for building pads and roads, stone or decorative blocks retaining walls shall be employed as required to preserve mature trees and the site's natural topography. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 27 of 30 (2) Exterior landscaping and double fronted lots. Landscaped berms shall be provided to buffer the site and lots from major roadways, railroads, and more intensive uses. Similar measures shall be provided for double -fronted lots. Where necessary to accommodate this landscaping, additional lot depth may be required. (3) Foundation and yard plantings. A minimum budget for foundation plants shall be established and approved by the city. As each parcel is developed in the PUD, the builder shall be required to install plant materials meeting or exceeding the required budget prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy or provide financial guarantees acceptable to the city. (4) Tree preservation. Tree preservation is a primary goal of the PUD. A detailed tree survey should be prepared during the design of the PUD and the plans should be developed to maximize tree preservation. Finding: The project meets the landscaping requirements. (f) Architectural standards. The applicant should demonstrate that the PUD will provide for a high level of architectural design and building materials. While this requirement is not intended to minimize design flexibility, a set of architectural standards should be prepared for city approval. The primary purpose of this section is to assure the city that high quality design will be employed and that home construction can take place without variances or impact to adjoining lots. The PUD agreement should include the following: (1) Standards for exterior architectural treatments. Findinr: The building meets the Design Standards for Multifamily Developments Article ,MlI. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the following three motions: A. LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT "The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve a Land Use Map Amendment from Residential -Low Density and Office, to Residential -Low and High Density and Office and Residential -High Density Planned Unit Development (PUD) subject to the following condition: Approval of the Land Use Amendment subject to the Metropolitan Council determination of consistency with system plan." Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 28 of 30 B. REZONING "The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve Rezoning of approximately 14 acres from Agricultural Estate (A-2) to Planned Unit Development -Residential (PUD-R) subject to the following condition and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation: I . Adoption of the Chanhassen PUD Ordinance, which shall be created to govern the site and design standards." C. SITE PLAN WITH VARIANCE "The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve a Site Plan for a 155-unit Apartment Building with a Variance for parking subject to the following conditions, and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation: Approval of the Land Use Amendment subject the Metropolitan Council determination of consistency with system plan. 2. Adoption of the Chanhassen PUD Ordinance, which shall be created to govern the site and design standards. 3. Execution of the Site Plan Permit. Payment of $294,500 park and trail fee and $116,50 water fee prior to the issuance of a building pe it. �p ! ' `D p J �'�_9� �T����u �( �}QV� i�' l'0���.i1vf +�l�(etirv'�� 5. Parcel A �s ovi or management consistent with the Bluff Creek Manageme the Bluff Ciek TM and the 2nd Generation Surface Water Management Plan. 6. The applicant and the City should work together to develop an appropriate mitigation scenario. Any portion of the wetland presumed to be impacted under an alternate development scenario, which would require the use of Parcel A and is subsequently transferred to Parcel B for density calculations, be mitigated for at a L I ratio. This mitigation should occur within the Bluff Creek Overlay District but does need to be in the form of wetland. The developer must calculate the net developable acres of the site and wetland acreage. 8. The wetland delineation report shall be finalized. 9. All existing trees proposed to be saved must be protected with fencing during construction or replaced after construction if damaged or dead. a��r �ar�L S Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 29 of 30 10. The selections of Colorado spruce must be replaced by a different evergreen species in the plant schedule. 11. Before final approval for the project, the applicant will need to determine future management plans for the existing ash trees. If preserved, the applicant will be required to chemically protect or, if infested, remove and replace the trees. If the applicant decides to remove and replace the trees at this time, a revised landscape plan will be ed. 12. Staff recommends that the curb radius at the driveway a es�n reared to facilitate the turning movements of larger vehicles. 13. Appropriate signage must be installed 10 days prior to and for the duration of the work within West 78th Street. 14. The developer must coordinate the closure of West 78th Street with the Engineering Department minimum 72 hours prior to the closure. 15. A $10,000 escrow must be provided to ensure that West 78th Street is properly restored. Once the street has been restored to satisfactory condition, 500/0 of the escrow will be released; the remaining 50% will be released if the patch is in satisfactory condition after one freeze -thaw cycle. 16. Minimum 18-inch vertical separation is required between the private watermain and the private storm sewer crossing. 17. The developer shall submit $5,000 with the site plan agreement to cover half of the cost of the signal modification at TH 5 and Galpin Boulevard to accommodate a flashing yellow passive -permissive signal. 18. The developer shall pay one-half the cost of the traffic study. 19. City trunk sanitary sewer hookup fees (City SAC), City trunk watermain hookup fees (City WAC) and the Met Council Sanitary Access Charge (Met SAC) are due with the building permit at the rate in effect at that time and shall be based on the SAC unit determination per the Met Council. 20. A "General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity Under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination" will be required for this project. Proof of permission from the PCA must be provided to the City before grading can commence. 21. A Surface Water Management Plan is required and shall be submitted to the City for review and comment. This plan shall incorporate the required elements of Parts III, IV and Appendix A of the NPDES permit. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 30 of 30 22. Both the Bluff Creek Total Maximum Daily Load Implementation Plan and the NPDES Permit require that a portion of the Water Quality Volume is infiltrated on -site. The Stormwater Management Study shall be modified to address this requirement and incorporated into the SWPPP. 23. Because the site discharges to an impaired water, the discharge rates for the one-year design event must also be equal to or less than the existing discharge rates. The Stormwater Management Study shall be modified to address this requirement and shall be incorporated into the SWPPP. 24. In order to protect Bluff Creek, meet the goals of the Bluff Creek Natural Resources Management Plan and the Bluff Creek TMDL Implementation Plan, staff is recommending that the portion of the property north of West 78m Street is dedicated to the City and that this density should be transferred to that portion south of West 78`b Street. 25. Sheet C-3 GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN shall be amended to include the following: a. The swale draining into the proposed pond shall be stabilized for its entirety as it is less than 200 feet in length. b. An appropriate perimeter BMP shall be shown and installed around the proposed outlet modification for the southern wetland. c. Silt fence or another acceptable BMP shall be installed on the north end of the culvert under West 78d' Street. d. The EOF from the pond to the wetland shall be permanently stabilized. This is addressed in the Drainage Report but is not included in the Grading and Erosion Plan. A turf reinforcement mat is an acceptable practice as is called out in the drainage report. 26. Minnesota Department of Transportation will need to review and approve the drainage plan 27. The applicant shall revise the plans to incorporate sidewalk connections to existing trails." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Recommendation. 2. Planned Unit Development Ordinance. 3. Development Review Application. 4. Reduced Copy Site Plan. 5. Traffic Study dated April 9, 2013. 6. Letter from MnDOT dated April 4, 2013. 7. Affidavit of Mailing. 9iplan\2013 planning caz V013-07 dmha wn apaMm [S\slaff mpon pc.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION Q� Application of Oppidan, Inc. to Rezone approximately 14 acres from Agricultural Estate (A-2) to Planned Unit Development -Residential (PUD-R); Site Plan Review with Variances for a 155- unit Apartment Building; and a Land Use Map Amendment from Residential -Low Density and Office, to Residential -Low and High Density and Office and Residential -High Density. On April 16, 2013, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Oppidan, Inc. to rezone approximately 14 acres from Agricultural Estate (A-2) to Planned Unit Development -Residential (PUD-R); Site Plan Review with Variances for a 155-unit Apartment Building; and a Land Use Map Amendment from Residential -Low Density and Office, to Residential -Low and High Density and Office and Residential -High Density. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed rezoning preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District, A-2. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential -Low Density and Office. 3. The legal description of the property is: That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 115, Range 23 and the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest caner of sold Section 10; thence on as assumed bearing of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West along the West line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1026.89 feet; thence South 79 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 177.77 feet; thence South 86 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 100.40 feet; thence South 78 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 194.14 feet; thence South 74 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 150.00 feet; thence South 47 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 75.43 feet; thence North 82 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds East, a distance of 74.98 feet; thence South 58 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 84.58 feet; thence South 89 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 164.63 feet; thence South 18 degrees 17 minutes 40 seconds West, a distance of 824.19 feet to the northerly right of way line of Trunk Highway 5; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 33.08 feet; thence South 56 degrees 40 minutes 55 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 158.95 feet; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 518.22 feet to the west line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15. Township 116. Range 23; thence North 1 degree 37 minutes 50 seconds West along said west line of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 9.12 feet to the point of beginning. This tract contains 18.1 acres of land, more or less, and is subject to right of way in existing county road and subject to any and all easements of record. 4. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are: a) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. b) The proposed use is or will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area c) The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. d) The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. e) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. f) Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. 5. Site Plan Review a) The proposed site plan is consistent with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; b) The proposed development is consistent with the site plan review requirements of city code; c) The proposed site plan preserves the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal, preserving as permanent open space the land north of 781h Street West and designing the site in keeping with the general appearance of the; d) The proposed site plan creates a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; e) The proposed site plan creates a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: 2 1) An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; 2) The amount and location of open space and landscaping; 3) Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and 4) Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. f) The proposed site plan protects adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. 6. Variance Findings — Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a) Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The granting of the variance is in keeping with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. The reduction of one internal parking stall due to locating trash and recycling inside provides enhanced site design. While the parking could be met through the use of compact parking stalls, the use of standard size stalls is preferred. b) When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: The practical difficulty with the parking standard is that while it could be provided, it would necessitate the use of exterior trash and recycling locations or require the use of compact parking stalls which are not preferred. c) That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The purpose of the variance is not based upon economic considerations, but is to permit the development to provide interior trash and recycling facilities. d) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The reason for the request is to permit the trash and recycling inside the building. e) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The reduction of one interior parking stall will not alter the essential character of the area. The site provides adequate surface parking to accommodate required site parking. f) Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. The planning report #2013-07 dated April 16, 2013, prepared by Kate Aanenson, et al, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the project. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 16a day of April, 2013. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION IM Its Chairman AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE, BY REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: Section 1. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code, the City's zoning ordinance, is hereby amended by rezoning all property within the Chanhassen Apartment Project. Section 2. The rezoning of this property incorporates the following development design standards: Development Standards a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD for the Chanhassen Apartments. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. Ancillary uses may be permitted as listed below once a primary use has occupied the site. Except as modified by the Chanhassen Apartments PUD ordinance, the development shall comply with the requirements of the RI District. b. Permitted Uses The permitted uses in this zone shall be residential and their ancillary uses. The type of uses to be provided on common areas shall be outdoor play area and outdoor patio. Parcel A Conservation Area Parcel B 155 Apartments, including surface parking C. Lot Requirements and Setbacks The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The following table displays those setbacks. Setback Standards Highway 5 50 feet (Perimeter) Lot Line 50 feet Collector Road, etc. 50 feet Perimeter Lot Line 50 feet Hard Surface Coverage 50 % over 14 acres Height 38 feet Parking setback for perimeter property line 25 feet Wetland and Buffer Setback Parcel B 31.5 feet e. Signage Signage shall comply with city standards for R12 Zoning District 20-1301(2) Agricultural and Residential Districts. f. Landscaping Landscaping shall comply with the landscaping plan prepared by Mark Kronbeck, ASLA, dated March 15, 2013. Section 3. The zoning map of the City of Chanhassen shall not be republished to show the aforesaid zoning, but the Clerk shall appropriately mark the zoning map on file in the Clerk's Office for the purpose of indicating the rezoning hereinabove provided for in this ordinance, and all of the notations, references, and other information shown thereon are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this ordinance. Section 4. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22 day of April, 2013, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on 2 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Name and Address: /'/'ir nnsnis �/' iNRJ $-5 3z/S Contact: pe„ / Tv«! Phone:96�-.4N-o355Fax: ysa �syois/ Email: aao Ira ano„�.�.�.-,o. NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required plans IX Comprehensive Plan Amendment (�xj- c V Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non -conforming Use Permit N�C. Planned Unit Development' '2nbm itfQ� f a�vld'I'SI`� • Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review 19 16 Site Plan Review (SPR)' DSO t0 ++ 4-10 ($IO Pfr I,000 54) 3 Icwtts = 14b,Sg9 Subdivision' Planning Case NO.,A61_3 , 0 7 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED MAR 15 2013 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Property Owner Name and Address: .4V" eZ1C A%,lt4 614w,r /a do /5'V1e riZT .S/. x..Ole /OO Contact: Tim 5l0"IL--,,< including review of development Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) (Additional recording fees may apply) Variance (VAR) r �_p O Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment 01L Notification Sign - $244- (City to install and remove) X Escrow for Fi4ng Fees ,lAtLorney Cost" ipp - $50 CUP/AC AR AP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB T TOTAL FEE $kf . aft - g� An additional fee of $�00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. 'Five (5) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/=" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 ('.tif) format. "Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. SCANNED sec r+oo coy tee �- C SSE - � �s (� V-e.ktn/ PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: .a5- as- TOTAL ACREAGE: IL},Z WETLANDS PRESENT: �_ YES NO PRESENT ZONING: REQUESTED ZONING: FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: Include number of existing employees: and new employees: This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Be Signature of Applicant �2P _ Cloy V f�t 8e Signature of Fee Owner Date Date eMlanNfnrmcldevernnmenl review aoolication.dm OPPI®AN Builderofm Cm,=rofvatva 5125 l OMY Roso 101 •4100 • Maa mwL-, MN 55345 • PHomL- 952/294-0353 • Eix: 952/294-0151 WEB: www.oppidan.com F C March 14, 2013 qTY RECEIVEDSSEN Kathryn Aanenson, AICP, Community Development Director MAR 1 5 2013 City of Chanhassen .. 7700 Market Boulevard'. - cHANHASSEN PLANNING DEFT - Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment, POD Site Plan Review Application New Apartment Development ... NWC Highway 5 & Galpin Blvd Chanhassen -MN, Dear Kate: This letter is designed to serve -as a narrative for proposed apartment development at Cmlpin Boulevard andHighway 5. The highlights of the plans are as follow: • Total site area is approximately 14 acres, with 6 acres lying north of West 78t6 Street and Acres lying south • There is approximately 1.7 acres of wetland on the northern portion of the lot and approximately .25 acres on the south side, leaving approximately 12 acres developable. • Current zoning allows for medium density residential on the north side and office/light industrial on the south side • A new, market rate apartment building, containing 155 total units. This is a density of 13 units per acre (approximate) well below the 16 units per acre maximum allowed for under the High Density Residential districts. • The target mix of unit is currently being finalized. The unit mix is 104 One Bedroom Units (ranging in size from 624 s.£ to 765 s.f.) and 51 Two Bedroom Units (ranging in size from 933 &f. to 1;132 s.£). • Parking meets City requirements, including one underground stall for each unit. • The building will be 3 levels plus an underground level for parking. • Each unit will have a full appliance package, including washer/dryer and microwave, and some units will be designed to have the potential for a fireplace. • The building exterior will be a materials. including brick/block, glass and cement board siding. • Balconies will be provided for the majority of the units. • There will be a Clubhouse with community room and exercise facilities. Also looking at the potential for a small business center for residents (may not need it with the proximity of Kinko's to the site). • An exterior patio and outdoor gathering area is planned on the southeast comer of the site. This will be appropriately fences and landscaped. • Outside sitting/park areas are provided and trail/walks will be provided to connect to the existing walkway system. SCANNED SITE PLAN: The sight plan has been:modified to address concerns heard bit the Concept Plan review stage for theproject. The most notablecomments were directed toward ;the number of limits and the proximity to the adjacent housing, especially the homes in the Vasseiman Ridge development. We have reduced the number of unit by 69 to a new proposed total of 155 units. This is a reduction of 31 % from the previous plan presented. Also, because of the reduction in number, the building could be located differently on the plan. The building is now pulled further to.the northeast portion of the lotand is approximately 400 feet from the nearest home at Vassemran Ridge and 600 feet to -the nearest home on northeast side of the site. Last, access to the site has been modified to include only one access point. That access point was moved further west in an attempt to allow for additional stacking at the intersection, if that were required in the future. The internal circulation still allows for garage entrances on both ends of the building. ELEVATION: The building elevation has remained similar to the elevation presented at the Concept Stage. The main element of the building is a cement board siding. The accents include glass, decorative CMU, brick and stone. The upper level units are designed to incorporate balconies for the units, with a typical rail and maintenance free materials for the flooring. The building remains designed with a three story footprint and a gabled roof. The midpoint of the gabled roof is at 37' 7" (approximately) with the peak areas at approximately 46 feet. We have made a request for a variance in height to allow the 46 foot dimension. LANDSCAPING & LIGHTING: The northern 6 acres of the sight will be covered with a Conservation Easement, infavorof the City of Chanhassen (or another type of document, as determined by the City) with the intent of preserving that acreage as open space and a buffer between thesingle family and multi -family developments. This is similar to the buffer maintained north of the CVS/Kwik-Trip site on the north side of West 78". On the south side of the site, the existing boulevard trees will be maintain except for the tree(s) required to be removed for the new access point. In addition, there are numerous new trees and shrubs being planted to provide additional screening/buffering to both the properties to the north and to the highway. Shrubs are planted in multiple locations at the building base to enhance the Iook of the building to guest and residents coming in to the public using the adjoining streets and pathways. SCANNED New lighting on the site is minimal_ We are proposing to add new parking lot lights within - the. development "Those lights will meet City of Chanhassen standards for lens screening and light levels within the site. GRADING & UTILITIES: Grading and utilities; will be similar to what was discussed at the Concept Plan stage. There is an additional storm water pond feature added to the southern lot, allowing for even more storm water control and quality. Utility "services currently exist either within the property boundary or in the Right -of -Way adjacent to the property. There are ample services to serve this development. TRAFFIC/PEDESTRIAN ACCESS: An initial traffic analysis was completed for the 224 unit development that showed the traffic levels would be similar of slightly less during a 24 hour period when compared to a previously approved concept plan for this site. With the reduction to 155 units, the new proposal will have far less traffic than the previous approved plan The developer has initiated a traffic study for the proposed development. Car counts and an analysis are complete. We have also worked with the City of Chanhassen Engineering Department to broaden the scope of that study to include other movements on Galpin Boulevard and the intersection at highway 5. This additional study is continuing at the time of this letter, but will be available prior to the Planning Commission meeting for review. As discussed,previously, West 786 Street is an arterial collector road and Galpin, is a county road, both designed to handle the traffic anticipated as development happens•. With the reduction in units, overall traffic from this project will be much less than that discussed at the Concept Review stage of this process. "Part of the additional study will focus on the intersection at Galpin and West 78'" Street and the U-Tums and other movements. Although the initial review did not " indicate a need for traffic control, the expanded traffic analysis will better identify current and future needs there. We have added a small park and play area within the property for children of the complex. Additionally, there are new sidewalks/paths that will be installed within the development and on the adjacent ROW to connect to the existing trail system of the City. There currently is a tunnel within the City's trail system allowing for pedestrians to cross under highway 5 without using an intersection and there is a metered intersection at Galpin and Highway 5 for pedestrians to use to cross to the Community Center, parks and get to the school on the south side of Highway 5. SCANNED f Overall we fell that we havelistened to the comments from"the neighbors, Planning Commission and City Council and have address issues brought forth while still allowing for a quality project to be. added to the City of Chanhassen. , "We look forward to working with the City on this matter. If you have any questions or need nrlditinnal inFiirmatinn nn thie &nhmitiat -nl + ep do not hreiTaTn to naall"me at to O) 99dt 9d4 SCANNED CHANHASSENAPARTMENTS COMP PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING & SITE PLAN REVIEW CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA N SHEETINDEX w rET HN. LMY IIE PLA C•1 B% , 'LA CONOTOHH P w 'LAN w MLMPANUHNOLION CONTROL PLAN w MLT PLAN w LIIINIIHI, PLAN A LANOLCAIL PLW A:Wk . 6WAO11. PLAN AI% OALAOLLHV;LA AIOId flYTPLD9lIAN AIOIS LWTPLWRPLAN 41W4 M ALPLM '"- AIN. IYPIGV. M100LIlAN A. 0.NATOM AMI N VATONL OWNER/DEVELOPER rAULTLm oeelow 11ULYXMTI ROAO IIII.N1161L0 p111YNBTONC.t LIN f1)If rXLfYtYL)A r%Lf>HLOIfI ARCHITECT eereNm.r.Alw Leeou COWmAY0Y1EC1H msuvuxv AVLNUE HI'.lAU4LW 111M re uu+wnl CIVIL ENGMUR cuxN c+csLuxo. re. ASLuxraawEmxa.wc ll)rARN'LMANA1O11 LVrtE Im NSINNuml.Lc uxswu lN.IYlsesmm rxnYnLxro LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT .A.. NLONHEIX. AIIA ALLIAMENOINE9LINOi WC. U)PABCAVENVE9OVlX. HVRP )M MWN9APMJA LM IH,! PX nIYl1A-MAn PXpIb1LL.1WV CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED MAR 15 2013 CHANHASSEN PUNNING DEPT «- V ;%V4 IOPPIDAN , !~ Qs��\ I §� \§ / 7 in mp ! =-Y A f 9 \U / / € !! !fiiii SEEE it{�i4 91 al99gi�ll � l!j s� I b � V\11 Ir f i s i psi � - y �P-m 91 .�M/m�9•r �..r•�.re 6 43 ,, a a Epp a rq 55 k 'ILI I 111i.j p �� i �fggqqyy f'f�1S± tl 1C€fg [$6; @ sI .. f 9 Pf ` iei a 7 YP tl i£yaq dpa i @ p 4i al � �5�g�y� � f�� §�� p7s3�,41 ��sf2s N i3$i ��134 ic� f49 ail Nb'ld'IOtlIN00 N050N3 ONN ONgtll10 3L5 RONd023tl'1N3a10N311R Ntlb AMO'J S3N3411Ltld1I ILiSN111VN7 { 1_ � l�'ia7 1 1 +'�' - � a a i 2 . � �_ 1 ag�g�9a„ap[ 0 o 44s � vll�s �6�l4 $tPP i€il� � 72 dQ = g 6 aria s � z0 N taag{g19�8i9�9t[3[l9!eey�y r , 1p��i�p 668A6 QZ � a n ma� ooz I �y§jiE Ma•a. N41d 3L54'JNINOZ3tldtl xxs4nrenul!`�IH131��P�E lI ..., I ... i i.. rrrrrrrrrr zxzzzxxxzx ss,sesssfs ___ o ggi'js�d ,I.iEf ��'`l�EN l�E+E�i�E'dIv�4I E E t dliE�ud ddE►li ;..ii� �Ei! >IdG100 .... ............ ...... .. .. YaY His i€ AIM 9 11,1111 IN T- w o- — W LL J � UJ — Q N a � a;1 <5 -- b I I 0 fill s oo 1a'U ll. uz "D :ZSIII [III m M , 4 BID I PN. w lit ■ r: 7 |if ! ! i R ] 1 m K ■ §I!," § r4 I(|■E`��r ■ no ❑❑ IGtnley Hom t• and Assoaates, Inc. Apri19,2013 Mr. Paul Oehme, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Chanhassen Apartments Traffic Impact Analysis 160511030 Dear Mr. Paul Oehme: soft2M zooU*M*A Wwart St Pad, 55114 Kimley-Horn and Associates was retained by the City of Chanhassen to perform a traffic analysis to assess the traffic impacts of a 155-unit apartment building. The site is located within the City of Chanhassen and would be located north of Arboretum Boulevard (TH 5), west of Galpin Boulevard (CR 117), and to the south of West 78th Street. Figure I illustrates the site location. It is anticipated that the proposed Chanhassen Apartments will open in 2013. This report has been prepared to evaluate Year 2013 traffic conditions and projected Year 2033 traffic conditions with the proposed Chanhassen Apartments. C.�.;1 4 The study area for this analysis includes the following roadways and intersections: Roadways: • Arboretum Boulevard (TH 5) • West 78th Street • RIRO (right -in, right -out) Access Road (east -west road south of W 78th Street) • Galpin Boulevard (CR 117) • Apartment Access Road Intersections: • Galpin Boulevard / Arboretum Boulevard • Galpin Boulevard / RIRO Access Road • Galpin Boulevard / West 78th Street • Apartment Access Road / W 78th Street P'=" Klmley-Horn \� and Associates. Ire Chanhassen Apartments TIA Mr. Paul Oehme. Arid 9, 2013 Arboretum Boulevard (TH 5), a MnDOT trunk highway, is a four -lane arterial that has an east -west orientation. This section of Arboretum Boulevard (TH 5) has speed limit of 55 miles per hour. West 78th Street, a city of Chanhassen street, is a two-lane collector with an east -west orientation. West78th Street rums parallel to the north -side of Arboretum Boulevard and has a speed limit of 30 miles per hour. Galpin Boulevard (CR 117), a Carver county road, is two-lane collector with a north -south orientation. The speed limit is 40 miles per hour. RIRO (right -in, right -out) Access Road is a two lane access road to the pharmacy and gas station. Vehicle travel speeds were assumed to be 15 miles per hour. Apartment Access Road is a proposed two-lane road providing access to and from the proposed project. The road would be located west of Galpin Boulevard and connect north to W 78th Street. Vehicle travel speeds were assumed to be 15 miles per hour. Existing Conditions and Traffic Galpin Boulevard & Arboretum Boulevard (TH 5) Galpin Boulevard & Arboretum Boulevard (TH 5) is a signalized intersection with following lane geometry: Galpin Boulevard • Northbound— One exclusive left turn lane, one through lane, and one shared through -right lane. • Southbound —One exclusive left faun lane, one through lane, and one shared through -right lane. Arboretum Boulevard (TH 5) • Eastbound — One exclusive left turn lane, two through lanes, and one channclized right turn lane. • Westbound— One exclusive left turn lane, two through lanes, and one channelized right turn lane. The existing left -turn phasing for northbound and southbound left -turning vehicles at TH 5 operate with protected/permissive left -turns. The current signal indications are 5-section signal heads that include a green -ball, green left -arrow, yellow ball, yellow left -arrow and red ball. There have been citizen concerns related to safety for northbound and southbound left -turning vehicles at this intersection. There has been research completed that shows that there can be driver confusion primarily when the green ball is displayed in the 5-section left -turn signal head. Not all drivers understand that they can proceed but need to yield to opposing thm traffic. Research documented in NCHRP 493 titled, Evaluation of Traffic Signal Displays for Protected/Permissive Left -Turn Control by the Transportation Research Board in 2003 studied a variety of alternative protccted/permissivc left -turn indication and operation methods. This study found that the Bashing yellow indication was well -understood and provides operational benefits. The flashing yellow indication is incorporated into a 4-section head with a red -arrow, yellow -arrow, flashing yellow -arrow and green ball. During the 2 CMn Manley -Ham M and Associates, Inc Chantessen Apartments TM AM. Paid 0ehme, Apd 9, 2013 permissive phase of left -turn operations the left -turn signal indication displays a yellow -flashing arrow rather than a green ball indication. This study showed that there were some situations where the flashing yellow indication appeared to operate safer than other forts of protected/permissive left -turn control. MnDOT is in the process of converting the protectcd/permissive left-tum indications at the 700 hundred signals they operate in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area to flashing -yellow arrow indications. MaDOT will only fund these improvements on the intersection approaches that serve MnDOT facilities. Conversion of these signal indications are recommended at the intersection of TH 5 and Galpin Boulevard as a part of this project given the increase in southbound left -turning vehicles at this intersection. Galpin Boulevard & RIROAccess Road The Galpin Boulevard and RIRO Access Road form a side -street stop controlled T-intersection. Galpin Boulevard runs uncontrolled in the north -south direction while RIRO Access Road is stop controlled and forms the westbound leg of the intersection. Galpin Boulevard • Northbound — One through lane and one shared through -right lane. • Southbound — One through lane. RIRO Access Road • Westbound — One right turn lane. Galpin Boulevard & W 78th Street The Galpin Boulevard & W 78th Street intersection is two-way stop controlled intersection. Galpin Boulevard runs free north and south while W. 78th Street is stop controlled. Galpin Boulevard • Northbound — Exclusive left -turn lane, one through lane, and a shared through -right lane. • Southbound — Exclusive left -turn lane and one shared through -right lane. W 78th Street • Eastbound — Exclusive left -turn lane and one shared through -right lane. • Westbound — Exclusive left -turn lane and one shared through -right lane. Apartment Access Road & W 781h Street This intersection does not yet exist. The intersection is anticipated to operate as a side -street stop controlled T-intersection, where the Apartment Access Road is stop -controlled and provides the northbound leg. The current and proposed lane geometry is listed below. Apartment Access Road • Northbound —One shared left -through -right lane [proposed/. 3 hwhassen Z^ KOmley-Horn C tm9,sTIA k�l�, 1 and As ates, 1n Mr. W. 78th Street • Eastbound —One through lane [current]. One shared through -right lane [proposed]. • Westbound —One through lane [current]. One shared through -left lane [proposed]. Existing site traffic was determined from traffic counts collected by Alliant Engineering, Inc. on Thursday, March 7, 2013. The existing roadway lane geometry is presented on Figure 2 and Year 2013 AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes are shown on Figure 3. TRIP GENERATION Trip generation for the proposed Chanhassen Apartment was based on the rates provided in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (91h Edition). Using the land use classification, "Apartment" (ITE land use code 220), peak AM and PM trip generation was calculated Based on 155 dwelling units, the proposed project was expected to generate 79 AM peak - hour trips (16 in, 63 out), % PM peak -hour trips (62 in, 34 out), and 1,031 total daily trips. Table I summarizes the estimated traffic generation for the proposed project. TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT The directional distribution and assignment of trips generated by the proposed project was assumed based on a review of existing traffic volumes and access to the site. The following is the projected inbound and outbound distributions: • 25% to/from Arboretum Boulevard (TH 5) west of Galpin Boulevard • 55% to/from Arboretum Boulevard (TH 5) east of Galpin Boulevard • 10% to/from Galpin Boulevard south of Arboretum Boulevard (TH 5) • 2.5% to/from Galpin Boulevard north of W 78th Street • 5% to/from W 78th Street west of the proposed Apartment Access Road • 2.5% to/from W 78th Street east of Galpin Boulevard Site traffic distribution is illustrated in Figure 4. Based on the project trip distribution, morning and afternoon project trips were assigned to the local roadway network and through the study intersections. Figure 5 shows the project's trip assignment at the study intersections. PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES Historic Traffic Growth According to the Carver County 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the study area is projected to experience minor increases in traffic by 2030. Using the 2013 count data and the 2030 AADT map of Carver County with base scenario improvements (which matches 2030 volumes in the City's Comprehensive Plan), annual compounding growth rates were calculated for links east of Galpin Boulevard (-0.73%), west of Galpin Boulevard (-1.06%), and along Galpin Boulevard (2.19%). C �11 Kimtey-Hom Chanhassen ApartmeW TlA ar0 �'1tes, Ina hit Paul0ehme Apri 9 2013 Total Traffic To obtain Year 2033 traffic volumes, the calculated annual growth rates were applied to the 2013 traffic counts. The following growth factors, based on 20 year compounded growth, were applied to the 2013 traffic counts to obtain 2033 traffic volumes: 0.81 for links west of Galpin Boulevard, 0.86 for links east of Galpin Boulevard, and 1.54 for volumes on Galpin Boulevard. Figure 6 illustrates the resulting Year 2033 traffic volumes. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS The purpose of the traffic analysis is to identify potential traffic impacts associated with the proposed apartment. Capacity analyses for the intersections within the study area were performed for morning and afternoon peak periods for Year 2013 and Year 2033 conditions. Figure 7 and Figure 8 present the traffic volumes with project trips for Year 2013 and Year 2033, respectively. Level of Service (LOS) Level of Service (LOS) analyses were performed using Synchro 8 and SitnTrafc software. Both programs utilize methodologies contained in the Highway Capacity Manual to determine the operating characteristics of a roadway network. Capacity is defined as the maximum number of vehicles that can pass over a particular road segment or through a particular intersection within a specified period under prevailing roadway, traffic, and control conditions. Level of Service is defined as a qualitative measure that describes operational conditions and motorist's perception within a traffic stream. The Highway Capacity Manual defines six levels of service, LOS A through LOS F, with LOS A representing free -flow conditions and LOS F representing roadway failure. LOS D is typically recognized by Mn/DOT and other agencies as the minimum threshold value for satisfactory level of service. The Highway Capacity Manual defines delay as "the additional travel time experienced by a driver, passenger, or pedestrian", whereas control delay is defined as "the component of delay that results when a control signal causes a lane group to reduce speed or stop; it is measured by comparison with the uncontrolled condition". Control delay is the principal service measure for evaluating LOS at signalized intersections and unsignalizcd intersections. Note that LOS for both signalized and unsignalized intersections are measured in seconds of delay per vehicle traveling through the intersection. Table 2 and Table 3 list the level of service thresholds for signalized and unsignalized intersections, respectively. Based on an average of five SimTrafc simulation runs, Table 4 and Table 5 shows the overall average intersection delay and associated LOS for the base and with Project conditions in Year 2013 and Year 2033. For the Year 2013 scenario, the proposed land use was not projected to cause any significant traffic impacts to the four study intersections based on average intersection delay. The signalized intersection at Galpin Boulevard & Arboretum Boulevard (TH 5) is projected to operate at LOS C for both baseline and with Project conditions. All non -signalized intersections were projected to operate at LOS A for both baseline and with Project conditions. 5 t: /" 0"-Horn Chanhassen Apartments TM a� ara wssocatM Yn nr. Pad Oehme, Aprh 9 2013 In the Year 2033 conditions, the proposed project was not projected to cause any significant traffic impacts at the study intersections. The Galpin Boulevard & Arboretum Boulevard (M 5) intersection was projected to operate at LOS D or better for both baseline and with Project conditions. The remaining intersections were projected to operate at LOS A for both baseline and with Project conditions. INTERSECTION CONTROL CONSIDERATIONS Alternative intersection control methods were reviewed due to anticipated traffic increases through the Galpin Boulevard & W 78th Street intersection. Warrants, crash history and operations are the primary factors that are reviewed to determine the recommended type of intersection control. These items are discussed further below: sally Crash data available from the Minnesota Crash Mapping Analysis Tool (MnCMAT) was reviewed to determine if there were a significant number of crashes that are susceptible to correction by changing intersection control (i.e. right-angle crashes). Crashes for the last three years, where a full year of data was available, were reviewed, and there were four, zero, and two crashes in 2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively that were susceptible to correction through a change in intersection control. All these crashes did not result any injuries. Because there were no more than five crashes susceptible to correction in a single year, there is no justification to change intersection control based on crash history. Warrants The multi -way stop warrant was reviewed to determine if an all -way stop was justified based on the anticipated increase in traffic volumes with and without the proposed project. To satisfy the multi - way stop warrants as documented in the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control (MnMUTCD) the vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches must exceed 300 vehicles per how and the combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the intersection form the minor street approaches must exceed 200 units per hours for the same eight hours. Table 7 summarizes the results. The minor street volumes do not exceed 200 units per how during any of the hours analyzed so a multi -way stop installation is not recommended. Operadons An alternative form of intersection control is a roundabout. To allow for comparison Synchro was used to analyze two-way stop control and RODEL was used to model a roundabout intersection. A conceptual layout of a roundabout is shown in Exhibit I and the traffic volumes used to complete the analysis are shown in Figure 9. The roundabout was tested for geometric sensitivity by running the analysis at an 85% confidence interval. This was done to see if significant changes in delay occurred, which could indicate that predicted operations are approaching capacity of the roundabout. The comparative analysis showing intersection and approach delays are reported in Table 8. The results show that under both two-way stop control and roundabout control the individual approaches and overall intersection LOS are all at LOS B or better under either type of intersection control whether or not the proposed project is constructed. CMn Kimsey -Horn and ASSOCuRm Inc. CONCLUSIONS Chanhassen Apartments TIA At. PaulOehme, Apr? 9 2013 No significant traffic impacts were found as a result of the proposed apartment building. Study intersections near the project site are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during Year 2013 and Year 2033 conditions. The addition of project traffic was not observed to impact intersection LOS; the intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS. As an alternative form of intersection control the feasibility of a roundabout was reviewed at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard & W 78ie Street. This was reviewed in part because there are several vehicles that enter from the gas station and pharmacy at the southeast comer of the intersection that turn north onto Galpin Boulevard from RIRO Access Road and complete a U-turn at the intersection with West 78th Street. These vehicles are not anticipated to experience or cause significant delays and a review of the turning -template for a passenger vehicle design vehicle shows that these vehicles can make a u-tum at the existing intersection. Given the cost of the roundabout improvements and that the intersection is anticipate to operate adequately under two-way stop control, a roundabout is not recommended. The existing left -turn phasing for northbound and southbound left -turning vehicles at TH 5 operate with protected/permissive left -turns. There have been citizen concerns related to safety for northbound and southbound left -turning vehicles at this intersection. There has been research completed that shows that there can be driver confusion primarily when the green ball is displayed in the 5-section left-tum signal head. Research has found that the flashing yellow indication is well - understood and provides operational benefits. This research also indicated that there were some situations where the flashing yellow indication appears to operate safer than other forms of protected/permissive left -cum control. Conversion of these signal indications are recommended at the intersection of TH 5 and Galpin Boulevard as a part of this project given the increase in southbound left -turning vehicles at this intersection. Sincerely, ICIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Brandon J. Bourdon, P.E. Project Engineer 7 �- Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan District Waters Edge Building a 1500 County Road B2 West Roseville, MN 55113 April 4, 2013 Ms. Kate Aanenson, AICP Community Development Director 7700 Market Blvd. PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RECEIVED APR 8 - 2013 CITY OF CHANHASSEN SUBJECT: Chanhassen Apartments Mn/DOT Review # S 12-052A Northwest Comer of TH 5 and CR 117 (Galpin Blvd.) Chanhassen, Carver County Control Section 1002 Dear Ms. Aanenson: Thank you for the opportunity to review the site plan for the proposed Chanhassen Apartments. Before any further development, please address the following issues: Noise: MnDOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities are responsible for taking all reasonable measures to prevent land use activities listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification (NAC) where the establishment of the land use would result in violations of established noise standards. Without any noise information provided, it is unclear if the City is in conformance with MN. Rule 7030.0030. MnDOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The project proposer should assess the noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any highway noise. If you have any questions regarding MnDOT's noise policy please contact Peter Wasko in our Design section at (651) 234- 7681. Right -of -Way: Please note that 78`s St. W. reverted to the City of Chanhassen under Release No. 1332 dated 11-01-05. Also, a portion of CR 117 (Galpin Blvd.) reverted to Carver Chanhassen Apartments Year 2033 Base Growth with Project PM Peak 3: Galpin Blvd & W 78th St Performance by movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT 3Bt1 Denied De1Neh (s) 0 1 0 0 0 0 4.1 0.2 03 00 0 0 0 0 3 7 0.3 04 Total DeWeh (s) 11.7 13.6 4.6 13.8 13.1 3.8 3.4 0.4 0.3 3.3 0.9 0.6 Vehicles Entered 16 28 51 31 44 6 200 337 22 45 212 16 Vehicles Exited 16 28 50 31 44 6 200 336 22 44 212 16 Hourly Exit Rate 16 28 50 31 44 6 200 336 22 44 212 16 Input Volume 18 31 46 35 48 5 198 344 22 48 211 17 % of Volume 90 90 108 89 91 120 101 98 101 91 100 93 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3: Galpin Blvd & W 78th St Performance by movement MovenNnl: Denied Del/Veh (a) 0.4 Total DeWeh (a) 3.0 Vehicles Entered 1008 Vehicles Exited 1005 Hourly Exit Rate 1005 Input Volume 1023 % of Volume 98 Denied Entry Before 0 4: Apartment Access Road & W 78th St Performance by movement NBR All Denied DeWeh (e) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0 1 0 0 Total DeWsh (a) 0.1 0.0 2.9 1.3 10.0 2.3 1.5 Vehicles Entered 56 4 62 198 1 36 357 Vehicles Exited 56 4 62 197 1 36 356 Hourly Exit Rate 56 4 62 197 1 36 356 Input Volume 61 3 59 204 2 32 361 % of Volume 92 133 106 96 50 112 99 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Network Performance Denied DelNeh (s) 0 6 Total DeWeh (a) 34.1 Vehicles Entered 3426 Vehicles Exited 3412 Hourly Exit Rate 3412 Input Volume 8860 % of Volume 39 Denied Entry Before 0 KHA SimTraf6c Report SimTraffic Performance Report Page 2 Chanhassen Apartments Year 2033 Base Growth with Project PM Peak 1: Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH-5) Performance by movement Moven EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR 881- SBT SBR Denied DelNeh (s) 3.0 0 2 3 0 22 0.3 2 2 3 4 0 3 0 2 0 0 00 0.0 Total DeWeh (a) 70.6 12.9 4.1 79A 16.4 4.9 150.9 885 659 57.4 65.9 40.9 Vehicles Entered 54 680 37 60 1181 54 167 170 107 102 157 97 Vehicles Exited 55 675 37 60 1171 54 163 171 106 105 158 97 Hourly Exit Rate 55 675 37 60 1171 54 163 171 106 105 158 97 Input Volume 57 668 36 59 1173 52 162 168 100 108 154 97 of Volume 97 101 103 102 100 104 101 102 106 97 103 100 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1: Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH-5) Performance by movement Denied DelNeh (s) 0.6 Total DeWeh (a) 36.8 Vehicles Entered 2866 Vehicles Exited 2852 Houdy Exit Rate 2852 Input Volume 2832 of Volume 101 Denied Entry Before 0 2: Galpin Blvd & Access Road Performance by movement Denied DeWeh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total DeWeh (s) 3.9 2.0 2.2 0.4 1.6 Vehicles Entered 69 430 115 357 971 Vehicles Exited 69 427 115 357 968 Hourly Exit Rate 69 427 115 357 968 Input Volume 74 431 110 358 974 % of Volume 93 99 104 100 99 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 KHA SimTmf6c Report SimTraffic Performance Report Page 1 Chanhassen Apartments Year 2033 Base Growth PM PEAK 3: Galpin Blvd & W 78th St Performance by movement MOM EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied DeWeh(a) 0.0 00 0.0 40 03 03 0.0 00 00 36 03 04 Total DeNeh (a) 10.1 12.3 4.8 11.8 107 3.4 2.9 04 0.4 3 7 0.7 0.5 Vehicles Entered 13 36 15 36 43 5 140 328 21 47 208 14 Vehicles Exited 13 35 15 36 43 5 140 327 22 47 209 14 Hourly Exit Rate 13 35 15 36 43 5 140 327 22 47 209 14 Input Volume 17 30 15 35 46 5 142 344 22 48 211 15 % of Volume 75 117 98 103 93 100 99 95 101 97 99 92 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3: Galpin Blvd & W 78th St Performance by movement MoratneM Denied DelNeh (s) 0.5 Total DeNeh (a) 2.7 Vehicles Entered 906 Vehicles Exited 906 Hourly Exit Rate 906 Input Volume 931 % of Volume 97 Denied Entry Before 0 Total Network Performance Denied DelNeh (a) 0.6 Total DeNeh (a) 30.3 Vehicles Entered 3307 Vehicles Exited 3302 Hourly Exit Rate 3302 Input Volume 8135 % of Volume 41 Denied Entry Before 0 KHA SimTraffic Report SimTraffic Performance Report Page 2 Chanhassen Apartments Year 2033 Base Growth PM PEAK 1: Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH-5) Performance by movement M'M`1qNS1111z, EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL, NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied DelNeh (s) 2 9 0 2 2 9 2.2 02 23 3.4 0 3 0 3 00 00 00 Total DelNeh (a) 73.6 12.5 4.4 75.8 15.4 5.3 112.6 74.2 49.6 59.7 66.5 44A Vehicles Entered 39 659 35 64 1201 16 171 163 99 84 149 90 Vehicles Exited 40 655 35 63 1191 16 169 161 98 85 149 90 Hourly Exit Rate 40 655 35 63 1191 16 169 161 98 85 149 90 Input Volume 41 668 36 59 1173 18 162 162 100 89 152 88 of Volume 97 98 97 107 102 90 104 100 98 96 98 103 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1: Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH-5) Performance by movement Denied DelNeh (s) 05 Total Del/Veh (s) 32.7 Vehicles Entered 2770 Vehicles Exited 2752 Hourly Exit Rate 2752 Input Volume 2747 of Volume 100 Denied Entry Before 0 2: Galpin Blvd & Access Road Performance by movement Denied DelNeh (a) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total DeNeh (a) 3.5 1.6 1.8 0.4 1.3 Vehicles Entered 67 374 106 322 869 Vehicles Exited 67 370 104 321 862 Hourly Exit Rate 67 370 104 321 862 Input Volume 74 375 110 327 886 % of Volume 91 99 94 98 97 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 KHA SimTraffic Report SimTraf6c Performance Report Page 1 Chanhassen Apartments Year 2033 Base Growth with Project AM Peak nt Access Road & W 78th St Performance by movement Movemerd EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR AN Denied DelNeh (s) 0 0 0 0 00 00 0.2 0 1 00 Total DeNeh (a) 0.1 0.0 2.7 0.8 4.5 2.4 1.1 Vehicles Entered 66 2 16 104 4 59 251 Vehicles Exited 66 2 15 104 4 59 250 Hourly Exit Rate 66 2 15 104 4 59 250 Input Volume 66 1 15 105 3 60 250 % of Volume 100 200 98 99 133 99 100 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Network Performance Denied DelNeh (s) 0 5 Total DeNeh (s) 38,8 Vehicles Entered 2791 Vehicles Exited 2788 Hourly Exit Rate 2788 Input Volume 8520 % of Volume 33 Denied Entry Before 0 KHA SimTraffic Report SimTraffic Performance Report Page 2 Chanhassen Apartments Year 2033 Base Growth with Project AM Peak 1: Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH-5) Performance by movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied DelNeh(a) 25 03 24 33 01 37 35 02 02 00 00 00 Total Del/Veh (a) 81.4 19.6 5.5 75.3 12.7 4.5 62.8 886 78.0 99.2 65.5 39.9 Vehicles Entered 25 1056 91 54 442 10 53 120 129 239 221 53 Vehicles Exited 26 1052 91 53 443 10 52 120 130 240 222 53 Hourly Exit Rate 26 1052 91 53 443 10 52 120 130 240 222 53 Input Volume 28 1068 90 59 449 11 52 113 133 245 225 47 %, of Volume 94 99 101 90 99 89 100 106 98 98 99 112 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1: Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH-5) Performance by movement iNOYlIIIw1C-"'T�F"" All Denied DelNeh (a) 0 4 Total DeWeh (s) 39.0 Vehicles Entered 2493 Vehicles Exited 2492 Hourly Exit Rate 2492 Input Volume 2520 %, of Volume 99 Denied Entry Before 0 2: Galpin Blvd & Access Road Performance by movement Denied DelNeh (a) 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.2 Total DeWeh (a) 2.8 1.9 1.9 2.9 2.6 Vehicles Entered 37 159 77 513 786 Vehicles Exited 38 159 77 513 787 Hourly Exit Rate 38 159 77 513 787 Input Volume 39 157 80 517 793 % of Volume 97 101 96 99 99 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 3: Galpin Blvd & W 78th St Performance by movement Denied DelNeh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total DeWeh (a) 11.7 12.0 8.6 11.5 10.4 4.1 0.3 0.3 2.1 1.2 0.5 3.2 Vehicles Entered 10 37 80 21 15 79 145 3 55 340 25 810 Vehicles; Exited 10 36 80 21 15 79 144 4 54 340 25 808 Hourly Exit Rate 10 36 80 21 15 79 144 4 54 340 25 808 Input Volume 11 38 78 25 14 82 142 3 59 338 23 813 % of Volume 89 95 102 85 105 96 101 133 92 101 110 99 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 KHA SimTraffic Report SimTraffic Performance Report Page 1 Chanhassen Apartments Total Network Performance Denied DelNeh (s) 0.5 Total DeWeh (a) 35.1 Vehicles Entered 2742 Vehicles Exited 2747 Hourly Exit Rate 2747 Input Volume 7964 of Volume 34 Denied Entry Before 0 Year 2033 Base Growth AM Peak KHA SimTraffic Report SimTraffic Performance Report Page 2 Chanhassen Apartments Year 2033 Base Growth AM Peak 1: Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH-5) Performance by movement movolow�' EBL EST EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied DelNeh (s) 2 2 02 2 6 3 3 0 1 4 3 3 7 0.2 0 2 00 0 0 00 Total DeWeh (s) 947 20.0 58 86.7 12A 3.9 59.2 91.2 77.5 72.3 61.2 308 Vehicles Entered 22 1082 82 59 443 1 53 105 133 215 219 28 Vehicles Exiled 22 1085 83 56 446 1 53 106 135 212 218 28 Hourly Exit Rate 22 1085 83 58 446 1 53 106 135 212 218 28 Input Volume 24 1068 90 59 449 2 52 111 133 210 220 31 of Volume 93 102 92 99 99 50 102 95 102 101 99 90 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 _ Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH-5) Performance by movement movema Denied DelNeh (a) 0 4 Total DeWeh (s) 35.8 Vehicles Entered 2442 Vehicles Exited 2447 Hourly Exit Rate 2447 Input Volume 2448 % of Volume 100 Denied Entry Before 0 2: Galpin Blvd & Access Road Perfomiance by movement Denied DeWeh (a) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Tafal DeWeh (s) 2.7 1.4 1.8 0.5 0.9 Vehicles Entered 41 137 80 463 721 Vehicles Exited 41 137 81 462 721 Hourly Exit Rate 41 137 81 462 721 Input Volume 39 143 80 460 722 % of Volume 105 96 101 100 100 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 3: Galpin Blvd & W 78th St Performance by movement Denied DelNeh (a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Total DeWeh (a) 11.3 10.4 4.7 10.2 9.7 3.1 0.4 0.3 2.2 0.4 0.1 2A Vehicles Entered 10 41 20 27 16 60 142 3 56 341 23 739 Vehicles Exited 10 41 20 27 15 60 142 3 56 341 22 737 Hourly Exit Rate 10 41 20 27 15 60 142 3 56 341 22 737 Input Volume 9 36 21 25 14 68 142 3 59 338 23 737 % of Volume 108 114 96 109 105 88 100 100 95 101 97 100 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 KHA SimTraffic Report SimTraffic Performance Report Page 1 -7 Chanhassen Apartments Year 2013 with Project PM Peak 3: Galpin Blvd & W 78th St Performance by movement Mrrrement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied DelNeh (s) 0 0 00 00 4 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0.0 00 3.9 02 02 Total DeWeh (a) 9.3 10.5 3.8 9.7 9.0 43 2.7 0.3 0.2 3.0 0.7 0.5 Vehicles Entered 19 38 48 41 55 7 150 220 12 33 134 11 Vehicles Exited 19 38 47 40 56 7 149 220 12 33 133 11 Hourly Exit Rate 19 38 47 40 56 7 149 220 12 33 133 11 Input Volume 22 38 49 40 55 6 148 224 14 31 137 12 % of Volume 87 99 95 100 102 112 101 98 84 106 97 90 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3: Galpin Blvd & W 78th St Performance by movement Denied DelNeh (e) 0 4 Total DeWeh (e) 3.1 Vehicles Entered 768 Vehicles Exited 765 Hourly Exit Rate 765 Input Volume 777 % of Volume 98 Denied Entry Before 0 4: Apartment Access Road & W 78th St Performance by movement WBT NEIL NM AM Denied DelNeh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.0 Total DeWeh (a) 0.2 0.0 2.9 1.4 6.2 2.5 1.5 Vehicles Entered 77 4 56 160 2 27 326 Vehicles Exited 77 4 56 159 2 27 325 Hourly Exit Rate 77 4 56 159 2 27 325 Input Volume 76 3 59 156 2 32 328 % of Volume 101 133 95 102 100 84 99 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Network Performance 0.6 Denied DelNeh (s) Total DeWeh (a) 24.3 Vehicles Entered 3353 Vehicles Exited 3355 Hourly Exit Rate 3355 Input Volume 8316 % of Volume 40 Denied Entry Before 0 KHA SimTraffic Report SimTraf6c Performance Report Page 2 Chanhassen Apartments Year 2013 with Project PM Peak 1: Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH-5) Performance bV movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied DelNeh (s) 2 7 0 2 26 2 2 0 3 20 3 6 0 2 0 1 00 0 0 00 Total DelNeh (s) 715 11.8 4.5 76.4 15.8 5.5 65.8 66.5 27.0 55A 64.0 35.5 Vehicles Entered 60 857 49 68 1357 51 100 107 60 69 101 66 Vehicles Exited 62 851 49 67 1345 52 103 108 60 71 103 68 Hourly Exit Rate 62 851 49 67 1345 52 103 108 60 71 103 68 Input Volume 67 826 44 68 1357 55 105 111 65 77 100 66 % of Volume 93 103 111 99 99 95 98 97 92 92 103 103 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1: Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH-51 Performance by movement Denied DelNeh (s) 0 5 Total DeWeh (s) 23.8 Vehicles Entered 2945 Vehicles Exited 2939 Hourly Exit Rate 2939 Input Volume 2942 % of Volume 100 Denied Entry Before 0 2: Galpin Blvd & Access Road Performance by movement Denied DelNeh (s) Total DeWeh (s) Vehicles Entered Vehicles Exited Hourly Exit Rate Input Volume % of Volume Denied Entry Before 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 3.4 2.1 1.8 0.4 1.7 86 297 74 237 694 86 294 74 237 691 86 294 74 237 691 86 299 71 243 699 100 98 104 98 99 KHA SimTmffic Report SimTraffic Performance Report Page 1 Chanhassen Apartments 3: Galpin Blvd & W 78th St Performance by movement Year 2013 PM Peak EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied DelNeh (s) H 0.0 C 0 3 9 0 2 0 1 0.0 00 00 4.1 0 2 0 2 Total DeVVeh (a) 7.1 9.0 3.9 8.1 8A 2.9 2.5 0.3 0.2 2.7 0.5 0.3 Vehicles Entered 21 33 16 37 56 6 89 220 14 28 134 10 Vehicles Exited 21 33 16 37 55 6 89 218 14 29 134 10 Hourly Exit Rate 21 33 16 37 55 6 89 218 14 29 134 10 Input Volume 21 37 18 40 53 6 92 224 14 31 137 10 of Volume 101 89 90 92 104 96 97 97 98 94 98 98 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3: Galpin Blvd & W 78th St Performance by movement Denied DelNeh (s) 0.5 Total DelNeh (s) 2.6 Vehicles Entered 664 Vehicles Exited 662 Hourly Exit Rate 662 Input Volume 683 % of Volume 97 Dened Entry Before 0 Total Network Performance Denied DelNeh (s) 0.5 Total DelNeh (s) 23.4 Vehicles Entered 3195 Vehicles Exited 3207 Hourly Exit Rate 3207 Input Volume 7615 % of Volume 42 Denied Entry Before 0 KHA SimTraffic Report SimTraffic Performance Report Page 2 Chanhassen Apartments Year 2013 PM Peak 1: Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd JH-51 Performance by movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied DelNeh (s) 2 8 0 2 26 2 2 0 3 1 9 3 7 02 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total DeWeh (a) 69.3 11.1 44 77.8 15.4 5.7 66.8 672 294 61 A 640 32.2 Vehicles Entered 50 811 46 62 1358 21 98 103 67 53 91 56 Vehicles Exited 51 811 47 60 1358 21 95 101 65 53 89 56 Hourly Exit Rate 51 811 47 60 1358 21 95 101 65 53 89 56 Input Volume 51 826 44 68 1357 21 105 105 65 58 98 57 % of Volume 100 98 106 88 100 101 90 96 100 92 91 99 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1: Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH-5) Performance by movement Denied DelNeh (s) 0.5 Total DeWeh (s) 23.1 Vehicles Entered 2816 Vehicles Exited 2807 Hourly Exit Rate 2807 Input Volume 2855 % of Volume 98 Denied Entry Before 0 2: Galpin Blvd & Access Road Performance by movement Denied DelNeh (a) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 Total DeWeh (a) 3.2 1.6 1.5 0.3 1.4 Vehicles Entered 84 240 72 201 597 Vehicles Exited 83 239 72 201 595 Hourly Exit Rate 83 239 72 201 595 Input Volume 86 243 71 212 612 of Volume 96 98 101 95 97 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 KHA SimTraffic Report SimTraffic Performance Report Page 1 Chanhassen Apartments Year 2013 with Project AM Peak Access Road & W 78th St Performance by movement BT EBR WBL W13T NBL NBR All Denied DelNeh (s) 0 0 C 0 0 0 00 0 1 0.1 00 Total DeWeh (s) 0.1 0.0 2.6 0.8 4.6 2.6 1.1 Vehicles Entered 76 1 11 72 3 53 216 Vehicles Exited 76 1 11 72 3 53 216 Hourly Exit Rate 76 1 11 72 3 53 216 Input volume 82 1 15 75 3 60 236 % of Volume 92 100 72 96 100 89 91 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Network Performance Denied DelNeh (s) 0.5 Total DeWeh (s) 29.5 Vehicles Entered 2810 Vehicles Exited 2810 Hourly Exit Rate 2810 Input Volume 7776 % of Volume 36 Denied Entry Before 0 KHA SimTraf6c Repot SimTraf6c Performance Report Page 2 Chanhassen Apartments Blvd & Arboretum Blvd -5) Performance by movement Year 2013 with Project AM Peak MovemettF -SBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied DeWeh (a) 22 03 24 32 01 28 38 02 02 00 0.0 00 Total DeWeh (s) 90.5 18.5 6.0 97.7 11.5 4.0 54.9 81.1 43.0 69A 63.8 29.0 Vehicles Entered 28 1322 97 77 542 11 30 65 85 174 132 31 Vehicles Exited 29 1321 98 79 543 12 29 65 85 174 133 32 Hourly Exit Rate 29 1321 98 79 543 12 29 65 85 174 133 32 Input Volume 34 1321 111 68 520 11 34 74 86 171 148 36 % of Volume 85 100 88 116 104 107 85 88 99 102 90 89 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1: Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH-5) Performance by movement Denied DelNeh (a) 0.5 Total DeWeh (s) 28.2 Vehicles Entered 2594 Vehicles Exited 2600 Hourly Exit Rate 2600 Input Volume 2615 % of Volume 99 Denied Entry BeMre 0 2: Galpin Blvd & Access Road Performance by movement Denied DelNeh (s) 0A 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Total DeWeh (a) 2.7 1.9 2.0 0.4 1.0 Vehicles Entered 44 95 52 338 529 Vehicles Exited 44 95 52 338 529 Hourly Exit Rate 44 95 52 338 529 Input Volume 45 107 52 355 559 % of Volume 97 89 100 95 95 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 3: Galpin Blvd & W 78th St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR AN Denied DelNeh (s) 0.0 00 00 4 1 0.2 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 00 02 Total Del/Veh (s) 7.6 8.6 4.3 7.5 7.3 3.0 0.2 0.1 1.8 0.3 0.1 24 Vehicles Entered 16 43 72 25 18 46 91 1 32 218 17 579 Vehicles Exited 16 42 72 26 18 47 91 1 32 217 17 579 Hourly Exit Rate 16 42 72 26 18 47 91 1 32 217 17 579 Input Volume 13 47 83 29 16 58 92 2 38 219 15 614 of Volume 121 89 86 90 111 81 98 50 84 99 111 94 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 KHA SimTrafBc Report SimTraffic Performance Report Page 1 Chanhassen Apartments Total Network Performance Year 2013 AM Peak Denied DelNeh (s) 0.5 Total DeWeh (s) 28.7 Vehicles Entered 2743 Vehicles Exited 2740 Hourly Exit Rate 2740 Input Volume 7232 of Volume 38 Denied Entry Before 0 KHA SimTraffic Report SimTraffic Performance Report Page 2 Chanhassen Apartments Year 2013 AM Peak 1: Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH-5) Performance by movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBFi NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied DeWeh (a) 2 5 03 22 3 2 0 1 3.0 3.7 0.2 0 2 00 0 0 00 Total DeWeh (a) 865 18.8 6.7 846 10.7 5.1 62.1 85.5 396 65.3 63.7 29.7 Vehicles Entered 31 1328 103 71 512 2 33 73 84 136 142 19 Vehicles Exited 30 1323 104 71 509 2 33 73 83 136 142 19 Hourly Exit Rate 30 1323 104 71 509 2 33 73 83 136 142 19 Input Volume 30 1321 111 68 520 2 34 72 86 136 142 20 of Volume 100 100 93 104 98 100 97 101 96 100 100 96 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1: Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH-5) Performance by movement Movement Denied DelNeh is) 0.5 Total DeUVeh (8) 27.5 Vehicles Entered 2534 Vehicles Exited 2525 Hourly Exit Rate 2525 Input Volume 2542 % of Volume 99 Denied Entry Before 0 2: Galpin Blvd & Access Road Performance by movement MovemaM WBR NBT NBR SBT All 1� Denied DelNeh (s) 0 1 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 Total DeWeh (s) 2.7 1.7 1.9 0.3 1.0 Vehicles Entered 50 90 51 297 488 Vehicles Exited 50 90 51 297 488 Houdy Exit Rate 50 90 51 297 488 Input Volume 45 93 52 298 488 % of Volume 110 97 99 100 100 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 3: Galpin Blvd & W 78th St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied DelNeh (a) 00 00 0.0 4.1 0.1 0.0 0 0 00 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 2 Total DeWeh (s) 6.1 8.3 3.8 7.3 7.6 2.8 0.3 0.3 1.6 0.3 0.0 2.1 Vehicles Entered 11 45 28 27 13 39 97 3 36 219 18 536 Vehicles Exited 10 46 28 26 13 38 97 3 36 219 18 534 Hourly Exit Rate 10 46 28 26 13 38 97 3 36 219 18 534 Input Volume 11 45 26 29 16 44 92 2 38 219 15 538 of Volume 89 102 109 90 80 86 106 150 95 100 118 99 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 KHA SimTraf6c Report SimTraf6c Performance Report Page 1 / / I R-1d5' / 1 \• I '\ / Existing R/W R-125`\ R-135' / R-125' Existing R/W ` — — Truck Apron \ Barrier Curb R-130' \ 14. R-115" R-130' Ag ` Existingi R/� \ R-12 R-135' — \ I / Mountable Curb \ R-125' A/11p Existing R/W 0 25 50 SCALE w FEET ROUNDABOUT MPROVEM NTS R%LTI"7►'ommom alum= EXHIBIT I TABLE A YEAR 2013 AND YEAR 2033 CONDITIONS UN.SIGNALIZED AND ROUNDABOUT LEVEL OF SERVICE SCUMARY Intersection 3: Gal in Boulevard & W 78th Street - Two -Way Stop Year 2013 EB WB NB SB Overall Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Existing AM 6.5 A 7.4 A 1.0 A 0.5 A 2.1 A with Project AM 6.1 A 7.4 A 1.1 A 0.5 A 2.4 A Existing PM 7.3 A 8.0 A 0.9 A 0.9 A 2.6 A with Project PM 7.3 A 9.0 A 1.2 A 1.1 A 3.1 A Intersection 3: Galpin Boulevard & W 78th Street - Roundabout Year 2013 EB WB NB SB Overall Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Existing AM 3.2 A 2.9 A 3.0 A 3.4 A 3.2 A with Project AM 3.4 A 2.9 A 3.1 A 3.4 A 3.3 A Existing PM 3.1 A 3.3 A 3.6 A 3.3 A 34 A with Protect PM 3.2 A 3.5 B 3.8 A 3.4 A 3.6 A Intersection 3: Galpin Boulevard & W 78th Street - Two -Way Stop Year 2033 EB WB NB SB Overall Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Existing AM 9.0 A 10.0 B 1.2 A 0.6 A 2.1 A with Project AM 9.8 A 11.0 B 1.6 A 1.3 A 3.2 A Existing PM 10.1 A 10.7 B 1.1 A 0.8 A 2.7 A with Project PM 8.5 A 12.7 B 1.5 A 1.3 A 3.0 A Intersection 3: Galpin Boulevard & W 78th Street - Roundabout Year 2033 EB WB NB SB Overall Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Existing AM 3.5 A 3.V8A 3.3 A 4.0 A 32 A with Project AM 3.7 A 3. 3.3 A 4.1 A 3.8 A Existing PM 3.3 A 3. 4 5 A 3.7 A 3A A with Project PM 34 A 3. 4.8 A TABLE 7 YEAR 2013 AND YEAR 2033 MULTI -WA YSTOP WARRANT EVALUATION SUMMARY YEAR 2013 YEAR 2033 MEETS WARRANT? MEETS WARRANT? WB EB' TOTAL SB Ill TOTAL MINOR MAJOR WB' EB TOTAL SB 2 NB TOTAL MINOR MAJOR' 06:00 21 48 69 94 46 140 NO NO 06:00 19 39 58 146 71 217 NO NO 07:00 33 75 108 274 105 379 NO YES 07:00 29 61 90 423 163 586 NO YES 08:00 56 59 115 171 99 270 NO NO 08:00 49 48 97 264 153 417 NO YES 09:00 38 54 92 133 124 257 NO NO 09:00 33 44 77 206 192 398 NO YES 10:00 37 46 83 74 100 174 NO NO 10:00 32 38 70 115 155 270 NO NO 11:00 36 62 98 87 142 229 NO NO 11:00 32 51 81 135 220 355 NO YES 12:00 53 82 135 94 173 267 NO NO 12:00 46 67 113 146 267 413 NO YES 13:00 46 62 1 108 89 147 236 NO NO 13:00 40 1 51 91 1 138 227 365 NO YES 14:00 48 57 105 90 143 233 NO NO 14:00 42 a7 89 139 221 360 NO YE 15:00 41 67 108 139 257 796 NO YES 15:00 36 55 91 215 397 612 NO YE 16:00 17:00 18:00 66 90 26 72 68 81 138 158 107 191 163 136 285 476 NO YES 16:00 58 59 117 295 440 485 371 735 737 581 NO NO NO 314 240 477 376 NO NO YES 17:00 78 55 133 89 252 210 YES 18:00 23 66 Notes Volumes include veh0e, bicyce. and Dedestran counts. Volumes include only vehicle counts. Minor street warrant is met if total vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian volumes exceed 200 for 8 hours and the hxlhest delay Der vehicle in peak hour exceeds 30 seconds. Malor street warrant is met d total vehicle volumes exceed 300 for 8 hours. TABLE 6 YEAR 2013 AND YEAR 2033 CONDITIONS PEAK -HOUR INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY Intersection 3: Gal in Boulevard & W 78th Stnot ear2013 EBL EBT I EBR I WBL WBTJ WBR NBL NBT I NBRI 1SBL I SBT SBR Delay LOS Delay LOS Dale LOS Delay LOS Dee LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Dela LOS DelayLOS Dela LOS Dela LOS Existing AM 6.1 A 8.3 A 3.8 A T3 A 7.6 A 0 A 2.8 A 0.3 A 0.3 A 1.6 A 0.3 A 0 A with Project AM 7.6 A 6.6 A 4.3 A 7.5 A 7.3 A 0 A 3 A 0.2 A 0.1 A 1.8 A 0.3 A 0.1 A Exist' PM 7.1 A 9 A 3.9 A 8.1 A 8.4 A 2.9 A 2.5 A 0.3 A 0.2 A 2.7 A 0.5 A with Project PM 9.3 A 10.5 8 3.8 A 9.7 A 9 A 4.3 A 2.7 A 0.3 A 0.2 A 3 A 0.7 A Intersection 3: Gal in Boulevard & W 78th Street Year 2033 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT I WBR NBL I NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Delay LOS Delay LOS DeIa4 LOS Delay LOS I Delayl LOS Delay LOS Dela LOS Delay LOS Dela LOS Dela LOS Dela LOS Dela LOS ExistingAM 11.3 B 10A B 4.7 A 10.2 B 9.7 A 0 A 3.1 A 0.4 A 0.3 A 2.2 A 0.4 A 0.1 A with Project AM 11.7 B 12 B 8.6 A 11.5 B 10.4 B 0 A 4.1 A 0-3 A 0.3 A 2.1 A 1.2 A 0.5 A ExistingPM 10.1 B 12.3 B 4.8 A 11.8 B 10.7 8 3.4 A 2.9 A 0.4 A 0.4 A 3.7 A 0.7 A 0.5 A with Project PM 117 B 13.6 B 4.6 A 13.8 B 13.1 B 3.8 A 3.4 A 0.4 A 0.3 A 3.3 A 0.9 A 0.6 A TABLE 5 YEAR 2033 CONDITIONS PEAK -HOUR INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMAR Y YEAR 2033 BASELINE PEAK YEAR 2033 BASELINE PLUS PROJECT DELAY a LOS b DELAY a LOS b G (c) SIGNIFICANT? INTERSECTION HOUR Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH-5) AM 35.8 D 39.0 D 3.2 NO Performance by pavement PM 32.7 C 36.8 D 4.1 NO 2 Galpin Blvd & Access Road Performance by movement AM 0.9 A 2.6 A 1.7 NO PM 13 A 1.6 A 0.3 NO 3 Galpin Blvd & W 78th St Performance by movement AM 2.1 A 3.2 A 1.1 NO PM 2,7 A 3.0 A 0.3 NO 4 Apartment Access Road & W 78th St Performance by movement AM - - LI A - NO PM - - 1.5 A - NO 'ores: a) Delay refer to the avenge conic] delay for the entire intersection, measured in nconds per vehicle. b) LOS calculations arc based on the methodology outlined in the 2WO Highnvr Cupu<in blarrreal and performed using Synchro R. c)Chan ein delay due to addition ofproject traffic TABLE 4 YEAR 2013 CONDITIONS PEAK -HOUR INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY YEAR 2013 BASELINE PEAK YEAR 2013 BASELINE PLUS PROJECT DELAY (a) LOS (b) DELAY (a) LOS (b) A (c) SIGNIFICANT? INTERSECTION HOUR Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH-5) AM 27.5 C 2&2 C 0.7 NO PM 23.1 C 23.8 C 0.7 NO I Performance by movement 2 Galpin Blvd & Access Road Performance by movement AM 1.0 A 1.0 .4 0.0 NO PM 1.4 A 1.7 A 0.3 NO 3 Galpin Blvd & W 78th St Performance by movement AM 2.1 A 2 A A 0.3 NO PM 2.6 A 3.1 A 0.5 NO 4 Apartment Access Road & W 78th St Performance by movement AM - - NO pM - - LS .4 - NO Notes: a) lVay efcr, to the average control delay far the entice inter Lion. measured in seconds per %chicle. h) I -OS calculations am based on the methodology outlined in the 7010 Highwgv Capacity Manual and performed using Synchro 8. c) Chan e in delay due to addition of project tmlTic Table 2: Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections LOS Criteria for Signalized Intersections LOS Control Delay per Vehicle (s/veh) A <10 8 > 10-20 C > 20-35 D > 35-55 E > 55-80 F > 80 llighrwy Capacity Manual 2010; Vveh = seconds per vehicle Table 3: Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections LOS Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections LOS Control Delay per Vehicle (s/veh) A <10 8 > 10-15 C > 15-25 D > 25-35 E > 35-50 F > 50 l/ighKmy Capacity Manual 2010; s/veh = seconds per vehicle ! ., )) § §§ \{ \\ �� �� \ \ , �� } )! � �� � | � _�) # � ��� � \ :�{ff Chanhassen Boulevard 2013 Volumes with Chanhassen Apartment Trips M 0/6 o 16 / 55 00 �rvMo `29/40 J �.0 q. 0/0 0/0 t r 13/22, N w %o N 00 0 N w o� 47/38� 83/49� rntiwj' v i Legend: O Unsignallzed Intersection ID XX/XX AM/PM Volumes W 78th Street 2033 Volumes with Chanhassen Apartment Trips ^' °° 0/5 v �14/48 MMrn0 i o `25/35 �% t �► U G 0/0 W 78th Street 0/0 , t r 11/18J w�p\ 38/31 78/46, N a N v a m CQ m c g l7 MOT TO *CAM FIGURE 9 sid AesocistsR W ' Galpin Blvd 6 W 781h St Traft Volumes Chanhassen Apartments x a 11182 ^ 39114 O / S a /i/117i '^ a UI3 15;20J ° -. • win a a .. • 76/95 15 59 ONO PIgO.ffCMf FJ ■ma W IGt�91 28151 3 9 G 11118 ' 9 0 ID681668 1y O C V V O 88181 q 3 66/61 %,M a 781 46 v { !i l r]_❑ Kimley-Horn and Asswates, Inc. X 1 YY-AM IPWV Iq1/N NIMw+G VOlUME3 ryOf fO 3C/.LF FIGURE 8 Year 2033 Basekne Plus Project Peak -Hour Traffic Volumes Chanhamen ADwbvm a > 3 pp1� ai ;z 11155 o .e/ee m { o S/e SM 1351 a 1e1 5 151155 GBIM V66W n , n .. 26/10 a 15156 Sm Y15M�wY MIYM WiMW 34167 .. > 13122 ., 132/l@e - 47138 a 62116 0 111I46 S3/16 v 113 sfld MIC. +�•AY/IWIGIf Nelbl IIIWMB W%NW6 wrro.we FIGURE 7 Year 2013 Plus Project Peak-llour TrWk Volumes Chanhassen Apartments 1 8�8 3 n ry ry i O 2114 52 39170 Fj 9! `# 0l 5 i o 449/1173 3 3 M 3 lease 1115 203 a esls - n 25135 M Me RIRO ♦[cad M W IM It W ish 9t 24141 a a 4 0 9117 10681M a 38130 - ti6 6t ❑M❑ Klmley-Horn M and Asswales, Inc. X 1 YY-AMIR P .IICl/R NRRNO YJLU4E5 NOT to ncue FIGURE 6 Yew 2033 9eselkle Peak -Hour Traffic Volutes Chanh mn 1 9134 m 012 a 15159 lu..r 9M aa�rrr Y wlM 91 w nw a 4119 - e 2/1 211 57131 113 _ _m +�•AY/IY/fAlf M91M 1111M19 YOLWE>t •pt A 9fx� FIGURE 5 ��� and AMd. dK M4 Pmjod Tdp Asai wwif - Study Inbmscdom Chanhassen Apartments Proposed Apartment Z� s% Legend: Q Signalized Intersection 0 Unsignalized Intersection FIGURE 4 C�� Auldm Inm Project Trip Distribufion Chanhassen Aoarhnenta t 5 3 520 1357 16153 75/155 e�~��~ N140 Y15YewY W7 w w"m 30/51 n il " 11/21 o 1321 /325 gg'$ nn 45/31 a 62176 ilt/M 26115 o S !oor•,1r/wloww5urt nevlxa wiwn .5r oKYa FIGURE 3 mm,'�rI mu OMCINK M Year W13 Peak -How Tiaft Vok~ Chanhassen Boulevard Galpin Boulevard/ Arboretum Blvd (TH-S) Galpin Boulevard/ Access Road Galpin Boulevard/ W 78th Street Apartment Access Rd/ W 78th Street tt- I -,tt- I + O [Pressed] tSignalized lntersectionsign lzed Intersection NOT TG&CAU pmisy-HFIGURE 2 Gin WW oar Exishng Lane Georneby Chanhassen Apartments Legend: i'J Signalized Intersection Unsignallzed Intersection Gam" Ia,r.,,,,,,,, FIGURE 1 i� , aM AesocisMs Ytc Pr Vect Site Plan County under Release No. 1331 dated 11-01-05. Map 18046A, B78 covers the review area. For questions concerning these comments, please contact Dale Matti (651-234-7549) in MnDOT Metro District's Right -of -Way section. Permits. Any use of or work within or affecting MnDOT right of way requires a permit. Permit forms are available from MnDOT's utility website at hop://www.dot.state.mn.uslutility/ Please include one 11 x 17 plan set and one full size plan set with each permit application. Please direct any questions regarding permit requirements to Buck Craig (651-234-7911) of MnDOT's Metro Permits Section. Review Submittal Options: Mn/DOT's goal is to complete the review of plans within 30 days. Submittals sent in electronically can usually be turned around faster. There are four submittal options. Please submit either. 1. One (1) electronic pdf version of the plans. Mn/DOT can accept the plans via e-mail at metrodevreviews.dotngstate.mn.us provided that each separate e- mail is under 20 megabytes. 2. Three (3) sets of full size plans. Although submitting seven sets of full size plans will expedite the review process. Plans can be sent to: Mn/DOT — Metro District Planning Section Development Reviews Coordinator 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 3. One (1) compact disk. 4. Plans can also be submitted to Mn/DOT's External FTP Site. Please send files to: ftp://ftn2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/incoming/MetrowatersEdge/Planning Internet Explorer doesn't work using ftp so please use an FTP Client or your Windows Explorer (My Computer). Also, please send a note to metrodevreviews.dotnastate.mn.us indicating that the plans have been submitted on the FTP site. If you have any questions concerning this review please feel free to contact me at (651) 234-7794. Sincerely, Tod Sherman Planning Supervisor Copy sent via E-Mail: Buck Craig, Permits Nancy Jacobson, Design Hailu Shekur, Water Resources Dale Matti, Right -of -Way Diane Langenbach, Area Engineer Merlin Kent, Traffic David Sheen, Traffic Pete Wasko, Noise and Air Kate Aanenson, AICP, kaanensonnir ci.chanhassen.mn.us Ann Braden, Metropolitan Council CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on April 4, 2013, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for Chanhassen Apartments — Planning Case 2013-07 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Subsc 'bed and swvgfn to before me this day of Yi , 2013. Notary Publ c �Ld�G(1 Kar n J. E ge tardt, D uty Clerk KIM T. MEUWISSEN Notary Public -Minnesota MY Ca nission Expires Jan 31, 2015 Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commissinn Maatinn Date & Time: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later In the evenin depending on the order of the agenda, Location: City Hall Council Chambers 7700 Market Blvd. Request for Rezoning approximately 14 acres of property from Agricultural Estate (A-2) to Planned Unit Development -Residential Proposal: (PUD-R); Site Plan Review with Variances for a 155-unit Apartment Building; and a Land Use Map Amendment from Residential -Low Density and Office, to Residential -Low and High Density and Office and Residential -High Density Applicant: Oppidan, Inc Property 7750 Galpin Boulevard (northwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Location: Boulevard) A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What public hearing through the following steps: Happens at 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. the Meeting: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2013-07. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate Aanenson by Questions & email at kaanenson(Mci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at 952- Comments: 227-1139. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Welland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission, City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application In writing. Any Interested party is Invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepare$ a report on the subject application that Includes all pertinent Information and a recommendation. These reports am available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The Item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a pan of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse. affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. • Minnesota Slate Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an hem through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding Its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting, • A neighborhood spokespersonlrepresentative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers am encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be Included In the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be Included In the re oil, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Plannina Commission Maatinn Date & Time: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later In the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hell Council Chambers 7700 Market Blvd. Request for Rezoning approximately 14 acres of property from Agricultural Estate (A-2) to Planned Unit Development -Residential Proposal: (PUD-R); Site Plan Review with Variances for a 155-unit Apartment Building; and a Land Use Map Amendment from Residential -Low Density and Office, to Residential -Low and High Densitv and Office and Residential -High Density Applicant: O pidan, Inc. Property 7750 Galpin Boulevard (northwest corner of Highway 5 and Location: Galpin Boulevard) A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to Inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What public hearing through the following steps: Happens at 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. the Meeting: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the ro'ect. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2013-07. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate Aanenson by Questions & email at kaanenson(cDci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at 952- Comments: 227-1139. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Prcicedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Weiland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feel of the subject site to be notified of the application In writing. Any interested party Is Invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that Includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports am available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The Item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission wilt close the public hearing and discuss the Item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerctaVindustrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applicators to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding Its Status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokespersonimpresentative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff Is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not Minutes are taken and any conespondenco regarding the application will be included In the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included In the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. AMERICANA COMMUNITY BANK AMY B TREBIL AMY M PEITZ 600 MARKET ST #100 2406 HARVEST WAY 7846 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4569 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8452 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8451 ARTEMAS ROBERTS III BLAINE D SHANSTROM BLAKE S HULANDER 7762 VASSERMAN PL 8516 IRWIN RD 7850 HARVEST LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4536 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55437-1523 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8453 BRAD L & ELAINE N DALAGER BRADLEY CARR BRANDON R MESSER 7847 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE 2219 BANEBERRY WAY W 7851 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8451 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8339 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8451 BRIAN R & BARBARA C FOLSOM CARLOS J MEJIA CARVER COUNTY CDA 2215 BANEBERRY WAY W 7853 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE 705 WALNUT ST N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8339 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8451 CHASKA MN 55318-2039 CENTEX HOMES-MINNESOTA DIV CNBI LLC CONVENIENCE STORE 7500 OFFICE RIDGE CIR STE 325 PO BOX 47570 INVESTMENTS EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344-3786 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55447-0570 PO BOX 2107 LACROSSE WI54602-2107 DENEEN D YOUNG DIANE JULSON DIANNE JANICE ERICKSON 7852 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE 7740 VASSERMAN TRL 7735 VASSERMAN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8451 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4506 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4506 ELIZABETH D SANTIAGO ERICA J MAAS GELINO FAMILY TRUST 2386 HARVEST WAY 7851 HARVEST LN 7729 VASSERMAN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8444 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8453 CHANHASSEN MN 553174506 GERALD P & PEGGY A WOLFE GUY W & JUNE M BLESSING IND SCHOOL DIST 112 7755 VASSERMAN TRL 7844 HARVEST LN 11 PEAVEY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4506 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8453 CHASKA MN 55318-2321 JACLYN N MAAS JAMES H & AMELIA A CHMURA JEFFREY GIBBS 7832 HARVEST LN 7745 VASSERMAN TRL 8061 DAWN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8453 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4506 ROCKFORD MN 55373-9317 JULIA A WOLTER JULIE A SKOOG JUSTIN C ANDERSON 6645 E LAKETOWNE DR 2400 HARVEST WAY 7848 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE ALBERTVILLE MN 55301-4366 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8452 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8451 KAREN ANN OLSON KATHERINE M KORPI LARRY S & TERESA M HANSON 7850 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE 7845 HARVEST LN 7734 VASSERMAN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8451 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8453 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4506 LAWRENCE M & MICHAELE A MARTIN LONNIE G & JAN M JOHNSON LORI J WIRTZ 7725 VASSERMAN TRL 6706 PROMONTORY DR 2392 HARVEST WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4506 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346-1919 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8444 LYNN D & VELMA M WILDER MARILYN G LEBLANC MARK C GOODMAN 7754 VASSERMAN TRL 2376 HARVEST WAY 2370 HARVEST WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4506 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8444 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8444 MARYANN TOMPKINS MATTHEW S BLEWETT MICHAEL L & CAROLYN L SHIELDS 7724 VASSERMAN TRL 2396 HARVEST WAY 7759 VASSERMAN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4506 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8444 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4506 MUOI TAM NGU NICHOLAS J SCHULIST PATRICIA S DEZIEL 2050 WATERLEAF LN W 2372 HARVEST WAY 2382 HARVEST WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8342 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8444 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8444 RICHARD A OLSON ROBERT L GRIFFITH ROBERT M & PATRICIA L PETERSON 5081 SAINT ALBANS BAY RD 7739 VASSERMAN TRL 2398 HARVEST WAY EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8632 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4506 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8444 RUTH H MITAL SERLIN PROPERTIES LLC STACY ANN BENNETT 7750 VASSERMAN TRL 1 CVS DR 2388 HARVEST WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4506 WOONSOCKET RI 02895-6146 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8444 STANLEY W VALENSKY STEVEN GUY LEDBETTER THEODOREF& MARLENE M BENTZ 7752 VASSERMAN PL 7756 VASSERMAN PLACE 7300 GALPIN BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4536 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4536 EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8011 THOMAS E & HELEN E ERNST THOMAS S BLUSTIN THOMAS W & SHARON D KRAUS 7749 VASSERMAN TRL 2394 HARVEST WAY 7744 VASSERMAN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4506 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8444 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4506 TIMOTHY DESAULNIERS VASSERMAN RIDGE MASTER VICKIE S KLINE 7845 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE ASSOC EST WAY HARVEST CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8451 16305 36TH AVE N SUITE 600 2384 2384 HAVEN MN 55317-8444 PLYMOUTH MN 55446-4270 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Applicant Name and Address: "PRrI/� iHrHntienss,/ iNitJ S534,6- Contact:�,g" / Tv«.' Phone:9S�2-.'t9H-o3s3Fax: ysa �yy-pis/ Email: Da o/p o Oo, �o.9. r"94 NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required plans IComprehensive Plan Amendment `° Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non -conforming Use Permit ,-)IL Planned Unit Development'bm IB� t7¢�veyu�l� . Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)' �50 to +� L}-70 ($IO -�­ I,oOo 54) 3 Ic" = 14b, $'tq Subdivision' rJ L Planning Case No.'A01_j — O -7 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED MAR 15 2013 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Property Owner Name and Address: 100 //,u,,hutson �.tJ -553/7 Contact: �m SsUAr1i� , including review of development Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) (Additional recording fees may apply) Variance (VAR) r �_b O Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment nor, Notification Sign - $299 (City to install and remove) X Escrow for Fp4rig Fees/ orney Cost" ioo -$50 CUP P AC AR AP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB TOTAL FEE $4,-? -'o-160aO An additional fee of $�00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. 'Five (5) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 (`.tif) format. "Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. SCANNED x� raw C_C:UYZC>° �4eJi?V\/ PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: as- TOTALACREAGE: WETLANDS PRESENT: )o(� YES NO PRESENT ZONING: H- REQUESTED ZONING: [' IL ) FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: Include number of existing employees: and new employees: This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Signature of Applicant q�,_tY �1 �� Signature of Fee Owner Date Date elplaMlb ms`development review applicationAm OPPI®AN .gf� 0frddM 5125 Coumy Rao 101 • #100 • MmsruwA, MN 55345 • Paor- 952/294-0353 • FAx 952/294-0151 • WEB: www.oppidan.com C March 14, 2013 RECESSEN RECEIVED Kathryn Aanenson, AICP, Community Development Director MAR 15 2013 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard' _ - . CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEFT Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Comprehensive plan Amendment, PUD Site Plan Review Application New Apartment Development NWC Highway 5 & Gaipin Blvd_ Chanhassen; MN Dear Kate: This letter is designed to serve as a narrative for proposed apartment development at Galpin Boulevard and Highway 5. The highlights of the plans are as follow: • Total site area is approximately 14 acres, with 6 acres lying north of West 78t6 Street and % Acres lying south. • There is approximately 1.7 acres of wetland on the northern portion of the lot and approximately .25 acres on the south side, leaving approximately 12 acres developable. • Current zoning allows for medium density residential on the north side and office/light industrial on the south side • A new, market rate apartment building, containing 155 total units. This is a density of 13 units per acre (approximate) well below the 16 units per acre maximum allowed for under the High Density Residential districts. • The target mix of unit is currently being finalized. The unit mix is 104 One Bedroom Units (ranging in size from 624 s.f. to 765 s.f.) and 51 Two Bedroom Units (ranging in size from 933 s.f. to 1,132 s.f). • Parking meets City requirements, including one underground stall for each unit. • The building will be 3 levels plus an underground level for parking. • Each unit will have a full appliance package, including washer/dryer and microwave, and some units will be designed to have the potential for a fireplace. • The building exterior will be a materials including brick/block, glass and cement board siding. • Balconies will be provided for the majority of the units. • There will be a Clubhouse with community room and exercise facilities. Also looking at the potential for a small business center for residents (may not need it with the proximity of Kinko's to the site). • An exterior patio and outdoor gathering area is planned on the southeast corner of the site. This will be appropriately fences and landscaped. • Outside sitting/park areas are provided and trail/walks will be provided to connect to the existing walkway system. SCANNED ME PLAN: The sight plan has been.modified to address concerns heard at the Concept Plan review stagefor.. the project. The most notable comments were directed toward the number of units and the proximity to the adjacent housing, especially the homes in the Vassemian Ridge development. We have reduced the number of unit by 69 to a new proposed.total of 155 units. This is a reduction of 31 %from the previous plan presented. Also, because of the reduction in number, the building could: be located differently on the plan. The budding is: now pulled further to,the northeast portion of the lot'and is approximately 400 feet from the nearest home at Vassemman Ridge and 600 feet to the nearest home on the northeast side of the site. Last, access to the site has been modified to include only one access point'. That access point was moved further west in an attempt to allow for additional stacking at the intersection, if that were required in the future. The internal circulation still allows for garage entrances on both ends of the building. ELEVATION: The building elevation has remained similar to the elevation presented at the Concept Stage. The main element of the building is a cement board siding. The accents include glass, decorative CMU, brick and stone. The upper level units are designed to incorporate balconies for the units, with a typical rail and maintenance free materials for the flooring. The building remains designed with a three story footprint and a gabled roof The midpoint of the gabled roof is at 37' 7" (approximately) with the peak areas at approximately 46 feet. We have made a -request for a variance in height to allow the 46 foot dimension LANDSCAPING & LIGHTING: The northern 6 acres of the sight will be covered with a Conservation Easement, in favor of the City of Chanhassen (or another type of document, as determined by the City) with the intent of preserving that acreage as open space and a buffer between the single family and multi -family developments. This is similar to the buffer maintained north of the CV S/Kwik=Trip site on the north side of West 78ih. On the south side of the site, the existing boulevard trees will be maintain except for the tree(s) required to be removed for the new access point. In addition, there are numerous new trees and shrubs being planted to provide additional screening/buffering to both the properties to the north and to the highway. Shrubs are planted in multiple locations at the building base to enhance the look of the building to guest and residents coming in and to the public using the adjoining streets and pathways. SCANNED New fighting on the site is minimal. _ We are proposing to add new parking lot lights within the development. Those lights will meet City of Chanhassen standards for lens screening and light levels within the site. GRADING & UTILMES: Grading and utilities will be similar to what was discussed at the Concept Plan stage. There is an additional storm water pond feature added to the southern lot, allowing for even more storm water control and quality. Utility services currently exist either within the property boundary or *in the Right -of -Way adjacent to the property. There are ample services to serve this development. TRAFFIC/PEDESTRIAN ACCESS: An initial traffic analysis was completed for the 224 unit development that showed the traffic levels would be similar of slightly less during a 24 hour period when compared to a previously approved concept plan for this site. With the reduction to 155 units; the new proposal will have far less traffic than the previous approved plan. The developer has initiated a traffic study for the proposed development. Car counts and an analysis are complete. We have also worked with the City of Chanhassen Engineering Department to broaden the scope of that study to include other movements on Galpin Boulevard and the intersection at Highway 5. This additional study is continuing at the time of this letter, but will be available prior to the Planning Commission meeting for review. As discussed previously, West 78* Street is an arterial collector road and Galpin is a county road, both designed to handle the traffic anticipated as development happens. With the reduction in units, overall traffic from this project will be much less than that discussed at the Concept Review stage of this process. Part of the additional study will focus on the intersection at Galpin and West 78'" Street and the U-Turns and other movements. Although the initial review did not indicate a need for traffic control, the expanded traffic analysis will better identify current and future needs there. We have added a small park and play area within the property for children of the complex. Additionally, there are new sidewalks/paths that will be installed within the development and on the adjacent ROW to connect to the existing trail system of the City. There currently is a tunnel within the City's trail system allowing for pedestrians to cross under Highway 5 without using an intersection and there is a metered intersection at Galpin and Highway 5 for pedestrians to use to cross to the Community Center, parks and get to the school on the south side of Highway 5. SCANNED Overall we fell that we have listened to the comments, from the neighbors, Planning Commission and City Council and have address issues brought forth while still allowing for a quality project to be added to the City of Chanhassen We look forward to worldng with the City on this. matter. If you have any questions or need additional information on this submittal, please do not hesitate to call me at (952) 294-1243. Smcerel�, ji- y t Paul J: T SCANNED MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Director, Community Development Department FROM: Jerritt Mohn, Building Official DATE: March 21, 2013 SUBJ: Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment; Planned Unit Development (PUD); Site Plan Review; and Variances for a 155-unit Apartment Building located on approximately 14 acres of property zoned Agricultural Estate (A2) and located at 7750 Galpin Boulevard (northwest comer of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard). Applicant: Oppidan, Inc. Owner: Americana Community Bank - Chanhassen. Planning Case: 2013-07 PID: 25-0101800 & 25-0101810 I have reviewed the plans for the above project and offer the following comments. These comments should be included in the conditions of approval. 1. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. A "Code Record" is required (Code Record schematic plans may be same scale as architectural). For "Code Record" information go to MN Dept. of Labor and Industry: hqp://www.dli.mn.gov/CCLD/PlanConstruction. 2. The building(s) must be protected with automatic fire sprinkler systems. 3. An accessible route must be provided to buildings, parking facilities, public transportation stops and all common use facilities. 4. All parking areas, including parking garages, must be provided with accessible parking spaces dispersed among the various building entrances. 5. Accessible dwelling units must be provided in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. 6. The building owner and/or their representatives should meet with the Inspections Division to discuss plan review and permit procedures (in particular, type of construction and allowable area issues must be addressed). GAPLAN\2013 Planning Cases\2013-07 Chanhassen Apartments\buildingoflicialcomments.doe City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 Date: March 18, 2013 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department Review Response Deadline: April 5, 2013 By: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Community Development Dir. 952-227-1139 kaanensonna ci.chanhassen.mn.us Subject: Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment; Planned Unit Development (PUD); Site Plan Review; and Variances for a 155-unit Apartment Building located on approximately 14 acres of property zoned Agricultural Estate (A2) and located at 7750 Galpin Boulevard (northwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard). Applicant: Oppidan, Inc. Owner: Americana Community Bank -Chanhassen. Planning Case: 2013-07 PID: 25-0101800 & 25-0101810 The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on March 15, 2013. The 60day review period ends May 14, 2013. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on April 16, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than April 5.2013. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. 1. City Departments: a. City Engineer b. City Attorney c. City Park Director d. Fire Marshal e. Building Official L Water Resources Coordinator g. Forester 2. Carver Soil & Water Conservation District 3. MN Dept. of Transportation 4. MN Dept. of Natural Resources -Jack Gleason 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 6. U.S. Fish & Wildlife 7. Carver County a. Engineer b. Environmental Services 8. Watershed District a. Riley-Pargatory-Bluff Creek b. Lower Minnesota River c. Minnehaha Creek 9. Telephone Company (CenturyLink) 10. Electric Company (Xcel Energy) 11. Mediacom 12. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco LOCATION MAP w k w 5 / J � Y A', �01 A / �. ••• -� Allift; ... HIM .•R• 44, .4 I i_. HIGHWAYS _ r ,.4 - i�fy}Ta w'ir • •I'w fS%, R�/ y. ; -00 AMUR CHANHASSEN APARTMENTS GALPIN BLVD & HIGHWAY 5, CHANHASSEN 447 mow, • ��� Rit tp • • = R ti I 11 0 100 200 400 SCALE IN FEET DATE: 3/15/13 JIB L., AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 1 AND 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE, BY REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 1-2 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding the following definition: Conservation Area an area of land that remains in a natural state by means of preservation of existing features and vegetation as well as by means of city -approved restoration of selected species and targeted features. No buildings or structures are allowed except essential services and public improvements. SECTION 2. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code, the City s Zoning Ordinance, is hereby amended by rezoning the following described property from Agricultural Estate District, A- 2, to Planned Unit Development Residential, PUD-R: That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116, Range 23 and the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of said Section 10; thence on an assumed bearing of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West along the West line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1026.89 feet; thence South 79 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds Fast, a distance of 177.77 feet; thence South 86 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 100.40 feet; thence South 78 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 194.14 feet; thence South 74 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 150.00 feet; thence South 47 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 75.43 feet; thence North 82 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds East, a distance of 74.98 feet; thence South 58 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 84.58 feet; thence south 89 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 164.63 feet; thence South 18 degrees 17 minutes 40 seconds West, a distance of 824.19 feet to the northerly right of way line of Trunk Highway 5; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 33.08 feet; thence South 56 degrees 40 minutes 55 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 158.95 feet; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 518.22 feet to the west line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23; thence North I degree 37 minutes 50 seconds West along said west line of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 9.12 feet to the point of beginning. This tract contains 18.1 acres of land, more or less, and is subject to right of way in existing county road and subject to any and all easements of record. Doc. #169929v.1 RNK: V22/2013 SECTION 3. Intent. The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD for the Chanhassen Apartments. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. Ancillary uses may be permitted as listed below once a primary use has occupied the site. Except as modified by the Chanhassen Apartments PUD ordinance, the development shall comply with the requirements of the RI District. SECTION 4. Permitted Uses. The permitted uses in this zone shall be residential and their ancillary uses. The type of uses to be provided on common areas shall be outdoor play area and outdoor patio. I Parcel A (description attached) Conservation Area Parcel B. (description attached) 155 Apartments, including surface parking SECTION 5. Lot Requirements and Setbacks. The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The following table displays those setbacks: Setback Standards Highway 5 50 feet Perimeter Lot Line 50 feet Collector Road, etc. 50 feet (Perimeter) Lot Line 50 feet Hard Surface Coverage 50 % over 14 acres Height 38 feet Parking setback for perimeter property line 25 feet Wetland and Buffer Setback Parcel B 31.5 feet SECTION 6. Signage. Signage shall comply with city standards for R12 Zoning District 20-1301(2) Agricultural and Residential Districts. SECTION 7. Landscaping. Landscaping shall comply with the landscaping plan prepared by Mark Kronbeck, ASLA, dated March 15, 2013. SECTION 8. The zoning map of the City of Chanhassen shall not be republished to show the aforesaid zoning, but the Clerk shall appropriately mark the zoning map on file in the Clerk's Office for the purpose of indicating the rezoning hereinabove provided for in this ordinance, and all of the notations, references, and other information shown thereon are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this ordinance. SECTION 9. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. Doc. N 169929v.1 RNK: 4/22m13 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22"d day of April, 2013, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on Doc. # I69929v.1 3 RNK: 4/22/2013 PARCEL A Conservation Area That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116, Range 23 and the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest comer of said Section 10; thence on as assumed bearing of North I degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West along the West line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1023.08 feet, to a point on said west line distant 1668.88 feet south of the west quarter corner of said Section 10; thence South 79 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 177.77 feet; thence South 86 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 100.40 feet; thence South 78 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 194.14 feet; thence South 74 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 150.00 feet; thence South 47 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 75.43 feet; thence North 82 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds East, a distance of 74.98 feet; thence South 58 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 84.58 feet; thence South 89 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds Fast, a distance of 163.25 feet; thence South 18 degrees 17 minutes 40 seconds West, a distance of 820.19 feet to the northerly tight of way line of Trunk Highway 5; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 33.08 feet; thence South 56 degrees 40 minutes 55 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 158.95 feet; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 518.22 feet to the west line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23; thence North I degree 37 minutes 50 seconds West along said west line of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 9.12 feet to the point of beginning. Which lies northwesterly of that particular northwesterly right-of-way line of Parcel 216, as shown on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-08, recorded as Document No. 265755 and as amended on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-14, recorded as Document No. 279658, described as follows: Commencing at the southwest comer of said Section Io; thence on an assumed bearing of North I degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West, along the west line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 10, a distance of 401.19 feet, to a particular right-of-way line of said Parcel 216 and the Point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 47 degrees 18 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 175.14 feet, to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 47 degrees 18 minutes 19 seconds East a distance of 22.71 feet, to a point of curvature in said right- of-way line; thence easterly a distance of 662.60 feet, along a non -tangential curve concave to the south having a radius of 633.04 feet and a central angle of 59 degrees 58 minutes 14 seconds and having a chord of 632.76 feet which bears North 77 degrees 17 minutes 27 seconds East to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 56 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds East, not tangent to said curve a distance of 114.28 feet, to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 22 degrees 13 minutes 10 seconds East, along said right-of-way line, a distance of 116.13 feet and said line there terminating. Doc. #I69929v.I RNK: 4/22/2013 PARCEL B 155 Apartments, including surface parking That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116, Range 23 and the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest comer of said Section 10; thence on as assumed bearing of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West along the West line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1026.89 feet; thence South 79 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 177.77 feet; thence South 86 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds Fast, a distance of 100.40 feet; thence South 78 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 194.14 feet; thence South 74 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 150.00 feet; thence South 47 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 75.43 feet; thence North 82 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds East, a distance of 74.98 feet; thence South 58 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 84.58 feet; thence South 89 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 164.63 feet; thence South 18 degrees 17 minutes 40 seconds West, a distance of 824.19 feet to the northerly right of way line of Trunk Highway 5; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 33.08 feet; thence South 56 degrees 40 minutes 55 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 158.95 feet; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 518.22 feet to the west line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23; thence North 1 degree 37 minutes 50 seconds West along said west line of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 9.12 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPT that part of the above described property which lies northwesterly of that particular northwesterly right-of-way line of Parcel 216, as shown on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-08, recorded as Document No. 265755 and as amended on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-14, recorded as Document No. 279658, described as follows: Commencing at the southwest comer of said Section 10; thence on an assumed bearing of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West, along the west line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 10, a distance of 401.19 feet, to a particular right-of-way line of said Parcel 216 and the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 47 degrees 18 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 175.14 feet, to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 47 degrees 18 minutes 19 seconds East a distance of 22.71 feet, to a point of curvature in said right- of-way line; thence easterly a distance of 662.60 feet, along a non -tangential curve concave to the south having a radius of 633.04 feet and a central angle of 59 degrees 58 minutes 14 seconds and having a chord of 632.76 feet which bears North 77 degrees 17 minutes 27 seconds East to an angle point in said right-of-way he; thence North 56 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds East, not tangent to said curve a distance of 114.28 feet, to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 22 degrees 13 minutes 10 seconds East, along said right -of --way line, a distance of 116.13 feet and said line there terminating. Also EXCEPT said Parcel 216 Doc. # 169929v. I RNK: 4l22/2013 CITY OF CHANHASSEN SITE PLAN AGREEMENT 2013-07 SPECIAL PROVISIONS THIS AGREEMENT ("Site Plan Agreement") dated June 5, 2013, by and between the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City"), and OPPIDAN, INC., A Minnesota Corporation (the "Developer"). 1. Request for Site Plan Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a Apartment site plan consisting of 155 units Planning Case 2013-07 (referred to in this Site Plan Agreement as the "Project"). The land is leg ly des ibed as follows: 2. Conditions of Site Plan Approval. The City hereby approves the site plan on condition that the Developer enters into this Site Plan Agreement and furnishes the security required by it. 3. Development Plans. The project shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the following plans. The plans shall not be attached to this Contract. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Permit, the written terms shall control. The plans are: Plan A: (CO of 15) Title Sheet dated Received March 15, 2013, prepared by Alliant Engineering, Inc. PlanB: (Cl of 15) Existing Conditions dated Received March 15, 2013, prepared by Alliant Engineering, Inc. PlanC: (C2 of 15) Overall Site Plan dated Received March 15, 2013, prepared by Alliant Engineering, Inc. PlanD: (C3 of 15) Grading and Erosion Control Plan dated Received March 15, 2013, prepared by Alliant Engineering, Inc. PlanE: (C4 of 15) Utility Plan dated Received March 15, 2013, prepared by Alliant Engineering, Inc. Plan F: (C5 of 15) Photometric Plan dated Received March 15, 2013, prepared by Alliant Engineering, Inc. Plan G: (LI of 15) Landscape Plan dated Received March 15, 2013, prepared by Alliant Engineering, hic. Plan H: (A100-A of 15) Garage Level Plan dated Received March 13, 2013, prepared by Collage Architects, hic. Plan I: (Al00-B of 15) Garage Level Plan dated Received March 13, 2013, prepared by Collage Architects, hic. SP-1 Plan I: (A101-A of 15) First Floor Plan dated Received March 13, 2013, prepared by Collage Architects, Inc. PlanJ: (A101-B of 15) First Floor Plan dated Received March 13, 2013, prepared by Collage Architects, Inc. Plan K: (A102-A of 15) Typical Floor Plan dated Received March 13, 2013, prepared by Collage Architects, Inc. Plan L: (A102-13 of 15) Typical Floor Plan dated Received March 13, 2013, prepared by Collage Architects, Inc. Plan L: (A200 of 15) Typical Floor Plan dated Received March 13, 2013, prepared by Collage Architects, Inc. Plan M: (A201 of 15) Typical Floor Plan dated Received March 13, 2013, prepared by Collage Architects, Inc. K.2J: (Al) Colored Retail Exterior Elevation Plan dated Received March 15, 2013, prepared by \ Architectural Consortiur3 L;L.0 I 4. Time of Performance. The Developer shall install all required screening and landscaping by July 31, 2014. 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. Security. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Site Plan Agreement, the Developer shall furnish the City with a letter of credit from a bank, cash escrow, or equivalent ("security") in the amount of $287,780.70. This amount has been calculated at a rate of 110% of the actual value of improvement (grading and erosion control $70,213.00, landscaping. $54,464, storm water, sanitary, utilities, etc. $134,050.00). The City will release the security posited in accordance with the City Code. 6. Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by registered mail at the following address: Oppidan, Inc. Attn: Mr. Paul Tucci 5125 CR 101, Suite 100 Minnetonka, MN 55345 (952)294-1243 Paulna,Oanidan.com M& Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Manager, or mailed to the City by registered mail in care of the City Manager at the following address: Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Boulevard, P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317, Telephone (952) 227-1100. 7. Other Special Conditions. On April 22, 2013, the City Council adopted the following motion: A. Land Use Map Amendment from Residential -Low Density and Office, to Residential - Low and High Density and Office and Residential -High Density Planned Unit Development (PUD) subject to the following condition: 1. Approval of the Land Use Amendment is subject to the Metropolitan Council determination of consistency with system plan. B. Rezoning of approximately 14 acres from Agricultural Estate (A-2) to Planned Unit Development -Residential (PUD-R) subject to the following condition: 1. Adoption of the Chanhassen PUD Ordinance. which shalhbe created to govern the site and design standards. C. Approval of a Site Plan for a 155-unit Apartment Building with a Variance for parking subject to the following conditions: Approval of the Land Use Amendment subject the Metropolitan Council determination of consistency with system plan. 2. Adoption of the Chanhassen PUD Ordinance, which shall be created to govern the site and design standards. 3. Execution of the Site Plan Permit. 4. Payment of $294,500 park and trail fee and $116,500 stormwater fee prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. Parcel A shall be dedicated to the City, or have a conservation easement placed on it, for management consistent with the Bluff Creek Management Plan, the Bluff Creek TMDL and the 2"a Generation Surface Water Management Plan. 6. The applicant and the City should work together to develop an appropriate mitigation scenario. 7. Any portion of the wetland presumed to be impacted under an alternate development scenario, which would require the use of Parcel A and is subsequently transferred to Parcel B for density calculations, be mitigated for at a 1:1 ratio. This mitigation should occur within the Bluff Creek Overlay District but does need to be in SP-3 the form of wetland. The developer must calculate the net developable acres of the site and wetland acreage. 8. The wetland delineation report shall be finalized. 9. All existing trees proposed to be saved must be protected with fencing during construction or replaced after construction if damaged or dead. 10. The selections of Colorado spruce must be replaced by a different evergreen species in the plant schedule. 11. Before final approval for the project, the applicant will need to determine future management plans for the existing ash trees. If preserved, the applicant will be required to chemically protect or, if infested, remove and replace the trees. If the applicant decides to remove and replace the trees at this time, a revised landscape plan will be required. 12. Staff recommends that the curb radius at the driveway access be increased to facilitate the turning movements of larger vehicles. 13. Appropriate signage must be installed 10 days prior to and for the duration of the work within West 78th Street. 14. The developer must coordinate the closure of West 78th Street with the Engineering Department minimum 72 hours prior to the closure. 15. A $10,000 escrow must be provided to ensure that West 78th Street is properly restored. Once the street has been restored to satisfactory condition, 50% of the escrow will be released; the remaining 50% will be released if the patch is in satisfactory condition after one freeze -thaw cycle. 16. Minimum 18-inch vertical separation is required between the private watermain and the private storm sewer crossing. 17. The developer shall submit $5,000 with the site plan agreement to cover half of the cost of the signal modification at TH 5 and Galpin Boulevard to accommodate a flashing yellow passive -permissive signal. SP-4 18. The developer shall pay one-half the cost of the traffic study. 19. City trunk sanitary sewer hookup fees (City SAC), City trmk watermain hookup fees (City WAC) and the Met Council Sanitary Access Charge (Met SAC) are due with the building permit at the rate in effect at that time and shall be based on the SAC unit determination per the Met Council. 20. A "General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity Under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination" will be required for this project. Proof of permission from the PCA must be provided to the City before grading can commence. 21. A Surface Water Management Plan is required and shall be submitted to the City for review and comment. This plan shall incorporate the required elements of Parts III, IV and Appendix A of the NPDES permit. 22. Both the Bluff Creek Total Maximum Daily Load Implementation Plan and the NPDES Permit require that a portion of the Water Quality Volume is infiltrated on -site. The Stormwater Management Study shall be modified to address this requirement and incorporated into the SWPPP. 23. Because the site discharges to an impaired water, the discharge rates for the one- year design event must also be equal to or less than the existing discharge rates. The Stormwater Management Study shall be modified to address this requirement and shall be incorporated into the SWPPP. 24. In order to protect Bluff Creek, meet the goals of the Bluff Creek Natural Resources Management Plan and the Bluff Creek TMDL Implementation Plan, staff is recommending that the portion of the property north of West 78t6 Street be preserved through an easement to the City and that this density should be transferred to that portion south of West 78's Street. 25. Sheet C-3 GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN shall be amended to include the following: a. The swale draining into the proposed pond shall be stabilized for its entirety as it is less than 200 feet in length. b. An appropriate perimeter BMP shall be shown and installed around the proposed outlet modification for the southern wetland. C. Silt fence or another acceptable BMP shall be installed on the north end of the culvert under West 78 h Street. 6igN d. The EOF from the pond to the wetland shall be permanently stabilized. This is addressed in the Drainage Report but is not included in the Grading and Erosion Plan. A turf reinforcement mat is an acceptable practice as is called out in the drainage report. 26. Minnesota Department of Transportation will need to review and approve the drainage plan. 27. The applicant shall revise the plans to incorporate sidewalk connections to existing trails. 28. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. A "Code Record" is required (Code Record schematic plans may be same scale as architectural). For "Code Record" information go to MN Dept. of Labor and Industry: http://www.dli.mn.gov/CCLD/PlanConstruction.aso 29. The building(s) must be protected with automatic fire sprinkler systems. 30. An accessible route must be provided to buildings, parking facilities, public transportation stops and all common use facilities. 31. All parking areas, including parking garages, must be provided with accessible parking spaces dispersed among the various building entrances. 32. Accessible dwelling units must be provided in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. 33. The building owner and/or their representatives should meet with the Inspections Division to discuss plan review and permit procedures (in particular, type of construction and allowable area issues must be addressed). 34. Due to the large size of this building, class III Fire Dept, standpipes will be required. Have developer contact Fire Marshal for exact locations. MSFC Sec. 905.3.9. 35. "No Parking Fire Lane "signs will be required. Have developer contact Fire Marshal for exact locations. MSFD Sec. 505.31 36. An additional on site fire hydrant will be required. Contact Fire Marshal for location. 37. A PIV (post indicator valve) will be required. 38. A three-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. MSFC Sec 508.5.4. SP-6 A Site Plan Agreement must be prepared by our offices for recording; however, cost estimates for the improvements must be submitted to our offices before the agreement can be prepared. Modifications must be made to the site plan as stipulated in this letter. The following fees shall be paid with the recording of the site plan agreement: a. Park and Trail Fees: $294,500 b. Storm Water Fees: $116,500 C. Erosion Control to be determined based on grading plan. d. $10,000 escrow must be provided to ensure that West 78th Street is properly restored. e. $5,000 to cover half of the cost of the signal modification at TH 5 and Galpin Boulevard. Other fees include the city trunk sanitary sewer hookup fees (City SAC), City trunk watermain hookup fees (City WAC) and the Met Council Sanitary Access Charge (Met SAC) which are due with the building permit at the rate in effect at that time and shall be based on the SAC unit determination per the Met Council. 8. General Conditions. The general conditions of this Site Plan Agreement are attached as Exhibit 'B" and incorporated herein. SP-7 CyMWas);[y,IAZI:FAIM `1 (SEAL) I\"m STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) Tom Furlong, Mayor Todd Gerhardt, City Manager The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this --day of 2013, by Tom Furlong, Mayor, and by Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. NOTARY PUBLIC SP-8 DEVELOPER: OPPIDAN, INC. L.", Its STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( as COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of 2013,by , DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 NOTARY PUBLIC SP-9 MORTGAGE HOLDER CONSENT TO SITE PLAN AGREEMENT which holds a mortgage on the subject property, the development of which is governed by the foregoing Site Plan Agreement, agrees that the Site Plan Agreement shall remain in full force and effect even if it forecloses on its mortgage. Dated this day of 12013. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2013, by DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 NOTARY PUBLIC SP-10 CITY OF CHANHASSEN SITE PLAN AGREEMENT EXHIBIT "B" GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. Right to Proceed. Within the site plan area, the Developer may not grade or otherwise disturb the earth, remove trees, construct improvements, or any buildings until all the following conditions have been satisfied: 1) Site Plan Agreement has been fully executed by both parties and filed with the City Clerk, 2) the necessary security and fees have been received by the City, 3) the Site Plan Agreement has been recorded with the County Recorder's and Registrar of Titles' Offices of the County where the project is located, and 4) the City Planner has issued a letter that the foregoing conditions have been satisfied and then the Developer may proceed. 2. Maintenance of site. The site shall be maintained in accordance with the approved site plan. Plants and ground cover required as a condition of site plan approval which die shall be promptly replaced. 3. License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and contractors a license to enter the plat to perform all work and inspections deemed appropriate by the City in conjunction with site plan development. 4. Erosion Control. Before the site is rough graded, and before any building permits are issued, the erosion control plan, Plan F, shall be implemented, inspected, and approved by the City. The City may impose additional erosion control requirements if they would be beneficial. All areas disturbed by the excavation and backfilling operations shall be reseeded forthwith after the completion of the work in that area. Except as otherwise provided in the erosion control plan, seed shall be certified seed to provide a temporary ground cover as rapidly as possible. All seeded areas shall be fertilized, mulched, and disc anchored as necessary for seed retention. The parties recognize that time is of the essence in controlling erosion. If the Developer does not comply with the erosion control plan and schedule or supplementary instructions received from the City, the City may take such action as it deems appropriate to control erosion at the Developer's expense. The City will endeavor to notify the Developer in advance of any proposed action, but failure of the City to do so will not affect the Developer's and Citys rights or obligations hereunder. No development will be allowed and no building permits will be issued unless there is full compliance with the erosion control requirements. Erosion control shall be maintained until vegetative cover has been restored. After the site has been stabilized to where, in the opinion of the City, there is no longer a need for erosion control, the City will authorize removal of the erosion control measures. 5. Clean up. The Developer shall maintain a neat and orderly work site and shall daily clean, on and off site, dirt and debris, including blowing materials, from streets and the surrounding area that has resulted from construction work by the Developer, its agents or assigns. GC-1 6. Warranty. All trees, grass, and sod required in the approved Landscaping Plan, Plan C, shall be wan -anted to be alive, of good quality, and disease free at the time of planting. All trees shall be warranted for twelve (12) months from the time of planting. The City shall retain $3,180.00 of the posted security for landscaping for twelve (12) months following planting to secure the warranties. Provided the landscaping is in the condition required herein following such twelve (12) month period, the City shall release the remaining security to Developer within ten (10) business days of request therefore. 7. Responsibility for Costs. A. The Developer shall hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from site plan approval and development. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers and employees for all costs, damages, or expenses, which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims, including attorneys' fees. B. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this Permit, including engineering and attorneys' fees. C. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City for obligations incurred under this Pemut within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the City may halt all plat development work and construction. Bills not paid within thirty (30) days shall accrue interest at the rate of 8% per year. 8. Developer's Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer is first given notice of the work in default, not less than four (4) days in advance. This Site Plan Agreement is a license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a Court order for permission to enter the land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost in whole or in part. 9. Miscellaneous. A. Construction Trailers. Placement of on -site construction trailers and temporary job site offices shall be approved by the City Engineer. Trailers shall be removed from the subject property within thirty (30) days following the issuance of a certificate of occupancy unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. B. Postal Service. The Developer shall provide for the maintenance of postal service in accordance with the local Postmaster's request. C. Third Parties. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this Permit. D. Breach of Contract. Breach of the terms of this Permit by the Developer shall be grounds for denial of building permits. GC-2 E. Severability. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph, or phrase of this Permit is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Site Plan Agreement. F. Occupancy. Unless approved in writing by the City Engineer, no one may occupy a building for which a building permit is issued on either a temporary or permanent basis until the streets needed for access have been paved with a bituminous surface and the utilities tested and approved by the city. G. Waivers/Amendments. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Site Plan Agreement. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Site Plan Agreement shall not be a waiver or release. H. Recording. This Site Plan Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to the property. I. Remedies. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, express or implied, now or hereafter arising, available to City, at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to time as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy. J. Construction Horns. The normal construction hours under this Site Plan Agreement shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, with no such activity allowed on Sundays or any recognized legal holidays. Operation of all internal combustion engines used for construction or dewatering purposes beyond the normal working hours will require City Council approval. K. Soil Treatment Systems. If soil treatment systems are required, the Developer shall clearly identify in the field and protect from alteration, unless suitable alternative sites are fast provided, the two soil treatment sites identified during the site plan process for each lot. This shall be done prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit. Any violation/disturbance of these sites shall render them as unacceptable and replacement sites will need to be located for each violated site in order to obtain a building permit. L. Compliance with Laws. Ordinances, and Regulations. In the development of the property pursuant to this Site Plan Agreement, the Developer shall comply with all laws, ordinances, and regulations of the following authorities to the extent any of the same have jurisdiction over the property's development: 1. City of Chanhassen; 2. State of Minnesota, its agencies, departments and commissions; 3. United States Army Corps of Engineers; 4. Watershed District; GC-3 5. Metropolitan Government, its agencies, departments and commissions. M. Proof of Title. Upon request, the Developer shall furnish the City with evidence satisfactory to the City that it has the authority of the fee owners and contract for deed purchasers too enter into this Site Plan Agreement. N. Soil Conditions. The Developer acknowledges that the City makes no representations or warranties as to the condition of the soils on the property or its fitness for construction of the improvements or any other purpose for which the Developer may make use of such property. The Developer further agrees that it will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its governing body members, officers, and employees from any claims or actions arising out of the presence, if any, of hazardous wastes or pollutants on the property, unless hazardous wastes or pollutants were caused to be there by the City. O. Soil Correction. The Developer shall be responsible for soil correction work on the property. The City makes no representation to the Developer concerning the nature of suitability of soils nor the cost of correcting any unsuitable soil conditions which may exist. GC-4 N4 + R_r Amil x4� ON All • r a -, 0,000er-, � 4 i f� 17: HIGHWAy • Y 4f ANOMM na � CHANHASSEN APARTMENTS GALPIN BLVD & HIGHWAY 5, CHANHASSEN 0 100 200 400 N SCALE IN FEET DATE: 3/15/13 rel IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII!!IIII!IIIIII on on IIIIIIIIIII!!II!iVllllll! In NEW ME IIII'!!II!!!I!!III'll!IIIIIIIIIII!!II IIIIII so MEN Onl IIIIII!III!!II!!IIIIIIIIII mom Mill Mill ■■� Mill Mill ■w ell ��� Mill_ n1 ■. Anil _■�■. n l Mill ■■ n1 nn ■. Mill "Lll,lsl ■. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Illllllllllllllllllllllllllll IIIIIIIIIIII!III!!!IIIIIIIIII, (IIII'I!91!'I!!�IIIIIIIIIlIIIIIIII!!II!!! IIIIIIII IIIIIII! IIIIII!!I IIIIIIII ■■ ■■ __ ■■ ■■ 'a!o ■� Mill nn .. IILEIN .. nn nn ■. e■■■ IIII I, III I!ill IIIIIIII IIIIII III!II!!I iJ�llll ti IIIIII! II!III!III III IIIIII - -- 11111 11111 ��--� Illil 11111 -- 11111 -- 11 11 RI P1- -- -- 11 11 11 ..0 n!n7 nioio■ moll. n1 o.lio■ moll. n1 moll. n1 lon @ENRONM n1 nn �on on so! IIII'I! I!!IIIIIII'llllll IIIIII II! II!!IIIIIIIIIII IIII I!!I!!JI I'llllll IIII'U II!II!!II IIIIIIII 911TI I!!II!!II IIIIIIII II'I' li!II!!II I'llllf IIIII' II!II!!II IIIIIIII - --_ -- I� ■■■ -- _ Mill ■o - _�_�_ -Elm nl� C f - -- ;; -- ■. -- ..� -n� ■. . Inn ■..■ - .... ■M■ ■�■ f�� n1 Mill Mill ��� �111�I.� Mill Mill Ill IT illl!!IPIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII'llllll!!IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIL IIIII!III'llllllll� aIIIIPII!!111111111'IIIIIIIII Iilllif I'I' JIIIIIII IIIIIIII'llllll!!IIIIIIIIIII IIII' I!!II!!II Illlll! -- �� -- Mill rmiq7l l■■ �■� -- �0� ■i -- NMI -- ■■ ■■ -- -- ■■ ■■ 1n1 .ill —.,ll ■.■ I o III■III■I I ■.■ I ■.II„ n1 I ■.■ I—nn I .■ ■. I nln ;' I .. .■ Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 30 of 31 22. Both the Bluff Creek Total Maximum Daily Load Implementation Plan and the NPDES Permit require that a portion of the Water Quality Volume is infiltrated on -site. The Stormwater Management Study shall be modified to address this requirement and incorporated into the SWPPP. 23. Because the site discharges to an impaired water, the discharge rates for the one-year design event must also be equal to or less than the existing discharge rates. The Stormwater Management Study shall be modified to address this requirement and shall be incorporated into the SWPPP. 24. In order to protect Bluff Creek, meet the goals of the Bluff Creek Natural Resources Management Plan and the Bluff Creek TMDL Implementation Plan, staff is recommending that the portion of the property north of West 78w Street is dedicated to the City and that this density should be transferred to that portion south of West 78s' Street. 25. Sheet C-3 GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN shall be amended to include the following: a. The swale draining into the proposed pond shall be stabilized for its entirety as it is less than 200 feet -in length. b. An appropriate perimeter BMP shall be shown and installed around the proposed outlet modification for the southern wetland. c. Silt fence or another acceptable BMP shall be installed on the north end of the culvert under West 78 h Street. d. The EOF from the pond to the wetland shall be permanently stabilized. This is addressed in the Drainage Report but is not included in the Grading and Erosion Plan. A turf reinforcement mat is an acceptable practice as is called out in the drainage report. 26. Minnesota Department of Transportation will need to review and approve the drainage plan. 27. The applicant shall revise the plans to incorporate sidewalk connections to existing trails. 28. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota A "Code Record" is required (Code Record schematic plans may be same scale as architectural). For "Code Record" information go to MN Dept. of Labor and Industry: hLtp://www.dii.mn.gov/CCLD/PlanConstruction.W 29. The building(s) must be protected with automatic fire sprinkler systems. 30. An accessible route must be provided to buildings, parking facilities, public transportation stops and all common use facilities. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 31 of 31 31. All parking areas, including parking garages, must be provided with accessible parking spaces dispersed among the various building entrances. 32. Accessible dwelling units must be provided in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. 33. The building owner and/or their representatives should meet with the Inspections Division to discuss plan review and permit procedures (in particular, type of construction and allowable area issues must be addressed). 34. Due to the large size of this building, class III Fire Dept, standpipes will be required. Have developer contact Fire Marshal for exact locations. MSFC Sec. 905.3.9. 35. " No Parking Fire Lane " signs will be required. Have developer contact Fire Marshal for exact locations. MSFD Sec. 505.31 36. An additional on site fire hydrant will be required. Contact Fire Marshal for location. 37. A PIV ( post indicator valve) will be required. 38. A three-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. MSFC Sec 508.5.4." ATTACHMENTS I. Findings of Fact and Recommendation. 2. Planned Unit Development Ordinance. 3. Development Review Application. 4. Reduced Copy Site Plan. 5. Traffic Study dated April 9, 2013. 6. Letter from MnDOT dated April 4, 2013. 7. Affidavit of Mailing. gAp1an12013 planing cases\2013-07 chanhassen aparunents\staff report pc.doc Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 30 of 31 22. Both the Bluff Creek Total Maximum Daily Load Implementation Plan and the NPDES Permit require that a portion of the Water Quality Volume is infiltrated on -site. The Stormwater Management Study shall be modified to address this requirement and incorporated into the SWPPP. 23. Because the site discharges to an impaired water, the discharge rates for the one-year design event must also be equal to or less than the existing discharge rates. The Stormwater Management Study shall be modified to address this requirement and shall be incorporated into the SWPPP. 24. In order to protect Bluff Creek, meet the goals of the Bluff Creek Natural Resources Management Plan and the Bluff Creek TMDL Implementation Plan, staff is recommending that the portion of the property north of West 78th Street is dedicated to the City and that this density should be transferred to that portion south of West 78'h Street. 25. Sheet C-3 GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN shall be amended to include the following: a. The Swale draining into the proposed pond shall be stabilized for its entirety as it is less than 200 feet in length. b. An appropriate perimeter BMP shall be shown and installed around the proposed outlet modification for the southern wetland. c. Silt fence or another acceptable BMP shall be installed on the north end of the culvert under West 78'h Street. d. The EOF from the pond to the wetland shall be permanently stabilized. This is addressed in the Drainage Report but is not included in the Grading and Erosion Plan. A turf reinforcement mat is an acceptable practice as is called out in the drainage report. 26. Minnesota Department of Transportation will need to review and approve the drainage plan. 27. The applicant shall revise the plans to incorporate sidewalk connections to existing trails. 28. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. A "Code Record" is required (Code Record schematic plans may be same scale as architectural). For "Code Record" information go to MN Dept. of Labor and Industry: http://www.dli.mn.gov/CCLD/PlanConstruction.asp 29. The building(s) must be protected with automatic fire sprinkler systems. 30. An accessible route must be provided to buildings, parking facilities, public transportation stops and all common use facilities. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 31 of 31 31. All parking areas, including parking garages, must be provided with accessible parking spaces dispersed among the various building entrances. 32. Accessible dwelling units must be provided in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. 33. The building owner and/or their representatives should meet with the Inspections Division to discuss plan review and permit procedures (in particular, type of construction and allowable area issues must be addressed). 34. Due to the large size of this building, class III Fire Dept, standpipes will be required. Have developer contact Fire Marshal for exact locations. MSFC Sec. 905.3.9. 35. " No Parking Fire Lane " signs will be required. Have developer contact Fire Marshal for exact locations. MSFD Sec. 505.31 36. An additional on site fire hydrant will be required. Contact Fire Marshal for location. 37. A PIV ( post indicator valve ) will be required. 38. A three-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. MSFC Sec 508.5.4." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Recommendation. 2. Planned Unit Development Ordinance. 3. Development Review Application. 4. Reduced Copy Site Plan. 5. Traffic Study dated April 9, 2013. 6. Letter from MnDOT dated April 4, 2013. 7. Affidavit of Mailing. giplant2013 planning cascs12013-07 chanhwen apamnents\stafl rgwrt pc.dm Aanenson, Kate From: Lynn/Velma Wilder [lynnvelma@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 2:41 PM To: Tom Furlong (Mayor); City Council; Aanenson, Kate Subject: Fwd: Galpin 225 Apartments Proposal Respectfully submitted to Chanhassen Mayor, Council and *Planning, (*Planning via Kate: Please forward to Planning members) This addendum to my attached/forwarded "225 Galpin Apts" email of 12/9/12 reflects the new 155 proposal. I'm still completely snowed with tax prep, so my input is based on only a cursory glance at the Oppidan 155 letter. I apologize for the rushed cryptic and crude composition of this input. In my quick review of what I've written, this is far excessive in length, especially for busy people like you. I don't have time to rewrite, so I've used highlighting to better allow skimming very rapidly of Major Concerns in bold type, and underlining for more deliberate detail skimming. I'm also unhappy with my tone as some reads pushy, "indelicate" and brusque, and might give the erroneous impression of disrespect. With my tax deadline looming, I can't take time to refine. I assure you that I admire every one of you dedicated public servants, who often deal with complex contentious challenges. THE 225 TO 155 CHANGE is a 30% unit reduction, which might be ball -parked as LEAVING ABOUT 70% OF THE PROBLEMS. THE STRONGLY COMMUNITY -SUPPORTED PRESERVE CHAN 225 PETITION POINTED OUT THE CONCERNS WITH THE MAGNITUDE OF THE 225 APTS AND TRAFFIC SAFETY. Of special concern are the DRASTIC ZONING DEPARTURES FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN that specifies 1-2 story residential and business offices. I had been hoping, if there was a revised proposal, for a 2-story proposal, not the original 3- story. The 46' HEIGHT variance IS ROUGHLY EQUAL TO 4-5 STORY FLAT - ROOFED BUILDINGS. and further emphasizes the HUGE size and appearance of the complex. This is an unwelcome, totally out -of -character visual impact in the roughly one mile radius community of 1-2 story houses and businesses (as zoned). That area obviously excludes the commercial area south of Hwy 5, between Century Blvd and Hwy 41. My 0 email gave the 189 UNIT POWERS RIDGE APTS AS A GOOD COMPARISON FOR THE VISUAL IMPACT OF A MASSIVE COMPLEX WITH NO OTHER LARGE BUILDINGS IN SIGHT like the Galpin-W78`h St Apts location To compare to the old 225 apts proposal, you had to add another 41 unit 1341 West Lake St building to get a 224 unit complex for comparison. To compare to the new 155 Apts proposal, you'd subtract the existing 41 unit 1341 building to get a 148 unit comparison. I urge you to drive by/through that complex south of Hwy 5, south on Powers Blvd to the SW corner of West Lake St and Powers. SCREENING LANDSCAPING: In my extremely brief review of the Oppidan letter, I only saw shrubs mentioned as screening. If the City persists in supporting the developer, THE 155 PROPOSAL SHOULD INCLUDE EXTENSIVE TREE PLANTINGS FOR SCREENING. Actually the effectiveness of screening the 46' tall building will be token at best, but at lease might soften the visual impact somewhat. Many large evergreens and scattered tall deciduous trees should be quantified and specified for the proposal. CONCLUSION: It's disappointing, frustrating and seemly inappropriate that the Planning Commission currently has a very strong bias to excessively support development (with limited regard to the petitioned impact on the Citizens in the surrounding community). The major zoning deviations from the valid Comprehensive Plan allows an unacceptable incompatibility with the surrounding 1-2 story community with a HUGE (4-5 story appearing) complex. Increased traffic safety issues at the already dangerous W 78`h St and Galpin intersection needs a thorough design study completed and approved before the Apt Proposal is pursued further. Despite any traffic theoretic studies, I strongly believe any significant additional traffic will add considerable risks, especially with the speeds on Galpin and the north -to -south U-Turns to reach Hwy 5. I'm through that intersection often, and it takes extreme caution to watch fast Galpin traffic both ways, and also judge whether someone from the South is going to U-Turn or full -left turn. Both type of left turns require the same confusing left turn signals, which some turning drivers may not even use and adds more confusion. I'd greatly appreciate your consideration of my concerns, which I'm sure are typical of the surrounding community. I'm sorry that I have not had the time to double check that all details are 100% accurate. Thanks (especially if you took valuable time to read this Long input), (Mr) Lynn Wilder (and Velma Wilder) FORWARD: GALPIN 225 APARTMENTS PROPOSAL (12/9/12 input) On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Lynn/Velma Wilder <Iynnvelma(c�email.com> wrote: Respected Council Members, (Plus the same email was sent separately to the Planning Commissioners) My wife and I live at 7754 Vasserman Trail just west of the proposed GALPIN "APTS". We are biased as we will be directly impacted by the MASSIVE complex close to and directly out from our front yard. The "APTS" will severely reduce enjoyment of our property, and greatly decrease our resale value. The residents in the surrounding areas will also be impacted visually by the out -of — and 1-story retail at Galpin and Century Blvds. The APTS' added traffic will greatly aggravate the unsafe Galpin and W78th St intersection, and add more Bluff Creek students crossing risky Galpin and Hwy 5. The Lake Susan Apts with 162 units have been referenced in Prior inputs The visual size affect is lost by the encircled configuration of their buildings, and other large buildings in the general area. A more open area and lined up in an "L" arrangement Their location is south of Hwy 5 and west at West Lake St, with building street numbers of 1321 (100units), 1331 (42 units) and 1341 (41units). This complex looks HUGE in its open setting, and GALPIN APTS WOULD BE 25% LARGER. The Galpin APts would be equal to adding another 1341 building (41units) to the 183 unit complex = 224 units. I urge you to drive through the Powers Ridge Apts complex and visualize the addition of another west/1341 building, and then visualize the total in 2 huge buildings arranged more in a line as the Galpin Apts. I believe you would agree such a complex would look MASSIVE when in an 2 open area with scattered much smaller 1-2 story residential and retail in the surrounding general area. The size of the complex is really a ZONING issue. Density transfer is great for the developer, but unfair to neighboring areas when it changes the compatibility objective of the original zoning. From a personal standpoint, we are also concerned if the APTS add water runoff or raise the water table in our vicinity . We already are seriously challenged at times by very heavy sump inflows. We are sorry this input is so extremely late (and lengthy), Respectfully submitted, Mr & Mrs Lynn & Velma Wilder Apartment Buildings Centennial Hills Chan View Chanhassen Village Gateway Place Heritage Park Lake Susan Apartment Homes Powers Ridge Apartments Presbyterian Homes Santa Vera Units 65 35 120 48 60 34� 162�� a 184' 161 m Summerwood 191 SUBTOTAL ONE BEDROOM 35 SUBTOTAL TWO BEDROOM 18 THIRD FLOOR GROSS SF 48927 GARAGE FLOOR GROSS SF 49822 TOTAL ONE BEDROOM 104 TOTAL TWO BEDROOM 5 TOTAL BUILDING GROSS SF 196701 KNIIIIIIIIA r; Q4 LABEL LEVEL BEDROOMS BATHROOMS COUNT GROSS SF UNIT NUMBER 1 1 1 1 624 - 1 1 1 23 667 - 1 1 1 2 702 - 1 1 1 4 717 - 1 1 1 1 747 - 1 1 1 1 757 - 1 1 1 2 765 - 1 2 2 1 1008 - 1 2 2 1 1023 - 1 2 2 1 1024 - 1 2 2 1 1036 - 1 2 2 2 1064 - 1 2 2 1 1065 - 1 2 2 1 1066 - 1 2 2 1 1090 - 1 2 2 1 1102 - 1 2 2 2 1107 - 1 2 2 2 1120 - 1 2 2 1 1132 SUBTOTAL ONE BEDROOM 34 SUBTOTAL TWO BEDROOM 15 FIRST FLOOR GROSS SF 49025 - 2 1 1 1 624 - 2 1 1 23 667 - 2 1 1 2 702 - 2 1 1 5 717 - 2 1 1 2 747 - 2 1 1 2 757 - 2 1 1 0 765 - 2 2 2 1 1008 - 2 2 2 1 1023 - 2 2 2 1 1024 2 2 2 1 1036 2 2 2 2 1064 2 2 2 1 1065 2 2 2 1 1066 2 2 2 1 1090 2 2 2 1 1102 2 2 2 2 1107 2 2 2 2 1120 2 2 2 1 1132 2 2 1 2 942 2 2 1 1 933 SUBTOTAL ONE BEDROOM 35 SUBTOTAL TWO BEDROOM 18 SECOND FLOOR GROSS SF 48927 CITY OF 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952 227,1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax:952.227-1110 Public Works 7901 Park Place Phone:952,227.1300 Fax:952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone:952.227.1125 Fax: 952,227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Community Development Director DATE: April 22, 2013 SUBJ: Approval of City Code Amendment, Rezoning, Site Plan with Variances and a Land Use Map Amendment for Chanhassen Apartments Planning Case #2013-07 PROPOSED MOTION "The Chanhassen City Council approves an Amendment to the City Code, Rezoning, Site Plan with Variances, and a Land Use Map Amendment for the Chanhassen Apartments subject to the conditions in the staff report and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation." City Council approval requires a majority vote of City Council present. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a 155-unit apartment building. In December of 2012 the City Council made the following comments on the Concept PUD for the Chanhassen Apartments: • number of units was too high • need to address traffic and pedestrian safety • environmental protection • density transfer Based on the comments from the conceptual PUD review the applicant has made changes to the project including the number of units. To approve this project a land use amendment to high density residential, site plan with a parking variance and rezoning to PUD is required. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 16, 2013 to review the proposed development. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the project_ The April 16, 2013 Planning Commission meeting minutes are item 1 a of the April 22, 2013 City Council packet. Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow Todd Gerhardt Chanhassen Apartments — Planning Case 2013-07 April 22, 2013 Page 2 Comments made at the public hearing included: • Traffic and safe pedestrian crossing • The number of U-tums needs to be addressed • Don't change the land use, the city should wait until the next comprehensive plan update • The number of units being proposed for the density transfer is too high • A number of questions focused on the methodology of the traffic study RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of an Amendment to the City Code defining a conservation area, Rezoning of approximately 14 acres from Agricultural Estate (A-2) to Planned Unit Development -Residential (PUD-R); approval of a Site Plan Review for a 155-unit Apartment Building with Variances to reduce interior parking by one stall; approval of a Land Use Map Amendment from Residential -Low Density and Office, to Residential -Low and High Density and Office and Residential -High Density Planned Unit Development (PUD); and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Report Dated April 16, 2013. 2. Email from Lynn/Vehna Wilder dated April 12, 2013. 3. Highway 5 Accidents Summary. gAPIm12013 planning ea N2013-07 chanhassen apaMnmtstexocutiw sum wy.doc 0 CITY of CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone:952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax:952.227,1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone:952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 7901 Park Place Phone:952.227.1300 Fax:952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Community Development Director DATE: April 22, 2013 SUBJ: Approval of City Code Amendment, Rezoning, Site Plan with Variances and a Land Use Map Amendment for Chanhassen Apartments Planning Case #2013-07 PROPOSED MOTION "The Chanhassen City Council approves an Amendment to the City Code, Rezoning, Site Plan with Variances, and a Land Use Map Amendment for the Chanhassen Apartments subject to the conditions in the staff report and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation." City Council approval requires a majority vote of City Council present. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a 155-unit apartment building. In December of 2012 the City Council made the following comments on the Concept PUD for the Chanhassen Apartments: • number of units was too high • need to address traffic and pedestrian safety • environmental protection • density transfer Based on the comments from the conceptual PUD review the applicant has made changes to the project including the number of units. To approve this project a land use amendment to high density residential, site plan with a parking variance and rezoning to PUD is required. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 16, 2013 to review the proposed development. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the project. The April 16, 2013 Planning Commission meeting minutes are item 1 a of the April 22, 2013 City Council packet. Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow Todd Gerhardt Chanhassen Apartments — Planning Case 2013-07 April 22, 2013 Page 2 Comments made at the public hearing included: • Traffic and safe pedestrian crossing • The number of U-turns needs to be addressed • Don't change the land use, the city should wait until the next comprehensive plan update • The number of units being proposed for the density transfer is too high • A number of questions focused on the methodology of the traffic study RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of an Amendment to the City Code defining a conservation area, Rezoning of approximately 14 acres from Agricultural Estate (A-2) to Planned Unit Development -Residential (PUD-R); approval of a Site Plan Review for a 155-unit Apartment Building with Variances to reduce interior parking by one stall; approval of a Land Use Map Amendment from Residential -Low Density and Office, to Residential -Low and High Density and Office and Residential -High Density Planned Unit Development (PUD); and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Report Dated April 16, 2013. 2. Email from Lynn/Velma Wilder dated April 12, 2013. 3. Highway 5 Accidents Summary. 9:Ww\2013 planning cases12013-07 chanhassen apadments\executive summmyAm 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 7901 Park Place Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us luIDiuls)"X1101111&I TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Community Development Director DATE: April 22, 2013 SUBJ: Approval of City Code Amendment, Rezoning, Site Plan with Variances and a Land Use Map Amendment for Chanhassen Apartments Planning Case #2013-07 PROPOSED MOTION "The Chanhassen City Council approves an Amendment to the City Code, Rezoning, Site Plan with Variances, and a Land Use Map Amendment for the Chanhassen Apartments subject to the conditions in the staff report and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation." City Council approval requires a majority vote of City Council present. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a 155-unit apartment building. In December of 2012 the City Council made the following comments on the Concept PUD for the Chanhassen Apartments: • number of units was too high • need to address traffic and pedestrian safety • environmental protection • density transfer Based on the comments from the conceptual PUD review the applicant has made changes to the project including the number of units. To approve this project a land use amendment to high density residential, site plan with a parking variance and rezoning to PUD is required. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 16, 2013 to review the proposed development. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the project- The April 16, 2013 Planning Commission meeting minutes are item 1 a of the April 22, 2013 City Council packet. Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow Todd Gerhardt Chanhassen Apartments — Planning Case 2013-07 April 22, 2013 Page 2 Comments made at the public hearing included: • Traffic and safe pedestrian crossing • The number of U-turns needs to be addressed • Don't change the land use, the city should wait until the next comprehensive plan update • The number of units being proposed for the density transfer is too high • A number of questions focused on the methodology of the traffic study RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of an Amendment to the City Code defining a conservation area, Rezoning of approximately 14 acres from Agricultural Estate (A-2) to Planned Unit Development -Residential (PUD-R); approval of a Site Plan Review for a 155-unit Apartment Building with Variances to reduce interior parking by one stall; approval of a Land Use Map Amendment from Residential -Low Density and Office, to Residential -Low and High Density and Office and Residential -High Density Planned Unit Development (PUD); and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Report Dated April 16, 2013. 2. Email from Lynn/Vehna Wilder dated April 12, 2013. 3. Highway 5 Accidents Summary. 9:lplan12013 planning caees12013-07 chanha n apartm"tskxecutive smnmary.dm VI MT OF 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1190 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax:952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone:952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 7901 Park Place Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax:952,227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Community Development Director DATE: April 22, 2013 SUBJ: Approval of City Code Amendment, Rezoning, Site Plan with Variances and a Land Use Map Amendment for Chanhassen Apartments Planning Case #2013-07 "The Chanhassen City Council approves an Amendment to the City Code, Rezoning, Site Plan with Variances, and a Land Use Map Amendment for the Chanhassen Apartments subject to the conditions in the staff report and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation" City Council approval requires a majority vote of City Council present. 1axX411II0\i0RYi1 �tu/:�ta•1 The applicant is requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a 155-unit apartment building. In December of 2012 the City Council made the following comments on the Concept PUD for the Chanhassen Apartments: • number of units was too high • need to address traffic and pedestrian safety • environmental protection • density transfer Based on the comments from the conceptual PUD review the applicant has made changes to the project including the number of units. To approve this project a land use amendment to high density residential, site plan with a parking variance and rezoning to PUD is required. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 16, 2013 to review the proposed development. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the project. The April 16, 2013 Planning Commission meeting minutes are item la of the April 22, 2013 City Council packet. Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Todayand Planning for TomerrnW Todd Gerhardt Chanhassen Apartments — Planning Case 2013-07 April 22, 2013 Page 2 Comments made at the public hearing included: • Traffic and safe pedestrian crossing • The number of U-tums needs to be addressed • Don't change the land use, the city should wait until the next comprehensive plan update • The number of units being proposed for the density transfer is too high • A number of questions focused on the methodology of the traffic study RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of an Amendment to the City Code defining a conservation area, Rezoning of approximately 14 acres from Agricultural Estate (A-2) to Planned Unit Development -Residential (PUD-R); approval of a Site Plan Review for a 155-unit Apartment Building with Variances to reduce interior parking by one stall; approval of a Land Use Map Amendment from Residential -Low Density and Office, to Residential -Low and High Density and Office and Residential -High Density Planned Unit Development (PUD); and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. ATTACHMENTS L Staff Report Dated April 16, 2013. 2. Email from Lynn/Velma Wilder dated April 12, 2013. 3. Highway 5 Accidents Summary. gAp1 n\2013 planning ca \2013-07 Chanhassen apartments\executive summwydo ClTYOF 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone:952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax:952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone:952.2271120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone.,952.227.1400 Fax:952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 7901 Park Place Phone:952.227.1300 Fax: 952227.1310 Senior Center Phone:952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Community Development Director DATE: April 22, 2013 SUBJ: Approval of City Code Amendment, Rezoning, Site Plan with Variances and a Land Use Map Amendment for Chanhassen Apartments Planning Case #2013-07 PROPOSED MOTION "The Chanhassen City Council approves an Amendment to the City Code, Rezoning, Site Plan with Variances, and a Land Use Map Amendment for the Chanhassen Apartments subject to the conditions in the staff report and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation" City Council approval requires a majority vote of City Council present. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a 155-unit apartment building. In December of 2012 the City Council made the following comments on the Concept PUD for the Chanhassen Apartments: • number of units was too high • need to address traffic and pedestrian safety • environmental protection • density transfer Based on the comments from the conceptual PUD review the applicant has made changes to the project including the number of units. To approve this project a land use amendment to high density residential, site plan with a parking variance and rezoning to PUD is required. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 16,2013 to review the proposed development. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the project. The April 16, 2013 Planning Commission meeting minutes are item 1 a of the April 22, 2013 City Council packet. Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow Todd Gerhardt Chanhassen Apartments — Planning Case 2013-07 April 22, 2013 Page 2 Comments made at the public hearing included: • Traffic and safe pedestrian crossing • The number of U-tums needs to be addressed • Don't change the land use, the city should wait until the next comprehensive plan update • The number of units being proposed for the density transfer is too high • A number of questions focused on the methodology of the traffic study RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of an Amendment to the City Code defining a conservation area, Rezoning of approximately 14 acres from Agricultural Estate (A-2) to Planned Unit Development -Residential (PUD-R); approval of a Site Plan Review for a 155-unit Apartment Building with Variances to reduce interior parking by one stall; approval of a Land Use Map Amendment from Residential -Low Density and Office, to Residential -Low and High Density and Office and Residential -High Density Planned Unit Development (PUD); and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Report Dated April 16, 2013. 2. Email from Lynn/Velma Wilder dated April 12, 2013. 3. Highway 5 Accidents Summary. 9Aplan12013 planning case512013-07 chanhassen aparunents\executive su wy.doc LAKESIDE 5TH ADDITION Cash Fees 4/22/2013 Estimated Total Cost of Improvements Administration Fee GIS Fee ($25/plat and $10/parcel) No. of parcels Surface Water Management Fee Acres 8 Park Fee Units 155 Sewer and Water Hook Up Fee (Residential) Sewer 155 units Water 155 units Collector and Arterial Roadway Fee ac TOTAL ADMINISTRATION FEES Building Permit Fees Valuation Paid With Building Permit Sewer and Water Hook Up Fee (Residential) Sewer 155 units Water 155 units MCES SAC 155 units City Surcharge 155 units TOTAL FEES WITH BUILDING PERMIT $ - 3%if less than $500,000;2% between $500,000and $1,000,000; 2.5% of first $1,000,000 than 1.5% in excess of $1,000,000 $ 25.00 $116,560.00 Quantity and Quality $ 589,000.00 $ 3,800.00 per unit multi -family $ 97,960.00 $ 651.00 per unit $ 265,825.00 $ 1,818.00 per unit $ 1,069,370.00 $ 228,625.00 $ 1,519.00 per unit $ 620,310.00 $ 4,242.00 perunit $ 366,575.00 $ 2,435.00 perunit $ 11,625.00 $ 75.00 per unit $ 1,227,135.00 Combined total $ 2,296,505.00 Page 1 Chanhassen, MN - Official Website - 2030 Comprehensive Plan Page I of I •myConnecdons: E-nage yarc rmun�ry - ca+rect 5 news. events a+q nformatic:. y"u xe grout Vier more information aw. m FIffiblFill' .J7Ui lJ� rJJJci:f liAEt1'( ifE�'R'_L:fl7d a't FSGU'fla DcrsriffPderlfi -- search Chanhassen 2030 Comprehensive Plan Available Lam inventory 0ema9raptdcs oevelapmem naps pvniox property Information Studies ZONng Code oianhassen: Halle I Departments I Plannlllq & Zonilg 1 2030 CPruenelveii.ivic 2030 Comprehensive Plan Overview A Comprehensive Plan is designed to serve as a guide for the local decision -making process. The cornerstone of such a comprehensive planning process is the development and adoption of goals and policies, which identify the desired qualities and overall vision for the future of the community. These goals and policies are based on the needs of the city along with the unique characteristics and values of the community. The Comprehensive Plan is designed to be a Flexible tool, which can be adapted to new policies to attain stated goals. To view the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, click on the chapters below: • Cover Paae • Title Page • Adoption Resolution 2008-64 • Table of Contents . Chapter 1: Introduction • Chapter 2: Land Use • Chapter 3: Resource Protection • Chapter 4: Housing • Chapter 5' Natural Resources • Chapter 6. Parks and Open Space • Chapter T Tansportation • Chapter 8: Sewer • Chapter 9. Water • Chapter M Capital Improvement Prooram • Complete Report (49 MB) 1 Kate Aanenson, AICP Community Development Director Email Ph: (952) 222-1139 Fx: (952) 227-1110 CITYOF Cut of Caan used r: 9900 Made+ a". pD Anz W I C anrassen Mn 55317 l (952; 227-1100 Cu °ASer —, Canna: Its Sde MdP Ca"Mid A SNJM ageNas d Mirnos APM Dr %nkw0 Staff OnW Pa.erul by rrv¢%ns http.-%5�wti. i I,hinhissen.inn.us/index.aspx?nid=200 4/22i2013 I CHANHASSEN APARTMENTS COMP PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING & SITE PLAN REVIEW CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA N w 1. 60 r i SITE n I R]O I` \ 1 I VICINITY MAP SHEET INDEX co COVER SHEET Gl OUSTING CONDIITONS PLAN C-2 SITE PLAN G3 GRADINC.AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN C< Ur1L1n PLAN CS UGNITNG PLAN Ll TANDSCAPE PLAN Alb G.I GE LEVEL PLAN A100-B GARAGE LEVEL PLAN Ai01-A FIRST FLOOR PLAN AI01-B FIRST FLOOR PLAN AI02-A T ICAL FLOOR PLAN A102-B 3YPICAL FLOOR PLAN A200 ELEVATIONS A201 ELEVATIONS OWNER/DEVELOPER PAM TIICCT OPPIDAN 5125 COUNTY ROAD 101. SOOT 100 N5DINETONKA, MN MU5 PN R52-25V4353 FX 652-2560151 /:\;iN 710 Y xl"i PETS REELY, AIA, LEED AP COLLAGE ARCHITECTS M RAWQND AVENUE ST. PAUL. 64/55114 PH 651-0724051 CIVIL ENGINEER CLARK WICRLUND, P.E. ALLIANT ENGINEERING, LNC. 213 PARKAVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 300 NUNNEAMN 55415 612-]58-309 FX 5&3 FX 612-758-3M099 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT M XRONBECK,ASLA ALI. IANr ENGINEERBN'., INC. 233 PARK AVINUE SOUTH, SUUE 30D MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55615 PH 612-75&3050 FX 612-75&3M CITY OF CHANHAS$Et4 RECEIVED MAR 15 2013 CHANHASSEN PUNNING 0V? � dgY ALLIANT 3 w W w 5 z Z Z N w z z z w z w 2 O a 'a Z Q 3o w z a w � Z W tN/l z � _ Q J N i a w a i O O U U U w p.0 nww p novmr mFm.r C-0 SCANNED LEGEND • - Dcd.a YMJT P'/n! el WOJ mwwmvt - D.wm �naa Am:m pa unDor n.< I'll O— Dmam C.. S - - obit.. B;wmnw. x Bei ; .,IV Tap RMg .I Dechkd N ,bb n Ma Scat+. e! ""o m C v Rnm. a! !1i. in!wIDectnn el Gdpn A— onE CSAR 5. CO!0�M kan Samy by !t Brom tmd Sumjn9 nc. Db y W Dab4 1-t-1p-p] ORIGINAL LEGAL DESCRIPTION °a�: a t�. m�u� a , mm .o =. a.= OPPIDAN ALLIANT ex:wuwio D.c 3 w W R MR Ol SURVEY INFORMATION FROM SURVEY DATED 8-5-04 OY SCNOELL & MADSON, INC. NN F� REVIEµ DHtY �� n ® 14W M➢ TON D IS ■Vryp1 C-1 srJur_ N ,BBT am 2 of 15 � M1 / \ SITES PLAN NOTES: a aAuw rw/ro nu a ase. z "`nE �nvaov..vos Eon oxaTE saooR /�// \ w�"`.cEi.1prro \ o nsn M. m a T ra Arm mx Aun aac o.m _ ow m.r�. rn. swwmz. • wra.Rm m..LL sm ART »A LauTals uo aAlRS uo �WS aW�KWZSalTAnAT \1\a MW�a4rsTW 9 Wl ianun Y WVF ANT osa®..oTv v ..mA. Ras THE vwrs 1. L°" iE a is:40 e` wmr.'muo \ sam ro voseE as E«mw vwr ran �anms vmmwaE vnam w uo smzawrs TV mw vnasis ro a LvaAo .a— nA aaa.w. ; ? SITE DATA jl�r� aTv^En'onu�xu�' TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 5 avow m+.w . a wAcuMAU vs.w wm us rerun �� v..m. :sass s o.oa, A,ffs w.m • sa+« s a.oa .� a s, vn TV m rm. avow � s m rsew sre�r. � ssex. VT mi s rcaws ssans\s son <«a. el+<ows) an�• owAs /nro.m.. i*sw s. u.n as as twxa e) snE tsxwn a) s. asz or smL ry✓ca » s. a.: w su tRssn e) sE (rwcn q PARKING DATA io v.�.z eR`w an tz w). `— ins s�.0 vEn°�Qi - as Raao vTl smo -as..ss SITE LEGEND- OPPIDAN ALLIANT z ¢ Z zW W F � Q V, w z - a 0 As Z g z a a x a a xx o Daum ASAwWS/mxRa. orA mua,rt ROAR ANY MT1 C-2 3 of 15 0 1. a . M SEE" TRUNK HIGHWAI / No 5 GRADING NOTES: 1. .0 r�.W aww3➢ M➢nG /LRS'eF WnN' YVGtS Nn /� /IDF WI m OLII➢ 2R TT WECr9x —s�rtou. u 1®)zss-ziu, w raz¢ n W6rnICIW FnIxKE 9wl a wdrcn a.Y� a mxrwnm m um .. m... w. ewi vwora mmm w • sms �/ ummm ux.or momw. s® rt ro. � \m vr»+ aua+.ws euv.mm+ mon m srurt z �. m�rna"�unsums r�°"im`rzs�N°nxc aE umrivrs. ion sa\ rz. s.x m.mt ww m rnr ma+mn.n .Wx smore.e w s� u rsrw m srm .caar onvm scmr� 6 r.orccr wort m. wwrwr raaax.vnz r` rs°�'swremai m�rw¢CO�s� rmO1v xMi rwnis .w` :uunw. a\cam xt - nmm m .0 o e< roesnw nc wwn cwa acaE m a uo�u) r�iu.u. EROSION CONTROL NOTES: sv..x� tw mr.. zwc s+.arc rnm wwwm n :uart omur mw.a : w.m..aw a � rnrra.nw a..t wcwc � c.nw v�O1i. w a w �ma siia �\�n�rorzn on somm : r. GRADING LEGEND —910— N.q+030 0..nun 9650 iR�9.Gi� NN.S� 4Rx YSN rW N.Mm.N {{E {61 fICIP OEML`r: .c. a«smcrw a..a N PRE��M�N vc„� M .4 SVIE M iFE! OPPIDAN cALLLeriuwUi,Tvx C-3 4 of 15 -EDGE OF WETLAND— orureniEa e. wNxc z z � IT 1 F\ F% NttIRPNi TRUNK HIGIHWAY NO, 5 \.. UTILRY NOTES: / i. � SOxE mw�iP6 MO FLLM�Fv6.9WL � gFID x 1111nw �C' w-v.ffil wFIDA P2P W ro ..n— m «om.nx uwwm. WE. anal[ Rx ya ttxx5 ewX m M swrt rc ma'�ws. oxx urxxsm�oomeC�Sx� �M�>.¢ms st—wm wm www snrz ux ou. �(Wolzsz-�ics a inrs x auwE rc rxr u,X"• rtwm m�aic cw�wt x ¢�f1yx S xmm EemE �omam ¶emu WRi W; wzm rzrn�wr WEi. W. e. ueuvGE R+. 4S xm Ctswc vwr[ [ax[c14N mx rE mmnr2 )9 cs CLw1�N swrvxz um wvw swn s xSxum •IM � . r. iN w.s swa w Ea n+m ro x� newmx w i .:_.. �, 6 4w1 BE R/[ro nI NIIv4. 1R5. Sx45. 4 vLwS IGNEiw V FaM vw5l). LE IW -IEP IM RO iCa Y�urtliGCx UTILITY LEGEND: ■ .� wWN.�, � SSW 4xE. oa;.x Fop ,tPLVA PREL s OPPIDAN ALLMOU ®�nui unrrn w C-4 srxc x zzn vm 5 of 15 I W6r l r 1 ! I ,— ---EDGE OF WETLAND I% OiL2.2D BV XF2HNF II-12-1212 i 1 y?. r w� I y / W 7 \ 1. / / / � t,\.: ... a, a.. t., In I. t• t.�.r., 3. b. to i., d ., e. -. / , t. `a.a i �., L+ to !.. t, t. rn t .a D., a., i., d.: a • t /. � � iG$ h e.. a,L>�`t•�, i. t'1. 3. 's..t a, F, a, ai a, t, ix ai '. rybra a.. 0a YY� IF, ���MMMIII t to } i, a. q<e' }. t ., I.l t t t 1., i F ° °•t. t, t, t, 3, 1.. ____ ��_ ♦Yd, i1i ; ..a D la --_ °�i'• t. a, l.i 1. lnl r rt }.. , .t�:. i, i, n•e l.t .t.t t _F-+R. sn ,:. }.. t,} .l 'a. 1, t, e, IF, r, / % � a, to axa.'a 't t I. 1. t- t°Rn 3,} } .• :, :.. s. t, -.InI. R, x, t. }, a. s., t. t, :.. to t,:•t, l., ,ro. a., i, b., a , a�i d.a • 1 • l., l.a !., 3., x., to :.. L, R.i to t. }-, :n a, }. .• t' t'• t, t, I. }.. in t. a.i a.. tot.. R.. R, 3. 's'}•R, Sa li .•a., an / D. i I }�}, 1. }, t. 1. t,t I. 4, • 1C , a,a t d- a., i, F., ,t, in t, en d:l } t i, ✓w .. a, ,t.t t,t x 'a•Ri ai }. ea a, t. a, D a t. �' V� � ll� ot. a. t. ei ea n t•t, t,t _1. V s_ ♦ tt�� y 0 �o 0 Loma Sales Associates Lighting and Controls 5200 12N Avaaua 8aa[ 5luko ,21 s 611 ota 553'19 S261a. `952) 9"_6,,s . {9921 99} 6965 mi. 9maeaa a.ie• 62-w>°, 9xi.! ..c a. 9caa" o,,....2 J..9.. i. lassm. . iI tai�w! a..ulsad l}96,iM ....2.�...i.v ii a..as n w .me Y oW4 Qa��iMµNP��c N� 0 ,S }0 W ,6MF . iEET OPPIDAN MALLIANT i4Fle�ll,•alrn WWrt ISSY9AXL[/Cg1iPYL i 9Xv,iM Xks Wi.3 C-5 6 of 15 i way I min I I:,-- EDGEEO WETLAN-1- ED.. .11...- Il-.i- [ TRUNK HIGHIAT" NO 5 SEED PLANTING NOTES: G LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS: c- re�.m+az s i.w gnw LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE .�..'�....r� 24In. TIR bmraTx�/ m. SlR w n� wa.r w. 53.4 In. iJR ten. TREE PLANTING DETAIL\SHRBB RIAMING DETAIL Fo�PE` WDom^a\ 1 OPPIDAN ALLIANT z Z H W Z a Z Z a 5 z y m= Z rn a a g � z a ^ C z c=i c0> 5 L-1 ,.,,, 7 of 15 oIA. � wYV.edlpa.N.00m I e _ _ _ _ _ 11- _LI CNANHASSEN O � Evdr Be &Hw AYS I , y I CXPHH0.55EN, W I EmiuuA uo cr nE rt.rt n I , 1 oQ.mE GARAGE LEVEL - 49,822 GSF i r / / I n MI` SET TITLE \ M eeoo aEx hNx `\ m / 15 W� GARAGE LEVEL PLAN I GARAGE LEVEL PLAN u fi A1OO-A GARAGE LEVEL - 49,822 GSF a � 1 ' a s / A s O C2 Collage CHANHASSEN ousr Biwa remav�r s auawsex, w SET TITLE U GARAGE LEVEL PLAN 1 GAMG ELEVEL PLAN ' AIOaB GENERAL PLAN NOTES in umwa �� .ImasR85MWMTI�Yi. v 71 Collage i mos w¢r ®m ®`c ; oar aNird ' i , -w-.cdXoeNOXcgm m� Nog n n n n n CHANHASSEN CNNiN0.55EX, W 2M17M i q i >fls I roa �,aMM Y collage arcXit c k .� �� mm nW. wmnaeu sass. � I — I FIRST FLOOR - 49,024 GSF SEr TITLE I FIRST FLOOR PLAN I V V `1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN, PART'A' � X� A101-A FIRST FLOOR - 49,024 GSF PLAN NOTES ;T FLOOR PLAN. PARTS' 0 CHANHASSEN �&Hw AYI CIU111U5 ". . SET TITLE I FIRST FLOOR PLAN I A101-13 �J I I n l n n I k 'I III x l CHANHASSEN xp ONPN 6.waxpllWwr6 �mm 1�mx ®iu ®m I � °®rlsx ' � cxwMuf6Fll.w I I I a I TYPICAL FLOOR - I 48,930 GSF I a ' I� SET TITLE TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN ` . 1 TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN, PART'A' 14 /h A102-A PLAN NOTES am®mw-ns •� aonmsm®ummxm TYPICAL PLAN - 48,930 GSF _ i `' e vw� / V\ V '/ 1 i � / va G Collage CHANHASSEN caww eLw. eicmvnr s cH...ss .n rwrnu. � ore a nE en m collage I armft m a,_e,.,,.,. SET TITLE A102-8 Prepared For: Oppidan 5125 County Road 101, Suite 100 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Prepared By: Alliant Engineering, Inc. 233 Park Avenue South, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55415 vI x NT I.\6 1NEE0.1sq 1]1.. Chanhassen Apartments Stormwater Management Study Chanhassen, MN March 15, 2013 SCANNED Chanhassen Apartments Drainage Report March 15'. 2013 Introduction Included in this report are the materials necessary to review the stormwater management plan for the proposed multi -family apartments in Chanhassen, Minnesota. We have provided all pertinent calculations in this report for the City of Chanhassen with the following information included: • Drainage Report • Drainage Area Maps • HydroCAD Reports which include: o Rate Control Calculations (2-yr, 10-yr, I00-yr, 100-yr Snow Melt) o NURP Water Quality Calculations • Storm Sewer Sizing Worksheet (I O-Year Sizing) Background This hydrologic study was conducted to analyze the stormwater treatment requirements for a proposed apartment complex and adjacent infrastructure in Chanhassen, Minnesota located just west of Galpin Boulevard and south of W 78`s Street. The purpose of the report is to design a stormwater management facility that is capable of handling the effects of the proposed complex and increased impervious cover. This study compares the following two scenarios: • Existing conditions • Proposed conditions The stormwater analysis was completed for the 7.868 acre property. This site also contains one delineated wetland which covers 0.142 acres. Drainage maps in the appendix show delineations based on existing conditions and the proposed development. The stormwater management plan for the proposed conditions will meet the guidelines as required by the City of Chanhassen for stormwater quantity and quality. The following criterion was used in designing the stormwater management system: Rate Control: • Post -development peak runoff rates from the site for the 2, 10 and 100-year 24-hour Type II storm events must not be greater than the existing condition rates. • Post -development peak runoff rates from the site for the 100-year 10-Day Snow Melt must not be greater than the existing condition rates. Volume/Water Quality Control: • Water quality pond meeting NURP standards: o A permanent pool volume ("dead storage") below the principal spillway (normal outlet) shall be provided that is greater than or equal to the runoff from a 2.5-inch 24-hour storm over the entire contributing drainage area, assuming full development. o A permanent pool average depth (basin volume/basin area) shall be > 4 feet, with a maximum depth of < 10 feet. o An emergency spillway (emergency outlet) that is adequate to safely pass the 100-year frequency, critical -duration rainfall or runoff event. o Basin side slopes above the normal water level should be no steeper than three feet horizontal to one foot vertical (3H:1 V), and preferably flatter. A basin shelf with a minimum width of 10 feet and 1 foot deep below the normal water level is needed to Alliant Engineering, Inc. 1 212-0103 1 Chanhassen Apartments Drainage Report March 15", 2013 enhance wildlife habitat, reduce potential safety hazards, and improve access for long- term maintenance. o To prevent short-circuiting, the distance between the major inlets and normal outlet shall be maximized. o Riprap shall be provided below the channel grade and above the outfall or channel bottom to insure that riprap will not be undermined by scour or rendered ineffective by displacement o Trash and floatable debris skimming device shall be placed on the outlet of detention basin to provide treatment up to the l-year frequency event. Wetland Elements: • Water level fluctuations (peak elevation and duration) for wetlands shall be limited to two feet and duration not to exceed 48 hours so as to prevent the destruction of wildlife habitat and wetland vegetation. • Sedimentation basins or sediment removal devices shall be provided prior to discharge into wetlands. Runoff Rate and Volume Control All rate control calculations have been performed using the SCS method via HydroCAD software. Three events were modeled including: the 2-year, 10-year and 100-year, Type II 24-hour storm events with precipitation amounts of 2.8, 4.2, and 6.0 inches, respectively. All existing and proposed curve numbers are based on assumed soil types `B' and `C' obtained from the NRCS web soil survey. Existing Conditions The site is currently a vacated lot, once used as a miniature golf course and driving range. There are remnants of impervious areas throughout the eastern and southern portions of the parcel. The majority of runoff from the site drains into the existing wetland. The remaining runoff generated on site drains into catch basins along Galpin Boulevard and W 78`s St., and ultimately discharges into the existing stormwater pond located to the west of the property. The following is a description of the HydroCAD subcatchments that were used in the existing conditions model: • EW-Is — 5.510 acre area which drains into the existing wetland. The wetland is connected to another wetland located across W 78 6 St via an outlet pipe. This subcatchment area is further divided by two soil classifications, soil types 'B' and `C'. The majority of the site was modeled as a type 'B', however, the soil around the existing wetland was modeled as type 'C'. It should also be noted that a small portion of runoff from W 78i° St. ROW discharges into the existing wetland. • D-Is — 2.689 acre area which drains offsite to storm sewers on Galpin Boulevard and W 78`s St., and discharges into the existing pond. The total area responsible for offsite drainage was modeled as one subcatchment. In addition, this subcatchment area contains almost all of the remnant impervious area. Refer to the existing conditions drainage map and HydroCAD report sheets for additional information and detailed calculations. To compare peak discharge rates and volumes for the existing and proposed conditions, flows were analyzed at the two site discharge points. For ease of comparison, the existing subcatchments drain to HydroCAD links that will remain consistent in the proposed and existing models. Refer to the existing Alliant Engineering, Inc. 1 212-0103 2 Chanhassen Apartments Drainage Report March 15", 2013 conditions drainage map and HydroCAD report sheets for additional information and detailed calculations. • IL —Discharges from the wetland to the northwest via an existing pipe connection. • 2L — Discharges offsite to catchbasins on Galpin Boulevard and W 78te St., and flows into the existing pond west of the property on the north side of T.H. No. 5. Proposed Conditions The proposed project includes the construction of a multi -family apartment complex and associated parking lots. Both a ground level parking lot and a basement level parking garage are proposed. The proposed development includes roughly 2.65 acres of impervious surface. The apartment complex and parking lot will drain into a detention pond located just to the west of the parking lot via catch basins and proposed stormsewer. The detention pond will be utilized to control runoff volumes as well as provide the required water quality volume. An outlet control structure will be regulating discharge into the wetland from the pond. The following is a list of the HydroCAD subcatchments that are used in the proposed conditions model: • P-1 s — 4.416 acres of primarily impervious area that sheet drains to the catch basins located at both entrances to the parking garage plus one at the western end of the parking lot. • EW-1 s — 0.678 acre pervious area consisting primarily of the berm and lawn area surrounding the wetland, plus approximately 270 ft of W 78's St. ROW runoff that discharges into the wetland. An outlet control structure will regulate discharge from the site to levels below the existing conditions. Please see the plan sheet for details on the outlet control structure. • D-ls — 3.027 acre offsite drainage area that will continue to enter the existing storm sewers along Galpin Boulevard and W 78'h St. and ultimately end up in the stormwater pond to the west of the property. The proposed stormwater management plan decreases the composite peak discharge rates to below existing conditions for all of the modeled events. Refer to the proposed conditions drainage map and HydroCAD report sheets for additional information. Existing & Proposed runoff rates and volumes as calculated by HydroCAD are fisted in the table below: Peak Discharee Rates (cfs) Discharge 2-Year I 10-Year I 100-YR RF 100-YR SM Point Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed IL 0.07 0.07 0.87 0.47 3.66 2.89 5.13 4.11 2L 2.62 2.31 6.46 6.17 12.20 12.05 3.22 3.61 Alliant Engineering, Inc. 1 212-0103 3 Chanhassen Apartments Drainage Report March 15", 2013 Stormwater OuaHty Detention Pond Data Pond NURP Design The proposed detention pond has been designed to meet the standards for the City of Chanhassen. More specifically, the pond must provide a 'dead pool' volume that meets or exceeds the runoff from the 2.5" NURP rainfall event over the entire contributing watershed. The 2.5" rainfall event generates 13,417 CF of runoff volume for the P-1 s watershed. The proposed detention pond provides a dead pool water quality volume of 20,930 CIF exceeding the requirement. The pond has a maximum depth of 8 feet and an average depth of 4.14' excluding the pond bench. A 15" RCP submerged inlet acts as a skimmer to control trash and floatables prior to entrance to the wetland. A stabilized emergency overflow is set at 958.12 to the wetland with a top of berm set at 960.00. Basin side slopes are set at 3:1 slopes. The pond has a 10' bench around the perimeter below the NWL of the pond. The 100-yr HWL for the pond will be 958.1 I'. Please see the attached HydroCAD model for the 2.5" water quality event. Weiland Elements The onsite wetland will utilize an outlet control structure to meet rate control requirements. Within the OCS, a 1.7" orifice controls the 2-yr rainfall event, while the 10-yr and 100-yr events are controlled by a weir wall. A sharp- crested vee will be placed at an invert elevation 956.5' and a rectangular section will be set at 957.5'. The 100-yr HWL level of the wetland is 957.33'. Wetland Summary 2-Year Existing Proposed Difference Inundation Time (hr) 70.25 114.5 44.25 Bounce (ft) 955.59 956.30 0.71 The maximum bounce is limited to less than 2 feet for all events, whereas the inundation time is under the maximum allowed 48 hour time for the 2-yr event. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan The following Best Management Practices (BMP's) are proposed for the project. Temporary erosion control devices indicated on the grading and erosion control plans to provide sediment control during project construction: • Silt fence • Rock construction entrance • Inlet sediment barriers at catch basins Permanent erosion control devices shown to be installed include: • Rip rap at storm sewer pipe outlets • Turf reinforcement mat at pond spillway • Turf establishment including seeding, sodding, etc. Alliant Engineering, Inc. 1 212-0103 4 Chanhassen Apartments Drainage Report March IS',2013 Conclusion Alliant Engineering believes that the proposed design is acceptable for all parties involved. The peak off - site discharge rates for the 2-year, 10-year and 100-year 24-hour storm events will be decreased from existing rates for the proposed conditions. The proposed pond design exceeds the required amount of permanent pool volume and meets depth, surface area and length criteria for proper treatment of the runoff. The wetland water level fluctuations are less than the maximum two feet, and the inundation time is less than 48 hours for the 2-yr event. Lastly, the proposed grading and erosion control plan utilizes Best Management Practices whenever possible to provide adequate erosion control measures to contain sediment during construction. Please call me at 612-767-9342 with any questions or comments regarding stormwater issues for the Chanhassen Apartments. Sincerely, Charles Butterworth, EIT Alliant Engineering, Inc. CC: File 120103 Alliant Engineering, Inc. 1 212-0103 5 Chanhassen Apartments Drainage Report March 15'. 2013 APPENDIX • Drainage Maps • HydroCAD Reports (includes rate control and NURP calculations) • Storm Sewer Sizing Worksheet (10-Year Sizing) Alliant Engineering, Inc. 1 212-0103 «-- ____ edr— co Do VV ` i \ I ' is \ - O+ \\ 1 1 11 i •1 9 ��, - .c �v it to #441 IQr DO I .t 5.' 1 EW-1 'pS Ai it I fl to 111 L �` T``____ ``` � / I I I b I 1 ■ � / / / / ■ I ------------- 11 I C p��11111' i I ,' 0. 1 •••••• G i i DRAINAGE AREA (AC) •n•frr��i■•• ••'•, • ••••`e•I J ` / COMPOSITE CURVE NUMkkkk BER (CN) ItIo tI 0 0 �00a ;DRAINAGE AREA NAME 66 C `0 ONSITE DRAINAGE DELNEATION o c ,� iK `-� .•�• -�� # J 4 �9�0 II // ■•uu•fl••■ OFFSITE DRAINAGE DELINEATION ,','; e I • -..- I ; DRAINAGE DIRECTION 96£"---\ 1 N -------- ---:\o-�--' ________________ --966-_ Qi 0 20 w BO • --- FLEC 4H X® Ta 966.82 D..qn M: Oft,.A By I HEREBY CEAM THAT MIS PUN WAS PREPARED BY InIm DATE RE\+sas CHANHASSEN APARTMENTS ADULT UNDER PROESSEDNNv+aNEER UNDERMEALLIANT D., Nam.: Dra.a By LAM5 W THE STATE O WNESOTA ENGINBHRING,INC e0a.6.9 EXISTING DRAINAGE MAP PRINT NAME iV PAR6 AV660UN1. 6UR6] Data: Ch.ckM BY 9GNE0: PHONE �mm Is 3/I5/13 cw CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA DATE, M. NO. FAX leiLfM31B 120103 Nam. pc N-dn 3/15/13 II NMI;] 9 it /'♦♦ bpi I 4SJ���� / I I 1 1 — ■� \ 11 I 1 � � ■ ♦♦ `` I l l l l I� ♦ \`I ♦\ I� i i l lyh u\ 1 ; II ♦ \. I I 11'\1 \\ 4.4 , \\\ 0 Illlc , ,po I I I LLB 1 ■ 11IWpl 11■ I I i II N11 ■ I I ' �u�ll III I111, 1\± /� \\ , : ■�����■r�■� �I I 1 1 1 ■ dYY. .mom" ■ / boamoss ME 11111 1A ' \ ■ / 11111 1}r�V`\ JP / 1 1 1 1 1 1♦ I �I I bQ-' 1 1 1 1 \ 1 1 �' A �♦ II 11 11 , 1 1 I I FFFI , I rn � L_ � ♦ 966." Silvana woman*Moons -________________ _ 1 -_->g -- ---966 W iy ce 8, CW OATS REMSRINS a DRAINAGE AREA (AC) / 1 • / / COMPOSITE CURVE NUMBER (CN) ` 1 ` 4 / // ® DRAINAGE AREA NAME • / '- ■■■■nu■■■ ONSITE DRAINAGE DELINEATION % 7i CO / ■■■■u■■u■ OFFSITE DRAINAGE DELJNEATION r! / °' A DRAINAGE DIRECTION CHANHASSEN APARTMENTS PROPOSED DRAINAGE MAP CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 0 20 iN 40 00 SCALE IN FEET I HEREBY CERTIiY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARE() BY ME OR UNDER MY DRECT SUPERNSSON AND THAT W A * T T A *� ja A WLY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGMEER UNDER TIE L1LLlti1♦I 1 LAWS a TIE STATE OF MINNESOTA ENGINEERING. INC. MET NAME M PAREAVE BOVIN. BITREao 9CNED: IONNPAPOLIB. ]AN NNI, PHONE (61a)96PYAo PA%I6ts1 T6Aaw DATE: INC. NO: 1 L D-1 s L2L NW Wetlan Direct Offsite Existing Pond W-1 Existing Wetland Existing Wetland Subcat Reach Link Drainage Diagram for 120103idm Prepared by ANiant Engineering 3/182013 FHydroCADO 8.00 s/n 004060 0 2006 HydroCAD Software Sok(bons LLC Chanhassen Apartments Existing Conditions 120103-edrn Prepared by Alliant Engineering Page 2 HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004060 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 3/18/2013 Area Listing (all nodes) Area (acres) CN Description (subcats) 5.542 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B (D-1s,EW-1s) 1.808 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C (EW-1s) 0.849 98 Paved parking & roofs (D-1s,EW-1s) 8.199 Chanhassen Apartments Existing Conditions 120103-edrn Type 11 24-hr 2yr Rainfall=2.80" Prepared by Alliant Engineering Page 3 HydroCAM 8 00 s/n 004060 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 3/18/2013 Subcatchment D-1s: Direct Offsite Runoff = 2.62 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.155 af, Depth= 0.69" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr 2yr Rainfall=2.80" Area (sf) CN Descriotion 36,195 98 Paved parking & roofs 80,957 61 >75% Grass cover, Good HSG B 117,152 72 Weighted Average 80,957 Pervious Area 36,195 Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment EW-1s: Existing Wetland Runoff = 1.74 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.192 af, Depth= 0.42" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr 2yr Rainfall=2.80" Area (so CN Description 783 98 Paved parking & roofs 160,460 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 78,766 74 >75% Grass cover. Good. HSG C 240,009 65 Weighted Average 239,226 Pervious Area 783 Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 13.2 50 0,0200 0.06 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.80" 7.1 485 0.0268 1.15 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 20.3 535 Total Pond EW-1: Existing Wetland Inflow Area = 5.510 ac, Inflow Depth = 0.42" for 2yr event Inflow = 1.74 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.192 of Outflow = 0.10 cfs @ 19.36 hrs, Volume= 0.192 af, Atten= 95%, Lag= 431.0 min Discarded = 0.03 cfs @ 19.36 hrs, Volume= 0.143 of Primary = 0.07 cfs @ 19.36 hrs, Volume= 0.049 of Chanhassen Apartments Existing Conditions 120103-edrn Type 11 24-hr 2yr Rainfall=2.80" Prepared by Alliant Engineering Page 4 HydroCADO 8.00 s/n 004060 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 3/18/2013 Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 955.59' @ 19.36 hrs Surf.Area= 12,835 sf Storage= 5,467 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 1,472.3 min calculated for 0.192 of (100% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 1,472.8 min ( 2,394.3 - 921.6 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 955.00' 75,572 cf Custom Stage Data (Irregular)Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Perim. Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (sq-ft) (feet) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) (sq-ft) 955.00 6,170 362.0 0 0 6,170 956.00 18,950 570.0 11,978 11,978 21,604 958.00 46,695 926.0 63,595 75,572 64,011 Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 0,00' 0.100 inlhr Exfiltration over Surface area #2 Primary 955.48' 24.0" x 108.0' long Culvert RCP, end -section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Outlet Invert= 954.48' S= 0.0093 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete pipe, bends & connections Discarded OutFlow Max=0.03 cfs @ 19.36 hrs HW=955.59' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.03 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.07 cfs @ 19.36 hrs HW=955.59' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) L2=Culvert (Barrel Controls 0.07 cfs @ 1.53 fps) RG1311Ri:14`lr m- FTin Inflow Area = 5.510 ac, Inflow Depth = 0.11" for 2yr event Inflow = 0.07 cfs @ 19.36 hrs, Volume= 0.049 of Primary = 0.07 cfs @ 19.36 hrs, Volume= 0.049 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Link 2L: Existing Pond Inflow Area = 2.689 ac, Inflow Depth = 0.69" for 2yr event Inflow = 2.62 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.155 of Primary = 2.62 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.155 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Chanhassen Apartments Existing Conditions 120103-edrn Type 1124-hr 10yr Rainfall=4.20" Prepared by Alliant Engineering Page 5 HydroCADO 8.00 s/n 004060 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 3/18/2013 Subcatchment D-1s: Direct Offsite Runoff = 6.46 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 0.359 af, Depth= 1.60" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr 10yr Rainfall=4.20" Area (sf) CN Description 36,195 98 Paved parking & roofs 80,957 61 >75% Grass cover, Good HSG B 117,152 72 Weighted Average 80,957 Pervious Area 36,195 Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (f /ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment EW-1s: Existing Wetland Runoff = 6.31 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.526 af, Depth= 1.15" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr 10yr Rainfall=4.20" Area (so CN Description 783 98 Paved parking & roofs 160,460 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 78,766 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 240,009 65 Weighted Average 239,226 Pervious Area 783 Impervious Area Tc (min) Length (feet) Slope (f /ft) Velocity Capacity (ft/sec) (cfs) Description 13.2 50 0.0200 0.06 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.80" 7.1 485 0.0268 1.15 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 20.3 535 Total Pond EW-1: Existing Wetland Inflow Area = 5.510 ac, Inflow Depth = 1.15" for 10yr event Inflow = 6.31 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.526 of Outflow = 0.91 cfs @ 12.98 hrs, Volume= 0.526 af, Atten= 86%, Lag= 49.9 min Discarded = 0.04 cfs @ 12.98 hrs, Volume= 0.153 of Primary = 0.87 cfs @ 12.98 hrs, Volume= 0.373 of Chanhassen Apartments Existing Conditions 120103-edrn Type // 24-hr 10yr Rainfall=4.20" Prepared by Alliant Engineering Page 6 HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004060 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 3/18/2013 Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0,00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 955.86' @ 12.98 hrs Surf.Area= 16,748 sf Storage= 9,489 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 636.2 min calculated for 0.526 of (100% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 636.8 min ( 1,519.4 - 882.6 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 955.00, 75,572 cf Custom Stage Data (Irregular)Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Perim. Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (sq-ft) (feet) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) (sq-ft) 955.00 6,170 362.0 0 0 6,170 956.00 18,950 570.0 11,978 11,978 21,604 958.00 46,695 926.0 63,595 75,572 64,011 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 0.00' 0.100 inlhr Exfiltration over Surface area #2 Primary 955.48' 24.0" x 108.0' long Culvert RCP, end -section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Outlet Invert= 954.48' S= 0.0093 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete pipe, bends & connections Lis cardedOutFlow Max=0.04 cfs @ 12.98 hrs HW=955.86' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.04 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.87 cfs @ 12.98 hrs HW=955.86' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) t-2=Culvert (Inlet Controls 0.87 cfs @ 2.10 fps) Link 1L: NW Wetland Inflow Area = 5.510 ac, Inflow Depth = 0.81" for 10yr event Inflow = 0.87 cfs @ 12.98 hrs, Volume= 0.373 of Primary = 0.87 cfs @ 12.98 hrs, Volume= 0.373 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Link 2L: Existing Pond Inflow Area = 2.689 ac, Inflow Depth = 1.60" for 10yr event Inflow = 6.46 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 0.359 of Primary = 6.46 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 0.359 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Chanhassen Apartments Existing Conditions 120103-edrn Type // 24-hr 100yr Rainfall=6.00" Prepared by Alliant Engineering Page 7 HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004060 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 3/18/2013 Subcatchment D-1s: Direct Offsite Runoff = 12.20 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 0.671 af, Depth= 2.99" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr 100yr Rainfall=6.00" Area (sf) CN Description 36,195 98 Paved parking & roofs 80,957 61 >75% Grass cover, Good HSG B 117,152 72 Weighted Average 80,957 Pervious Area 36,195 Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment EW-1s: Existing Wetland Runoff = 13.88 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 1.080 af, Depth= 2.35" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr 100yr Rainfall=6.00" Area (so CN Description 783 98 Paved parking & roofs 160,460 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 78,766 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 240,009 65 Weighted Average 239,226 Pervious Area 783 Impervious Area Tc (min) Length (feet) Slope (ft/ft) Velocity Capacity (ft/sec) (cfs) Description 13.2 50 0.0200 0.06 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.80" 7.1 485 0.0268 1.15 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 20.3 535 Total Pond EW-1: Existing Wetland Inflow Area = 5.510 ac, Inflow Depth = 2.35" for 100yr event Inflow = 13.88 cfs 12.14 hrs, Volume= 1.080 of Outflow = 3.71 cfs @ 12.56 hrs, Volume= 1.080 af, Atten= 73%, Lag= 25.0 min Discarded = 0.05 cfs @ 12.56 hrs, Volume= 0.161 of Primary = 3.66 cfs 12.56 hrs, Volume= 0.918 of Chanhassen Apartments Existing Conditions 120103-edrn Type // 24-hr 100yr Rainfall=6.00" Prepared by Alliant Engineering Page 8 HydroCAD® 8 00 s/n 004060 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 3/18/2013 Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 956.29' @ 12.56 hrs Surf.Area= 22,221 sf Storage= 17,959 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 350.2 min calculated for 1,079 of (100% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 350.9 min ( 1,211.0 - 860.1 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 955.00' 75,572 cf Custom Stage Data (Irregular)Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Perim. Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area _ (feet) (sq-ft) (feet) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) (sq-ft) 955.00 6,170 362.0 0 0 6,170 956.00 18,950 570.0 11,978 11,978 21,604 958.00 46,695 926.0 63,595 75,572 64,011 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 0.00' 0.100 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2 Primary 955A8' 24.0" x 108.0' long Culvert RCP, end -section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Outlet Invert= 954.48' S= 0.0093 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete pipe, bends & connections Discarded OutFlow Max=0.05 cfs @ 12.56 hrs HW=956.29' (Free Discharge) L1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.05 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=3.66 cfs @ 12.56 hrs HW=956.29' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) t2=Culvert (Inlet Controls 3.66 cfs @ 3.07 fps) Link 1L: NW Wetland Inflow Area = 5.510 ac, Inflow Depth = 2.00" for 100yr event Inflow = 3.66 cfs @ 12.56 hrs, Volume= 0.918 of Primary = 3.66 cfs @ 12.56 hrs, Volume= 0.918 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Link 2L: Existing Pond Inflow Area = 2.689 ac, Inflow Depth = 2.99" for 100yr event Inflow = 12.20 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 0.671 of Primary = 12.20 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 0.671 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Chanhassen Apartments Existing Conditions 120103-edrn Type 11 24-hr 240.00 hrs 100yr SM Rainfall=7.20", AMC=4 Prepared by Alliant Engineering Page 9 HydroCAD® 8 00 s/n 004060 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 3/18/2013 Subcatchment D-1s: Direct Offsite Runoff = 3.22 cfs @ 119.11 hrs, Volume= 1.560 af, Depth= 6.96" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr 240.00 hrs 100yr SM Rainfa11=7.20", AMC=4 Area (sf) CN Descriotion 36,195 98 Paved parking & roofs 80,957 61 >75% Grass cover, Good HSG B 117,152 72 Weighted Average, Adjusted for AMC to CN = 98 80,957 Pervious Area 36,195 Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment EW-1s: Existing Wetland Runoff = 6.41 cfs @ 119.23 hrs, Volume= 3.196 af, Depth= 6.96" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr 240.00 hrs 100yr SM Rainfall=7.20", AMC=4 Area (sf) CN Descriotion 783 98 Paved parking & roofs 160,460 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 78,766 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 240,009 65 Weighted Average, Adjusted for AMC to CN = 98 239,226 Pervious Area 783 Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 13.2 50 0.0200 0.06 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2,80" 7.1 485 0.0268 1.15 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fos 20.3 535 Total Pond EW-1: Existing Wetland Inflow Area = 5.510 ac, Inflow Depth = 6.96" for 100yr SM event Inflow = 6.41 cfs @ 119.23 hrs, Volume= 3.196 of Outflow = 5.19 cfs @ 119.57 hrs, Volume= 3.192 af, Atten= 19%, Lag= 20.5 min Discarded = 0.06 cfs @ 119.57 hrs, Volume= 0.638 of Primary = 5.13 cfs @ 119.57 hrs, Volume= 2.554 of Chanhassen Apartments Existing Conditions 120103-edrn Type 1124-hr 240.00 hrs 100yr SM Rainfall=7.20", AMC=4 Prepared by Alliant Engineering Page 10 HydroCAM 8.00 s/n 004060 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 3/18/2013 Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 956.46' @ 119.57 hrs Surf.Area= 24,205 sf Storage= 21,813 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 539.7 min calculated for 3.192 of (100% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 529.7 min ( 7,876.5 - 7,346.8 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 955.00' 75,572 cf Custom Stage Data (Irregular)Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Perim. Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (sq-ft) (feet) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) (sq-ft) 955.00 6,170 362.0 0 0 6,170 956.00 18,950 570.0 11,978 11,978 21,604 958.00 46,695 926.0 63,595 75,572 64,011 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 0.00' 0.100 inlhr Exfiltration over Surface area #2 Primary 955.48' 24.0" x 108.0' long Culvert RCP, end -section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Outlet Invert= 954.48' S= 0.0093 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete pipe, bends & connections Discarded OutFlow Max=0.06 cfs @ 119.57 hrs HW=956.46' (Free Discharge) t1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.06 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=5.13 cfs @ 119.57 hrs HW=956.46' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) t2=Culvert (Inlet Controls 5.13 cfs @ 3.36 fps) Link 1L: NW Wetland Inflow Area = 5.510 ac, Inflow Depth = 5.56" for 100yr SM event Inflow = 5.13 cfs @ 119.57 hrs, Volume= 2.554 of Primary = 5.13 cfs @ 119.57 hrs, Volume= 2.554 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Link 2L: Existing Pond Inflow Area = 2.689 ac, Inflow Depth = 6.96" for 100yr SM event Inflow = 3.22 cfs @ 119.11 hrs, Volume= 1.560 of Primary = 3.22 cfs @ 119.11 hrs, Volume= 1.560 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs 1 IL EW-1 s D-1 s 2L NW Wetlan /isting Wetland Direct Offsite Existing Pond n Ai P 11s Proposed Pond Proposed Pond Subcat Reach Z4 [Link Chanhassen Apartments Proposed Conditions 120103-pdrn Prepared by Alliant Engineering Page 2 HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004060 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 3/18/2013 Area Listing (all nodes) Area (acres) CN Description (subcats) 4.140 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B (D-1s,P-1s) 1.327 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C (D-1s,EW-1s,P-1s) 2.652 98 Paved parking & roofs (D-1s,P-1s) 8.119 Chanhassen Apartments Proposed Conditions 120103-pdrn Type 11 24-hr 2yr Rainfall=2.80" Prepared by Alliant Engineering Page 3 HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004060 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 3/18/2013 Subcatchment D-1s: Direct Offsite Runoff = 2.31 cfs @ 12.06 hrs, Volume= 0.153 af, Depth= 0.61" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr 2yr Rainfall=2.80" Area (sf) CN Description 28,852 98 Paved parking & roofs 95,722 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 7,273 74 >75% Grass cover. Good. HSG C 131,847 70 Weighted Average 102,995 Pervious Area 28,852 Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (fUft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 12.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment EW-1s: Existing Wetland Runoff = 0.77 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.044 af, Depth= 0.78" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr 2yr Rainfall=2.80" Area (so CN Description 29,480 74 >75% Grass cover, Good HSG C 29,480 Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment P-1s: Proposed Pond Runoff = 4.95 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.384 af, Depth= 1.04" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr 2yr Rainfall=2.80" Area (sf) CN Descriotion 86,688 98 Paved parking & roofs 84,619 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 21,047 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 192,354 79 Weighted Average 105,666 Pervious Area 86,688 Impervious Area Chanhassen Apartments Proposed Conditions 120103-pdrn Type/1 24-hr 2yr Rainfall=2.80" Prepared by Alliant Engineering Page 4 HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004060 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 3/18/2013 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (fUsec) (cfs) 20.0 Direct Entry, Pond EW-1: Existing Wetland Inflow Area = 5.093 ac, Inflow Depth = 1.01" for 2yr event Inflow = 1.69 cfs 12.46 hrs, Volume= 0.428 of Outflow = 0.09 cfs @ 24.20 hrs, Volume= 0.428 af, Atten= 94%, Lag= 704.3 min Discarded = 0.03 cfs @ 24.20 hrs, Volume= 0.216 of Primary = 0.07 cfs @ 24.20 hrs, Volume= 0.212 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0,00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs / 3 Peak Elev= 956.30' @ 24.20 hrs Surf.Area= 0.281 ac Storage= 0.285 of Plug -Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 1,951.5 min ( 3,058.0 - 1,106.5 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 954.99' 1.639 of Custom Stage Data (Irregular)Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Perim. Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (acres) (feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acres) 954.99 0.000 4.0 0.000 0.000 0.000 955.00 0.142 362.0 0.000 0.000 0.239 956.00 0,268 445.0 0.202 0.202 0.362 958.00 0.359 502.0 0.625 0.827 0.463 960.00 0,456 556.0 0.813 1.639 0.570 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 0.00' 0.100 inlhr Exfiltration over Surface area #2 Primary 955.48' 24.0" x 108.0' long Culvert RCP, end -section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Outlet Invert= 954.48' S= 0.0093 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete pipe, bends & connections #3 Device 2 955.48' 1.7" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #4 Device 2 956.50' 90.0 deg x 0.5' long x 1.00' rise Sharp -Crested Vee/Trap Weir C= 2.50 #5 Device 2 957.50' 5.0' long Sharp -Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) Discarded OutFlow Max=0.03 cfs @ 24.20 hrs HW=956.30' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfltration Controls 0.03 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.07 cfs @ 24.20 hrs HW=956.30' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) tq=Sharp-Crested ulvert (Passes 0.07 cfs of 3.75 cfs potential flow) =Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.07 cfs @ 4.17 fps) Vee/Trap Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) =Sharp -Crested Rectangular Weir( Controls 0.00 cfs) Chanhassen Apartments Proposed Conditions 120103-pdrn Type 11 24-hr 2yr Rainfall=2.80" Prepared by Alliant Engineering Page 5 HydroCADO 8.00 s/n 004060 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 3/18/2013 Pond P-1: Proposed Pond Inflow Area = 4.416 ac, Inflow Depth = 1.04" for 2yr event Inflow = 4.95 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.384 of Outflow = 1.57 cfs 12.49 hrs, Volume= 0.384 af, Atten= 68%, Lag= 21.1 min Primary = 1.57 cfs @ 12.49 hrs, Volume= 0.384 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs / 3 Starting Elev= 956.00' Surf.Area= 7,971 sf Storage= 20,930 cf Peak Elev= 956.69' @ 12.49 hrs Surf.Area= 8,729 sf Storage= 26,725 cf (5,795 cf above start) Plug -Flow detention time= (not calculated: initial storage excedes outflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 270.6 min ( 1,1316 - 863.0 ) _Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 948.00' 62,054 cf Custom Stage Data (Irregular)Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Perim. Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (sq-ft) (feet) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) (sq-ft) 948.00 168 111.0 0 0 168 950.00 1,067 179.0 1,106 1,106 1,764 952.00 2,294 229.0 3,284 4,389 3,438 954.00 3,817 277.0 6,047 10,436 5,436 955.00 4,680 298.0 4,241 14,677 6,439 956.00 7,971 361.0 6,253 20,930 9,759 958.00 10,248 398.0 18,171 39,101 12,119 960.00 12,750 436.0 22,952 62,054 14,775 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 956,00' 15.0" x 25.0' long Culvert RCP, rounded edge headwall, Ke= 0.100 Outlet Invert= 955.88' S= 0,0048 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior Primary OutFlow Max=1.57 cfs @ 12.49 hrs HW=956.69' TW=955.37' (Dynamic Tailwater) 't-1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 1.57 cfs @ 3.25 fps) Link 1L: NW Wetland Inflow Area = 5.093 ac, Inflow Depth = 0.50" for 2yr event Inflow = 0.07 cfs @ 24.20 hrs, Volume= 0.212 of Primary = 0.07 cfs @ 24.20 hrs, Volume= 0.212 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Chanhassen Apartments Proposed Conditions 120103-pdrn Type/1 24-hr 2yr Rainfall=2.80" Prepared by Alliant Engineering Page 6 HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004060 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 3/18/2013 Link 2L: Existing Pond Inflow Area = 3.027 ac, Inflow Depth = 0.61" for 2yr event Inflow = 2.31 cfs @ 12.06 hrs, Volume= 0.153 of Primary = 2.31 cfs @ 12.06 hrs, Volume= 0.153 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Chanhassen Apartments Proposed Conditions 120103-pdrn Type/1 24-hr 10yr Rainfall=4.20" Prepared by Alliant Engineering Page 7 HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004060 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 3/18/2013 Subcatchment D-1s: Direct Offsite Runoff = 6.17 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume= 0.369 af, Depth= 1.46" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr 10yr Rainfall=4.20" Area (sf) CN Description 28,852 98 Paved parking & roofs 95,722 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 7,273 74 >75% Grass cover. Good. HSG C 131,847 70 Weighted Average 102,995 Pervious Area 28,852 Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 12.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment EW-1s: Existing Wetland Runoff = 1.78 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 0,098 af, Depth= 1.74" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr 10yr Rainfall=4.20" Area (sf) CN Description 29,480 74 >75% Grass cover, Good HSG C 29,480 Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (fUft) (fUsec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment P-1s: Proposed Pond Runoff = 10.36 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.783 af, Depth= 2.13" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr 10yr Rainfall=4.20" Area (sf) CN Description 86,688 98 Paved parking R roofs 84,619 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 21,047 74 >75% Grass cover, Good HSG C 192,354 79 Weighted Average 105,666 Pervious Area 86,688 Impervious Area Chanhassen Apartments Proposed Conditions 120103-pdrn Type 1124-hr 10yr Rainfall=4.20" Prepared by Alliant Engineering Page 8 HydroCAD® 8 00 s/n 004060 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 3/18/2013 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 20.0 Direct Entry, Pond EW-1: Existing Wetland Inflow Area = 5.093 ac, Inflow Depth = 2.07" for 10yr event Inflow = 4.69 cfs @ 12.37 hrs, Volume= 0.880 of Outflow = 0.50 cfs @ 15.37 hrs, Volume= 0.880 af, Atten= 89%, Lag= 180.2 min Discarded = 0.03 cfs @ 15.37 hrs, Volume= 0.264 of Primary = 0.47 cfs @ 15.37 hrs, Volume= 0.617 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs / 3 Peak Elev= 956.80' @ 15.37 hrs Surf.Area= 0.303 ac Storage= 0.431 of Plug -Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 1,491.0 min ( 2,634.9 - 1,144.0 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 954.99' 1.639 of Custom Stage Data (Irregular)Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Perim. Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (acres) (feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acres) 954.99 0.000 4.0 0.000 0.000 0.000 955.00 0.142 362.0 0.000 0.000 0.239 956.00 0.268 445.0 0.202 0.202 0.362 958.00 0.359 502.0 0.625 0.827 0.463 960.00 0.456 556.0 0.813 1.639 0,570 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 0.00' 0.100 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2 Primary 955.48' 24.0" x 108.0' long Culvert RCP, end -section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Outlet Invert= 954.48' S= 0.0093 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete pipe, bends & connections #3 Device 2 955.48' 1.7" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #4 Device 2 956.50' 90.0 deg x 0.5' long x 1.00' rise Sharp -Crested Vee/Trap Weir C= 2.50 #5 Device 2 957.50' 5.0' long Sharp -Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) Discarded OutFlow Max=0.03 cfs @ 15.37 hrs HW=956.80' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.03 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.47 cfs @ 15.37 hrs HW=956.80' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) t =Culvert (Passes 0.47 cfs of 8.51 cfs potential flow) 3=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.08 cfs @ 5.38 fps) =Sharp -Crested Vee/Trap Weir (Weir Controls 0.38 cfs (P 1.59 fps) =Sharp -Crested Rectangular Weir( Controls 0.00 cfs) Chanhassen Apartments Proposed Conditions 120103-pdrn Type/1 24-hr 10yr Rainfall=4.20" Prepared by Alliant Engineering Page 9 HydroCADO 8.00 s/n 004060 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 3/18/2013 Pond P-1: Proposed Pond Inflow Area = 4.416 ac, Inflow Depth = 2.13" for 10yr event Inflow = 10.36 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.783 of Outflow = 4.40 cfs @ 12.39 hrs, Volume= 0.782 af, Atten= 58%, Lag= 15.4 min Primary = 4.40 cfs @ 12.39 hrs, Volume= 0.782 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs / 3 Starting Elev= 956.00' Surf.Area= 7,971 sf Storage= 20,930 cf Peak Elev= 957.30' @ 12.39 hrs Surf.Area= 9,414 sf Storage= 32,181 cf (11,251 cf above start) Plug -Flow detention time= 1,092.8 min calculated for 0.302 of (39% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 339.1 min ( 1,181.4 - 842.2 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 948.00' 62,054 cf Custom Stage Data (Irregular)Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Perim. Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (sq-ft) (feet) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) (sq-ft) 948.00 168 111.0 0 0 168 950.00 1,067 179.0 1,106 1,106 1,764 952.00 2,294 229.0 3,284 4,389 3,438 954.00 3,817 277.0 6,047 10,436 5,436 955.00 4,680 298.0 4,241 14,677 6,439 956.00 7,971 361.0 6,253 20,930 9,759 958.00 10,248 398.0 18,171 39,101 12,119 960.00 12,750 436.0 22,952 62,054 14,775 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 956.00' 15.0" x 25.0' long Culvert RCP, rounded edge headwall, Ke= 0.100 Outlet Invert= 955.88' S= 0.0048 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior Primary OutFlow Max=4.39 cfs @ 12.39 hrs HW=957.29' TW=955.84' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 4.39 cfs @ 4.29 fps) Link 1L: NW Wetland Inflow Area = 5.093 ac, Inflow Depth = 1.45" for 10yr event Inflow = 0.47 cfs @ 15.37 hrs, Volume= 0.617 of Primary = 0.47 cfs @ 15.37 hrs, Volume= 0.617 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Chanhassen Apartments Proposed Conditions 120103-pdrn Type // 24-hr 10yr Rainfall=4.20" Prepared by Alliant Engineering Page 10 HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004060 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 3/18/2013 Link 2L: Existing Pond Inflow Area = 3.027 ac, Inflow Depth = 1,46" for 10yr event Inflow = 6.17 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume= 0.369 of Primary = 6.17 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume= 0.369 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Chanhassen Apartments Proposed Conditions 120103-pdrn Type 11 24-hr 100yr Rainfall=6.00" Prepared by Alliant Engineering Page 11 HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004060 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 3/18/2013 Subcatchment D-1s: Direct Offsite Runoff = 12.05 cfs @ 12.04 hrs, Volume= 0.708 af, Depth= 2.81" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr 100yr Rainfall=6.00" Area (so CN Description 28,852 98 Paved parking & roofs 95,722 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 7.273 74 >75% Grass cover. Good. HSG C 131,847 70 Weighted Average 102,995 Pervious Area 28,852 Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (fUsec) (cfs) 12.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment EW-1s: Existing Wetland Runoff = 3.26 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 0.180 af, Depth= 3.18" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr 100yr Rainfall=6.00" Area (so CN Description 29,480 74 >75% Grass cover, Good HSG C 29,480 Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment P-1s: Proposed Pond Runoff = 17.95 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 1.354 af, Depth= 3.68" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr 100yr Rainfall=6.00" Area (sf) CN Description 86,688 98 Paved parking & roofs 84,619 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 21,047 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 192,354 79 Weighted Average 105,666 Pervious Area 86,688 Impervious Area Chanhassen Apartments Proposed Conditions 120103-pdrn Type 11 24-hr 100yr Rainfall=6.00" Prepared by Alliant Engineering Page 12 HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004060 © 2006 HYdroCAD Software Solutions LLC 3/18/2013 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 20.0 Direct Entry, Pond EW-1: Existing Wetland Inflow Area = 5.093 ac, Inflow Depth = 3.61" for 100yr event Inflow = 8.00 cfs @ 12.35 hrs, Volume= 1.533 of Outflow = 2.92 cfs @ 13.13 hrs, Volume= 1.533 af, Atten= 64%, Lag= 46.5 min Discarded = 0.03 cfs @ 13.13 hrs, Volume= 0.271 of Primary = 2.89 cfs @ 13.13 hrs, Volume= 1,262 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs / 3 Peak Elev= 957.33' @ 13.13 hrs Surf.Area= 0.327 ac Storage= 0.599 of Plug -Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 913.1 min ( 1,947.4 - 1,034.3 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 954.99' 1.639 of Custom Stage Data (Irregular)Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Perim. Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (acres) (feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acres) 954.99 0.000 4.0 0.000 0.000 0.000 955.00 0.142 362.0 0.000 0.000 0.239 956.00 0.268 445.0 0.202 0.202 0.362 958,00 0.359 502.0 0.625 0.827 0.463 960.00 0.456 556.0 0.813 1.639 0.570 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 0.00' 0.100 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2 Primary 955.48' 24.0" x 108.0' long Culvert RCP, end -section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Outlet Invert= 954.48' S= 0.0093 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete pipe, bends & connections #3 Device 2 955.48' 1.7" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #4 Device 2 956.50' 90.0 deg x 0.5' long x 1.00' rise Sharp -Crested Vee/Trap Weir C= 2.50 #5 Device 2 957.50' 5.0' long Sharp -Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) Discarded OutFlow Max=0.03 cfs @ 13.13 hrs HW=957.33' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.03 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=2.88 cfs @ 13.13 hrs HW=957.33' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) t =Culvert (Passes 2.88 cfs of 14.09 cfs potential flow) 3=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.10 cfs @ 6.43 fps) =Sharp -Crested Vee/Trap Weir (Weir Controls 2.78 cfs @ 2.50 fps) =Sharp -Crested Rectangular Weir( Controls 0.00 cfs) Chanhassen Apartments Proposed Conditions 120103-pdrn Type 11 24-hr 100yr Rainfall=6.00" Prepared by Alliant Engineering Page 13 HydroCADO 8.00 s/n 004060 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 3/18/2013 Pond P-1: Proposed Pond Inflow Area = 4.416 ac, Inflow Depth = 3.68" for 100yr event Inflow = 17.95 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 1.354 of Outflow = 7.50 cfs @ 12.38 hrs, Volume= 1.353 af, Atten= 58%, Lag= 15.4 min Primary = 7.50 cfs @ 12.38 hrs, Volume= 1.353 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs / 3 Starting Elev= 956.00' Surf.Area= 7,971 sf Storage= 20,930 cf Peak Elev= 958.11' @ 12.38 hrs Surf.Area= 10,373 sf Storage= 40,191 cf (19,261 cf above start) Plug -Flow detention time= 520.5 min calculated for 0.873 of (64% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 234.9 min ( 1,061.4 - 826.6 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 948.00' 62,054 cf Custom Stage Data (Irregular)Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Perim. Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (sq-ft) (feet) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) (sq-ft) 948.00 168 111.0 0 0 168 950.00 1,067 179.0 1,106 1,106 1,764 952.00 2,294 229.0 3,284 4,389 3,438 954.00 3,817 277.0 6,047 10,436 5,436 955.00 4,680 298.0 4,241 14,677 6,439 956.00 7,971 361.0 6,253 20,930 9,759 958.00 10,248 398.0 18,171 39,101 12,119 960.00 12,750 436.0 22,952 62,054 14,775 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 956.00' 15.0" x 25.0' long Culvert RCP, rounded edge headwall, Ke= 0.100 Outlet Invert= 955.88' S= 0.0048 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0,013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior Primary OutFlow Max=7.49 cfs @ 12.38 hrs HW=958.10' TW=956.52' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 7.49 cfs @ 6.10 fps) Link 1L: NW Wetland Inflow Area = 5.093 ac, Inflow Depth = 2.97" for 100yr event Inflow = 2.89 cfs @ 13.13 hrs, Volume= 1.262 of Primary = 2.89 cfs @ 13.13 hrs, Volume= 1.262 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Chanhassen Apartments Proposed Conditions 120103-pdrn Type 1124-hr 100yr Rainfall=6.00" Prepared by Alliant Engineering Page 14 HydroCAD® 8 00 s/n 004060 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 3/18/2013 Link 2L: Existing Pond Inflow Area = 3.027 ac, Inflow Depth = 2.81" for 100yr event Inflow = 12.05 cfs @ 12.04 hrs, Volume= 0.708 of Primary = 12.05 cfs @ 12.04 hrs, Volume= 0,708 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Chanhassen Apartments Proposed Conditions 120103-pdrn Type 1124-hr 240.00 hrs 100yr SM Rainfall=7.20", AMC=4 Prepared by Alliant Engineering Page 15 HydroCADS 8.00 s/n 004060 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 3/18/2013 Subcatchment D-1s: Direct Offsite Runoff = 3.61 cfs @ 119.14 hrs, Volume= 1.756 af, Depth= 6.96" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type It 24-hr 240.00 hrs 100yr SM Rainfall=7.20", AMC=4 Area (sf) CN Descriotion 28,852 98 Paved parking & roofs 95,722 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 7,273 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 131,847 70 Weighted Average, Adjusted for AMC to CN = 98 102,995 Pervious Area 28,852 Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (f /sec) (cfs) 12.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment EW-1s: Existing Wetland Runoff = 0.81 cfs @ 119.11 hrs, Volume= 0.393 at, Depth= 6.96" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr 240.00 hrs 100yr SM Rainfall=7.20", AMC=4 Area (sf) CN 29,480 74 >75% Grass cover, Good HSG C 29,480 74 Weighted Average, Adjusted for AMC to CN = 98 29,480 Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (fUsec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment P-1s: Proposed Pond Runoff = 5.14 cfs @ 119.22 hrs, Volume= 2,561 af, Depth= 6.96" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr 240.00 hrs 100yr SM Rainfall=7.20", AMC=4 Area (sf) CN Descriotion 86,688 98 Paved parking & roofs 84,619 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 21,047 74 >75% Grass cover, Good. HSG C 192,354 79 Weighted Average, Adjusted for AMC to CN = 98 105,666 Pervious Area 86,688 Impervious Area Chanhassen Apartments Proposed Conditions 120103-pdrn Type 1124-hr 240.00 hrs 100yr SM Rainfall=7.20", AMC=4 Prepared by Alliant Engineering Page 16 HydroCADO 8 00 s/n 004060 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 3/18/2013 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (fUft) (fUsec) (cfs) 20.0 Direct Entry, Pond EW-1: Existing Wetland Inflow Area = 5.093 ac, Inflow Depth = 6,96" for 100yr SM event Inflow = 4.65 cfs @ 119.39 hrs, Volume= 2.952 of Outflow = 4.14 cfs @ 119.78 hrs, Volume= 2.912 af, Atten= 11%, Lag= 23.5 min Discarded = 0.03 cfs @ 119.78 hrs, Volume= 0.571 of Primary = 4.11 cfs @ 119.78 hrs, Volume= 2.340 of Routing by Dyn-Star-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs / 3 Peak Elev= 957.49' @ 119.78 hrs Surf.Area= 0.334 ac Storage= 0.651 of Plug -Flow detention time= 1,112.9 min calculated for 2.911 of (99% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 1,017.7 min ( 8,636.7 - 7,619.1 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 954.99' 1.639 of Custom Stage Data (Irregular)Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Perim. Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (acres) (feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acres) 954.99 0.000 4.0 0.000 0.000 0.000 955.00 0.142 362.0 0.000 0.000 0.239 956.00 0.268 445.0 0.202 0.202 0.362 958.00 0.359 502.0 0.625 0.827 0.463 960.00 0.456 556.0 0.813 1.639 0.570 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 0.00' 0.100 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2 Primary 955.48' 24.0" x 108.0' long Culvert RCP, end -section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Outlet Invert= 954.48' S= 0.0093 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete pipe, bends & connections #3 Device 2 955.48' 1.7" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #4 Device 2 956.50' 90.0 deg x 0.5' long x 1.00' rise Sharp -Crested Vee/Trap Weir C= 2.50 #5 Device 2 957.50' 5.0' long Sharp -Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) Discarded OutFlow Max=0.03 cfs @ 119.78 hrs HW=957.49' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.03 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=4.11 cfs @ 119.78 hrs HW=957.49' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1- =Culvert (Passes 4.11 cfs of 15.22 cfs potential flow) 3=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.11 cfs @ 6.71 fps) =Sharp -Crested Vee/Trap Weir (Weir Controls 4.00 cfs @ 2.70 fps) =Sharp -Crested Rectangular Weir( Controls 0.00 cfs) Chanhassen Apartments Proposed Conditions 120103-pdrn Type 11 24-hr 240.00 hrs 100yr SM Rainfall=7.20", AMC=4 Prepared by Alliant Engineering Page 17 HydroCADO 8.00 s/n 004060 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 3/18/2013 Pond P-1: Proposed Pond Inflow Area = 4.416 ac, Inflow Depth = 6.96" for 100yr SM event Inflow = 5.14 cfs @ 119.22 hrs, Volume= 2.561 of Outflow = 4.02 cfs @ 119.49 hrs, Volume= 2.559 af, Atten= 22%, Lag= 15.8 min Primary = 4.02 cfs @ 119.49 hrs, Volume= 2.559 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs / 3 Starting Elev= 956.00' Surf.Area= 7,971 sf Storage= 20,930 cf Peak Elev= 957.76' @ 119.61 hrs Surf.Area= 9,958 sf Storage= 36,665 cf (15,734 cf above start) Plug -Flow detention time= 1,790.7 min calculated for 2.078 of (81% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 315.7 min ( 7,662.3 - 7,346.5 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 948.00' 62,054 cf Custom Stage Data (Irregular)Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Perim. Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (sq-ft) (feet) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) (sq-ft) 948.00 168 111.0 0 0 168 950.00 1,067 179.0 1,106 1,106 1,764 952.00 2,294 229.0 3,284 4,389 3,438 954.00 3,817 277.0 6,047 10,436 5,436 955.00 4,680 298.0 4,241 14,677 6,439 956.00 7,971 361.0 6,253 20,930 9,759 958.00 10,248 398.0 18,171 39,101 12,119 960.00 12,750 436.0 22,952 62,054 14,775 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 956.00' 15.0" x 25.0' long Culvert RCP, rounded edge headwall, Ke= 0.100 Outlet Invert= 955.88' S= 0.0048 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior Primary OutFlow Max=4.02 cfs @ 119.49 hrs HW=957.75' TW=957.47' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 4.02 cfs @ 3.28 fps) Link 1L: NW Wetland Inflow Area = 5.093 ac, Inflow Depth = 5.51" for 100yr SM event Inflow = 4.11 cfs @ 119.78 hrs, Volume= 2.340 of Primary = 4.11 cfs @ 119.78 hrs, Volume= 2.340 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0,00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Chanhassen Apartments Proposed Conditions 120103-pdrn Type 1l 24-hr 240.00 hrs 100yr SM Rainfall=7.20", AMC=4 Prepared by Alliant Engineering Page 18 HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004060 @ 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 3/18/2013 Link 2L: Existing Pond Inflow Area = 3.027 ac, Inflow Depth = 6.96" for 100yr SM event Inflow = 3.61 cfs @ 119.14 hrs, Volume= 1.756 of Primary = 3.61 cfs @ 119.14 hrs, Volume= 1.756 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs /P. 1 Proposed Pond Proposed Pond Subcat Reach / Link Drainage Diagram for 120103-pdm Prepared by Alliant Engineering 3/18/2013 HydroCAD® 8.00 sin 004060 9 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Chanhassen Apartments NURP Calculations 120103-pdrn Prepared by Alliant Engineering Page 2 HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004060 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 3/18/2013 Area Listing (selected nodes) Area (acres) CN Description (subcats) 1.943 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B (P-1s) 0.483 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C (P-1 s) 1.990 98 Paved parking & roofs (P-1s) 4.416 Chanhassen Apartments NURP Calculations 120103-pdrn Type // 24-hr NURP Rainfall=2.50" Prepared by Alliant Engineering Page 3 HydroCAD® 8.00 s/n 004060 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 3/18/2013 Subcatchment P-1s: Proposed Pond Runoff = 3.90 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.308 af, Depth= 0.84" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr NURP Rainfall=2.50" Area (so CN Description 86,688 98 Paved parking & roofs 84,619 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 21.047 74 >75% Grass cover. Good. HSG C 192,354 79 Weighted Average 105,666 Pervious Area 86,688 Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 20.0 Direct Entry, Pond P-1: Proposed Pond Inflow Area = 4.416 ac, Inflow Depth = 0,84" for NURP event Inflow = 3.90 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.308 of Outflow = 1.09 cfs @ 12.55 hrs, Volume= 0.308 af, Atten= 72%, Lag= 24.4 min Primary = 1.09 cfs @ 12.55 hrs, Volume= 0.308 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-300.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs / 3 Starting Elev= 956.00' Surf.Area= 7,971 sf Storage= 20,930 cf Peak Elev= 956.57' @ 12.55 hrs Surf.Area= 8,588 sf Storage= 25,631 cf (4,701 cf above start) Plug -Flow detention time= (not calculated: initial storage excedes outflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 221.3 min ( 1,091.0 - 869.7 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 948.00' 62,054 cf Custom Stage Data (Irregular)Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Perim. Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (sq-ft) (feet) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) (sq-ft) 948.00 168 111.0 0 0 168 950.00 1,067 179.0 1,106 1,106 1,764 952.00 2,294 229.0 3,284 4,389 3,438 954.00 3,817 277.0 6,047 10,436 5,436 955.00 4,680 298.0 4,241 14,677 6,439 956.00 7,971 361.0 6,253 20,930 9,759 958.00 10,248 39&0 18,171 39,101 12,119 960.00 12,750 436.0 22,952 62,054 14,775 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 956.00' 15.0" x 25.0' long Culvert RCP, rounded edge headwall, Ke= 0.100 Chanhassen Apartments NURP Calculations 120103-pdrn Type 1124-hr NURP Rainfall=2.50" Prepared by Alliant Engineering Page 4 HydroCADO 8 00 s/n 004060 © 2006 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 3/18/2013 Outlet Invert= 955.88' S= 0.0048 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior Primary OutFlow Max=1.09 cfs @ 12.55 hrs HW=956.57' TW=955.29' (Dynamic Tailwater) L1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 1.09 cfs @ 2.95 fps) STORM SEWER DESIGN WORKSHEET - PROPOSED CONDITIONS PROJECT NAME: CIRnh� Apntmmis PROIECTNUMBEA IM103 PREPARED BY: REV64IONOATE3 MB(CB) MARIM STORM FREQUENCY _ is M .U.LIANT FNGD IEEWNG, WC. 233 PARK AVENUE SOVI71 SURE 300 13, IZ!y 0)111 kl2Cil!Ii MH: CB FROM TO AREA INCR. TOTAL IMP SF IMP % RUNOFF C INCR. AC CUM AC Tc PIPE TC CUM.TIME INTENSITY i INCREMENTAL O TOTAL O PIPE DIA PIPE SLOPE S %PE CAP. O %PE CAP. CHECK V MAX PIPE LENGTH INVERT FROM INVERT TO RIM ELEV I COVER CHECK STRUCTURE TYPE PIPE TYPE CASTING CB -IA CBMH-4 0.354 0354 5,932 32% 0.49 0.174 0.174 S00 8.00 6.11 1.06 IA6 12 00045 2.40 1.33 3.W 342.W 95&N 956.76 96100 ISO w N42 ADS 3067-V CB-2A CBMH-3 0217 0217 5$55 M% 0.62 0.17! 0.134 8,W 8.00 6AI 0.92 0.82 12 OO 5 2.40 1.58 3.05 120.00 957.80 95726 N1.00 2.W 283 N-12 ADS 3067-V CBMH-3 CBMH-4 2.340 2.911 ]3,310 72% 0.74 1.720 2.027 1.87 9.97 5.66 9.74 HAS 21 00060 1231 0.83 5.12 8.00 95551 9%.46 962.60 12 4.14 48 N-12 ADS 3%7-V CBlQ74 FTg-5 0000 2.911 0 0% 0.21 0.000 2.027 0.03 9.89 5.66 0.00 11.47 21 0.0063 12.61 1.14 57A 26.00 956.16 956.00 962.60 4.49 48 RCP 3067-V ii Metropolitan CouncilAA June 18, 2013 Mr. Robert Generous, AICP Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan Amendment— Complete for Review Metropolitan Council Review File No. 20265-5 Metropolitan Council District 4 Dear Mr. Generous: The Metropolitan Council received the City's Chanhassen Apartments Comprehensive Plan Amendment on June 3, 2013. The amendment reguides 14 acres from Residential -Low Density/Office to Residential Low/High Density and Office/Residential-High Density located at the northwest comer of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard (CSAH 117). The purpose of the amendment is to provide dual guiding of property for a 155-unit apartment building. Council staff fords the proposed plan amendment complete for review. Under Metropolitan Council comprehensive plan amendment review procedures, outlined in the Local Planning Handbook, the Council has 60 days to complete its formal review of the plan amendment. The 60-day period ends on Friday, August 2, 2013. The proposed amendment is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Community Development Committee at their July 15, 2013, meeting. The full Council will consider the amendment on July 24, 2013. A staff report will be sent to you prior to the Community Development Committee meeting. If you have any questions, please call Angela Torres, Principal Reviewer, at 651-602-1566. Sincerely, LisaBe Barajas, anager Local Planning Assistance cc: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Gary Van Eyll, Metropolitan Council District 4 Angela Torres, Sector Representative/Principal Reviewer Rays Esmaeil1, Reviews Coordinator iY: tCommDevlLPA�CommwdtieslChanhwsentElectronic Referrals''OW Chanhassen Apts CPAL013 Chmthmsen CPA 20265-5 Complete-60 Days. doc r SCANNED w .metrocouncff.org 390 Robert Street North • St. Paul, MN 55101-1805 • (651)602-1000 • Fax (651) 602-1550 • T Y (651)291-0904 M Egoaf Oppw ity Employer Business Item No. 2013-209 Community Development Committee Meeting date: July 15, 2013 For the Metropolitan Council meeting of July 24, 2013 Subject: City of Chanhassen, Chanhassen Apartments Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Review File No. 20265-5 District(s), Member(s): District 4, Council Member Gary Van Eyll Policy/Legal Reference: Minnesota Statutes Section 473.175 Staff Prepared/Presented: Angela R. Torres, Senior Planner, 651-602-1566/Lisa Beth Barajas, Local Planning Assistance Manager, 651-602-1895 Division/Department: Community Development/Planning & Growth Management Proposed Action That the Metropolitan Council: 1. Adopt the attached review record and allow the City of Chanhassen to put the Chanhassen Apartments Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) into effect. 2. Find that the proposed CPA does not change the City's forecasts. Background The Council reviewed the City's update, Review File No. 20265-1 on October 22, 2008, and allowed the City to put the plan into effect. The City has submitted three amendments, all of which were administratively reviewed. The proposed amendment reguides 14 acres from Residential -Low Density/Office to Residential-Low/High Density and Office/Residential-High Density. The CPA will support the development of a 155-unit apartment building. Rationale The proposed CPA conforms to regional system plans, is consistent with Council policies, and is compatible with the plans of other local communities, school districts, and affected special districts. Funding None. Known Support / Opposition There is no known opposition. Review Record City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan Amendment Chanhassen Apartments Review File No. 20265-5, Council Business Item No. 2013-209 BACKGROUND The City of Chanhassen (City) is located in eastern Carver County, surrounded by the cities of Eden Prairie and Shorewood (Hennepin County), Chaska and Victoria (Carver County), and Shakopee and Jackson Township (Scott County). The 2030 Regional Development Framework (RDF) identifies the City as a "Developing" community. The Metropolitan Council (Council) forecasts that the City will grow between 2010 and 2030 from 27,500 to 38,000 people, from 10,200 to 14,800 households, and that employment will grow from 13,000 to 15,600 jobs. The Council reviewed the City's Update, Review File No. 20265-1, on October 27, 2008. There have been three comprehensive plan amendments (CPAs), all of which have been reviewed administratively. The City submitted a CPA to reguide 2.2 acres from Commercial to Office Industrial to accurately reflect existing and future uses (Review File 20265-2). The CPA was reviewed administratively and allowed to be placed into effect on November 10, 2009. The City submitted a CPA to make text corrections in the land use and transportation chapters (Review File No. 20265-3). The CPA was reviewed administratively and allowed to be placed into effect on February 14, 2011. The City submitted a CPA to change the functional class of a local roadway to a Minor Collector (Review File No. 20265-4). The CPA was reviewed administratively and allowed to be placed into effect on May 3, 2013. This is the City's fourth CPA since the review of the Update. REQUEST SUMMARY The CPA proposes to amend the local comprehensive plan to reguide property for a 155-unit market rate apartment building. The project includes two parcels, separated by 78th Street West, and located at the northwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard (CSAH 117) in Chanhassen. The proposal reguides 14 acres from Residential -Low Density/Office to Residential Low/High Density and Office/Residential-High Density. The proposal will transfer development rights from the density created on the north parcel to the south parcel and hold a conservation easement to preclude future development on the north parcel. OVERVIEW Conformance with The CPA conforms to the Regional System Plans for Parks, Regional Systems Transportation (including Aviation), and Wastewater, with no substantial impact on, or departure from, these plans. Consistency with The CPA is consistent with the Council's RDF, with water resources Council Policies management, and is consistent with Council forecasts. Page - 1 METROPOLITAN C 0 U N 0 1 L Compatibility with The CPA will not have an impact on adjacent communities, school Plans of Adjacent districts, or watershed districts, and is compatible with the plans of Jurisdictions those districts. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTIONS • The Council reviewed the City's Update on October 27, 2008 (Review File No. 20265-1). ISSUES I. Does the amendment conform to the regional system plans? II. Is the amendment consistent with the RDF and other Council policies? III. Does the amendment change the Township's forecasts? IV. Is the amendment compatible with the plans of adjacent local governmental units and affected jurisdictions? ISSUES ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Conformance with Regional Systems The proposed amendment conforms to the regional system plan for Wastewater, with no substantial impact on, or departure from this plan. Additional comments are included below. Regional Parks Reviewer: Jan Youngquist (651-602-1029) The CPA is complete for regional parks review and conforms to the 2030 Regional Parks Policy Plan. Transportation Reviewer: Ann Braden (651-602-1705) The proposed amendment conforms to the 2030 Transportation Policy Plan (TPP). Consistency with Council Policy The proposed CPA is consistent with the Council's policies for subsurface sewage treatment systems, surface water management, and water supply. The proposed CPA is consistent with the 2030 Regional Development Framework (RDF) policies for Developing communities. The CPA will not change the City's forecasts. Additional review regarding consistency with Council policies is detailed below. Land Use Reviewer: Angela Torres (651-602-1566) The CPA is consistent with 2030 Regional Development Framework (RDF) policies for Developing communities. The RDF directs developing communities to accommodate forecasted growth at an overall residential density of at least 3 units per acre. Of an estimated 14 acre property, the proposed CPA indicates 6.1 gross acres will be held in conservation, transferring the density units to the remaining 7.9 gross acres. Overall, the CPA proposes 155 total units at a net density of approximately 20.1 units per acre. Housing Reviewer: Angela Torres (651-602-1566) The CPA is consistent with Council housing policy requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. The City is not a participant in the Livable Communities program so does not have a negotiated life -cycle housing goal. The City's estimated share of affordable housing is Page - 2 C: Wserskwennermm\Local Settings�Temporary Internet FileskContent.OutlooklSZLSGIGJ12013 Chanhassen CPA 20265-5 Review Record.docx acknowledged in their Comprehensive Plan Update (CPU) and estimated to be 1,166 units through 2020. This particular project does not include an affordable housing component. Forecasts Reviewer: Todd Graham (651-602-1322) The CPA is consistent with regional policy for forecasts. The CPA will not affect community - wide forecasts. The site contributes to housing growth within the existing forecast. Compatibility with Plans of Adjacent Governmental Units and Plans of Affected Special Districts and School Districts The proposed CPA is compatible with the plans of adjacent jurisdictions. No compatibility issues with plans of adjacent governmental units and plans of affected special districts and school districts were identified. ATTACHMENTS Figure 1: Chanhassen - Location & Regional Systems Figure 2: Proposed Amendment Site Page - 3 C\Users\wennermm\Loca/ Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\SZLSGIGI\2013 Chanhassen CPA 20265-5 Review Record.docx z Chanhassen �sr� Apartments Land Use Ame"..rd Site I i l GDUCa POP +Y Y Cha assen + u ��• ij �� �.+' i `j• . d. Drake 0 Pon�e� F P krIMN etrMw _ �0 F F 111— Eden e\ Prairie r _ I A�in.Awai ' SW�iiks �...vra'ts•''. a os t is 1 us 1 Mln Regional Systems Transportation Recreation Open Space sells! mte,Aata. - Park Resene US Highways - Regional Perk — Stale Hphways Special Recreation Feature — county Roads Regional Trails Wastewater Services STATUS Et Meters ExIsting IJ] bft Stattom ar Planned MCES Interceptors i MCESTreaanenl Plants ii Akports Nmmpass Street Canted..., 2013 U�.sn Metropolitan Council u June 18, 2013 Mr. Robert Generous, AICP Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RECEIVED JUN 2 1 2013 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RE: City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan Amendment — Complete for Review Metropolitan Council Review File No. 20265-5 Metropolitan Council District 4 Dear Mr. Generous: The Metropolitan Council received the City's Chanhassen Apartments Comprehensive Plan Amendment on June 3, 2013. The amendment reguides 14 acres from Residential -Low Density/Office to Residential Low/High Density and Office/Residential-High Density located at the northwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard (CSAH 117). The purpose of the amendment is to provide dual guiding of property for a 155-unit apartment building. Council staff finds the proposed plan amendment complete for review. Under Metropolitan Council comprehensive plan amendment review procedures, outlined in the Local Planning Handbook, the Council has 60 days to complete its formal review of the plan amendment. The 60-day period ends on Friday, August 2, 2013. The proposed amendment is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Community Development Committee at their July 15, 2013, meeting. The full Council will consider the amendment on July 24, 2013. A staff report will be sent to you prior to the Community Development Committee meeting.. If you have any questions,. please call Angela Torres, Principal Reviewer, at 651-602-1566. Sincerely, t J I- itDe Barajas, anager Local Planning Assistance cc: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Gary Van Eyll, Metropolitan Council District 4 Angela Torres, Sector Representative/Principal Reviewer Raya Esmaeili, Reviews Coordinator N"CommDedeLPAtCommunitiestChanhassen�Electronic Rejerrals'1013 Chanhassen Apts CPA1201 j Chanhassen CPA 20265-5 Complele-60 Days. doax w .metrocounca.org 390 Robert Street North • St. Paul, MN 55101-1805 • (651) 602-1000 • Fax (651) 602-1550 • = (651) 291-0904 An ft-1 Oppo Uy Employer Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. -CityHall Request for Rezoning approbmately 14 acres of property from Agricultural Estate (A-2) to Planned Unit Development -Residential Proposal: (PUD-R); Site Plan Review with Variances for a 155-unit Apartment Building; and a Land Use Map Amendment from Residential -Low Density and Office, to Residential -Low and High Density and Office and Residential -High Density Applicant: ODPidan, Inc. Property 7750 Galpin Boulevard (northwest comer of Highway 5 and Galpin Location: Boulevard) A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicants request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What public hearing through the following steps: Happens at 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. the Meeting: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2013-07. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate Aanenson by Questions & email at kaanenson0ci.chanhassen.ri or by phone at 952- Comments: 227-1139. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, She Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Welland Aaerabons, Remnings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. CM ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested parry is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff Prepares a report on the subject application that inciudes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the repon and a recommendation. The hem will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal a5 a part of the hearing process. The Commission will dose the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/Industrial. • Minnesota state Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an hem through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representalive is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does no. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be incuded in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the re lease Contact the Planning Staff person named on the noti9oabon. a w c dyGQ 3 �' G d �O d O l- 1 E 4=ofi�g.mE9 elm -a38 �N 6H C�prym° LV o$So2 dim 0 a m ms J �'p C � f ° ° it @tl wE: �•�: 'o om r8 °$�Ummm�mT mmc$gm-a�c�m Sob"a amEmmE me o 3m �4'�nwgm m nc g 0 m �8 E^3mSSmg��s�n m �E:mgm m �g OIE�o'=EmSr in`a Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for Rezoning approximately 14 acres of property from Agricultural Estate (A-2) to Planned Unit Development -Residential Proposal: (PUD-R); Site Plan Review with Variances for a 155-unit Apartment Building; and a Land Use Map Amendment from Residential -Low Density and Office, to Residential -Low and High Density and Office and Residential -High Density Applicant: O pidan, Inc. Property 7750 Galpin Boulevard (northwest comer of Highway 5 and Location: Galpin Boulevard) A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What public hearing through the following steps: Happens at 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. the Meeting: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2013-07. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate Aanenson by Questions & email at kaanenson0ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at 952- Comments: 227-1139. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, She Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent imonnation and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a pan of the hearing process. The Commission will dal. close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City CounThe City Council may reverse, aRmn or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Counal except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commeroiaUmdustrlal. • Minnesota Stale Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any Person wishing to follow an hem through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding is status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the CM Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Stag person named on the notification. tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting mf in of the depiction geographic featuresg eoors or discr. r• �. _ -1167. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Min y +`� ^` (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall-µ` ads, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnity, and 1. , from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third pgn 1 er- eppeps 1 r use of data provided. ! 1.1... ,r: GYI $ "' jC1 i�f 1 4 �PZF$ .9 _es— pQST� PITNlV SOW!! 021 P $ 000.460 •0003195036 APR 04 2013 • MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 55317 0 W Z 317 U) courr►y wcbs��e I M PEITZ Ll Tc i AUTUMN RIDGE AVE 1NHASSEN MN 55317-8451 1111-11t111111111111111111n1111till 111111111111111111n111n111 13 -OI CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of Oppidan, Inc. to Rezone approximately 14 acres from Agricultural Estate (A-2) to Planned Unit Development -Residential (PUD-R); Site Plan Review with Variances for a 155- unit Apartment Building; and a Land Use Map Amendment from Residential -Low Density and Office, to Residential -Low and High Density and Office and Residential -High Density. On April 16, 2013, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Oppidan, Inc. to rezone approximately 14 acres from Agricultural Estate (A-2) to Planned Unit Development -Residential (PUD-R); Site Plan Review with Variances for a 155-unit Apartment Building; and a Land Use Map Amendment from Residential -Low Density and Office, to Residential -Low and High Density and Office and Residential -High Density. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed rezoning preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District, A-2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential -Low Density and Office. The legal description of the property is: That part of the Southwest Quarer of the Southwest Quarter of Section 10. Township 115, Range 23 and the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15. Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of said Section 10; thence on as assumed bearing of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West along the West line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1026.89 feet; thence South 79 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 177.77 feet; thence South 86 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 100.40 fee:: thence South 78 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 194.14 feet; thence South 74 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance e' 150.00 feet: thence South 47 degrees 17 minutes 20 second. East, distance of 75.43 feet. thence North 82 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds East, a dis- - 74.98 feet, then_e South 58 2egrees 1..7 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 84 - -hence South 89 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East. a distance of 164.63 feet; '.herd�, degrees 17 mirates 40 seconds West, a distance of 824.19 feet to the northerly righ+ - :, iiy line of Trunk Highway 5; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West cono .,crtherly right of way, a distance of 33.08 feet; therce South 56 degrees 11 minute-. seconds West alarj said northerly right of way, a distance of 158.95 feet; thence Nor - degrees 54 minutes �0 seconds West along said rortheriy right of way, a distuaco o -. 2 feet 4o the west line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, large 23: -hence Ncrth 1 degree 37 r,inutes 50 seconds West along said west line of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 9'2 feet to the point of beginning. This -roc* contains 18.1 acres of iaod. more or lass, and is subiec' -a right of way in existing county road and subiect to ary and all easements of rec::rd. SCANNED 4. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are: a) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. b) The proposed use is or will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. c) The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. d) The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. e) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. f) Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. 5. Site Plan Review a) The proposed site plan is consistent with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; b) The proposed development is consistent with the site plan review requirements of city code; c) The proposed site plan preserves the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal, preserving as permanent open space the land north of 78"' Street West and designing the site in keeping with the general appearance of the; d) The proposed site plan creates a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; e) The proposed site plan creates a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: 1) An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; 2) The amount and location of open space and landscaping; 3) Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and 4) Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. f) The proposed site plan protects adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. 6. Variance Findings — Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a) Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The granting of the variance is in keeping with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. The reduction of one internal parking stall due to locating trash and recycling inside provides enhanced site design. While the parking could be met through the use of compact parking stalls, the use of standard size stalls is preferred. b) When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: The practical difficulty with the parking standard is that while it could be provided, it would necessitate the use of exterior trash and recycling locations or require the use of compact parking stalls which are not preferred. c) That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The purpose of the variance is not based upon economic considerations, but is to permit the development to provide interior trash and recycling facilities. d) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The reason for the request is to permit the trash and recycling inside the building. e) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The reduction of one interior parking stall will not alter the essential character of the area. The site provides adequate surface parking to accommodate required site parking. f) Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. The planning report #2013-07 dated April 16, 2013, prepared by Kate Aanenson, et al, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the project. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 16a' day of April, 2013. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY: Its iairma 13 -o-7 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO.2013-07 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, April 16, 2013, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for a 155-unit Apartment Building located on approximately 14 acres of property zoned Agricultural Estate (A2) and located at 7750 Galpin Boulevard (northwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard). Applicant: Oppidan, Inc. Owner: Americana Community Bank -Chanhassen. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review on the City's web site at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2013-07 or at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Kate Aanenson, AICP, Community Development Director Email: kaanensonkci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1139 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on April 4, 2013) SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN P O BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 03/21/2013 3:33 PM Receipt No. 00214688 CLERK: AshleyM PAYEE: Oppidan Inc 5125 County Road 101 # 100 Minnetonka MN 55345- Chanhassen Apartments Planning Case 2013-07 ------------------------------------------------------- Site Plan 610.00 Total Cash Check 21571 Change 610.00 0.00 610.00 0.00 SCANNED 13-07 Affidavit of Publication Southwest Newspapers CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN coDNTHss NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING State of Minnesota PLANNING CASE NO. 2013-07 )SS. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanh Planning Coro- County of Carver mission will hold a public bearing on Tuesday, April 16, 2013, at 7.00 P.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 770o Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly swom, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized is to considerarequestfor a 155-unit Apartment Building located on ap- agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- proximately 14 acres of property lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: zoned Agricultural Estate (A2) and located at 7750 Galpin Boulevard (A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal (northwest corner of Highway 5 newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331 A.02, 331 A.07, and other applicable laws, as and Galpin Boulevard). Applicant: amended. Oppidan, Inc. Owner. Americana Community Bank -Chanhassen. (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said public review on the City's web site at Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2013-07during or at City Hall during regular inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition ness hours. All interested persons sons and publication of the Notice: are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions abcdefgbijkhnnopgrstuvwxyz with respect to this proposal. Kate Aanenson, AICP, Community Development Director Email: kaanenson@ci.chanhassen. Y mn.us Phone: 952-227-1139 Laurie A. Hartmann (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on Thursday, April 4, 2013; No. 4789) Subscribed and sworn before me on this _'3day of Q-- - . 2013 faJYMME JEANNETTE BARK NOTWY PUBLIC - M'NNESOTA MY COMMSSION SPI ES 01/311.8 RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $31.20 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................ $31.20 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter .............................................. $12.59 per column inch SCANNED April 8, 2013 CITY OF Mr. Paul Tucci CHMNSEN Oppidan, Inc. 5125 CR 101, Suite 100 7700 Market Boulevard Minnetonka, MN 55345 PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Chanhassen Apartments Rezoning; Site Plan Review with Variances; and Land Use Map Amendment - Planning Case 2013-07 Administration Phone:952.227.1100 Dear Mr. Tucci: Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections This letter is to formally notify you that on April 22, 2013, the Chanhassen City Council Phone: 952.227.1180 adopted the following three motions: Fax: 952.227.1190 A. Land Use Map Amendment from Residential -Low Density and Office, to Engineering Residential -Low and High Density and Office and Residential -High Density Phone: 52.227.1170 Planned Unit Development (PUD) subject to the following condition: Fax: 952.2271170 Finance 1. Approval of the Land Use Amendment is subject to the Metropolitan Council Phone:952.227.1140 determination of consistency with system plan. Fax: 952.227.1110 B. Rezoning of approximately 14 acres from Agricultural Estate (A-2) to Planned Unit Park Recreation Development -Residential (PUD-R) subject to the following condition: Phone: 952.2271120 Fax: 952.227.1110 1. Adoption of the Chanhassen PUD Ordinance, which shall be created to govern Recreation Center the site and design standards. 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 C. Approval of a Site Plan for a 155-unit Apartment Building with a Variance for Fax: 952.227.1404 parking subject to the following conditions: Planning & Natural Resources 1. Approval of the Land Use Amendment subject the Metropolitan Council Phone:952.2271130 determination of consistency with system plan. Fax: 952.227.1110 2. Adoption of the Chanhassen PUD Ordinance, which shall be created to govern Public Works the site and design standards. 7901 Park Place PFax:952.22271300 Fax: 952.221.1310 3. Execution of the Site Plan Permit. Senior Center 4. Payment of $294,500 park and trail fee and $116,500 stonnwater fee prior to Phone:952.227.1125 the issuance of a building permit. Fax: 952.227.1110 5. Parcel A shall be dedicated to the City, or have a conservation easement Web Site placed on it, for management consistent with the Bluff Creek Management www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us Plan, the Bluff Creek TMDL and the 2°d Generation Surface Water Management Plan. 13-M SCANNED Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow Mr. Paul Tucci Chanhassen Apartments May 8, 2013 Page 2 6. The applicant and the City should work together to develop an appropriate mitigation scenario. Any portion of the wetland presumed to be impacted under an alternate development scenario, which would require the use of Parcel A and is subsequently transferred to Parcel B for density calculations, be mitigated for at a 1:1 ratio. This mitigation should occur within the Bluff Creek Overlay District but does need to be in the form of wetland. The developer must calculate the net developable acres of the site and wetland acreage. 8. The wetland delineation report shall be finalized. 9. All existing trees proposed to be saved must be protected with fencing during construction or replaced after construction if damaged or dead. 10. The selections of Colorado spruce must be replaced by a different evergreen species in the plant schedule. 11. Before final approval for the project, the applicant will need to determine future management plans for the existing ash trees. If preserved, the applicant will be required to chemically protect or, if infested, remove and replace the trees. If the applicant decides to remove and replace the trees at this time, a revised landscape plan will be required. 12. Staff recommends that the curb radius at the driveway access be increased to facilitate the turning movements of larger vehicles. 13. Appropriate signage must be installed 10 days prior to and for the duration of the work within West 78th Street. 14. The developer must coordinate the closure of West 78th Street with the Engineering Department minimum 72 hours prior to the closure. 15. A $10,000 escrow must be provided to ensure that West 78th Street is properly restored. Once the street has been restored to satisfactory condition, 50% of the escrow will be released; the remaining 50% will be released if the patch is in satisfactory condition after one freeze -thaw cycle. 16. Minimum 18-inch vertical separation is required between the private watermain and the private storm sewer crossing. 17. The developer shall submit $5,000 with the site plan agreement to cover half of the cost of the signal modification at TH 5 and Galpin Boulevard to accommodate a flashing yellow passive -permissive signal. Mr. Paul Tucci Chanhassen Apartments May 8, 2013 Page 3 18. The developer shall pay one-half the cost of the traffic study. 19. City trunk sanitary sewer hookup fees (City SAC), City trunk watermain hookup fees (City WAC) and the Met Council Sanitary Access Charge (Met SAC) are due with the building permit at the rate in effect at that time and shall be based on the SAC unit determination per the Met Council. 20. A "General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity Under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination" will be required for this project. Proof of permission from the PCA must be provided to the City before grading can commence. 21. A Surface Water Management Plan is required and shall be submitted to the City for review and comment. This plan shall incorporate the required elements of Parts III, IV and Appendix A of the NPDES permit. 22. Both the Bluff Creek Total Maximum Daily Load Implementation Plan and the NPDES Permit require that a portion of the Water Quality Volume is infiltrated on -site. The Stormwater Management Study shall be modified to address this requirement and incorporated into the SWPPP. 23. Because the site discharges to an impaired water, the discharge rates for the one-year design event must also be equal to or less than the existing discharge rates. The Stormwater Management Study shall be modified to address this requirement and shall be incorporated into the SWPPP. 24. In order to protect Bluff Creek, meet the goals of the Bluff Creek Natural Resources Management Plan and the Bluff Creek TMDL Implementation Plan, staff is recommending that the portion of the property north of West 78`h Street be preserved through an easement to the City and that this density should be transferred to that portion south of West 78th Street. 25. Sheet C-3 GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN shall be amended to include the following: a. The swale draining into the proposed pond shall be stabilized for its entirety as it is less than 200 feet in length. b. An appropriate perimeter BMP shall be shown and installed around the proposed outlet modification for the southern wetland. c. Silt fence or another acceptable BMP shall be installed on the north end of the culvert under West 78th Street. Mr. Paul Tucci Chanhassen Apartments May 8, 2013 Page 4 d. The EOF from the pond to the wetland shall be permanently stabilized. This is addressed in the Drainage Report but is not included in the Grading and Erosion Plan. A turf reinforcement mat is an acceptable practice as is called out in the drainage report. 26. Minnesota Department of Transportation will need to review and approve the drainage plan. 27. The applicant shall revise the plans to incorporate sidewalk connections to existing trails. 28. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. A "Code Record" is required (Code Record schematic plans may be same scale as architectural). For "Code Record" information go to MN Dept. of Labor and Industry: hM://www.dii.mn.gov/CCLD/PlanConstruction.go 29. The building(s) must be protected with automatic fire sprinkler systems. 30. An accessible route must be provided to buildings, parking facilities, public transportation stops and all common use facilities. 31. All parking areas, including parking garages, must be provided with accessible parking spaces dispersed among the various building entrances. 32. Accessible dwelling units must be provided in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. 33. The building owner and/or their representatives should meet with the Inspections Division to discuss plan review and permit procedures (in particular, type of construction and allowable area issues must be addressed). 34. Due to the large size of this building, class III Fire Dept, standpipes will be required. Have developer contact Fire Marshal for exact locations. MSFC Sec. 905.3.9. 35. " No Parking Fire Lane " signs will be required. Have developer contact Fire Marshal for exact locations. MSFD Sec. 505.31 36. An additional on site fire hydrant will be required. Contact Fire Marshal for location. 37. A PIV ( post indicator valve ) will be required. 38. A three-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. MSFC Sec 508.5.4. Mr. Paul Tucci Chanhassen Apartments May 8, 2013 Page 5 A Site Plan Agreement must be prepared by our offices for recording; however, cost estimates for the improvements must be submitted to our offices before the agreement can be prepared. Modifications must be made to the site plan as stipulated in this letter. The following fees shall be paid with the recording of the site plan agreement: a. Park and Trail Fees: $294,500 b. Storm Water Fees: $116,500 c. Erosion Control to be determined based on grading plan. d. $10,000 escrow must be provided to ensure that West 78th Street is properly restored. e. $5,000 to cover half of the cost of the signal modification at TH 5 and Galpin Boulevard. Other fees include the city trunk sanitary sewer hookup fees (City SAC), City trunk watermain hookup fees (City WAC) and the Met Council Sanitary Access Charge (Met SAC) which are due with the building permit at the rate in effect at that time and shall be based on the SAC unit determination per the Met Council. If you have any questions, please call me at (952) 227-1139 or by email at kaanensonC .ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Sincerely, Kate Aanenson, AICP Community Development Director KA:ktm c: Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer Jerry Mohn, Building Official g:\plan\2013 planning cases\2013-07 chanhassen apaninents�approval letter.doc Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 Mayor Furlong: This evening we'll get an update too from the Chanhassen Fire Department. Chief John Wolff is here. Good evening Chief. Chief John Wolff. Good evening Mayor. Good evening council. I'd like to dispense from the regular report tonight. 3 weeks ago our most senior fire fighter, Dale Gregory announced his retirement. Dale served the fire department for 42 years. I'd like to invite Dale and his wife Roseanne to the front along with the Mayor and the City Manager and my two assistant chiefs. Dale joined the fire department on March 31, 1971 and he'll be retiring on April 30, 2013. Along with his wife Roseanne, who was a Chanhassen business owner and also a great supporter of the fire department. She headed up our Chanhassen Fire Department Women's Auxiliary for many, many years while that organization was active. Dale's served in a variety of roles on the fire department. He was an Assistant Chief from 1979 to 1987. He was the Fire Chief from 1988 to 1991 and he served as a Battalion Chief for us for the past 15 years so 27 years out of the 42 as a chief officer for the Chanhassen Fire Department. The fire department's only been around for 47 years and Dale's been, and I took a look at the list of members and half of the current fire fighters weren't even born when Dale joined. Dale's a fire fighter and a leader that certainly led by example. He did this by setting high standards for himself and never asked anything of anyone that he wouldn't personally do himself. You could always count on Dale to be there. He was passionate and he was also a big advocate for fire fighter safety and making sure that we did things right. While Dale served as our fire chief he took delivery of Ladder 11, one of our largest capital purchases ever. He also spearheaded the Station One renovation in 1990 and he was a key implementer of our health surveillance program back in the early days. After his term ended he served in the ladder company for many years and led that group. Dale's been a great asset for the Chanhassen Fire Department and to the citizens of Chanhassen. We will miss his commitment. His dedication. His experience and his passion. Thank you Dale. Thank you Roseanne. Mayor Furlong: Thank you Chief. For those at home, I don't know if the camera showed but the entire perimeter of the council chambers were lined with members of our fire department so we're certainly going to miss Dale's service to the city and we thank him for the many, many years and his wife as well for supporting him during that time. Yep, he'll be continuing as an employee of the City, correct? Okay. Just the fire department. And we'll let the hallways clear as people come out and others come in. Thank you and welcome to our council meeting. Let's move forward with our agenda this evening. CHANHASSEN APARTMENTS, LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD, APPLICANT: OPPIDAN, INCJOWNER: AMERICANA COMMUNITY BANK CHANHASSEN: A. REQUEST FOR REZONING APPROXIMATELY 14 ACRES FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE (A-2) TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT -RESIDENTIAL. (PUD-R): B. SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR A 155-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING, LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL -LOW DENSITY AND OFFICE TO RESIDENTIAL -LOW AND HIGH DENSITY AND OFFICE AND RESIDENTIAL - HIGH DENSITY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD). Mayor Furlong: Let's start with a staff report please if we can Ms. Aanenson and then we'll probably have some questions from council. I know we have a number of residents here. I'm guessing that they have some questions as well. We'll certainly have an opportunity for the applicant to talk and we'll probably have some public comment. I don't want to, members of the council received the Planning Commission minutes. The verbatim minutes so we've read all those comments so we don't need a repeat of the Planning Commission but if there are some public comments of something that's occurred since the Planning Commission, tonight we'll have that opportunity as well so Ms. Aanenson, thank you for sitting through my introduction and let's go with the staff report please. SCANNED Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 Kate Aanenson: Yes, yes. Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. This item did appear before the Planning Commission at their April 10h meeting and they did recommend unanimously to recommend approval of this project. As you stated Mayor there's a number of actions required. Amending the City Code. Defining a conservation area. A site plan review with variances. A rezoning and then a land use amendment. So with that, we did talk about this project in a concept review in a modified, where we didn't give the formalized recommendation but a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission last year for a concept and as did the City Council review the concept and gave some directions to the applicant to come back through but I think it'd be helpful to go back and, I don't know if that's you or me that's hitting. To go back through and revisit some of the things that we talked about in the concept to kind of continue to frame up the discussion points here. So this property is guided, or excuse me it's currently zoned Agricultural. We consider that a holding zone until a project comes forward. Again the site is guided for office. It was done in the last Comprehensive Plan guided for office on the south side and low density residential. I know there's been a lot of discussion and I'm sure you've gotten some correspondence regarding changing of the Comprehensive Plan. It's been stated that it should only be changed during the time of when we do a comp plan amendment every 10 years but historically changes have been made. Whether a request comes from the City or for an applicant to revisit that in and of itself and I just wanted to reiterate that you do have a level of discretion. It is a policy decision of whether or not you want to change the Comprehensive Plan. Again it does take review by the surrounding jurisdiction and then obviously the Met Council and this project would be subject to approval by those agencies. But I also want to point out, if you look at what it states in our Comprehensive Plan, this is on the City's website, that the Comprehensive Plan is designed to serve as a guide for decision making, and again we'll go through those discussion points but in the concept review and in this report too we talk about the goals and policies that this project would meet. Again the Comprehensive Plan is designed to be flexible depending on policy changes that would come into place but our goal through this process was to explain to you what goals and policies this project would meet coming forward as it is shown to you today. So again the land use change would be required for this project to move forward. The subject site, Paul and I are trying to figure out who's got control of the mouse here so sorry about that. So the subject site, the site is currently vacant. Was used as a business. This is Bluff Creek runs to the northern edge of this property and relatively flat. It does have woods around it. There is the high tension power line that also runs through the site. As we talked about in the other site, it is surrounded by a neighborhood commercial on the east. On the west is a subdivision. The Vasserman Ridge subdivision. Twin homes and single family. Low density project and then the Walnut Grove neighborhood which is also a mix. Is bordered by Highway 5 and a county road and then a collector street, West 78'". So the history of the site, it was used as a golf course and a driving range and pitch and putt and kind of a miniature golf. When Highway 5 was built in order to accommodate the golf tournament out on Hazeltine, the State advanced the construction of that and actually pursued building West 78' to accommodate the re-routing of traffic through this site so West 78th was acquired and built as that by- pass. I know it's been brought up that the underlying property owner was compensated. That's a standard practice. Property owners were compensated along 212, Powers Boulevard, 101 for the improvements. The gap project. All those projects so that's a normal course of business. Whether Mr. Pryzmus was compensated because he had a loss of business, we can't, I can't definitively state on that but that's a normal practice on that, for that to happen. That property owners are compensated. You'll be seeing a project we talked about on concept, Mr. Klingelhutz who was completely compensated for taking is still coming back for a project on that so, for us as a staff we don't see that as a point of whether or not the land use should be changed. We're looking again at the Comprehensive Plan. So this street is classified as a major collector. That is one of the statements in the Comprehensive Plan that apartments should be located on collector streets or they have good access to the downtown. This collector street runs all the way from 41 to Powers Boulevard and ultimately ties back in through downtown over to 101, another major collector so again that's consistent with one of the goals in the City's Comprehensive Plan. We talked about in the Comprehensive Plan that this was guided for office institutional and in really kind i Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 of framing up how we, the city staff saw this project is looking at potential uses that could go on it as an office institutional. We gave you some examples of Park Nicollet, Ridgeview Clinic, a church that could potentially going on that site. Looking at the acreage, the amount of parking. The trips being generated. Looking at that things being equal and location, that's where we said that you know if you looked apartment and maybe peak hours of some of these uses may be more conflicting as an apartment where there may be more distribution of trips that we felt that the office institutional use going to a residential would actually not be an up -zone in our mind. If you look at the hierarchy of zoning residential than office then commercial, industrial so we did not see that as a up -zone. Again tying that back to the Comprehensive Plan, in the availability of office institutional you'll note that that was one of the zoning districts that we actually added quite a bit of in the last iteration when we looked at what was happening down in the 212 corridor. We added a significant amount of office industrial so taking this acreage out does not deviate or hurt what the goals were stated in the Comprehensive Plan. Again the height under this was 2 stories but we noted in several situations where we've actually granted additional height in those office institutional that are abutting Highway 5. Specifically on Park Nicollet who can go to the 47 feet high. The neighbors behind that actually were supportive of that. Again we talked about that in the concept for the buffering and the noise attenuation that that provided ultimately when that strip center goes away, they will provide the additional story when they do additional would need to be provided for that. Again just talking a little bit about the density transfer. How that works. I had some examples of that and again we talked about this at concept but just kind of make sure that we're tracking this through. How we do a density transfer. There's different applications of this. This is an example where our Centennial Hills where the City chose to do a senior housing project and transfer the density. The 2 acres up to 30 units an acre to get the 65 so it's at 30 units an acre. Again spreading that over the entire PUD stayed within the frameworks so that'd be one application of a density transfer. Another application of a density transfer was Villages on the Pond. In this application we mixed the number of units. Transferred what was on the, again divided by a state highway so what's on Highway 41, on the other side of 41 we preserved those trees and then there's a piece of property on the north side that is also preserved. Did the density transfer so it compressed the zoning, the number of units here and provided that open space. Lake Susan Apartment, this would be another example of where we have an apartment that is adjacent, 162 units adjacent to a state highway. There's 3 buildings. hi this circumstance there is no public amenities on this project. Again looking at each project as they come in, what the unique attributes would be but this project does not have any public community gathering spaces. They do have access to the trail to go around the lake but that is 16 units an acre, 162 units. And then Powers Ridge Apartments. We showed the height of those, similar to the height that we're looking at today. Measured at the midpoint of the roof line. Ultimately there'll be 334 and they're adjacent to Powers Boulevard, also a collector road. So when this item went to the Planning Commission and you saw it in the concept review and just gave direction, you gave what we understood and the developer understood to make some changes on the project. One would be the number of units and looking at the setting on the site and what could be done to modify some of that. I think some of the other questions came in regarding number of children and I'll talk about that in a minute but I just want to clarify for you, I put this in when it went back to the Planning Commission and I'll clarify this a little bit more. So we, on the gross acreage of Parcel A we took out the wetland so we're just giving them the density credit of 3.3 units an acre. On the Parcel B there's a small wetland so it's 7, .7 units, 7 acres that they would get credit for so we multiply that by the 16 units so if you take the northern piece you could get 53 but in actuality it's 10 units an acre because they only took the 32 units. Their goal was to come in at around 155 so if you took the 16 units on the southern parcel, 123 plus the 32 gets you to the 125. If you're tracking me on that. So the total acreage is then. Audience: No. Kate Aanenson: Okay so what. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, please explain again. Thank you. Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 Kate Aanenson: Okay, so what we do when we transfer density is we take the net acreage. So there's two wetlands on this property so the net acreage there is 3 units. Mayor Furlong: And by this property you're talking about the northern parcel, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: The northern parcel, correct. The northern parcel. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So even though it's 6 acres total buildable there without the wetlands, it's only 3.3. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. That's the only part they're getting for use. That they're only getting credit for those 3 acres. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Okay? In effect they're using 10 units an acre because they're only using 32 units so it's not, if you looked at the math it's not at 16 units an acre. It's at 10 units an acre effective so that would be 32 units. The 3.3 times the 10 gets you the 32 units. Councilman Laufenburger: So Kate the implication here or what you're saying is that that 3.3 acres could support 16 units an acre? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Laufenburger: But with acceptable use, but the density that's being transferred is only a density of 10 units per acre. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay Kate Aanenson: So on the southern piece it's 7.8 acres gross. There's a small wetland so we took that out of the mix so the net acres of buildable is 7.713. And to be clear we do this on every project to take the net and gross so we multiplied that times the 16 units an acre to get to the 123 so you take those two parcels, while the northern piece is not being built on, similar to the transfer I showed you on the other projects, the same process that we've done gets you to the 155. Now let's go back and talk about the Comprehensive Plan's goals and policies. The goals have always been on this property is not to build on the north side. Similar when we looked at the Pulte Home project over on 41. The goal was not to have units that are not associated with the rest of the project on that side of the parcel. Mayor Furlong: Can you back up to that picture of the Pulte development. So. Kate Aanenson: So not to have a few units sitting over here or a few units backed up in here so we said let's take those units that have value. The City could purchase those because they have value. And when we looked at the overlay district we talked about this at the Planning Commission, the goal was at the time we could either buy everything along the Overlay District when we created that. We went to the attorney's office and talked about what are the implications of doing that and because of some properties in the MUSA some properties not in the urban service area. Excuse me for the, some does not have sewer and water to it so you really have different values trying to compute it so what the council at that time 10 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 decided to do is to take each project incrementally and decide what's the best way to manage that. So we've done different types of density transfer to preserve things along the Bluff Creek corridor. Mayor Furlong: And Ms. Aanenson, with regard to this picture then and the areas that have yellow ovals over them, those are areas that were high ground. Were buildable but as part of the planning process and the approval process those now cannot be built upon, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Those are permanent and in most cases tree stands. Kate Aanenson. Correct. Mayor Furlong: Stands of trees. Kate Aanenson: Yep, and so those were the environmental features that we wanted to preserve. You cannot get credit for the wetland. That's why we took it out because you can't build in a wetland, just as we're looking at this project. We did not give the developer credit for that but we took that out of the mix and compressed that so we, the desire was to save that corridor and preserve those trees for the amenities to create a better project. So we're following the same process on this project. Taking out. Mayor Furlong: Now, excuse me for interrupting. Kate Aanenson: Yep. Mayor Furlong: This process, or project the northern parcel doesn't necessarily have any trees on it. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: But it will still be preserved in it's current and present state Kate Aanenson: Correct, and that came out of the Comprehensive Plan process. What we heard from the neighbors is that their desire was to try not to have development on that and what we did, if you remember the underlying property owner wanted to pursue a commercial use on that site and so during the, the staff was opposed to the commercial use but we, the council settled on the office institutional use. They were hoping to get some support commercial inside those office institutional type uses. Maybe some support commercial with those but the goal that we heard was to preserve that northern parcel so that's why we transferred the density over to make it work. Mayor Furlong: Question. Councilman Laufenburger: Please. Kate, in the council packet there was mention about, at one time, was it '03 there was a project that came forward that had some construction townhomes in the north parcel, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Correct. Councilman Laufenburger. That was never approved, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: It got conceptual review. We looked at it as part of the Comprehensive Plan but it never got entitled as an approved project. 11 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 Councilman Laufenburger: Did that come forward in conjunction with the office on the south parcel? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. So approval was given to the office, the building of the south parcel but that building was never done, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: When I say approval, conceptual approval. Councilman Laufenburger. Okay, conceptual approval. Kate Aanenson: Again conceptual approval means it doesn't have legal standing but in good faith you're trying to give direction on what you would support. Councilman Laufenburger: But that didn't go anywhere obviously. Kate Aanenson: No it did not. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay, thank you. Thank you Mr. Mayor Kate Aanenson: Any other questions on that part of it? Mayor Furlong: Perhaps later but let's keep going. Kate Aanenson: Okay. I just wanted to point out too, there was some questions regarding persons per household and how many kids would be generated in an apartment building. I stated that rental units have the lowest number of children and I just wanted to show this to you. From a data point this is taken from the 2010 census. If you look at persons per household, the highest number is actually a traditional single family house actually has the highest, our average family size 3.23 and actually apartments have significantly less. You know 90% less of children per household. So I stated that. I didn't have the data here to show it but that is, anybody can look that number up. It's in the census so. I also wanted to just give you a comparison of where we are in rental units. You know we talked about this in the Comprehensive Plan. I went through our housing goals and policies. Those are stated in the staff report and I just want to maybe illustratively show it in a different way besides the goals and policies of where we are with kind of some of the surrounding areas as far as percentage of rental at the 13.36 where we are with the rest of the surrounding communities and that was one of the goals that we did say that would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The variety of housing choices. We mentioned that the one at Lake Susan went condo and so we have a pent up demand. We talked about at the conceptual plan, the vacancy rate in this area around 2% and that there was some demand in this market when we looked at the market study that the applicant provided for Chanhassen so again looking at those factors came into play. Mayor Furlong: Ms. Aanenson, quick question on that. The percent occupied column. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Shows 96.2% so does that suggest that 3.8% of our homes, whether rental or non -rental are vacant currently? 12 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 Kate Aanenson: Correct. So that was a snapshot in 2010 in the census so you may have had some vacant properties that weren't captured so just want to keep that data point just to make sure that everyone understood not everything was full at that time. And again that's just one snapshot. Mayor Furlong: Understand, thank you. Kate Aanenson: Okay. So again following up from the concept moving forward, asked the developer to make some changes and I think we were, we took the applicant's drawing and tried to just illustratively show you the changes. So if we look at the fast we actually had, this is the first proposal that came in at the concept. Two separate buildings with a swimming pool. Kind of stretched the PUD to meet the standards but I think there were some concerns from the surrounding property owners regarding lights shining in. Proximity to the high tension power lines, etc. Number of units. So the revised shows the one driveway as opposed to the two. Trying to move that away from the lights and then the lights coming out, two entrance points. One entrance coming out and then compressing the number of units, the 155 from the 224 to elimination of the pool. Providing more of a playground area and so again greater, 80 feet instead of the 50 foot. Greater setback from the property lines. Again the PUD requires a minimum of 50 but greater setback from the property lines. So this again would be an illustration of how that would lay out with the stormwater pond and the site in and of itself. Mayor Furlong: Ms. Aanenson? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Ernst has a question Kate Aanenson: I'm sorry. Councilwoman Ernst: That's okay. Kate, you had mentioned the power lines because that was a mention of concern in the previous meeting. How far away did they move the project from the power lines? Do you know that off the top of your head? Kate Aanenson: The closest point now is 80 feet from the property line of the site so the minimum is 50 so they moved it another 30 feet in and that would be along Highway 5. It's moved in another 10 feet along Galpin but that's now where the high tension power lines are. Councilwoman Ernst: Okay, thank you Kate Aanenson: This perspective here, because we put in and made it a little bit bigger. This is actually, this point is actually from right at the end of the building to that first house is 406 feet, and I think that was also part of the goal by the number, reduction number of units allowed you to re -orientate the building to give a greater setback from the houses here so while this, we stretched that photo to make it, this line was actually touching here to here which is showing this line. So then the other dimension would be the closest point from this corner of the building at the comer of West 78t' and Galpin would be then to the closest unit there was actually 600 feet. Again trying to give a better understanding of the separation from the buildings and the perspective of the homeowners and that's also shown illustratively right here in these two drawings showing the spacing on those. Okay. Architecture. So we've got the Hardy board. The brick around the windows. The wood decks. Three different colors and there's a lot of movement in the building with the windows and balconies on all those. We believe it's a highly articulated building and meets all the city ordinances as far as the material selection and believe that it meets and exceeds the city ordinances as far as the design standards. So the one issue on this with the height variance, the mid point of the roof is measured as the height and so we looked at the other 13 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 apartments in the community and felt like they're coming in at 35 at that, excuse me, 37 1/2 at that midpoint and because it's 35, the staff is supporting, the PUD ordinance which would accommodate that ... to actually be the 38 so with this project we're putting an ordinance together that's, we've attached as part of the staff report. So if we look at the midpoint of the roof here, we're at that midpoint going across would be the, shown at 37 1/2 and so we put into the PUD ordinance the 38 feet so we are recommending that and the PUD that does not require a variance but just put into the ordinance in and of itself. The project could be accommodated by a flat roof but typically you see a flat roof, you'd look at the three stories that are over on Lifetime. That's a flat roof. That's typically associated with an office type setting and felt strongly about the residential character to this perspective and felt that architecturally it makes more sense. There is one variance proposed on the site and that's for one parking stall. It does meet all the parking requirements for number of units. You have to have at least one stall inside, one out and then guest parking. It does meet all those standards on this project. They are putting the recycling and the trash inside. They could accommodate the parking requirements by putting in a couple of compact stalls to accommodate that. Sometimes those end up being other storage issues and the like. Staff would support the one stall variance and are recommending approval of that in order to accommodate the parking. Go ahead. Mayor Furlong: Question on the parking then. That's just a variance of the normal requirement for underground parking, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. They meet all the standards for the exterior. Mayor Furlong: And exterior parking, I saw in the staff report and I can't find it right now but what is the requirement for exterior and what are they doing exterior? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I had that. Mayor Furlong: Do you have that? Kate Aanenson: Yeah I do and I'm sorry it's kind of coming at the end. Mayor Furlong: No, that's fine. If it's ... keep going. Kate Aanenson: Yep, I'll go through, talk about the landscaping and the like. Mayor Furlong: You just keep going. Kate Aanenson: Yep, I'd like to turn it over to Brandon Bourden with Kimley-Hom who's going to go through the traffic study. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Brandon Bourden: I'll do a little bit of a review related to the proposed development which has been addressed pretty well. Talk a little bit about how the traffic analysis procedure is completed. Trip generations calculated. A little bit about how the results of the traffic analysis ended up and we talk a little bit about a multi way stop wan -ant and some recommendations and conclusions at the end. As discussed the proposed development is located at the northwest comer of Galpin Boulevard and Trunk Highway 5. It's a 155 unit apartment building and it has a single access proposed off of West 78 " Street. This is just an image of the site plan with the single access. To the west of the median that is on West 781° as you approach Galpin. Galpin runs north and south to the east of the site and Trunk Highway 5 is a MnDOT facility that runs east and west to the south of the site. Generally when we do a traffic analysis 14 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 we collect existing data during the a.m. and the p.m. peak periods. In this case we collected data for 2 hours each period and that data was collected in early March of 2013. We will estimate the trip generation that we would anticipate that a facility such as this would generate and so we'll talk a little bit about that. Trip distribution, where is that site traffic going to go so we'll talk about where we anticipate that site traffic going. Because we're going out into future years, particularly in this case we look at a 2033 scenario. We do consider background growth that would be reviewed as part of other traffic analysis, and then we model the traffic for both existing conditions, opening day conditions and then a longer range, 2033 future conditions. Just really briefly the study area. We have one signalized intersection that exists at the intersection of Trunk Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard. As you go to the north there is a side street controlled intersection at Galpin Boulevard and West 78t' Street so the approaches from West 781h have to stop at that location. Inbetween the two there is a right-in/right-out access that serves a gas station as well as a pharmacy, or a medical type store. And then the single access is located to the west off of West 78th. And then the lane geometry is showed on there but the main items are what's signalized and what isn't. We did take a look at the background growth and when we review this various agencies have Comprehensive Plans. In this case we looked at what Carver County had in their Comprehensive Plan which did, or was consistent with what the City of Chanhassen had in their Comprehensive Plan so we have growth along Galpin Boulevard of 2.21/o per year roughly. Along Trunk Highway 5 there is actually a decrease in traffic forecasted based on some other roadway improvements that are planned as part of some of the more regional roadway facilities. As you can see on the bottom, the traffic volumes anticipated along, or Trunk Highway 5 today are in the neighborhood of 30,000 vehicles per day and they would be anticipated to be in the neighborhood of 25,000 vehicles per day in the future. Along Galpin there's 5,000 vehicles per day and that would be anticipated to increase to about 8,600 vehicles per day. In terms of trip generation, generally or the process is to look at the size of the facility. In this case the information is based on the number of dwelling units so there's 155 dwelling units. There's then factors based on the studies that are collected across the nation where we estimate, based on the size of the facility how many trips there are. In this case there's about 1,000 daily trips and they result in about 79 total trips during the a.m. peak. We would anticipate about 16 trips going to the site and 63 trips leaving the site. Generally most people are leaving residential type of development in the morning and they're returning in the afternoon so when you look at the p.m. peak we kind of reverse things so we've got 62 vehicles during the peak hour coming into the site and we have about 34 going out of the site for a total of 96 vehicles in and out during the p.m, peak hour. In terms of the site distribution, we take a look at what the existing volumes are in terms of turning movements at the various adjacent intersections. We take a look at what some of the regional roadways have in terms of volumes adjacent to the site and in this case we estimated that the majority of the people are going to be exiting or coming to and from the site from Trunk Highway 5 to the east to Galpin Boulevard at 55%. We anticipate about 25% will be destined to or from the west on Trunk Highway 5. To the south on Galpin Boulevard roughly 10% will be coming to and from the south, and we have 2 1/2 percent going to the east on West 78", or to the north on Galpin, and we have 5% going to the west on West 78 ° Street. As we do analysis what we do is we use software programs to estimate what the delays are in terms of operations on a per vehicle basis so we look at how many seconds per vehicle the delay is anticipated to be. This table shows what for an unsignalized intersection the criteria are a little bit less but in traffic engineering generally if things are operating at level of service D or better we would consider that to be acceptable so in this case anything that has 35 seconds of vehicular delay or less is considered to be acceptable. Anything more than that would be in the E or F range and that would be undesirable. For signalized intersections, because signalized intersections often you have a cycle length of you know 2 minutes on many of the facilities in the metro area those delay thresholds increase and so in this case anything level of service D or better would be 55 seconds of delay per vehicle or less. Anything higher would be undesirable. When we do the analysis of the various intersections within the study area we looked at the column on the left, there's the 2013 baseline which would be what would happen if the project so we look at that and we anticipate that the level of service during the a.m. hour and p.m. hour at Trunk Highway 5 and Galpin would be level of service C during both periods. All of the unsignalized intersections would operate at 15 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 level of service A, which include the access road, which is the right-in/right-out. It also includes the West 78" and Galpin and it includes the actual apartment facility. Similarly in the p.m. peak period those results are nearly identical. Level of service A at the unsignalized facilities. Level of service C at Trunk Highway 5 and Galpin. As we go out to 2033 there is additional growth in the area and so those, the operations with and without the project do change a little bit. Particularly at Trunk Highway 5 and Galpin we would anticipate that the a.m. level of service at that intersection would increase so it would be a level of service D. We anticipate the p.m. would still operate at level of service C without the project. When we add the project traffic, we cross over a threshold so we have level of service D both during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods and all the unsignalized intersections are anticipated to operate at level of service A. We did look at a multi way stop warrant and what we do with this is we're looking at West 78`" Street and Galpin to see if we were close to having an all way stop. The criteria for that is we need to have the total entering traffic on both of the minor approaches from West 78d' Street equal 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of the day or larger, and during that same period on the minor approaches we need over 200 vehicles per hour for those same 8 hours of the day and we need delay on that minor approach to be 30 seconds per vehicle. Or over 30 seconds per vehicle. And so in this case when we looked at the volume warrants, this table has quite a few numbers but in general when we're looking at 2013, which is the table on the left half of the screen, essentially when we look at the minor volumes there's not enough traffic on those minor approaches to get over the threshold of 200 during any of the hours and so we wouldn't satisfy any of the warrants for an all way stop any of the hours. We did look at what the major volumes would be and if we were looking at major volumes, that threshold is crossed 5 times but, 5 hours but we need to have both criteria satisfied. So in this case we satisfy all way stop criteria for zero hours. When we go to 2035 you can see that there's more green on the right side so in that case we would satisfy the major volume for k k hours I believe but the minor volumes would be satisfied, again we don't get over that 200 vehicle threshold total so during that period we don't anticipate meeting any of the minor warrants so an all way stop would not be wan -anted at that location. One of the things that has been discussed and when we collected data we did take a look at some U turn movements because of the facility on the southeast quadrant of West 78"' and Galpin. There is a right-in/right-out so people frequent those businesses. They often go in and then they make a right turn. To get back to Trunk Highway 5 they do a U turn at the intersection of West 78 " and Galpin and so there are U turn movements there in the neighborhood of 25 to 35 during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods respectively today. We would anticipate that volume to increase in the future, just due to an increase in background growth and traffic along Galpin that would use that facility. So out in 2033 we'd anticipate that volume to be in the neighborhood of 45 to 55 vehicles making that U turn Really at this point based on what we see, and there are U turns there but from a level of service operation, looking at crash data, there's no indication that there's a significant problem based on U turns. It is higher than normal and there's probably some occasional observance like yeah, there's more U turns here but we haven't seen anything that indicates a significant problem. This is something that could be monitored or should be monitored in the future as things change in the area there could be potential changes that could be done but at this point it's more of a monitoring activity rather than a recommendation. One thing that we did look a little bit, there have been concerns related to the traffic operations and some of the safety at Trunk Highway 5 and Galpin. This is more related to the northbound, left turns and southbound left turns. As you go to an all way, or a traffic signal in the metro area, whenever's there protected and permissive phasing you often see a 5 indication signal head and when you're permitted to go the green ball will come up. You won't have an arrow. We have that, those same similar signal heads for the northbound and southbound approaches to Trunk Highway 5 at Galpin and there's some concern and there's been research that has shown that there's times when people find it confusing when there's the yellow ball and sometimes people don't yield and there can be right angle crashes so MnDOT's in the process of changing over in the neighborhood of 800 traffic signals within the metropolitan district to what they call the flashing yellow head. It's a 4 section head where there's a green arrow that's up when there's protected left turns. There's a flashing yellow arrow, which is when you have the permissive left turn which is what most people are used to having a green ball today. The solid yellow arrow would come up before you go to the 16 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 red face so it's what we would traditionally call a clearance interval prior to the red and then we have the all red. That's been found to be a little more clear and so this is a recommendation that the developer Rind a portion of these signal modifications on those north and south bound approaches. There would be timing that would have to sorted out because MnDOT would be improving the facility on Trunk Highway 5 and there are some controller modifications and the like that have to be done. It's not just putting in some indications so that's one of the things we're looking at. From an operation standpoint that signal head also provides some other flexibility for those of us that operate signal heads so when you're in the middle of the night you might be able to have it permissive so when you're waiting for a green arrow, or you're in the middle of the light and you're waiting for your green arrow, we could operate that with a flashing yellow when there's no opposing traffic so there is some benefit from an operational standpoint that MnDOT tends to like. In terms of conclusions, in terms of the analysis and what we saw, we have no operational concerns that stand out with or without the project. We have no off site roadway improvements that are recommended as a part of looking at the project. We did look at a multi way stop warrant which does not, doesn't satisfy any of the warrants so an all way stop is not warranted so that's not recommended at West 78th and Galpin. We did look at a round about. Traditionally when we look at, that's another intersection control that would provide some opportunity to handle the U turn movement, mostly due to geometric changes. Traditionally we don't, when we're looking at warrants, if a multi or an all way stop warrant is satisfied, that's kind of, that is the threshold when a round about could be considered. In this case because everything operates level of service wise at a level of service A at all the movements, we're not recommending a round about at this time. It's quite, you know it's a lot of infrastructure at that location for something that operates pretty well from a volume perspective. We are recommending flashing yellow arrow improvements, like I just mentioned at the Trunk Highway 5 and Galpin left turns at that signal. So with that if there is any questions. Mayor Furlong: Some questions. Okay, let's start with questions by the council Kate Aanenson: I'm just going to interrupt and to say if you, if you want to just take the traffic questions otherwise I just had a couple more slides to go through before we take questions. Mayor Furlong: Well let's finish up your presentation then and we'll save our questions. Thank you. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. So for the utilities, this property is serviceable by City, municipal services. Sewer and water have been in place for a number of years. So for the landscaping plan, this is where I was going to talk about the parking. It does meet the, with the variance would meet the required underground parking, surface parking as stated in the staff report. An additional 110 with the guest parking, another 35 so that can all be accommodated on site. The one thing that we wanted the developer to look at was some additional sidewalks. At the Planning Commission we did show one coming out the back of the property, entering the back door I think for security reasons the applicant and the screening that they're trying to accomplish there would kind of defeat that but we certainly want anybody in this building to be able to get to West 78" Street and then also across. This project does not require a subdivision, therefore the City typically would take sewer and water, storm water fees and park and trail fees as extraction with that. As a part of this project for the park fees they were established to one half of the 155 units be paid at half that rate of the 155 for park and trail fees and that is a condition of approval. Again that's non-standard because it is not a subdivision which is where we attach those. We requested that from the developer who did agree to that. In addition on this landscaping plan, one of the points that was made by the City Forester is there is a significant amount of mature ash on the property, and just kind of a heads up. We're working with their landscape architect just to look at that to, what would be the long term plan for that if they wanted to try to maybe thin some of those out and put in some other species so in case we have some problems down the road when they're relying on that as a significant screen. Now the developer's goal is to heavily landscape this area, including from West 78'" where you wouldn't see the parking lot so most of the heavy ash fill in would be along Galpin Boulevard and Highway 5, so just 17 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 we have a condition in there that we continue to have that discussion to see what they want to do so we don't have to come back and have those trees removed. So with that, the last one would be the Overlay District. Again we identified the wetlands. There are conditions on those for we're not touching anything on the north side. We've accommodated in your condition of approval that were modified, additional code defining conservation areas. It's our goal then to make that a conservation area. Transfer that density across. In addition on this we are taking stormwater fees based on a 8 unit an acre. We actually took that on the gross on that south side. And then the other thing we would do then is take the conservation easement on the north side. So the developer will be contributing to those fees. In addition our standard conditions of approval in there so with that to clarify for this project to go forward, this would be the last time you would see this because you're approving the site plan. There's not a subdivision. Typically it comes back for the detailed engineering. The City will enter into a site plan agreement. That is one of the conditions of approval and that would spell out that they'd have to meet the landscaping requirements and then when they would apply for building permit all those fees would be paid. All the park and trail fees and stormwater fees. Any additional hook-up fees would also be required at that time, which are spelled out in the staff report. Again after you approve this it cannot be finalized as a condition of approval. The land use amendment would have to be approved by the Met Council so that's subject to your final adoption too so any action you take tonight would still require some additional approval from an other agency so your condition would be predicated on that. We don't see that, we've got most of the majority of the approvals in already from the other agencies so we don't see that as a problem as again it does meet the goals of the City's Comprehensive Plan. So with that we are recommending approval with the amendment to the City Code for the definition of the conservation area, the rezoning, the site plan review with the variance and a land use map, and I did provide for you the revised PUD ordinance with the conservation area so if you have any questions I'd be happy to answer them. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. I'm sure we do have some questions. Questions, Mr. McDonald. Why don't you go ahead and start. Councilman McDonald: I've got questions for both Kate and the traffic study. Let's start with the traffic study. You put together factors that were based upon I guess traffic flow taking into account the apartments, is that correct? Brandon Bourden: Correct. Councilman McDonald: Were you aware of any other, there's other land uses to the east probably within about a half a mile that would have rather high density. Were any of those taken into account? And right now I know of no plans for anything down there but you know there are future plans that could be a high density area. Was that taken into account? Brandon Bourden: When we look at the background growth, those forecasts in terms of whatever is in the Comprehensive Plan for the City and the County, the growth that's planned for the various traffic analysis zones within the city, that should all be factored into that background growth. So specifically we don't get into the level of looking at every individual site but that's what backs into that overall background growth that we use to look at the operations. Councilman McDonald: Okay, and that's pretty much standard practice and policy for anytime you do any one of these. Brandon Bourden: For a traffic impact study, that's correct. 18 J Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 Councilman McDonald: Okay. Then I've got a couple questions for Kate. You used the term up -zone and you kind of sped through it. Can you explain exactly what up -zone or down zone means? Kate Aanenson: Well the way we look at it, and in the hierarchy of zoning residential, you know low density. A large acre lot would be the lowest use. Then you'd move up through the low density, medium density, high density then you'd go into an office use. Then you'd go into a commercial use. Office industrial use. So the way the staff was looking at the application, and if the issue was the traffic and the preservation, those things being equal or less, we did not feel that it was actually up zoning or. Councilman McDonald: So we're not actually going to a higher level of use or. Kate Aanenson: That was the staffs opinion and that was where the traffic study came into play too is looking at the, you know trying to address those issues and being consistent what we said in the comp plan. Councilman McDonald: Okay. And then you also talked about the density transfer from the north to the south and right now what we settled upon were 10 units but, and I guess I'm a little confused about this. I thought we were talking, wouldn't they have had the option for like 16 units if it were high density? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Again the developer took into consideration the comments that were received, as did the staff, the direction that we thought we heard was you wanted to see the density less so that's what the applicant came back with and that's what the staff directed him to come back with is less units so not to capitalize on that. Councilman McDonald: Okay so would you say that that was a compromise on the part of the developer then? Kate Aanenson: Right. Right, I think in getting the direction of the concept to come back and reduce those number of units, correct. Councilman McDonald: Okay. And then on the fees, you talked about those and because there's not a subdivision certain fees are not collected and I know you went through it but could you go through it again maybe a little bit slower and you know, because you know me I'm kind of slow on some of this. Kate Aanenson: Well you know me I talk fast so. Councilman McDonald: Yeah, together we make a good pair. Kate Aanenson: So typically at the time you, we would call it an extraction where you would have someone pay a park and trail fee is when they subdivide. In this circumstance because it's all one property they are not subdividing. But as a part of the negotiation for this project the staff had requested that we get some compensation. We said right away we didn't need additional parks. I didn't spend a lot of time on it but there are amenities in the building. The applicant did take out the swimming pool but there is a community room. There's an outdoor patio. A play area and then also a community room inside the building so fitness area and a community room inside the building so they've accommodated their needs. But then they also have access to additional parks but we felt that, asked the developer to compensate at a rate that we normally wouldn't get without a subdivision so we are asking again for stormwater fees at the 8 acres. Those numbers and then we are asking for park and trail fees at half the rate for the 155. So we are getting something we normally wouldn't get without a subdivision. 19 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 Councilman McDonald: Right, so then if I'm hearing you correctly we are getting something in return that again it's a compromise as far as the developer. They are paying some extra fees. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Councilman McDonald: Okay. Density transfer. Traffic. I guess that's all I have Mr. Mayor at this time. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other questions. Let's go ahead and Councilwoman Ernst and then Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Ernst: So thank you. My question is related to the traffic study as well. Based on the U turn monitoring and the right in, the right out and the traffic study in general, I'm curious to know how you do your analysis and how do you determine what's acceptable and what's not. Brandon Bourden: Well in terms of the analysis there's a whole methodology by the Transportation Resource Board that's documented in the Highway Capacity Manual. Essentially it's a bunch of numerical formulas where we type in what the volumes are and the various movements at an intersection. Based on those movements at the intersection we get an estimated delay that comes out and occurs for the various movements so in this case we look at what are the volumes today. We then increase the volumes that exist today to account for what that background growth that's anticipated in terms of the County or the City's Comprehensive Plan. In this case they matched. We get what that's going to be in 2033 and then we add our site traffic onto those various movements and run the analysis so when we look at the level of service, let me go back a little bit. So when we look at the level of service for the various movements we end up looking at criteria's that are in that Highway Capacity Manual in terms of what the average delay is for a particular movement and vehicle so if we have, at a signal over 55 seconds of delay, we would be at a level of service E that we would say is undesirable or not very good. In this case our level of service at these intersections are in the C or level of service A range so they operate at an acceptable level of service with and without the proposed project. They're very similar either way. Councilwoman Ernst: So this analysis then takes into consideration based on what's in our Comprehensive Plan the potential estimated growth for the future as in 2033? Brandon Bourden: Yeah, that's what we factor that existing traffic based on background traffic to say what's going to happen in 2033. What's in the Comprehensive Plan so the growth of 2.19% that occurs annually on Galpin, that's how we go from roughly 5,000 vehicles per day today to roughly I think it was 8,600 so yes, that volume on Galpin increases. Councilwoman Ernst: Okay, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilwoman Tjomhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: This is for Kate. With the new adjustments to the plan and the developer only having access, one access point, do you find that to be any safety concerns? Kate Aanenson: Well we did discuss that. I think one of the issues that we had on that, let me go back to the access point was making sure that we had both garages being able to access out. I think the first time they came in all the traffic was coming through, out one side of the garage. We thought that might be problematic. Let me just go to a different slide here. And I think the other thing is we had the median in here kind of restricted turns so moving that further away I think helped reduce some of the conflicts there and for stacking that may be perceived at that intersection. Again part of the goal of moving it to the Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 center would be to I think some of the concerns were lights and things turning into here that would give a greater buffer there. Again the developer's goal is to buffer this such that you wouldn't see the parking inside so we do think it's desirable to have the one driveway in the center. Councilwoman Tjornhom: In the previous plan where were the access points? Kate Aanenson: I'll go back to the comparison there. So they were quite a ways apart so this driveway was past the median at that point but having it further and centered certainly works. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Because I know it's kind of our policy, at least it's been ever since I've been on the council, to have two access points for neighborhoods so you don't see any problems with, I mean obviously. Kate Aanenson: Yeah and I think this is something certainly if it became a problem and you wanted a secondary, it could be accommodated on the site but I think with the turning movements, and see if Paul has some additional comments on that. Paul Oehme: Yeah I can try to address that comment. We do have a code that states that our cul-de-sac lengths should be less than 800 feet. This is kind of a quasi dead end roadway here having about 1,000 trips per day on this access point. Access road. It's roughly within the range, recommended range for a local roadway access point. Access street so I think volumes are fine from that perspective. It is always nice to try to reduce as many access points onto collector roadways as we can, especially in this case where we are on a curve. Less access points, less potential conflicts along 78 ° Street we had envisioned so that's kind of the criteria, some of the methodology that we went with in determining that one access point is probably sufficient in this location. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions at this time? Mr. Laufenburger, any questions. Councilman Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Mayor. I'm going to talk a little bit about the traffic study too. Kate, in one of the pages, I'm just going to read this so you don't have to look for it. It says a traffic analysis was done comparing the current proposal with the Galpin Crossings proposal. Galpin Crossings was the '03 proposal is that correct? Kate Aanenson: Correct, yeah. Councilman Laufenburger: And it says the study found that the a.m. and p.m., let's see. A more detailed traffic study would need to be completed. Is this traffic study that Kimley-Horn did. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Councilman Laufenburger. Is that the more completed one? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Laufenburger: So there's no need or no plans for any further traffic study? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. And who paid for that traffic study? Kate Aanenson: The developer. 21 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Alright. Now, Mr. Bourdon is that right? Brandon Bourden: Correct. Councilman Laufenburger: You stated that you take the reality of today, which you captured in an a.m. and a p.m. testing back in March and from that you add the estimations from comp plan, Carver County and Chanhassen, plus estimations from the new site and that gives you the predicted, right? Is there any possibility that that prediction might be wrong? Mayor Furlong: It's okay to say yes. Councilman Laufenburger: It's okay to say yes, yeah Brandon Bourden: I mean sometimes we're a little bit like meteorologists but I mean we're forecasting things. Councilman Laufenburger: Oh wait, don't make that comparison please. Brandon Bourden: Especially not tonight. Councilman Laufenburger: Not tonight. Brandon Bourden: No, I mean when we're looking at things there is some variability in what we do and what we estimate. There are forecasts that if you were to compare them in the future there's some variability as to what happens in reality and the timelines of it but based on the methodology of what we have in the metropolitan area and the procedures that we use, this is the methodology we always use and as it refines we continue to use refined processes. Councilman Laufenburger: I appreciate that honesty. I think that's fair. We can't know what the future will hold but there's one way we can determine and that is to do a traffic study perhaps in another year or 2 years to see if the predictions which seemed to be the basis for action or inaction now need to be reconsidered so I guess based on that I don't see anything in here but if this development were to go forward I would recommend that part of the development be predicated on a future study to substantiate what we predict would go on right now and if some actions would be necessary I would expect the developer to step forward and say, we didn't know. The best thing we could have done is what they told us at the time in 2013 and if there's additional activity or additional changes, especially at Galpin and 78'b, that the developer would be prepared to step into some of that so that's just a recommendation that I would offer at this time. Okay. Comment on that Kate, have we ever done that before? Kate Aanenson: Well I think part of it is, the challenge would be, as we've stated in the concept too, this is one development on this comer. As the traffic study stated, there's a lot of background. It's continuing to grow so are there other changes in that area that are causing that so you have to really try to model it more precisely as is. Who's adding to. We do anticipate other subdivisions north on Galpin so you know we have to look at all those factors. Councilman Laufenburger: So there's other variables that could come into play that could change that? Kate Aanenson: Right, so I think just to say that it's all onerous because this property was approved, I think we have to look at that carefully. 22 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 Councilman Laufenburger: Well the important thing for me is not so much that we get this developer to kick in for any future work but that we be diligent in checking the traffic in one year, two years to see if in fact the predictions that Kimley-Hom gave us come to fruition. Kate Aanenson: Right, can I just add to that too. I believe the engineering department does periodic trip analysis on certain streets so I think we could have that as a data point anyways. Paul Oehme: Yeah, absolutely. I mean that's something we could work into our bi-yearly traffic documentation that we do in the city. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Brandon, this may be unfair to ask you this question but I'm going to do it anyway. The long term traffic study shows that Highway 5 traffic would actually go down in the future years. Do you understand why that is? Brandon Bourden: I mean I didn't redo every part of the analysis but it has to do with some of the improved connections north and south to allow people to get to other parallel arterials. Councilman Laufenburger: Like? Brandon Bourden: 212 to the south or 7 to the north. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Brandon Bourden: I mean that's the bulk of it and as you look at what is proposed, there's a variety of projects both by the DOT and by the County that would. Councilman Laufenburger: So it's not unreasonable to think that Highway 5 could just take less traffic because that traffic is going elsewhere. Brandon Bourden: That's correct. That can happen. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay, but I realize that's not your analysis. That's the County is actually making that traffic estimation, is that right Mr. Oehme? Paul Oehme: That's correct, yep. And the traffic model that we used from the County was the base model. That's what the County thinks will happen with in terms of improvements in the County area wide. Tbat's basically what's been theoretically funded and what their best estimate of what's going to be built. We also did look at kind of a worst case scenario as well for the, for Highway 5 as well. And I don't know Brandon if you want to. Brandon Bourden: We can do that. Paul Oehme: Okay. Is there some slides back here? Brandon Bourden: I mean we did look at another one because Carver County is relatively, they looked at a whole variety of scenarios so they did look at a scenario that had, what we did was we looked at a scenario that had State improvements. They had a scenario that looked at an unconstrained model. Say we had all the money in the world and we built every project what would things look like. We took one that had an increase on Trunk Highway 5 in terms of traffic volume so we did look at something that increased. This was on the higher end of increases. More to be conservative so as we look at this, before we had a decrease in volumes on Trunk Highway 5. Under this we'd have an increase of about .4% per 23 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 year to the west of Galpin so that volume would go from 30,000 vehicles per day to 33,000 vehicles per day. To the east it would go from 30,000 to 36,000 or about a .75% increase per year. And then in this case Galpin wasn't quite at the 2.19 that was used before but it was at 1.75 so that went from 5,500 to 7,700 vehicles per day. Before I believe it was 8,600. Councilman Laufenburger: Then you put this in your model? Brandon Bourden: We did. We did an analysis and we increased our background growth using this information and we put that same site traffic onto that background growth. So in this case we're still operating at level of service A at all the unsignalized intersections. In this case we've got level of service D during 2 of the a.m. I think someone might recall that one of the intersections operated at level of service D in the p.m. There's a little bit of variability at how the models work and quite honestly, if we have more volume on Trunk Highway 5 because the signals will more on Trunk Highway 5, the level of service generally improves. We did look at the wan -ants briefly just to get an idea of how things would change. It's kind of a pretty lime color all the way on the right and in this case we would satisfy the major approaches on Galpin the same number of hours I believe I said 11 before and in this case we would hit the minor warrant for one of the hours so we would satisfy the all way stop warrant for 1 of 8 required hours. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay, thank you Brandon. You answered that question. Mr. Oehme, how much does it cost to put in that flashing yellow head? Paul Oehme: When I did talk to MnDOT about that improvement, it's about $20,000 to install the new signal heads. MnDOT's policy is that they would pay for the Trunk Highway 5 legs and then the locals would pay for the other legs. Councilman Laufenburger. So $20,000 is for the full thing. MnDOT absorbs half which is 10. We're responsible for the other 10 and that's why the City. Paul Oehme: And the County, right. The County would participate in it as well. Councilman Laufenburger: But the 10 that the County would be responsible would, half of that would come from the developer. Paul Oehme: Correct Councilman Laufenburger: Thank you because I, I thought it was more than just 10. This is really small. Page 189 you talk about a curb radius. One of the findings Kate was increase the curb radius at that entrance point to the, but there's nothing that says how much to increase it. I just think that we should put a number there rather than, you know I don't know anything about curb radiuses but that seems too vague. If we're going to specify that the developer increase the curb radius to an acceptable size for that entrance to accommodate large trucks, let's tell them what we want it to be. Does that make sense? Mayor Furlong: Can we defer to staff on what's acceptable? Councilman Laufenburger: Absolutely. Paul Oehme: Well I don't know if we've put the turning templates on there yet to find out exactly the radius but we'll put that in there. Councilman Laufenburger. Well change the language so it's acceptable to staff would be appropriate 24 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 Paul Oehme: Okay. Councilman Laufenburger: Let's see. Oh I probably had one or two other ones. Oh yeah, can you go back to the picture, it was the picture of the site. Little bit bigger than, well keep going. Right about, this was one of your's Kate. There. Okay. So Brandon I saw your turnaround said something like 28 to 35 U turns there, okay. Is it possible to eliminate those U turns? Brandon Bourden: I mean to eliminate the U turns would fundamentally mean a change in access from the right-in/right-out off of Galpin between West 78ih Street and Trunk Highway 5. So if that access. Councilman Laufenburger. So what, let me just, what you're saying is, it is possible to eliminate those U turns by eliminating the right out from the Kwik Trip and CVS? Brandon Bourden: It would eliminate a far bulk of them, yes. Correct. Councilman Laufenburger. Well I can't imagine people making a right turn on Galpin in order to go southbound on Galpin. Brandon Bourden: It would be people that made a pure error you know. Councilman Laufenburger. We don't have any of those in Chanhassen. Brandon Bourden: So yeah, but it'd be very low. It'd be very low. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. So Mr. Oehme, what would it take for us to eliminate, if we wanted to, to eliminate that right out out of the CVS and Kwik Trip? So that they would have to, they would have to go kind of to the northeast. Go to West 78 h and make a left turn onto Galpin to go south on Galpin. What would it take to do that? Paul Oehme: Well we'd have to coordinate with Carver County first. Councilman Laufenburger: Oh that's right, it's their road. Paul Oehme: Galpin Boulevard is Carver County so, but in order to eliminate that movement an extension of the curb at the access point would have to be constructed so only the right in's could get in and then proper signage would have to take place as well. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Can I follow up on that? Paul Oehme: Absolutely. Mayor Furlong: Because we've got property owners there with the gas station, Kwik Trip and CVS. PaulOehmc: Right. Mayor Furlong: I mean that was, that right-in/right-out was approved as part of their development plans was it not? 25 Chanhassen City Council —April 22, 2013 Paul Oehme: Correct and we're, right now we're not recommending making any changes to that access point based upon the traffic study. We haven't documented any safety or accidents that have occurred based upon, in those turning movements right now so you know what we're planning on is monitoring it. Working with Carver County to document any issues out there. I know that there's been some, a lot of concern with the turning movements but in order to justify making some improvements out there, I think the County and the City would have to really document that there is a need for that change. Councilman Laufenburger: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Furlong: Mr. Gerhardt. Todd Gerhardt: You may want to get an opinion from the City Attorney on eliminating the right out Councilman Laufenburger: Yeah, Mr. Mayor and City Manager, I wasn't advocating that. I was just trying to understand conceptually what it would take to make that happen. Now I certainly understand that if we'd have to go to the CVS and Kwik Trip and that doesn't even include talking with Mr. Knutson about this. Could be a problem. Thank you Paul very much. That was my last question Mr. Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. I have some questions too and in no particular order. Let's stay with traffic. What's being proposed is a change in land use for this parcel. Did you take a look at expected traffic, number of trips per day as well as trips during peak areas for the current guiding which would include some residential on the north piece and some office and retail on the southern piece? Brandon Bourden: We did not do a trip generation comparison. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is there any, knowing that you didn't do that, is there any sense based on your experience of typical differences between a high density residential and an office retail in terms of trips during peak hours for example or trips overall? Brandon Bourden: To be quite honest I'd have to calculate it based on the size of those facilities to see how they weigh. They can vary a little bit based on the size. Some of the curves are expediential based on the size of that facility so they change a little bit so it's not just a black and white answer. Mayor Furlong: Not having a plan in front of you I can understand that. Is it, do you have any sense on whether by making this land use change that we're creating more trips out of it or that the peak times may be more? Brandon Bourden: I mean again. Mayor Furlong: You don't know Brandon Bourden: Depending on the size, I would say the peak periods generally are similar but the patterns in and out of the facilities could change. So your office is generally going to be pulling more people in in the morning instead of sending people to Trunk Highway 5 so there's some reverse movements that definitely occur based on the change in land use but. Mayor Furlong: But depending on how the development occurs for the other type of land use and the intensity of that development it could be more or less. Brandon Bourden: It could be more or less, correct. 26 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 Mayor Furlong: Alright. The levels of service you talked about some of the indications that in the future if the predictions hold true are C or a D level of service. Was that strictly on, if I saw that correctly, that was on, or at the intersection of Galpin and Highway 5, is that correct? The C's and the D's. Brandon Bourden: Correct. The C's and the D's were all at Trunk Highway 5 and Galpin. Mayor Furlong: And Galpin, okay. So the intersection at West 78 " and Galpin was operating in the A category if my memory serves. Brandon Bourden: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Oehme, do we have any examples, pictures help me and personal experiences help me. Do we have any intersections currently that are in a C or a D type service right now? Either roads or intersections that you know of or that you can recall. Paul Oehme: Well the intersection that comes to mind is Powers Boulevard and 5 I think and Market and 5. Those are I believe the lowest rated level of service intersections we have in the community. Mayor Furlong: Okay. What are those? Paul Oehme: They're at least D's right now. Mayor Furlong: At least what? Paul Oehme: D's. Mayor Furlong: D's as in David? Paul Oehme: David, yeah. Mayor Furlong: That level of service at Market, I'm assuming you're talking both ends or northbound, from the northbound side or southbound or both? Paul Oehme: Both. Both sides. Mayor Furlong: Both sides. And Powers Boulevard at 5 and Market and 5 would be examples of what this might be if the predictions are true. Paul Oehme: Correct, and I mean don't quote me on D level. Mayor Furlong: I'm not going to put you on the spot. Paul Oehme: So but. Mayor Furlong: ...I'm asking you estimates so just for a mental mind. No, I won't quote you on that. Mr. Bourdon. Brandon Bourden: I mean if 1 could add a little bit. I mean traffic signal wise in terms of level of service, it is not uncommon to have level of service C intersections in the metro area. I mean the signal cycle at 120 seconds, that's relatively common. I think one thing that can help give people a little bit of a threshold is generally if we have any movement operating at level of service E, that's when we're starting 27 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 to get our volume and our capacities approaching one and so we're going to start to have a breakdown. In terms of how many people can get through a particular movement during that time period so when we're at level of service E we're certainly seeing longer queues. We might see some what we would call cycle failures so you'll sit through an intersection a full cycle and get to wait another cycle to get a green again. When we're at level of service F, our ... is over one so we would anticipate that queue to continue to build during that peak period so that might only occur over 15 minutes of the hour but there's going to be a building, not a dissipation and so E and D you generally know things are relatively bad and we can look at that on a movement basis, an approach basis and overall intersection basis. Mayor Furlong: Okay. But you're not anticipating that situation at Highway 5 and Galpin based upon the? Brandon Bourden: No. No, we're not anticipating. Mayor Furlong: The information you have. Brandon Bourden: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: The observations that you made for the traffic study, I think you mentioned a couple hours a few different times. Do you think that was sufficient to gather good information based upon when that occurred as well as the length of time that you made those observations? Brandon Bourden: I mean when we look at, when we look at traffic data we try to avoid weeks that have storms. We try to avoid things like spring break so we weren't during spring break. We were definitely during the school year. It is not uncommon to do a count during one peak period in the a.m. and the p.m. In this case when we add some data on Trunk Highway 5 we then look at it and kind of make sure things balance because MnDOT had some data we could use so in terms of the amount of data collected, it's typical what's done in the industry. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Ms. Aanenson, again I may be back on some traffic questions as I go through my list. The roof height and the average roof height. You showed a list of other apartment buildings that were the same or higher. Did all of them require the same, was it a variance that was provided or just part of the PUD standards? Kate Aanenson: Part of the PUD standards Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Correct. If you look at the Lake Susan, that's a long standing PUD that has single family. It has twin homes. It has townhouses and the last component of that was, excuse me the Powers Ridge was actually the apartments so that was built into the PUD ordinance. Mayor Furlong: And I guess the question is, how would the height, and my house is a walkout so if I'm in the back yard of my house, I'm looking at the basement floor, full second. First and second floor and then the roof. Is that similar type of height that we'd be seeing? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Interestingly enough single family residential does allow 35 feet. That is often a complaint we have from some residents when they are facing the back side of a single family walkout that sees the 35 foot and maybe the garage is on the other side with the two stories but the person behind sees the 35 feet so we.do have houses that do have that. 28 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 Mayor Furlong: Okay, Kate Aanenson: On one side per se. Mayor Furlong: Alright, that's helpful. Thank you. I asked before about the parking. There's a variance of one stall within, underneath. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: What's the required amount external and what's provided by the plan? Kate Aanenson: Yes. I had that page open. It's in the staff report and I'll go to it quickly here. It's the 155 internally so they provided the 154 with the variance. Then they needed additional 110 surface with 39 guest parking so that's all accommodated on site. Mayor Furlong: So the 110 and the 39 are the standard and they're providing it? Kate Aanenson: Correct. So you have. Mayor Furlong: To our standards. Kate Aanenson: Based on bedrooms you have to have at least one per unit so there's 155 so one covered. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Then there's a ratio based on 2 or I bedroom if you need the additional. Then there's a guest parking ratio so that's all accommodated on site. Mayor Furlong: So they are meeting the requirements based on our ordinance except for one underground stall? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Another question, shifting topics a little bit here and that relates to the northern parcel. Understand the density transfer. This is a single PID is it not? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: It's a single property for tax purposes and so I've heard, in some areas of the staff report there was the suggestion that that northern parcel be dedicated to the City. I heard conservation easement tossed, and I guess my question is, with this PUD from a zoning standpoint, from an ordinance standpoint, they're not going to be able to do any sort of development if this goes forward as it's planned. Any development on that northern piece, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: So I guess I'm, you know I don't know that we need to have public ownership of that parcel and I guess I'm trying to understand, does the PUD ordinance preclude any development on that parcel anyway? Do we have to layer on more? 0 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 Kate Aanenson: Yes. That's a good question. We looked at it as a staff for a couple different reasons. One is we want to improve the function and value of that property to improve it's, the water quality in the two wetlands and maybe look at the creek in and of itself as we've done on some other sites. Some remandering so if it's in the HOA that's something that you'd have to negotiate with the underlying property owner so as far as the conveyance, if we did the conservation easement as we're recommending, then it gives understanding of how it will be used. We do want to improve that property so could it be left under the ownership? Yes. Similar to what we've done on the HOA, the homeowners association have control of some of those conservation easements so there's no development rights. It's just a matter if you want to approve how you want to go about improving the function and value of that property to improve it's water quality. Mayor Furlong: And if it's a dedication of that property to the City, is it a dedication of an easement or dedication of ownership of the property? Kate Aanenson: You could do it either way. You could do it as an easement over it and we define conservation easement which allows us to go in there and do some improvements. Or you could, they could dedicate it to the City. The developer had suggested doing that. Just dedicating it to the City as an option. Regardless there's no development rights with it. It's just a matter of how do you improve it going forward and who has that management. Mayor Furlong: And I guess maybe this is a question for Mr. Knutson. When we were working with another development north on Galpin there was discussion on whether you do a conservation easement or some other type of easement. In that case we were looking at again stormwater management issues so is there another preservation easement option that's available that keeps the control at the City Council level as opposed to conservation easement? Doesn't that have different statutory or legal? Roger Knutson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Are they different? Roger Knutson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: I guess is the question. Roger Knutson: What we have right now is an ordinance. If you were to pass the ordinance in front of you, I can't remember is it A or B? Kate Aanenson: We're working on Parcel A. Roger Knutson: A is the north parcel. Mayor Furlong: The northern parcel. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Roger Knutson: This says you can't do anything on it. You can't build a structure on it. You just maintain it. Period. It's not an easement. It's a law. It's the ordinance. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay. But some of the conditions of the staff report, one of the conditions, I think it was 24, if I wrote it down right, is a staff recommends that it's dedicated I think was the way it was phrased. 30 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 Kate Aanenson: I said we dedicate it or preserve. Mayor Furlong: Staff is recommending a portion so the portion of the property north to be dedicated to the City and that the density be transferred to the south. So I understand the transfer of density. I guess I'm just trying to understand when you're taking ownership is there a? Kate Aanenson: Sure, I guess we also tried to not use the same wording as the legalistic approach so we came up with our own definition and that's conservation area as opposed to the typical conservation easement so it would be different in our code which if you look in that definitions it's our intent to leave it a natural area except for if we want to do, for the existing features, improve the quality and the selected species, that sort of thing. If for some reason they wanted to put some special feature in there. That was the intent so that's parochial just to Chanhassen that definition. Mayor Furlong: Okay, so I guess. Roger Knutson: This is not a conservation easement in the terms of the statute. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Roger Knutson: The difference between the terns of the statute is if you want, if you decide, the City says and owner says we want to change something, you've got to go to District Court. You can't do it on your own. This ordinance, you can change if you decide it's appropriate to change it. Mayor Furlong: So that agreement that the, I think you said the construction agreement or development agreement that's occurring with this. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: Could include some language with regard to the northern piece about, well the ordinance will say no development but we could also include language in there that allows the City the opportunity to make some improvements along the Bluff Creek corridor, is that what you're looking for? Roger Knutson: Sure. Kate Aanenson: Sure, if I can read it for you. It's a conservation area that was the first item we needed to amend in our definition again to be clear that we weren't making the most restrictive one that's in the State law. Mayor Furlong: Where are you? Kate Aanenson: I'm the, I passed this out. I added this one so the conservation area is the land that remains in a natural state by means of preservation of existing features and vegetations as well as by the means of city approved restoration of selected species and targeted features, so that would be the wetland enhancements. Mayor Furlong: Where are you reading, I'm sorry? Kate Aanenson: Tbat's alright. Section 1. The very first as part of the PUD that we're amending Mayor Furlong: Okay. 31 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 Kate Aanenson: And then, so no building or structure would be allowed except essential services for public improvements so that might be something if we wanted to put something in there for water quality. If we want to put a structure in there for that so that was the intent of that definition to meet the City's goals. Mayor Furlong: And does this language then allow for the opportunity for the City to do some water projects or some projects relating to Bluff Creek? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Without obtaining future approval from the homeowners association? Todd Gerhardt: Without some modifications. Mayor Furlong: Okay, so there'd need to be some modifications. Roger Knutson: If you want to do that we should modify this. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Do you understand Mr. Knutson? Roger Knutson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: What I'm asking, and I don't know if the rest of the council understands or not but the idea is to keep the property there but if there's a project that the City wants to work on along Bluff Creek we'd make that possible but the ordinance prevents any development of, and that's what you're saying here. No buildings or structures allowed. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And that keeps it obviously within the control of the council. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Is that the goal? Thank you. Councilman McDonald: Then I've got a point of clarification Mayor Furlong: Yes, Mr. McDonald. Councilman McDonald: I thought that's what a PUD did. Mayor Furlong: Well and that's why I'm trying to ask these questions. I think the PUD is, it's still going to prevent the develop, well. Will the PUD restrict? Kate Aanenson: The PUD does not allow any development. There's no units available for density. There's no density allocation. That's been voided so what now we're trying to clarify is that if the City wants to enhance that without taking ownership of it by creating a conservation area, we're saying but for those activities that we want to do to restore the function and value of the creek, specific species, we want that ability to do that. That was the intent of that language. 32 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 Mayor Furlong: So Mr. McDonald what I understand is, if the City in the future wants to do a project to improve Bluff Creek corridor, since this borders on Bluff Creek, we'd want to have that opportunity to do that without necessarily owning the property. Is that? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Roger Knutson: That's why we will need an easement in addition to this to go on there to do that. If you want to go on there. Kate Aanenson: And that's what the other condition was to get an easement, correct. So we've got that as a condition of approval and then this defines what that, the terms of that. Mayor Furlong: So how does the condition number 24, and I realize this out of the Planning Commission staff report that's here but I think that's the only one we have. Does condition 24, does that, that speaks to dedication so does that need to be re -worded? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, easement created. Mayor Furlong: If that's the way the council wants to go. Kate Aanenson: There should be an easement created I believe. Mayor Furlong: An easement to the City's satisfaction. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: Conservation area or. We'll let Mr. Knutson work on the wording here, or Kate, one of the two. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor just for clarification. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, please. Todd Gerhardt: Roger the easement allows us access to Parcel A. The ordinance allows us what to do on Parcel A. Roger Knutson: Correct. Kate Aanenson: Yep. Mayor Furlong: Okay, so we have to make sure those two things are working together. Roger Knutson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, we need both. Kate Aanenson: So just to clarify, we don't want to use the word dedication. We want to use the word easement. 33 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 Todd Gerhardt: Correct. Roger Knutson: That's correct. Kate Aanenson: For the record we'll strike that word where it says dedication. Mayor Furlong: Or easements if necessary. Multiple easements. Okay. In order to keep moving I may have some other questions but they may be answered here as we move along so let's, if there are no other questions for staff at this time, Mr. Tucci good evening. Representative of the applicants here this evening. Good evening. How are you? Paul Tucci: Good evening Mr. Mayor, members of the Planning, or of the City Council. Paul Tucci. I'm with Oppidan. Thanks for having us back. Mayor Furlong: Thank you Paul Tucci: I'm going to try and keep my comments short. There's some people in our office who say I can't do that but I'm going to try. I'm going to focus first, there are four things that I want to hit on. Traffic, the unit count, the height of the building and the positioning of the building. We went through, we had a neighborhood meeting to start this process, boy it's been a while since we've had that back in the fall of 2012. We had the residents in and we had a good showing at that. We heard a lot of comments. We then came through with a concept plan review to the Planning Commission and to this body and again we heard a lot of comments. We tried to shift through those comments. Read the teal use as you might say and figure out what we needed to focus on and from an onsite layout, the things that we focused on were the positioning of the building in relation, especially to the homes to the northwest of us and the number of units. We came in previously with 224 units. We have cut our unit size about a third. Down to 155 and in doing so we have a mix of approximately 101 single bedroom and 54 two bedrooms. You know the primary, in our opinion the primary renter for us is going to be an individual or a couple. With the one bedrooms we don't see that there's going to be kids in there. Could be kids. I'm not going to steal your thunder Mr. Roberts. I know that's coming up with the kids. We'll have 54 two bedrooms and that will be more for the kids. The positioning of our building, as you can see on the screen and as Kate pointed out earlier, we have moved it further away. We're approximately 400 feet from the nearest home in the Vasserman Ridge area and we're approximately 600 feet to the northeast so we've tried to do that. In also setting this up we moved our access point to the center trying to redirect some of those headlights in the old plan, when you came out the western side, the headlights were somewhat pointed into those back yards so this kind of takes some of those headlights away. As Kate mentioned also we did add a second access point to our underground garage so we wouldn't have a single in and out in case there was an incident. You could still get out a second route so we really focused on that and we tried to listen. We tried to read the comments we heard from the bodies as we came through to get our mix appropriate. The height of the structure, as Kate said, we'rejust under 38 feet to the midpoint of the roof and that hasn't changed a whole lot from where we started this process so you know with a three story building that's kind of the height we need. We talked about a flat roof internally. You tend to see those more in a denser, urban setting than you do in a residential setting in a suburb. Especially when our neighboring properties here for the most part, the two commercial to the east aside, have pitched roofs on them so we decided that it was best to stay with that pitched roof look. Traffic, a couple of things. There's been a lot of discussion on there. Yes we did pay for the traffic study but we did not have any input other than to tell the City and the traffic engineer that we had 155 units. You know the traffic study was independent. The City wanted to control that and add in the intersection of Galpin and 5 to this, which was all part of what was paid for. In the results I think we've talked a lot about the methodology and how it was done but the level of service at our access point onto West 78d' and at the two way stop at Galpin, I think we saw that the level of service was an A at those today and into the future. The use of this versus what was 34 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 there. I did, as that question came up Mr. Mayor, I did find. We had sent a letter in, and we found it electronically, I don't have it with me so I could throw it up but when we had the old plan in with, that had a bank and some office and some residential on it, we had given an approximation based on a quick, just what would that generate of 1,288 trips. Today the traffic study that you have in front of you shows 1,031 trips for our use and as a point of reference, when we had 224 units it showed 1,490 trips so when we were at the neighborhood meeting and at the concept plan we talked about we were adding a little bit more than what the previous plan that was conceptually approved was. Now we're about that same amount less, just as a point of reference. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Paul Tucci: Fees were talked about. I will add, we did negotiate and agreed to pay the fees that Kate said and in addition to that we do have a number of city connection fees that we'll be required to pay and I think those numbers are m excess of a million dollars on those fees alone. When you add them all together we're at about $2 million dollars in fees just to give you an idea of the fees that we are paying in this. And then jumping back to traffic, you know one of the things and anecdotally we as a number of you know, Oppidan we've done a lot of commercial development. Retail development and we are doing some residential development now. We're up in the Bakken Oil Region doing them and we're doing a couple around here. One of the things that we've noticed, and I don't know that the traffic consultant will have a comment on this, is that you know in an office or in a commercial retail environment, the traffic seems to be not as spread out. It seems to be a little more condensed at certain peak times. You know we think that not only did we reduce traffic from what was conceptually reviewed previously, but we're helping to spread it out throughout the day rather than have it all come in at a couple of times during the day so just wanted to make that point. In our history of doing more commercial retail based projects, we see it a little more intense at, you know you don't go to the grocery store at 9:30 in the morning. You tend to go to the grocery store at 5:00-5:30 on a weekday or you go at noon on a Saturday or 10:00 on a Saturday so this helps spread it out in our opinion. Again we tried to listen to what we heard from the residents and from the body, this body and the Planning Commission. Tried to read those comments the way we thought appropriate and tried to come back and think we have come back with a very scaled down plan that's a little more friendly to the neighborhoods and to the intersection as far as traffic goes and we think it's a viable project and we're excited to get going. I do want to keep comments short. We'll answer any questions we can because I know a lot of people want to speak behind us. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Tucci? Just a real quick one. The conditions in the staff report are what we've discussed tonight. Any concerns about those or are you comfortable? Paul Tucci: No. No Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, thank you. Let's go ahead as I mentioned earlier. The public hearing occurred at the Planning Commission so we're not looking for a repeat of that but if there's additional information that residents want to share with the council we'd be happy to open it up for public comments at this time. Larry Martin: Mr. Mayor, council people. My name is Larry Martin. Mayor Furlong: Good evening. LarryMartin: I live in Vasserman Ridge and I'm just going to make some quick little bullet things here. I'm not going to draw it out. One of the things that I see along 78"' Street is we have increased bike traffic and the way those roads are now and the way they're going to operate I think it's going to make a pretty dangerous condition for bikes in there. We encourage the kids to ride bikes. When they go over to 35 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 school they take bikes and stuff like that. I think in our planning we should do it. Where 78 " Street goes into Galpin there, it's pretty narrow and it's curved and it's narrow. There is a center median there. One of the other things we see is as you come down Galpin, there's no median to the north. The speed limit coming down Galpin there is 45 miles an hour. 45 miles an hour all the way down that hill, all the way out to Highway 5. You can see why the parents around there are fearful of their children using that intersection. One thing we just, you just talked about here was that Parcel A I guess you call it there and the landscaping. In the neighborhood we'd like to see that that is probably kept up and landscaped and stuff like that. I think that should be at the expense of the development. We shouldn't throw that maintenance back onto the City to do. Let's let them use their landscape people to take that. In looking at the plans that they've provided so far we have several little elevations and they're, they don't show you a lot. I'd like to propose that around the site there we put berms. I don't know what the proper size berm. Whether it's 4 foot, 5 foot or even up 6 foot berm. The reason is is those cars in their movement in the parking lot there are going to have lights going and even if we put deciduous trees up there that have 2 or 3 inch trunks, it's going to be many years before they are shielding anything. Also the trees you're going to trim up a ways so the lights are going to shine right through there into people's home so I think berms could be in order for that area there. In the presentation at the Planning Commission on the observations that they made in traffic, I think they did one day of observation. Only one day of observation and they've drawn all those conclusions from that. Outside parking. I think in these units, if you have a young couple in there, there's going to be a need for more than one parking space. This area is not served by public transportation. Therefore if you have 2 people working people there, they're all going to have to go together or if they have 2 cars, the second car is going to be on that outside lot and I think I heard 39 spaces. Correct me if I'm wrong there so. Mayor Furlong: I think, how many spaces are outside? There's. Councilman McDonald: 110 plus 39. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: 110 plus 39 so. 149 outside. LarryMartin: 149, okay. Okay, I missed the other part of that so, so my concerns are bikes and the movement of children. Also up on Galpin there, there's no sidewalk so if a kid wants to go up to Sugarbush Park up there, he's got to cross Galpin. He's got to go up and stuff so I think the sidewalks and the widening of Galpin as it comes down the hill there could be in order so. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Thank you Mr. Martin. Larry Martin: Okay. Mayor Furlong: A quick question Mr. Oehme regarding the bike traffic along West 78 °. Are there any, what trails or sidewalks are along West 781b currently? Do you know? Paul Oehme: On West 78 s Street there is a trail on the north side. Mayor Furlong: Oh there is a trail on the north side? Paul Oehme: Correct. A 10 foot wide trail. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And that runs Galpin west over towards Century? 36 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 Paul Oehme: That's correct. I believe it's runs all the way. Mayor Furlong: Is there a trail on the north side of West 78`' east of Galpin as well? Paul Oehme: There is and that nuns all the way into the downtown, Powers Boulevard. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay. Why do we have the medians at that intersection at West 78`s9 What's the purpose of those? Paul Oehme: Medians are there to channelize traffic. They can be used as a safety improvement as well. I'm not, I think the medians that were put on 78t' Street and Galpin were in conjunction with the Highway 5 construction project when that was taking place. Everything north of there on Galpin, for whatever reason MnDOT did not think it was necessary to put a median north of 78 ° Street at this time. Mayor Furlong: But the primary purpose is to channel traffic. Paul Oehme: Channel traffic. Mayor Furlong: Through traffic in it's lane so they don't slide too far over. Paul Oehme: Right. Brandon Bourden: I mean it's also to restrict access so just a perfect example of the right-in/right-out to the Kwik Trip area, I mean that was put in by MnDOT to restrict access and to prevent left turns out of that facility. Mayor Furlong: Right. Todd Gerhardt: It also protects the left hand turn, the ones on West 78 ° Street. Brandon Bourden: Yeah, correct. Mayor Furlong: Is there any landscaping, the other item Mr. Martin brought up was landscaping on the northern parcel. Is there any landscaping planned for the northern parcel? Kate Aanenson: There is an existing wetland adjacent, so this area adjacent to them is existing wetlands. Mayor Furlong: So there's nothing to landscape there. Kate Aanenson: No. Again that's what we're talking about with the conservation area. Description that at some point we want to improve the function and value of those and then you know do the right type of species and so that would be a public. Mayor Furlong: But there's no, the landscaping is planned is intended entirely on the southern piece. Kate Aanenson: Right, and again there is some berming on there. It's, the developer did state at the Planning Commission if you look at the plans, it's intended to screen so you don't see the parking lot. Mayor Furlong: Where is the berming? Can you point it out? 37 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 Kate Aanenson: There is a wetland here and there's also a stormwater pond so there's some beruung around that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: And then as we get to this area, again the goal was to, again I'm going back to if this was an office park you wouldn't have the same, you'd also have lights and that sort of thing so I'm trying to go back to, as I told the Planning Commission, try to compare apples to apples here. Mayor Furlong: Yep. Kate Aanenson: And so the goal then would be you know if you look at how the building was re -shaped, which is the staffs opinion really encompassed, so you're protecting as much as you can of the parking and everything to the interior. Creating a buffer around it and then with this additional landscaping and some bemvng around the stormwater pond as it drops down in elevation, and then also on this side too. Is it going to be fully mature at day one? No but it's the goal to try to accomplish that. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Sir. Art Roberts: Okay, I'm Art Roberts, 7762 Vasserman Place. I'd like to back up to a basic question that's arisen among a lot of the residents out west as we've listened to the presentations at the planning committee and here and that is this. In the interest of openness and transparency, maybe I'm hearing a rumor. Maybe I'm hearing a misunderstanding but a number of people have come up to me and others and said, you know what's really going on here in the debate between office and multiple family is that there's a lot of pressure in the city from the merchants in the center of town to say geez, please city officials don't put more commercial out west because that would be a competition to us. Now I don't know if this is, this may be absolutely untrue but people have come to me and said you know the reason that there's no discussion at the planning committee and the, it's sort of a fait a complit that we're not even going to entertain the issue of whether it's safe to have the kids, as we've discussed before. Is that fair that really what's happened is that we're putting multi -family out there because there's pressure from the center of town to avoid putting commercial out there? I raise the question because it, that may be dead wrong but the people out there are running under the assumption that we're sort of being backed into a comer on the west side of town by the people in center city. Is there truth to that or not? Mayor Furlong: In my opinion dead wrong would be a good way to describe that. Art Roberts: Alright. Mayor Furlong: For an answer standpoint. Mr. Gerhardt or Ms. Aanenson or anyone else on the council. Art Roberts: Okay. Well that's good to hear because that was a question I just wanted... Mayor Furlong: And I think probably a good example of why that isn't the case, right across the street are two commercial properties in terms of Kwik Trip and CVS. Art Roberts: That's true. Mayor Furlong: Just last meeting I think it was we approved the expansion of neighborhood commercial down at 212 and Highway 101 near the Kwik Trip down there with a new building going in and we expect more so there are certainly as part of our Comprehensive Plan areas in town outside of downtown that are guided for other types of office and commercial activities. 38 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 Art Roberts: Good. Well I appreciate the clarification because I didn't know whether we were running on bad information or not and that was. Mayor Furlong: It sounds like it's bad information. Art Roberts: That was bad information. Mayor Furlong: It sounds like it. Art Roberts: Okay, thanks. Mayor Furlong: Thank you Mr. Roberts Cathy Meyer: Good evening Mr. Mayor, City Council. Cathy Meyer, 7662 Ridgeview Way in Chanhassen. Kate, may I move this to use? Kate Aanenson: Oh, of course. Cathy Meyer: So I did ask this question before but I don't feel like I'm still getting a gray answer so, oh you probably can't see that. Oh can we? Mayor Furlong: We can get there. Cathy Meyer: So I just to Kate, your chart from the Planning Commission report, when it gets there. So it's the same math that Kate had walked through on what's available and what the developer is using and my question is still, there's a sentence in here that says within this category an average density of 10 units per acre is used for land use projections and so I understand that there's discretion on whether it's 8 or 10 or 16 but as we talk about the feedback originally from the developer, or to the developer, and I understand we went, he went from 224 to 155 but the subjectivity and why isn't 8 or 10 acceptable to be a more, to be a smaller complex with a little bit more fit in that environment and still you could get somewhere between 90 and 110. I'm not going to speak to the north parcel because I know that the gentleman after me is going to address that but just wondering you know where the line drawn in understanding 8, 10 and 16 and so I don't know if that's a question or a statement but something I would just like to bring up for consideration. Mayor Furlong: Ms. Aanenson. Kate Aanenson: Sure, again the way the land use looks at is, anything above 8 is high density so then it comes into whether or not, what the applicant is pursuing. Again for this project, looking at similar sized projects adjacent to state highway, we looked at the one, 162 which was the Lake Susan project. You know similar sized. Same size parcel. That was, so we felt it was really, fit well within same kind of siting. Fit well within that so that was the choice on that. Mayor Furlong: Do you have other examples Ms. Aanenson? Kate Aanenson: Yeah I mean. Mayor Furlong: Do you know for example with other similar developments what their liB Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 Kate Aanenson: Well that's what, we can go back through those again but that's what I was trying to show on like for example on Powers Ridge but the one that would be the most similar would be the 162 at Lake Susan Apartments which is adjacent to 101. As I stated before that project doesn't have a lot of amenities on that project. Again it meets the same ordinance requirements as far as. Mayor Furlong: And that was on about 9 acres wasn't it? Kate Aanenson: Yep. And this one also too has one underground parking space per unit and then the, if there's more than one person living there, they have to figure out who gets the outside unit but that's our city ordinance so yes, could it be, could the council have or the Planning Commission said less units? That certainly is an option. Yeah. Mayor Furlong: And I think when the original proposal came through, through the concept, if I'm not mistaken the 224 units were gross acreage multiplied by the 16 so the high end of the range. Kate Aanenson: Yep. Mayor Furlong: And I think the, each development though, if I'm not, if I'm speaking out of turn let me know but each development you evaluate the entirety of the development and I don't know that there's necessarily been a limit or a drive to move to one end of the range or the other end of the range. Low density residential for example, that's a range of up to 4 units per acre, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: Yes, and you know the interesting thing on Walnut Grove, which was a very interesting process too. That took us a number of years to get that project approved, that one had mix of high and low density so we actually mixed those both together. Stirred the pot and so it kind of put you know single family detached to the north. Then we have kind of the patio style homes in the middle. Smaller lots. Very small lots and then the townhouses towards the bottom so the average density came out somewhere just north of you know the high end of medium but you actually had two different zoning districts. High and low and we kind of mixed them together so there's, every project's unique and a lot of it again is not staff. Is development driven. A developer comes forward. Does a market study and says this is what I believe I can do. Ran it through the concept and the council said, and the Planning Commission I believe that's too high so from there we go forward to say what seems to be, what works. Our direction we understood was to make sure that the traffic worked and that was kind of the challenge to say if the traffic can work and it's staying within the range of other projects we have in the city, we know how to manage that, then that was where we ended up landing so that was kind of the rational basis for that. Cathy Meyer: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Does that answer your question? Cathy Meyer: Yes and no. I think it's still a lot between the developer and subjective and so I mean it is kind of what it is so. Kate Aanenson: Yeah I guess we go back to saying, what the market study said, it could handle more so you know we, the council asked for less units and understood you'd like to see less units. Cathy Meyer: Less units. Kate Aanenson: I got it. Yeah, not... understood UN Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 Cathy Meyer: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Dave Callister: Mayor, council members, Dave Callister, 7541 Windmill Drive, Chanhassen. First of all I wasn't able to make the Planning Commission meeting so I want to thank the Mayor and council for allowing me the opportunity to speak. I've got several concerns with regards to the project and I'm not going to get into traffic. I've heard enough about traffic and I think you guys have too so I'll focus on a couple of different issues that I would like at least the council to take a look at. One would be the biggest question here is why, why are we entertaining a change to the Comprehensive Plan. An amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. I guess you would look at, and it's been mentioned before about what the City's going to get. What kind of trade off the City's going to get and based on the north site, which it runs along the creek and it's part of the Bluff Creek Shoreland Overlay District so the creek itself is protected. There's also a sanitary sewer easement as well as the normal setbacks that might apply in that particular project so I think, I haven't heard a real good reason because this site can't be developed for 32 or 44 or whatever units, the north site, I haven't heard a real good reason for the City to, a good trade off or a good deal for the City. That's s my opinion. The other thing that we talked about last time was the concentration of medium and high density residential in this particular corridor. This map was prepared last time so the 224 has gone down here to 155, and I'm not saying this is too much. Not enough. I guess I have concerns, or I shouldn't say right or wrong. I think it's too much but if you look at the property to the east, which most people believe won't be developed for a long time, and that very well may be the case but between Highway 41 and Lake Ann Park you've got 2,000 units of medium and high density residential. Now I'm a strong believer that you have to have a diverse housing stock. When I moved here 23 years ago we probably had 1 %. Now we've gotten up to 16. That's laudable and it's through the council and staffs hard work to diversify the housing stock. What I'm asking you to take a look at is the concentration of this and maybe it's not something you can take a look at until the next time you go through the Comprehensive Plan but it's concerning to me and I know it's concerning to others in the neighborhoods here that everything's kind of concentrated here, the number of units and so I would ask that you take a look at that going forward here. The other major issues that I would like to talk a little bit about is the piece of property to the north, and what I've done here is, the sanitary sewer easement runs along the north side. You can kind of see that there and back in, I think it was back in the 80's the City purchased that sanitary sewer easement and nobody's sure quite what the amount was but the previous property owner was compensated for that which means basically that they couldn't build on it because it's a utility easement. They need to get in there to dig if they need to fix the line so there's no development. That takes value away from the property and the property owner was duly compensated at that particular time. Don't know what that cost was. In addition you've got the Bluff Creek Overlay District and the wetlands on the northwest edge and you've got setbacks which are kind of around the front so if you really look at that, and this is I think the 2006 proposal, there were 10 units and there were many comments at the Planning Commission in 2006 and at the City Council level, including from some of those here tonight, that thought 8 to 10 units was way too dense for this particular site. So what I'm struggling with is some sort of nexus between what could actually go on that site, which 8 or 10 units apparently was not, was too dense. So how can we, how can we justify 32 units being transferred from the north side to the south side and you've got an overlay district already in place and if you looked at that bigger map over towards here, that's not on there but if you look over here, the townhomes here are much closer to Bluff Creek than these would be even if they were built so I don't think that is really an issue. The other issues I wanted to bring up, which was brought up earlier but I disagree with it's relevance is this used to be one piece of property. All the way around this site used to be one piece of property. Back in 2000-2001 when the frontage road or 78ie Street was constructed MnDOT had to condemn this piece of property and the piece of property is right where the street right -of --way is right now from here down to here. About 2 acres as far as I can tell. I found out today that MnDOT, which means all of us that pay taxes, paid $1.8 million dollars. $1.8 million dollars for that road and for 2 acres, unless you can tell me 41 Chanhassen City Council —April 22, 2013 that land 10 years ago was selling for $900,000 an acre, a lot of that went towards damages and what those damages, what that means is the property owner at the time was compensated for the break-up of the property. Okay, one piece of property, you can develop it much more intensely much more easily. The damages were that the property to the north is very limited and as you can tell here, it's a very, it's a very limited or what I would call an inferior development site so the fact that we're getting this, the creek and the area around the creek are already well protected and you can see that there wouldn't be any development even maybe 6 units because there's problems with right-of-way. Snow removal. There's a lot of issues so what I'm saying is this site is very problematic no matter how you look at it and I'm asking that you take a look at it closer because we don't feel there's any justification for 32 units to be garnered from that site because it is not a good development site. That's been proven. That's why we're here tonight partially is because that site is a tough one to develop but it's tough because there's easements on it. There's other regulations with shoreland and so those restrictions bring the value down but what we're doing here, it appears if this is approved is we're allowing that value, which is down here to become up here in transferring that in the form of more units for the development to make it feasible and I'm thinking since this property has been through disclosure, or foreclosure that obviously the property, they paid too much for the property and I'm thinking that maybe this, if they need that kind of density on this property then I don't know what they're paying for the property but obviously they may be paying too much because if they have to have a lot of units and they have to have this density transfer, I think that that certainly could be the case so, I am opposed to the comp plan amendment. However if the council makes it's determination and goes forward with this project I would hope that you would consider lowering the density of this particular project. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you Mr. Callister. Ms. Aanenson, a couple questions that Mr. Callister raised. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, sure. Mayor Furlong: One with regard to the type of residential uses. Low, medium and high along this section map. Kate Aanenson: A couple of points there. When that commercial piece went in, I think when the office industrial, when the office use went in with some quasi commercial, banking and the like, I think at that time, similar to what we did at Kwik Trip, we took all of this. This property was also owned by Kwik Trip. Mayor Furlong: We're not, can we see what you're looking at? Kate Aanenson: I'm sorry. Mayor Furlong: Nope, that's fine. Kate Aanenson: I'm sorry. So if we look at this property here that was owned by Kwik Trip, we took that in preservation. Mayor Furlong: Farther north of West 78 h. Kate Aanenson: Right. Because there was an easement on the property it still has, you can still count it towards density. That doesn't take it out of the mix. You can have your, everyone's property has an easement going through it but that's counting towards your green space so that doesn't take it out of the mix. Mayor Furlong: So an easement is considered developable. 42 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 Kate Aanenson: Well you can't put a building on it but it certain counts towards your lot area. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: So it's not taken out of the mix. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: In addition, what I mentioned before is in the Overlay District we talk about that. We want a setback from the creek. Again that has, there's a setback requirement but you can again count that towards your density or towards your green space. The goal of the overlay district is to build out of it. To take the density out because that's a compensation method for acquiring that, as we've done historically since we adopted that ordinance so we haven't changed anything here. Mayor Furlong: And I guess that's my question because I think with other developments there have been, and maybe the Pulte might be a good development as an example. Some of those areas that were preserved with density transfer within the Overlay District. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: I know the, or I recall that the Miss Rosie's Farm right next to Pulte was another one that there was development. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: You were at the Planning Commission at the time. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: And there was a Kate Aanenson: Yes, that would be this project right here and so we preserved this back in the Overlay District so what we did is we compressed those. Mayor Furlong: It was originally a low density but we moved it into medium density type of development where the development occurred. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. So I guess. Mayor Furlong: Because otherwise with the Overlay District you have to compensate in some form. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, so I guess on that matter I would respectfully disagree in how that interpretation was made. Being presented to you tonight, how the Overlay District. I think the 4 units an acre were problematic in the fact that how they were laid out but that doesn't mean you couldn't do another type of product on there. They had individual driveways. Those are some of the things that were talked about. You know we talked about one access point, how that would work out but certainly you could do another attached proj ect that would fit on that site using that green space to make it work. So the 4 twinhomes I think was, part of that discussion was if you're going to get the office on the south side, then the City would expect the development to try to protect that and so what happened on that one, why it got separated is the developer came forward with the twinhomes separately. He tried to take a run at the 43 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 twinhomes so then we kind of felt, the City kind of felt like well wait a minute. If we're going to give the office, we want to make sure that we weren't you know losing that. That was the discussion so I think you have to step back and put that both in context. Is the Council said no, it's too high. The expectation was if you were to get the office, that you would do the same thing that we did on Kwik Trip and provide that buffer or that green space is what we're trying to accomplish and that's been the goal from the developer. The first time we met with the developer is to say we don't want to see any development on that site so how do you work it? So we're using that same methodology. That hasn't changed and we showed what we're taking out, the gross versus the net. I understand that the residents still feel that's too high but the methodology's still the same so it's that number. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: And then just to talk about the compensation of properties, you're going to see other projects where people have been compensated. If that was a taking because it had no value or a taking because he lost his business, I can't answer that question but it put Mr. Pryzmus out of business so there was other people that had the same situation. We're doing that all over town. On 212 we have a project again that's coming in on 212 that was a total taking and still coming in for development project so that is not unusual so I can't, to say this is the first time that's been done, no. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, thank you. Good evening Mark Magnuson: Hi, I'm Mark Magnuson. 7715 Vassemum Trail and I'd like to compliment the prior gentleman for his excellent presentation. I remember being here in 2006 and when we talked about the, how that site was going to be developed on the north parcel and I think it's an easy concession to throw that in and can see those units because you couldn't do anything with the property anyway. And the water table was such, it wouldn't work and we talked about how those apartments, how the townhouses would go in there and how you'd try and do snow removal. There wasn't enough room to get anything in that narrow strip there so it was really kind of an unusable place. So I think the other thing is that to me the size of this project, I mean the one slide you had that kind of shows the horseshoe, you know the building. No, no, no. Keep going. There you go. One of those. It doesn't look that big to me looking at that but 155 units, that's about the size of Lake Susan, which is massive. That's 162 units on 16 acres. This is 155 units on 14 acres. I mean to me Lake Susan is immense and the roofline, when we were here you know a few months ago, when we had the 225 units, it was the peak of the roof was about 50 feet. It was 48. Paul Tucci: It was always 37... Mark Magnuson: So it was never, so the drawings were wrong. Is that what we're saying the drawings were wrong? Okay. Well the drawings were mislabeled I guess. Because it said 48 feet and we even talked, had a big discussion about that at that time but in any event, for myself and I'm one opposed. I don't know that anyone is, from the neighborhood is really been in favor. Something of the size of Lake Susan on this property, which is smaller than that is quite an effort and is going to overwhelm what is there currently. And then I will speak a little bit to the traffic. I do think, did you say, you thought 25 to 35 U turns at peak hours, our traffic engineer. Brandon Bourden: During the existing conditions, that's the volume. In the future I think it was more around 45 to 55. Mark Magnuson: Okay, well I would just say that being one who's lived there for 7-8 years that, I mean there's that many there right now as we sit here. It's constant. In fact I've never seen as many U turns anywhere as I see there and Kwik Trip better hope there are because if they only get one person an hour 44 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 buying gas they're in trouble. If you put them out of business that would help solve this problem but I don't think that's going to happen. I think the idea of coming around and making people you know go over to West 780' Street and take a left onto Galpin would be a solution that would work but people turn around there more than once a minute right now and it's, they're lined up to do it so. In fact there was a nice accident there over the weekend where somebody got whacked really good and so I don't think that's really all that rare so that was my only comments. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Thank you. Lori Moser: Hi, my name is Lori Moser. I live at 7632 Ridgeview Way and I'm just going to go where you left off and that is I think we're putting the cart before the horse here. I don't even think we need to be talking about a project. We are turning a blind eye to dangers at that corner. On Friday night at 4:30 we had a 3 car accident with a 17 year old girl who was shaking in her boot and I can't believe the Council has allowed this to continue in conversation until we take care of the problem that is there. I came to his meeting tonight 6:50. Visibility was terrible with snow. It's dark. I had someone do a U turn on me with no headlights on. It happens. You have to come sit and live in our neighborhood to understand the dangers that are at that comer. We are so scared for our kids. You cannot put any, I'm all for progress. I don't care if it's the apartments right now. I don't care what goes in there. I would love to see those golf things out of that, hey. I moved here from Dallas. I'm like what are these round tubes and these 150 mark yards all throughout that. It's been sitting there for 10 years. I'd love to see that gone. I'd love to see progress but we cannot put anything there until we, we are, it's a pressure cooker. I am going to use the Boston analogy of there are dangers there and we have to take care of those before we put anything there. One other thing, my son's 14 years old. A little bit of independence. Let's support the City. He wants to ride his bike to Buffalo Wild Wings. You know what the most dangerous part of his journey? Right outside my front door. I took my car and I took it all the way to Buffalo Wild Wings. He can cross. There's a stop sign. There are lights. There are sidewalks except for right there at 78" and Galpin. He's 14 years old. I feel like I have to drive my car down there to make sure he can get across. It is the only part of his journey and I just think this is wrong until we fix this traffic problem. That is our main problem there. I'll leave it at that. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Please. Please. Mr. Oehme what, there seems to be a big difference in opinion between the traffic data and residents observations. What can you do to help us? Paul Oehme: You know it's a difficult circumstance when the data is showing us to, leads us to believe that this intersection's functioning properly. We aren't seeing a lot of accidents at this intersection. I don't know of any pedestrian accidents have occurred at this intersection as well. The accident that was referenced on Friday night, I did have a chance to talk to Carver County about that accident and that was a failure to yield issue on a driver heading what was it, westbound, or eastbound on 78'" Street trying to go northbound on Galpin and didn't yield at the stop sign. Went through the intersection and a southbound car hit that car making that turning movement. Mayor Furlong: They didn't stop at the stop sign? Paul Oehme: They didn't stop at the stop sign basically so it was not related to any U turn movements at that intersection so those are, we always look for accidents at these particular circumstances that we can correct with a signal or a round about or some other improvement at this intersection. You know at this time we're not seeing any infrastructure that really can help alleviate some of the concerns I think that some of the residents are seeing out there, and we have talked to the Carver County about other potential improvements out at this intersection. Those are kind of unrelated to what the apartment complex you know we're considering for tonight so we are talking to Carver County. We are looking at you know what if's and what other potential improvements we can make at this intersection but at this point in time 45 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 you know we have to rely on our experts for traffic analysis and data collection and give us recommendations to move forward and is there based upon what we're seeing with the new development, you know we're not really seeing a lot of improvements that we can make at this time to improve the situation that's out there. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Brandon Bourden: Mayor? Mayor Furlong: Yes. Brandon Bourden: If I could add a little bit to that. Mayor Furlong: Please Brandon Bourden: In terms of looking at some of the things that we did some additional review. I mean we had somebody go out and watch traffic for an hour since the Planning Commission to get an idea in the morning in addition to the traffic counts that we did, how that operation is and I wanted to look specifically for the sight distance for traffic coming down Galpin and people making that left turn so we got the distance. We did measure it. From a sight distance perspective for people going northbound to do a U turn back to southbound on Galpin, there's about 900, over 900 feet. At least 920 feet. Calculated in a conservative fashion that distance needs to be about 800 feet so there is adequate sight distance there. We did watch things. There are times where a truck might turn right out a little bit more from the center instead of in the left turn lane to make the U turn so they geometrically can fit. We looked at the turning templates. You can turn a standard passenger vehicle which would be more like a Yukon without leaving that lane so we looked at that. In terms of crash history we've had 3 crashes. There were 4 crashes in one year, 2010. Zero crashes in 2011. And two crashes in 2012. We're looking at what's susceptible to be corrected by a change in traffic control and typically there has to be a certain number of crashes over that time so it doesn't reach that threshold. Mayor Furlong: And what was your source of the number of crashes because we've heard different opinions that there have been many more than what was in your... Brandon Bourden: Well mine wouldn't include the crash that just happened. Mayor Furlong: Understand. Brandon Bourden: But we used, there's a Minnesota has a crash mapping analysis tool. I think it's Minnmat. We can go in there and get GIS data and look at crashes. We then compared it to what Carver County provided in terms of some crash data and they match very well together so we're getting the data from Carver County and we're getting the data from the MnDOT system and the MnDOT system would query more than just the sheriff s department. Now it happens to be that the sheriffs department would respond most often at that location due to jurisdictional reasons. And we did look a little bit at peds. I mean I will fully acknowledge. Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry, you look at what? Brandon Bourden: We looked at the peds count Mayor Furlong: Pedestrians? 46 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 Brandon Bourden: Yeah, pedestrians, I'm sorry. So when we look at the pedestrian counts, yes we counted data in March. I will acknowledge that there aren't as many pedestrians in March but I mean we've got, there's definitely more pedestrians going north and south along Galpin. We had at that time about 16 pedestrians that crossed over a 12 hour period because we counted the data a lot more than just the 2 hours a.m. and p.m. at that particular locations because we had to look at the warrants. We had 4 pedestrians cross east/west during that time period so again I'll acknowledge there's more in the, not during March but there are areas in town that certainly have more pedestrian activity. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Anyone else? Good evening. Cathy Price: Good evening. Cathy Price and 7569 Ridgeview Point. I wasn't going to talk about traffic but a neighbor of mine asked me to ask if we could find out the date the study was taken. Brandon Bourden: The study was completed on April 9, 2013. Cathy Price: Oh, we thought it was March. Okay. Brandon Bourden: The data was collected in March for the traffic counts Cathy Price: Right, when was the data collected? Brandon Bourden: March 7 ". Cathy Price: March 7 °, okay. Brandon Bourden: Spring break was the 22"" through the 29'". Cathy Price: Right. Right, right, right. We just wanted to make sure that it wasn't over spring break but it is in March and I wasn't, like I said I wasn't going to speak to traffic but there is a human factor here that he spoke to just a little bit and I think it's really important to understand that in March you're not going to see the human factor here. If you know the surrounding area you understand that our neighborhood and all the neighborhoods to the north on Galpin, you know there's hundreds and thousands of kids in these neighborhoods, okay. They're riding their bike to the Kwik Trip or the CV S because that's the fun thing to do so it is an extremely dangerous intersection for the kids to cross. I, like my fellow neighbor here have a 14 year old and I still feel nervous about her crossing that intersection to go to Kwik Trip. Every time she goes I ask her to text me when she gets there and you know as soon as she comes home to come in the house and let me know that she's home because I still, at the age of 14 don't feel comfortable with her crossing that intersection so I did want to say that but what I really wanted to address was the zoning. The fact that the project is being requested to be rezoned and even through the conceptual plan that happened in 2012, I don't feel like the planning department did a good job of explaining why it is acceptable to rezone this property and for the council to make a concerted decision on this large project I think that you have to know where the other high density capabilities, zoning capabilities are in the city. Are those going to remain high density? And in our Comprehensive Plan are we going to consider that we'll have that much more high density now in the city because we've rezoned this piece of property? Or should we be telling the developer that this isn't the right piece of property because there are other high density pieces of property in the city that were looked at under the Comprehensive Plan and decided and determined at that time that this was where high density should go and that is where the developer should be looking at. I don't think we've ever gotten a really good answer as to why it's acceptable to change the zoning on this piece of property so that's, it's my question and I'll leave it to you to figure out if it's important. Thank you. 47 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 Mayor Furlong: Please don't applaud if you can. We're trying to get the information and keep moving. Ms. Aanenson though with regard to percent of property within the city that's high density residential. Kate Aanenson: Sure. Mayor Furlong: If you could talk about that. Kate Aanenson: Yep, we talked about the property immediately to the west. Again we don't know how that's going to come in and develop. Some of that is guided high density. A majority of it is low and medium. Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry, and where is that located relative to this? Kate Aanenson: That would be the property immediately to the east, Mayor Furlong: To the east, thank you. Towards Lake Ann. Kate Aanenson: Which is two significant property owners there. The other question that came up was on the 212 corridor. There isn't a lot of high density on. We have a mixed use. A regional commercial with some office zoning down there. If it came in as a regional, there is a potential for some residential. We don't know how that will come in at this time so the other two property owners have stated they do not want to be on the active list for available properties in the long run. They don't see developing their property. That doesn't mean in 5 years they could change their mind but they've asked not to be on. We have a list of available properties in the city so that was the rationale for that. Why we said that we felt based on again, if we're looking at the traffic numbers again I'll go back to the same thing we discussed in the Planning Commission. This project aside, if this project came in as an office, if the traffic issue was being similar than we'd have the same discussion on the traffic so I'm trying to separate some of the, is it the traffic? Is it the land use? Is it. Mayor Furlong: Do you have a sense? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we do have residential on that north side. If you look at the north side of the city it's predominantly residential. Mayor Furlong: Along the north side of Highway 5. Kate Aanenson: Correct. I'm sorry, along Highway 5. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Kate Aanenson: Everything on the south side is always historically been an office park. We do have a few pockets of residential built in that. Actually right across in the intersection there. Mayor Furlong: Just south of here. Kate Aanenson: Correct, and then you have some pieces on the other side of the elementary school but predominantly on the south side has been guided for the office parks. On the north side has historically been residential. The City did put in a few pockets areas of support commercial where you can get your convenience that we talked about. Gas and those sort of things to service the neighborhood. And those were located strategically in areas for that purpose. 48 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 Mayor Furlong: Do you have a sense or do you know, not a sense or do you know if this parcel is rezoned as requested, what that would do to the percent of our land use in the city that's high density residential? What that would move it from and to? Kate Aanenson: Well this would be you know the 8 acres, if you look at that percentage. I don't have that number in front of me. Mayor Furlong: You don't, okay Kate Aanenson: No. But it's a pretty small percent of that. If you looked, we looked at the percentage of apartments in the city, we're at 13% of our overall housing stock is apartments so it's on that lower end. Again we had other projects that were apartments that went condo so there is some pent up demand. That was the other rational basis that we said for making the change. That was the market study that said that that demonstrated that. Would that same market be in place if the, in 5 years? Maybe not. Maybe that window's gone and there's another opportunity. We've seen a wave of different housing types? We know also there's a pent up demand for some smaller lot, single family. That's also very popular right now so we do anticipate some of those properties to the east would probably come in, if those were to come in in the short near range that we'd probably see some of that too. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, thank you. Anyone else? Good evening Mr. Allen. Doug Allen: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Thank you council members. My name's Doug Allen. I live at 2250 Lukewood Drive which is approximately one mile south of Highway 5 and Galpin and I'm intimately familiar with the intersection. I travel that way every day to work, 365 days a year so the gentleman that did the traffic study did at least acknowledge my concern that the pedestrian numbers which seem to be rolled into the traffic numbers were only taken one day in early March so really what I can add is anecdotal. That with the school, the community center and it's associated recreational fields to the southeast of the property and just to the north off of, off Galpin is Sugarbush Park. There's quite a bit of young people that ride their bikes or their skateboards or whatever else, as well as my wife and myself, we use the pathways for our bikes or for fitness purposes as do many of my other neighbors so I do have a concern that the study itself really doesn't adequately address pedestrian use of this area, particularly in the context of moving it from a low density use to a high density use. There are clearly safety concerns with vehicle traffic but I think there's also should be great concerns relative to the young people and families that use that corridor as well relative to high density use there so thank you for your consideration. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. David WindschitL Hi, my name is David Windschid. I live in the Vasserman Ridge neighborhood. I'm putting this document back up that Mr. Callister had put up earlier. I have a question. I think it was alluded to by a couple different council members but I'm not sure that I understood the answer and this is in regards to the traffic study. There's a large section that is zoned for high density, and it's not available right now, which I understand but in a couple years that may change very well which would change the outlook. There's a large parcel here that apparently can have 1,000 some odd units so my question is, I think my understanding was he put some formula and methodology into this study but did your study take into effect the local planning where there is a possibility of 1,000 high density units? Brandon Bourden: What I can say is what I can model is what's in the Comprehensive Plan so whatever is planned to be done by 2030, 2030 would be what the Comprehensive Plan had and some adjustments based on that is what I assumed for background growth. I did not get into every single TAZ and look at 49 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 every one individually to see how they all compared. But that's why a Comprehensive Plan is done and that's why Carver County does a Comprehensive Plan to look at that longer term growth. Mayor Furlong: Fine, Mr. Oehme, go ahead. Paul Oehme: Yep, so what the City does, we look at what the area is guided for. Estimate out what the potential density is. We look at, we actually give Carver County TAZ's and what potentially traffic in this area would be. They put it into their model and that's how we generate the future forecasts is through that model so yes, the future development potential in this area is included in the Carver County's model. David Windschitl: So that 1,000 units should be accounted for in the traffic study. Paul Oehme: Correct. Kate Aanenson: Can I just clarify? We don't know if that's 1,000 units. Somebody just took an estimate. You know you have to take out road right-of-way. You have to take a lot. That number was put up there but if you look at the City's Comprehensive Plan, all the TAZ's, the traffic analysis zones are broken down in the Comprehensive Plan so you can go in there and look at what the estimated number of trips were and that was the background data so we take out that number so I don't know what that number was based on. Somebody put that in there. The other one's are existing projects and I haven't verified the count on that either so I'm not sure what that 1,000, how that was computated but we do have all our traffic zones and if you go to the City's website you can open up the Comprehensive Plan under traffic and they're all in there. David Windschitl: Okay, I'm assuming the units was based off 16 units per acre which according to what I've started to learn about this is that could change and multiple a little bit higher depending on the project too. Kate Aanenson: Yep. Go could go lower, yep Mayor Furlong: Well be careful. I mean the limit is 16 per acre. I mean the particular project, you know in this particular case what's being proposed is less than 16. David Windschitl: In this particular case. Mayor Furlong: In this particular case. But I think if I'm hearing, what you guys are saying for Mr. Windschitl's benefit and others, that the way the properties to the east that are undeveloped currently are guided, and they expect the traffic flows off of those properties as they're currently guided, were taken into account for the traffic studies. David Windschitl: Correct. Paul Oehme: Correct, yep. We gave that information to the County. They put it into their model and then we utilize that model for future forecasts. David Windschitl: Okay, thank you. That was something I was not sure of. So with that I'm not going to belabor a lot of the additional points because I agree with a lot of them that came up so all that I will say is I was curious to see when we saw that there was a new announcement, you know the new proposal came about and somewhat surprised that we were still at the 155 unit mark. Still quite dense for this particular parcel but even more so, I was more surprised that we were still at three stories out of that and if anybody knows the area, there is I think city planners and things of that nature, you know where you 50 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 ramp up or whatever so it's not just a big building standing out in the middle of a field so I guess those are my biggest two things still that I struggle with is the amount of density and the overall size and scope of the height. Any time that we have a comprehensive change that we're looking for I think it's very difficult and there should be a higher standard used to that where we don't have separate variances moving forward and it appears we do have that with the height so thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Matt Thomas: Matt Thomas, 2555 Longacres Drive. I wanted to, I have a question but a comment too is you have referenced the Comprehensive Plan numerous times and stated it's importance yet when it suits your needs you're willing to consider changing it so on a whim, as far as I'm concerned so what is it? Do you stand behind your Comprehensive Plan? A lot of work went into that piece of work every 10 years yet you're so willing to consider a change where I'm sorry Kate, you don't live there. You don't understand that so. Mayor Furlong: Why don't you address your comments to the council Matt Thomas: Sorry, so my point being is, do you follow the plan that you signed off on? And I think earlier statements that elude to the Met Council has to sign off on it too. We all know they're very supportive of high density housing and there's going to be no issue with that so I don't like the fact that we infer that we're passing the burden onto another body. It's you guys. You guys are signing off on it and it bothers me that we would not stick to the Comprehensive Plan. There's a plan for a reason and yet we want to change it and I know there's fees involved but once it's there it's there and like they mentioned down the street, at 2030 that's going to be a big area. I mean are we thinking long into the future? And the other question I had is, in the packet documents there was something that stated that the State would not fund a sound dampening wall along Highway 5. Is that didn't qualify for a residential property so if those residents do desire a sound dampening piece and the State isn't willing to pay for it because if it's not a qualifying property, who's going to pay for that? Is that the developer? Is that us? And I'll leave it at that but. Mayor Furlong: You're saying sound dampening for this development? Matt Thomas: Yes. There was something in the packet that eluded to that the State would not cover funding because it did not meet their qualifications and that's another burden. And the last thing I'll say is with the traffic studies there was a lot of recommendations but there was nothing put in where you would have to say this has to happen before you build. The yellow arrows, is it going to happen? We don't know. If you put that in there that all the stipulations be addressed and that the 48 turn around's, it's going to get worst. We're just saying there's a concern there. Four hours of study in the winter may not be adequate so revisit that. The sound dampening and then what is the Comprehensive Plan if it's willy nilly changed. Thanks. Councilman McDonald: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Furlong: Yeah. Councilman McDonald: Can I address something? Mayor Furlong: Mr. McDonald. Councilman McDonald: You know I wrote, I was involved in the Comprehensive Plan. I signed off on it both at the Planning Commission level and when I got to City Council. Can you show me in the 51 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 Comprehensive Plan where it says we can't make changes and we're locked into things? A lot has been brought up about that and I'm sorry, I just don't remember it being in there. Matt Thomas: Just because you. Mayor Furlong: If you could come back to the microphone so people at home can hear. Matt Thomas: Yeah, when you lay out a plan, this is surely something that doesn't fit there and yes, the Comprehensive Plan can be changed but why wouldn't that have been updated in, when was the last time the plan was updated, 2010? Kate Aanenson: 2008. Matt Thomas: 2008. Why wasn't it updated then to take on residential, high residential there? That's my questions Mr. McDonald so, you say yes it's better to be changed but it doesn't fit. Why wouldn't you, the reason that the development has been asked to go there is the land is available. You don't live there either so. Councilman McDonald: I take exception to that. I live very close to that area and I live in other areas of this town where there are traffic issues. I understand what everybody is going through. Don't try to tell me I don't live there. I went there yesterday. I've gone there numerous days. Matt Thomas: I guess I'm a little troubled by your accusation, or your earlier comments that say that the builder is making accommodations for us. I think that's what I'm taking to offense to earlier. Thanks. Councilman McDonald: Okay. Mayor Furlong: If I can real quick. I want to try to address some of Mr. Thomas' questions. With regard to the sound dampening, Ms. Aanenson do you want to just address that and what's been the practice in the past. Kate Aanenson: Sure. That's standard language that they give and that means the developer has to accommodate. Mayor Furlong: Is that because it's along a state highway? Kate Aanenson: Yep. And so that would mean that through the construction design the developer has to meet certain construction standards which means air conditioning units so they don't have to have open windows. High grade windows. Those are standard. That would be similar to other projects we've done along Highway 5 so we do not have a noise wall along Highway 5. We never will I don't believe so it's through construction techniques and that's standard language. Mayor Furlong: Okay, and those techniques would be requirement as part of the building permit? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: And does the City pay for any of those additional techniques? Kate Aanenson: No. No. Mayor Furlong: So it's the full burden on the developer. 52 Chanhassen City Council —April 22, 2013 Kate Aanenson: That's correct Mayor Furlong: Okay. And then with regard to the collection of traffic data, I'll go back to Mr. Bourdon and also Mr. Oehme with regard to this. You collected, well I had asked earlier if you thought it was reasonable what you did. People are saying that they disagree but help us understand from a professional standpoint how the data that you collected, and over the time period you collected, you believe you can make your estimates. Brandon Bourden: I mean for nearly every study that we do, you collect one day worth of traffic data. In this case we had traffic data at Trunk Highway 5 and Galpin so we had a baseline of data that was collected by MnDOT. Mayor Furlong: That had been collected at a previous time Brandon Bourden: That was collected at a different date altogether so we didn't have to re -collect data. We're always looking to see what data exists. One, because it gives you some point of comparison. Two, because we're trying to be cost effective for whoever pays for the study. We then collected the data at the other location and as we look at the numbers we have some, I mean we can then kind of see do the numbers balance between the intersections. Are they jiving? Is there a big bust? If there's a big bust, well then something may have gone on. An example would have been, years ago before the 212 extension was done, numbers changed a lot then but it gives us something to look for. In terms of data collection, we can always be wrong but we collected during the school year because if we collected in the summer, that's really wrong. We don't have the activity with school patters change so we want to make sure we hit the school year. We want to make sure we do not hit a week that has a holiday so we'll always avoid you know Labor Day week, 4' of July week because you know families have different patterns in particular so we picked a school week that wasn't spring break that would be relatively representative of what you're going to see during the year. There's slight variation throughout the year. We think the data's pretty reasonable. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Ms. Aanenson, with regard to the Comprehensive Plan process and changes, can you explain that process a little bit? Kate Aanenson: Sure. It's a policy decision. The City does have discretion on that and this is the process that we're going through is to evaluate based on our Comprehensive Plan does it make sense and that's what I'm trying to go back to say, originally you know certainly people had some issues regarding the height and the number of units but really what they seemed to focus on was the traffic so if this was an office park, what I'm saying is some of those same issues would be brought by the neighbors saying they have concerns about the number of trips and the turning movements so we're trying to make that being equal. Then we're saying if it's residential, which most of this is on the north side, then in our opinion, you know we had a property owner advocating for that commercial piece and we said we really wanted to be more of a residential style. The council at that time agreed for conceptually for the office with some support commercial in that and as we talked about in the concept, the turn movements really were slightly higher with the number of units so that got reduced down. As we see now we're below what that threshold would have been and to make that happen so the Comprehensive Plan again we stated that because it's a residential going, if you look at the hierarchy of zoning districts, we believe that the residential from the office is not an increase as far as the hierarchy of you know uses. So again it's a policy decision. But there's times when there might be something that comes to the City that we never thought of that we would, someone wants to come here that we would certainly entertain an opportunity to explore whether or not it makes sense, which is why we went through the concept process to say does it make sense? Is it a realistic? So again it seems a lot of it is based on the traffic. If we can manage that. 53 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 Certainly we understand that some people still think it's too high and too many units, certainly I've heard that. Mayor Furlong: When the Comprehensive Plan was last updated, I know there were but I'm going to ask it in the form of a question here. Did you meet with property owners around the city? Did you meet with residents I mean or did you just, you didn't just sit at City Hall and say here's what we're going to do. Kate Aanenson: No, we actually had a couple open houses. At the library. At the Rec Center. We had a lot of meetings on different chapters. Public hearings on all the different chapters. Took that into place. I also state too, if you look at what happened in 2008, there's been a lot of changes in the economy from 2008 to 2013, which is another reason just to go back and examine our policies. I mean we try to put in some, you know what our goals are and again if you look at what the, and the Comprehensive Plan what it says on our website is that these are the goals and that it's a flexible tool that we have to adapt and so if you look at what's changed from 2008 to 2013, things have changed. One of our biggest projects. Mayor Furlong: You met with property owners too, right? Kate Aanenson: Oh yes. Mayor Furlong: And if the property owner had a desire for one type of use. Kate Aanenson: Right. Mayor Furlong: Did you try to accommodate it? Kate Aanenson: Sure, and one of the biggest ones we were talking about was the potential for regional mall back in 2008. Mayor Furlong: Right Kate Aanenson: That's changed completely too so we talked about that and that was driven by a property owner so we also put that in our question that we for the community survey. We asked the question of that, to poll our residents to say what do you feel about having, being a regional draw. Having more people come here. Increasing more traffic so we talked about that. It was a very public process and while 10 years is a long time to kind of go through a cycle, you know there's no reason to say you can't go back as a policy maker to say does it still make sense? Should we re-examine that thought? So that was the intent. Councilman Laufenburger: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Furlong: Mr. Laufenburger. Councilman Laufenburger: Kate, has the council, how long have you been with the City? 20 plus years, is that right? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilman Laufenburger: Has the council ever considered a change to a comp plan in the past through other PUD's or anything like that? Kate Aanenson: Yes. 54 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 Councilman Laufenburger: And have we actually made changes to the plan? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Yes. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. One of the questions that Mr. Thomas asked was, you know who owns our plan? Do we own the plan at the council or is it owned by Met Council? If I'm not mistaken I think, don't we actually as a courtesy to the jurisdictions surrounding us, including the Met Council, we inform them of anticipated changes to our land use, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. And didn't we, I think the council authorized a jurisdictional review at our last meeting, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. So as a matter of courtesy we share our plans, our land use plans with those surrounding so that they, they have a chance to see what it is we're doing in Chanhassen. Kate Aanenson: Right. And I would just add too that, it is the city's plan. It's everybody in the city's plan. It's not my plan. It's not your plan or the Planning Commission. It's all the city's plan and certainly there's push and pull in different neighborhoods. We were having this kind of same discussion 2 weeks ago on a different topic and so it's, obviously it's more heighten in a neighborhood. I can only say, try to say this as, I've been through a lot of these discussions and we continue to be the great community that we are and we want to continue to be the great community that people want to live here and raise their families and certainly that is my foremost. I wouldn't want to do something that would jeopardize that. Councilman Laufenburger: So you're saying we're not considering this proposal because we want to drive people out of Chanhassen, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: No. No. No. No. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay, alright. Thank you for that clarification Kate. Mayor Furlong: Anyone else? J.P. Meyer: My name is J.P. Meyer. I do not live at Vasserman Ridge. I don't even live in Chanhassen. Mayor Furlong: What is your address, if you could? J.P. Meyer. 6980 Lora Lee Lane, Eden Prairie. But my Remax office is here in Chanhassen. I have sold real estate for over 20 plus years in the southwest and I'm going to tell you, if I'm showing a property and I'm driving by an apartment building getting to that property, it will be discounted. And none of us want to have an apartment building or a big complex in our front yard or our back yard. I have a question for you. Mayor Furlong: If you can address your questions to the council please. J.P. Meyer: Well I was wondering if he's ever done any other work for the developer? 55 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 Mayor Furlong: By you meaning the traffic study? J.P. Meyer. Traffic. Yes, and so I don't know your name. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. You're Kimley-Hom, correct? Brandon Bourden: I'm with Kimley-Hom. We were hired by the City to do the study so how payment worked I'm not working for the developer at all. J.P. Meyer. Oh, okay. You work for the City? Brandon Bounden: I'm working for the City, yes. Mayor Furlong: The City engaged you. J.P. Meyer. Okay. I wasn't sure. I just heard that he was paying for it. Or the developer was paying for it. Brandon Bourden: The developer is paying for it but that's, the City is controlling what I do in my scope and you know we work back and forth that way. J.P. Meyer. Chanhassen is really in it's infancy state of growing. I've lived in Eden Prairie for 45 years. I've seen a lot of growth and they've been very, I have to say ahead of theirself for keeping green space, parks, paths, trails. It makes it a very desirable city yet for people to want to come to. I know you're anxious to develop Chanhassen, and it's good tax revenue but you have to look to the future and make sure that the aesthetic value as you blossom and continue to grow and fill out, that you still have green spaces and people still want to come here because it looks nice. Maybe like what your projection is. It's not all about buildings. I know it helps for the taxes and the value and the money coming in but whatever you do now, you've got to think about how it's going to impact the future and how other people coming wanting to move out and it's moving west, do they want to live in a city that looks nice or not? 'Thank you. Dan Bock: Hi, my name is Dan Bock. I live at 7677 Vasserman Trail in Chanhassen. I'd like to thank the council and the City Managers and the Planning Commission and the planning folks and Mr. Tucci. This is a good iteration just with any research and development plan, there's many iterations and iterations. I think we're heading in the right direction but I don't think it's done yet and I can't approve this plan. I've got my investment to protect and that investment has gone down over $150,000 in the past 5 years due to the recession. My concerns are the same as my neighbors. Traffic. I won't reiterate all those because we've talked a lot about that. Density's still a concern. I did like going from you know the 225 down. What I was looking at was something lower but my biggest concern ends up being the height of the building, and I'm glad, the last time the City Council met and it was talked about looking at Lake Susan Hills as a comparison. I go to St. Hubert's Church so I drive by that every day and when I noticed that wait, that's the building that you're talking about. That thing's huge and just as mentioned before, it's actually on a much bigger, or it's on a couple more acres and it has roughly the same amount of units so to me the biggest concern is the height of the building. I was ready to come here and actually start helping convince my neighbors, if we got down to roughly 125 units, two stories, I think it's a good plan. I like the architecture. I like the green space. Too bad he had to take the pool out because we've got a pool in our neighborhood and I love it and I know that that'd be a major attraction but good iteration so far but we've got to keep going. Thank you. Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 Mayor Furlong: Thank you Mr. Bock. Ms. Aanenson, Lake Susan Apartments. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I think there's a little misunderstanding on that. Lake Susan Apartments is actually on 9 acres. It's only 1 acre larger. Mayor Furlong: Right. Kate Aanenson: It's also on a very steep slope so it's sitting up quite a bit higher so. Oops, I'm sorry. Mayor Furlong: Do we have in the schematics here, is the. Kate Aanenson: It's sitting up. It's up quite a ways. You have to go up the driveways so it's sitting up higher so it has a higher presence but it's on 9 acres at 16 units an acre so. Mayor Furlong: Most of the schematics that I'm looking at in our packet show the first floor units to be at ground level and not to be, not that there's a basement or underground parking above ground. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Parking's below grade. Mayor Furlong: Below grade. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay, so the exits from the parking lot will actually have to come up a hill to get up to grade, is that right Mr. Tucci? Okay. Whereas with Lake Susan Apartments I think the exit drive out is at grade. There is no, because it's basically a walkout type of, because they built it into the hill is that correct? Kate Aanenson: Correct, on that perspective you're correct. It was exposed more on that side. Mayor Furlong: From the height standpoint. Kate Aanenson: Right. Dan Bock: Mr. Mayor, can I make one more comment then? Mayor Furlong: Yep. Dan Bock: So the height of Lake Susan Hills is how high then? Kate Aanenson: It's, what you're looking at from the 101 side is the exposed, is the exposure of the parking garage so that adds an extra, you're looking at an extra elevation. An extra floor. Dan Bock: But when we compared heights I thought we were only off by a few feet when we were doing the height comparison. Kate Aanenson: I'm just talking about your visual perception. If you look at the height we take average grade from the midpoint of the roof so. Mayor Furlong: Average of midpoint of the roof. 57 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 Kate Aanenson: I'm just telling your perspective looking up from 101 is going to appear that the building's higher. Dan Bock: So the average grade is what we're talking about when you're making a comparison? Mayor Furlong: You mentioned averaged height of the roof. Is the grade at the point where it's at the ground level? Kate Aanenson: They're both going to be approximately, well they're both three stories but when you're looking at it from 101, you're looking at four stories because you're seeing the, you're seeing the parking garage. Dan Bock: Okay. Mayor Furlong: You're seeing the garage. Dan Bock: Alright but. Mayor Furlong: And you're not going to see that here. Dan Bock: I guess maybe the comparison was a little misleading because when you're looking at 40 feet and 35 feet, that doesn't seem to be very far off. Anyways, one other comment too about Lake Susan Hills is the distance between the apartments and the nearest residential area. Our's is what we said, 400 feet? This looks to be quite a bit further than that. Kate Aanenson: Correct and that's when we looked at the Lake Susan one you have single family homes right behind, right adjacent to them. They're within a couple hundred feet also right behind. That would be these houses in this area. Councilman Laufenburger: That's Powers Ridge. Kate Aanenson: Powers Ridge, correct. Dan Bock: And that one's still pretty big as well. Kate Aanenson: Yep, that will be about 16 units an acre. 334 units. Dan Bock: Okay. Mayor Furlong: And again I think you're dealing with the topography there. That one's, when you're driving by Powers is on a hill. Dan Bock: Yep. Understood. To me that one doesn't seem as bad as Lake Susan Hills and, I mean just even the expanse and if you look at the L shape and then compare what part of our neighborhood that would take up, it'd take up about a third so just, like I said before, you knock it down to two stories and I think you've got a plan and like I said, good iterations. Let's keep going. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you Mr. Bock. Anyone else? Try to get this finished up here. We've got two more? 58 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 Joel Robertson: Ili, my name is Joel Robertson, 7596 Walnut Curve. The only item I wanted to mention concerns specifically the high density created with the existing traffic that's there. If somebody could please cut on that. As I was driving home Friday night, unfortunately this is what I saw that was referenced earlier and this is without the high density. Putting the high density in there is just going to increase these type of accidents that are out there. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Josh Kimber: Good evening. My name is Josh Kimber. A homeowner at 2060 Majestic Way which is just north of the proposed development. My wife and I moved to the neighborhood about 2 years ago and when we moved to the area we did look at the different zoning and the different developments that could be happening. We were excited of all the developments happening to the north and the build out of Vasserman and things like that. We were also encouraged by the businesses that, what we were hoping were going to be in this area. We moved there 2 years ago but we've got our anchor here locally. We shop at CVS. We gas up at Kwik Trip. We are members of Lifetime Fitness. My wife visits the skin care center. We were looking forward to a hospital, businesses, offices being in this area. I'm a local guy. I grew up in a small town. I was hoping to get that from this development too. I don't think putting the high density here is the right solution. I have, I echo a lot of the same concerns as my neighbors which is traffic, the density, but also just the major eye sore. I mean I think a three story property to the person two before me is right that says you know a two story or a gradual increase to a three story I think would be alright, but a very large three story property there, after traveling you know a mile outside of town is just going to look out of place and devalue our homes. Thanks. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. One last comment then ma'am. Eileen Kieffer. Eileen Kieffer. I live in the Vasserman Ridge neighborhood also and I know you're sick about the traffic issue but I do have a couple points I want to make. We do not cross Galpin Boulevard either. We have a dog we walk. We walk him up to 41. Don't want to take the risk of crossing it. We turn around and go the other way. We can't go north on Galpin because we don't have a sidewalk on our side of the street. It's only on the east side of Galpin so we are pretty much blocked off. We're kind of locked in that comer so we have all these great facilities and you know along that way into town that our kids could be using but we can't take the chance to risk crossing it to go use it so it's kind of unfair that we're blocked from using that. And another point I want to make is I do have a high school student and he could be driving to school but we don't allow him to because the traffic is so bad at that intersection in the morning. Between 7:30 and 8:00 the traffic is backed up from that intersection light to about 78t' Street and the kids are all trying to get to school at the same time so it's just like really kind of crazy so, and you've got to pull out. They don't come 45 miles an hour down that hill. At that time of day they're traveling whatever they need to to get to the light because it's going to, we wait so long for that light. Everybody's always in a hurry. It's like I've got to wait 3 minutes for that light so I'm going to quick rush down this hill and get that light when it's green. They don't, you know they're not paying attention to anybody that might be turning onto Galpin from 78te Street so it's just too dangerous to let him drive and I think that's really unfortunate. It's like a 5 minute drive. It would be a really nice thing and when we moved to this neighborhood we assumed our kids would be able to do that. There's an elementary school across the road and the high school's 5 minutes away now. Why, it's unfortunate that we're not able to do that. We're just kind of that neighborhood gets kind of locked in there because of 41 busy on the other side and then the Galpin being so busy, it's just a big issue and someone said earlier, we really need to address that before we can even consider adding more traffic to this intersection. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Thank you everybody for your comments. We appreciate it and I hope, I certainly heard some answers to your questions and I hope you did as well. Bring it back to council. Any follow up questions at this point for staff or others based upon the public comment or other comments? If 59 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 not then, let's bring it to council and thoughts and comments on the development. Anybody like to go? Mr. Laufenburger. Councilman Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Mayor. I can be pretty brief here. I have appreciated the dialogue that I have had with many of the residents in the area who have expressed their views with me, both face to face as well as by email and I will say that many of their comments caused me to look deeper into the plan. Ask more questions. I asked a number of questions of staff prior to this evening and I thank staff for giving me answers to those questions. But I'm going to go back, just conclude very quickly here. I'm going to go back to my comments in December when I also looked at this very closely and I essentially said that from my perspective I felt that the north parcel, Parcel A needed to be preserved. Clearly it's going to be preserved and protected. I felt that the density was too high and I fell that the density, and I've looked at my verbatim minutes so I knew exactly what I said, but I felt that a density in the 128 or slightly higher would be acceptable, though I was not inclined to approve the project the way it was. And the traffic was a concern to me. It's still a concern to me but I can't fault the traffic study. I can appreciate that the citizens think that March 7'" may not be a predictable time. I don't know that any individual day is a predictable time but the traffic study, coupled with the information that they've been provided by the County and the matrix that they used, they're professionals in this. I would say as I mentioned earlier, the traffic study is important right now but I think it's also important that we do a traffic study after the unit is in place, if in fact it is built and to determine whether or not the predictions, which our meteorologist, excuse me, our traffic study guy, Brandon conveyed so from my standpoint what the developer, Mr. Tucci has done, I think it will be an attractive building. It's not going to be an eye sore. I believe that they will take steps to make the property marketable with appropriate sound dampening through landscaping so I believe Oppidan is going to develop a project that we as a community can be proud of and will bring people into this community that the community needs to have in the community. So as I said in December, the predication of my approval would be based on change of the density, protecting the north parcel and a comprehensive traffic study so Mr. Mayor, I like this project. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Other comments. Councilwoman Ernst. Councilwoman Ernst: First of all I want to thank all the residents who have taken the time to write entails. I got hundreds of entails. Thank you and attended meetings regarding this project. There have been a number of concerns that have been raised by all of you and I feel for the most part they've been addressed. The traffic and the safety issues, the study shows that the increased traffic generated from this project is very well within reason. In looking out to 2033, staff is working with MnDOT to modify existing signals to include flashing yellow lights which the developer is paying half. They moved access points further away and moved the development approximately about, I think it's 400 feet at the nearest residential location. Another issue was the noise. There's going to be landscaping. There's going to be trees planted to serve as buffers. hi addition most of the trees are going to be saved. Power lines was not mentioned this meeting which kind of surprises me because it was mentioned clearly in the meeting in December. So those were mentioned as being too close to the units and the complex structure has now been moved further away. The number of units being proposed for the density is too high. That was another issue. The developed reduced the number of units by 31% or 69 units. The project and it's requirements compared to our Comprehensive Plan was raised by just about everyone in this room. Our Comprehensive Plan is a guide and we know that within that period demographics change. The economy changes. Obviously things do change. In addition quoting verbatim from the documentation provided to us it is in our 2030 Comprehensive Plan that the request for a PUD plan allows the applicant to seek relief from the standards of the conventional zoning districts rather than asking for a variance. As we strategize and we think about the future of Chanhassen, we need to think about the new norm that was presented to us, the City Council a couple weeks ago, and this project fits that strategy. Seniors and young couples and/or individuals are moving into apartments. I previously did not support this project because I felt it Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 needed more work and this was in order to address the residents concerns as I mentioned previously. I believe with the work of the developer and staff, including the residents involvement, which I appreciate, all issues have been addressed and I applaud everyone involved and I will support this project. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. CouncilwomanTjomhom Councilwoman Tjomhom: Thank you. I'm going to be brief also. I'm going to be supporting this project but I also feel like I want to be supporting the residents also when it comes to traffic because I actually believe you. I've spoken to a couple people that live in Vasserman Ridge and I've heard how, you know while there probably aren't accidents on a regular basis, there are near misses all the time and I don't think that we solved this project tonight obviously, and I'm not sure what the answer is to really solve it. Stop signs. The study says that they're not warranted. A round about is something I would like to think about. That would really solve that U turn problem and some other speed issues but that I guess is not why we're here tonight to decide on the best way to resolve this ongoing issue and I believe in the years to come and more development arises it's going to be a bigger problem so I really do feel you have a legitimate issue and a concern and I'm hoping that, as Mr. Laufenburger said that this situation can be reviewed again in the future to see if counts have changed or if situations have arisen where it really needs to be addressed. I think the developer was given, he was given some insight by the council of what we expected in our town and I think the council spoke to him and said we didn't want that many units and he came back with a respectable plan. I think that it's healthy in our community to have different types of housing for everybody and I think this is going to be one of those projects where the building seems to be set back enough from the other houses or the residential houses. I'm a little concerned about the one access in and out but I guess we'll see how that works but I want to thank the developer for coming back with a plan that I can support and I know right now tonight, while it's snowing and it's late and we're tired and we're all thinking this is going to be a bad thing for our community, I think we'll find out that it really is an asset and I think that it will be something that we can be proud of so I will be supporting it also. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman McDonald, thoughts. Councilman McDonald: Well I too have talked to a number of residents and I want to thank you for the conversations. They were quite civil and we were able to discuss some issues and I tried to raise some of those issues tonight. I'm not sure that I completely succeeded in getting the answers everyone wanted but I did try to raise the answers. There are concerns about traffic. I guess I wouldn't, and I'm not sure if Mr. Laufenburger wants to make it part of the plan. I couldn't support a requirement that there be a traffic study and the developer pay for it. I can support that there needs to be additional work in that area and I think that's what city staff is tasked to do anyway. I see that as part of their job. Anytime there is an area within the city that has been identified as potential problems, I think they need to look at it and sometimes you do have to look at it more than once so I would expect that the City will, you know now that everyone's been put on notice about this comer, you will continue to watch and monitor this area and if there is a solution that would work, I would hope you would bring it up before the council so I do expect to continue to be updated on this intersection but again after tonight I think we've tasked the developer for everything he needs to do and he's completed his job but that doesn't mean the City's done. I too have gone back and forth. I know how everyone feels about this and again sometimes I get a little short in my opinions about things but I do live here too and I do have some of the same concerns you have. I just live in a different part of town. Different problems but the thing you have to look at is what's best for the overall community and I've also heard a number of stories that again, Chanhassen doesn't have this kind of housing available and there are some quality people that don't come to this town because of that. I think they could add to the community. There are things that they could contribute that would benefit all of us so again this is not, this is not a high rise or this is not a development where I think we're looking at you know below market rates or anything such as that. This is something that's meant for young 61 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 professionals, which is what we're trying to attract to this community anyway. So I think with all that having been said, I too wanted to make sure that the north part of this was protected. It is, a lot was said about that and the previous developments and everything but one of the reasons that that was brought in was we couldn't stop it. We didn't like it. The guy could have brought more units in and you know he could have fit something in there but it was a compromise. Again the City was trying to get something on the south side. That particular developer probably didn't really want to develop the south side. He probably had something else in mind but yeah, I didn't want to see that developed either and right now it's not. A lot of concerns before about lights and those things. I think by moving the entrance we've solved most of those problems and I guess you know based upon that, there is no perfect development that comes into this city. There's problems with all of them but again we can't just bar people from coming into the community. We're trying to grow the community. We are trying to you know make this again a community for life and a lot of concerns that people have hit me with is why aren't there certain businesses in this town. Well they tell us there aren't enough people. There aren't the right demographics. I can't have a successful business because I need a certain you know class of people. One of our jobs here is to try to make sure that we do have a community that could bring in all types of businesses. I mean we're trying to make sure that the residents of this community have available to them the conveniences they want. So I guess with that and with the issues that I've brought up and the fact that the traffic is not going to go away. You have our word about that. That will be a continuing issue that we're going to be looking at. I could support the development also. Mayor Furlong: Ahight, thank you. Lots of issues that have been raised, and thank you to all who spoke this evening and at the Planning Commission meeting and earlier council meeting as well back in December and Planning Commission then. The emails. The phone calls. We appreciate that. I think one of the fast questions that has come up a few times tonight, and comes up anytime a council or Planning Commission considers this type of development is the land use. Since it isn't consistent with the guiding, is there justification to look at changing the land use. The Comprehensive Plan is just that. It's a plan. It's not set in concrete but clearly to move away from it is something that takes significant amount of thought and consideration. None of us approach this project this evening or over the, I know the Planning Commissioners did not in their two meetings and neither did any of us on a whim or in an arbitrary manner. Really the Comprehensive Plan is just that. It's a plan but it tries to provide a balance in my mind between the rights of the property owner to improve their property and the rights of the public and make sure that we have similar types of uses together. But I think we have to always be careful when we look at the Comprehensive Plan and say there can be no changes, no deviation. I've certainly supported, well I've certainly opposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan as I've sat here at different times. I have supported some changes as well and so there is some discretion. There is some thought that goes behind it. That's part of our legislative policy making as a council. One of our biggest ones along with our annual budgets and prioritizing spending, Comprehensive Plan development is part of the legislative process and again having been involved a number of times, both in terms of the establishment of the current plan as well as request to change from that plan, I can certainly insure everybody here that we don't approach that lightly. With that, so the question is here, can we try to accommodate what the property owner is looking for? Having been involved in some of the prior versions of this property in particular, I know that there were requests by the property owner the staff didn't necessarily like but the council tried to accommodate the property owner. We try to do that as much as we can across the city. As a property owner, as all of us being property owners I think that's good for a council to try to accommodate and support what a property owner wants to do with their property. I received one email that suggested that unless there's public benefit development shouldn't occur. I think that's a little backwards. Development should occur, you know property owners have the right to develop the property for their personal benefit first and foremost. That's part of property rights to develop that. Now can they do that without undue burden and cost on other people? That's where the council comes in and that's where the legislative process comes in to try to find that balance. Not everybody will agree. We had a gentleman saying you know height was an issue. Density was an issue. A number of people talked about 62 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 that. Some may be okay with what's there. Some are not. That's going to be a change. I think in terms of type of use, residential use, residential use and surrounded by residential areas makes some sense. The density is an issue and I understand that but as was mentioned earlier, one of the things we try to do in preparing the plan, the Comprehensive Plan is look for different types of housing choices. To provide housing choices. Provide different types of choices. Ownership versus rental. Different price points and this will fill part of that need for the people who live there. When we look at the surrounding neighborhoods to the north and south, east and west, there are residential properties all around. Different types of density though. Some low density. Some medium density. This just happens to be higher density. I think there are some advantages to this development in terms of preserving the northern parcel from development, as we talked about earlier and I think hopefully Mr. Knutson or Ms. Aanenson we've got some language there of what we talked about earlier when we get to the point of a motion that we can do that. I agree with the comments that were made earlier that the traffic issues are not going to go away. Again I think different people are viewing what exists there today at different levels. I do tend, I drive Galpin quite frequently. Not on a daily basis but multiple times every week. I know my family does as well and so I am familiar with that intersection at West 78'h and Galpin. Over the last several months since this development first, proposal first came through in November -December timeframe I've tried to make a point of driving that intersection, east and west along West 78'". I'll cut off at Century and drive it rather than going up 5 to Galpin if I'm coming from the west or instead of going up Powers on my way home I'll come back all the way to Galpin and drive up Galpin to get there so I've tried to make a point. Every single time I drive there, there's different flows of traffic and I understand that but I'm not seeing everything that people are seeing and expressing so that doesn't mean that it's not there but I think that's something that we have to as a city keep monitoring, and I can't just go off my personal observation. Certainly I'm relying on the traffic study and that was an important piece I think for this council that wasn't available to us or to any of the residents when we fast talked about this in December so traffic is something we're going to have to look at there and see how that how, and that includes pedestrian traffic and bike traffic that was raised. I think we have to look at that and see what the options are but in my opinion I don't think this development in itself will significantly alter the traffic flow in that area. If it's bad now, then it will be bad. Does that mean that we shouldn't go forward? I think the question gets back to whether it's bad or not and that's the difference of opinion for many people. I think overall it's a good development. Improvements have been made and I think that it is worth while supporting. It's not exactly what was in the Comprehensive Plan that was approved in 2008 but I think it's a reasonable request and the property owners have changed and I think they've made reasonable accommodations to try to fit within that, finding that right balance so I also will support the plan this evening and look forward to the development. Mr. Knutson, do you have some language or some replacement language for that one condition? Roger Knutson: Let me grab it. Mayor Furlong: I just want to make sure we have the right language. Roger Knutson: I would suggest the easiest place to put it is in the ordinance itself. You could put, amend section 9 to say, this ordinance shall be effective upon the recording of a conservation easement satisfactory to the City over Parcel A. Mayor Furlong: And so you want to say conservation easement or is that? Roger Knutson: That's broad enough. Mayor Furlong: That doesn't put us into a. Roger Knutson: We're not going to use the statute. 63 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 Kate Aanenson: Okay, we're not going to use the definition we created? Roger Knutson: Yes, but that's different. Kate Aanenson: Okay. I couldn't hear what you were saying on that. Can you repeat that? What condition were you amending? Roger Knutson: I'm amending the effective date. Section 9. Todd Gerhardt: It's in your handout Kate. Kate Aanenson: Got it. Okay, got it. Roger Knutson: You've got to record an easement, conservation easement before this ordinance is effective. Kate Aanenson: Okay. Okay. Got it. Roger Knutson: This document. Mayor Furlong: Oh Roger, oh okay. I'm sorry. Mr. Laufenburger, would you like to make a motion? Councilman Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Mayor, I will. I'll make this in the form of 3 motions Kate, alright? Kate Aanenson: Yep. Councilman Laufenburger: First of all I move that the City Council approve rezoning of approximately 14 acres from Agricultural Estate (A2) to Planned Unit Development Residential (PUD-R) subject to the conditions in the staff report and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact. Secondly, I move that the City Council approve a site plan for a 155 unit apartment building with a variance for parking subject to the conditions in the staff report and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact. Thirdly, I move that the City Council approve an amendment to the City Code rezoning site plan, with variances, and a land use map amendment for the Chanhassen Apartments subject to the conditions in the staff report and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation with a modification to Section 9 as follows: This ordinance shall be effective upon a conservation easement being placed on Parcel A. Roger Knutson: Satisfactory. Councilman Laufenburger- Satisfactory placement of a conservation easement on Parcel. Roger Knutson: Can I suggestion, the ordinance shall be effective upon the recording of a conservation easement on Parcel A satisfactory to the City. Kate Aanenson: Got it. Councilman Laufenburger: What he said Mayor Furlong: What he said? G.1 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 Councilman Laufenburger: Because that's not what he wrote. Roger Knutson: No. This is version 2. Councilman Laufenburger. Okay. Alright, well I have version 1. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. The motion's been made. We'll consider those in a single motion if that's without objection. Hearing no objections, is there a second? Councilman McDonald: So moved. Mayor Furlong: Motion's been made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, let's proceed with the vote. Resolution #2013-27: Councilman Laufenburger moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the Chanhassen City Council approve a Land Use Map Amendment from Residential -Low Density and Office, to Residential -Low and High Density and Office and Residential -High Density Planned Unit Development (PUD) subject to the following condition: 1. Approval of the Land Use Amendment subject to the Metropolitan Council determination of consistency with system plan. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Councilman Laufenburger moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the Chanhassen City Council approve Rezoning of approximately 14 acres from Agricultural Estate (A-2) to Planned Unit Development -Residential (PUD-R) subject to the following condition and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation: 1. Adoption of the Chanhassen PUD Ordinance, which shall be created to govern the site and design standards. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Councilman Laufenburger moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the Chanhassen City Council approve a Site Plan for a 155-unit Apartment Building with a Variance for parking subject to the following conditions; change to Section 9 of the ordinance to read as follows: The ordinance shall be effective upon the recording of a conservation easement on Parcel A satisfactory to the City; and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation: 1. Approval of the Land Use Amendment subject the Metropolitan Council determination of consistency with system plan. 2. Adoption of the Chanhassen PUD Ordinance, which shall be created to govern the site and design standards. 3. Execution of the Site Plan Permit. 65 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 4. Payment of $294,500 park and trail fee and $116,500 stormwater fee prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. Parcel A shall be dedicated to the City, or have a conservation easement placed on it, for management consistent with the Bluff Creek Management Plan, the Bluff Creek TMDL and the 2" Generation Surface Water Management Plan. 6. The applicant and the City should work together to develop an appropriate mitigation scenario. 7. Any portion of the wetland presumed to be impacted under an altemate development scenario, which would require the use of Parcel A and is subsequently transferred to Parcel B for density calculations, be mitigated for at a 1:1 ratio. This mitigation should occur within the Bluff Creek Overlay District but does need to be in the form of wetland. The developer must calculate the net developable acres of the site and wetland acreage. 8. The wetland delineation report shall be finalized. 9. All existing trees proposed to be saved must be protected with fencing during construction or replaced after construction if damaged or dead. 10. The selections of Colorado spruce must be replaced by a different evergreen species in the plant schedule. 11. Before final approval for the project, the applicant will need to determine future management plans for the existing ash trees. If preserved, the applicant will be required to chemically protect or, if infested, remove and replace the trees. If the applicant decides to remove and replace the trees at this time, a revised landscape plan will be required. 12. Staff recommends that the curb radius at the driveway access be increased to facilitate the tuming movements of larger vehicles. 13. Appropriate signage must be installed 10 days prior to and for the duration of the work within West 78th Street. 14. The developer must coordinate the closure of West 78th Street with the Engineering Department minimum 72 hours prior to the closure. 15. A $10,000 escrow must be provided to ensure that West 78th Street is properly restored. Once the street has been restored to satisfactory condition, 50% of the escrow will be released; the remaining 50% will be released if the patch is in satisfactory condition after one freeze -thaw cycle. 16. Minimum 18-inch vertical separation is required between the private watermain and the private storm sewer crossing. Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 17. The developer shall submit $5,000 with the site plan agreement to cover half of the cost of the signal modification at TH 5 and Galpin Boulevard to accommodate a flashing yellow passive -permissive signal. 18. The developer shall pay one-half the cost of the traffic study. 19. City trunk sanitary sewer hookup fees (City SAC), City trunk watermain hookup fees (City WAC) and the Met Council Sanitary Access Charge (Met SAC) are due with the building permit at the rate in effect at that time and shall be based on the SAC unit determination per the Met Council. 20. A "General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity Under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination" will be required for this project. Proof of permission from the PCA must be provided to the City before grading can commence. 21. A Surface Water Management Plan is required and shall be submitted to the City for review and comment. This plan shall incorporate the required elements of Parts III, IV and Appendix A of the NPDES permit. 22. Both the Bluff Creek Total Maximum Daily Load Implementation Plan and the NPDES Permit require that a portion of the Water Quality Volume is infiltrated on -site. The Stormwater Management Study shall be modified to address this requirement and incorporated into the SWPPP. 23. Because the site discharges to an impaired water, the discharge rates for the one-year design event must also be equal to or less than the existing discharge rates. The Stormwater Management Study shall be modified to address this requirement and shall be incorporated into the SWPPP. 24. In order to protect Bluff Creek, meet the goals of the Bluff Creek Natural Resources Management Plan and the Bluff Creek TMDL Implementation Plan, staff is recommending that the portion of the property north of West 78`" Street be preserved through an easement to the City and that this density should be transferred to that portion south of West 78"' Street. 25. Sheet C-3 GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN shall be amended to include the following: a. The swale draining into the proposed pond shall be stabilized for its entirety as it is less than 200 feet in length. b. An appropriate perimeter BMP shall be shown and installed around the proposed outlet modification for the southern wetland. c. Silt fence or another acceptable BMP shall be installed on the north end of the culvert under West 78`b Street. M. Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 d. The EOF from the pond to the wetland shall be permanently stabilized. This is addressed in the Drainage Report but is not included in the Grading and Erosion Plan. A turf reinforcement mat is an acceptable practice as is called out in the drainage report. 26. Minnesota Department of Transportation will need to review and approve the drainage plan. 27. The applicant shall revise the plans to incorporate sidewalk connections to existing trails. 28. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. A "Code Record" is required (Code Record schematic plans may be same scale as architectural). For "Code Record" information go to MN Dept. of Labor and Industry: http://www.dli.mn.gov/CCLD/PlanConstruction.asy 29. The building(s) must be protected with automatic fire sprinkler systems. 30. An accessible route must be provided to buildings, parking facilities, public transportation stops and all common use facilities. 31. All parking areas, including parking garages, must be provided with accessible parking spaces dispersed among the various building entrances. 32. Accessible dwelling units must be provided in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. 33. The building owner and/or their representatives should meet with the Inspections Division to discuss plan review and permit procedures (in particular, type of construction and allowable area issues must be addressed). 34. Due to the large size of this building, class III Fire Dept, standpipes will be required. Have developer contact Fire Marshal for exact locations. MSFC Sec. 905.3.9. 35. " No Parking Fire Lane " signs will be required. Have developer contact Fire Marshal for exact locations. MSFD Sec. 505.31 36. An additional on site fire hydrant will be required. Contact Fire Marshal for location. 37. A PIV ( post indicator valve ) will be required. 38. A three-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. MSFC Sec 508.5.4." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Thank you everybody for your involvement in this process. We appreciate it. Let's, looking at the hour, I know everybody wants to get home but let's take a quick break. We have one more item before us tonight so. m CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone:952.227.1100 Fax:952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone:952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone:952.227.1140 Fax:952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax:952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone:952.227.1400 Fax:952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 7901 Park Place Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax:952,227.1310 Senior Center Phone:952.227.1125 Fax:952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Community Development Director DATE: April 22, 2013 SUBJ: Approval of City Code Amendment, Rezoning, Site Plan with Variances and a Land Use Map Amendment for Cha@ihassen Apartments Planning Case #2013-07 PROPOSED MOTION "The Chanhassen City Council approves an Amendment to the City Code, Rezoning, Site Plan with Variances, and a Land Use Map Amendment for the Chanhassen Apartments subject to the conditions in the staff report and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation." City Council approval requires a majority vote of City Council present. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a 155-unit apartment building. In December of 2012 the City Council made the following comments on the Concept PUD for the Chanhassen Apartments: • number of units was too high • need to address traffic and pedestrian safety • environmental protection • density transfer Based on the comments from the conceptual PUD review the applicant has made changes to the project including the number of units. To approve this project a land use amendment to high density residential, site plan with a parking variance and rezoning to PUD is required. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 16, 2013 to review the proposed development. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the project. The April 16, 2013 Planning Commission meeting minutes are item la of the April 22, 2013 City Council packet. Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow SCANNED Todd Gerhardt Chanhassen Apartments — Planning Case 2013-07 April 22, 2013 Page 2 Comments made at the public hearing included: • Traffic and safe pedestrian crossing • The number of U-turns needs to be addressed • Don't change the land use, the city should wait until the next comprehensive plan update • The number of units being proposed for the density transfer is too high • A number of questions focused on the methodology of the traffic study RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of an Amendment to the City Code defining a conservation area, Rezoning of approximately 14 acres from Agricultural Estate (A-2) to Planned Unit Development -Residential (PUD-R); approval of a Site Plan Review for a 155-unit Apartment Building with Variances to reduce interior parking by one stall; approval of a Land Use Map Amendment from Residential -Low Density and Office, to Residential -Low and High Density and Office and Residential -High Density Planned Unit Development (PUD); and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Report Dated April 16, 2013. 2. Email from Lynn/Velma Wilder dated April 12, 2013. 3. Highway 5 Accidents Summary, g:\pIw\2013 planning cases\2013-07 chanhassen aparunents\executive sum ary.dm CITY OF CHANHASSEN PROPOSED MOTION: PC DATE: April 16, 2013 ❑ CC DATE: April 22, 2013 REVIEW DEADLINE: May 14, 2013 CASE #: 2013-07 BY: KA "The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approves Rezoning approximately 14 acres from Agricultural Estate (A-2) to Planned Unit Development -Residential (PUD-R); Site Plan Review with Variances for a 155-unit Apartment Building; and a Land Use Map Amendment from Residential -Low Density and Office, to Residential -Low and High Density and Office and Residential -High Density Planned Unit Development (PUD), on property located at the northwest comer of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard — Chanhassen Apartments; and Adoption of the Attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation." PROPOSAL: 1. Rezoning of approximately 14 acres from Agricultural Estate (A-2) to Planned Unit 0 Development -Residential (PUD-R); 2. Site Plan Review for a 155-unit Apartment Building; with 3. Variances to reduce interior parking by one stall; and 4. Land Use Map Amendment from Residential -Low Density and Office, to Residential -Low and High Density and Office and Residential -High Density Planned Unit Development (PUD) on property located at the northwest comer of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard — Chanhassen Apartments. LOCATION: Northwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard (7750 Galpin Boulevard). PID 25-0101800 & PID 25-0101810 APPLICANT: Oppidan, Inc. 5125 CR 101, Suite 100 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Paul Tucci 952-294-1234 paul(&ppidan.com ZONING: A2 Agricultural Estate District Americana Community Bank 600 Market Street, Suite 100 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Jim Swiontek 952-937-9596 iimsigamericanfinancial.com 2030 LAND USE PLAN: Office on the southern parcel; Residential Low Density (1.2-4 units/acre) on the northern parcel. ACREAGE: Approximately 14 acres LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION MAKING: The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving or denying a rezoning because the City is acting in its legislative or policy -making capacity. A PUD must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 2 of 31 The City's discretion in approving or denying a site plan is limited to whether or not the proposed project complies with Zoning Ordinance requirements. If it meets these standards, the City must then approve the site plan. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a 155-unit apartment building. Additionally, the applicant is proposing the transfer of the development from the northern parcel to the southern parcel with the northern parcel then becoming permanent open space. The site is currently zoned Agricultural Estate (A2). With the adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan in 2008, the City Council guided the southern parcel to office. The request for a Planned Unit Development plan allows the applicant to seek relief from the standards of the conventional zoning districts by creating a unique zoning district rather than asking for variances. Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the city has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more -sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the other, more standard zoning districts. It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be realized as evaluated against nine criteria. BACKGROUND In December of 2012 the City Council made the following comments on the Concept PUD for the Chanhassen Apartments: • number of units was too high • need to address traffic and pedestrian safety • environmental protection • density transfer The applicant has made the following changes to the Site Plan: The number of units has been reduced by 69 to a new proposed total of 155 units (a reduction of 31 %). Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 3 of 31 • The building has been relocated farther to the northeast portion of the lot and is approximately 400 feet from the nearest home at Vasserman Ridge and 600 feet from the nearest home on the northeast side of the site. • The site has been modified to include only one access point. The access point was moved farther west in an attempt to allow for additional stacking at the intersection if required in the future. The internal circulation still allows for garage entrances on both ends of the building. • The building elevation has remained similar to the elevation presented at the Concept Stage. • The main material of the building is a cement board siding. The accents include glass, CMU, brick and stone. The upper level units are designed to incorporate balconies for the units with atypical rail and maintenance -free materials for the flooring. • The building remains designed with a three-story footprint and a gabled roof. The midpoint of the gabled roof is at 37' 7" (approximately) with the peak areas at approximately 46 feet. They have made a request for the PUD Design Standards permitting this building height. The 2008 Comprehensive Plan update changed the land use guiding the southern eight acres of property to Office. In May of 2006, the Chanhassen City Council approved the concept planned unit development for a10-unit twinhome development on the north side of West 78t' Street, and a two-story office building development including a bank with drive-thru facilities with approximately 66,000 square feet of floor area on the south side of West 78s' Street. On October 13, 2003, the Chanhassen City Council approved the Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) review for development of a recreational center or office on the eight (8) acres south of West 78s' Street. The land north of West 786' Street, which was proposed for townhouse development, was not approved as part of the concept planned unit development. In 2000 and 2001, West 78 h Street was constructed through the property, bisecting it into six and eight -acre parcels. Additionally, the city extended sanitary sewer for the BC-7 and BC-8 sanitary sewer subdistricts across the northern portion of the property. APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Chapter 20: Article II, Division 3, Variances Article II, Division 6, Site Plan Review Article VI, Wetland Protection Article VIII, Planned Unit Development District, Article XXIII, Division 9, Design Standards for Multifamily Developments Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 4 of 31 EXISTING CONDITIONS The subject site is located adjacent to Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard. There are two parcels: the northern parcel is six acres and the southern parcel is eight acres. Bluff Creek runs along the northern property line of the six -acre parcel and a portion of this parcel is in the Bluff Creek Overlay District. Access is gained via West 780' Street. The property to the east is zoned PUD and guided commercial and includes a gas station and pharmacy. The property to the north is guided Residential Low Density. It includes a farm and could be subdivided or developed in the future. The property to the west is zoned R4 Mixed Low Density Residential District including twin and single-family homes. South of the site across Highway 5 is Autumn Ridge, a townhouse development. Bluff Creek Elementary School is southeast of the site across Highway 5. The project proposes 155 units including 104 one -bedroom and 51 two -bedroom units. Building materials are cement board and brick. The building is three stories with underground parking. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The city has a lot of discretion in amending the comprehensive plan. The site currently has a low -density residential as well as office designation. The intent of the office/institutional district is to provide for public or quasi -public non-profit uses and professional businesses and administrative offices. The following elements of the comprehensive plan discuss land use policies that should be evaluated in changing the land use. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 5 of 31 Chapter 2 Land Use Element 2.5.4 Residential High Density The high density category includes units with a density range of 8-16 units per acre accommodating apartments and condominium units. Within this category, an average density of 10 units per acre is used for land use projections. The zoning options in the high density land uses include R-8 (Mixed Median Density), R-12 and R-16 (High Density Residential), and PUD-R (Planned United Development -Residential). High density is located on major transportation corridors that include transit, commercial centers and employment centers. Density Calculation Gross Net Units/Acre Permitted No of Proposed No. of Acres Acres Units Units Parcel A 6.097 3.334 16 53 32 Parcel B 7.868 7.713 16 123 123 Total 14 11 176 155 Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 6 of 31 2.10 Office Land Use The amount of Office Land use has increased since the last comprehensive plan was completed. In addition, the City has identified other property for this land use. In the 2020 Comprehensive Plan, less than 1% of the City was guided Office. This has increased to 2.3% in the 2030 plan. With the increase in the number of dwelling units, the City has seen an increase in the number of "office" uses including medical uses and corporate headquarters. The City has given a dual land use designation for the 160 acres at the southeast corner of Powers and Lyman Boulevards. Should a lifestyle center not be feasible, then an office development or corporate headquarters site would be appropriate. The zoning district for the land is OI (Office Institutional District) or Planned Unit Development. Chanter 4 Housing Element In March of 2007, Maxfield Research Inc. completed a Comprehensive Housing Needs Assessment for Carver County Community Development agency for the years 2005-2015 and 2015-2030. A significant portion of the data comes from this study as well as from the U.S. Census, Metropolitan Council and the City of Chanhassen. 4.2 Housing Element • Communities in eastern Carver County will see a greater percentage of seniors, young adults, and older adults. These increases will be due to the aging of the existing population, young adults and adults seeking rental housing near employment centers, and older adults with greater means purchasing more expensive housing. Chanter 7 Transportation 7.6. S Major Collectors Major collectors are designed to serve shorter trips that occur entirely within the city and to provide access from neighbor hoods to the arterial system. These roads supplement the arterial system in the sense that they emphasize mobility over land access, but they are expected, because of their locations, to carry less traffic than arterial roads. The following roadways are classified as Major Collectors in Chanhassen: West 78th Street: This east/west route connects TH 41 to TH 101. It parallels TH 5 and provides local access to the properties adjacent to TH 5. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 7 of 31 Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 4.6 Housing Goals and Policies Goals: Provide housing opportunities for all residents, consistent with the identified community goals: • A variety of housing types for all people in all stages of the life cycle. • A community of well -maintained housing and neighborhoods, including ownership and rental housing. • Housing development that respects the natural environment of the community while striving to accommodate the need for a variety of housing types and costs. • The availability of a full range of services and facilities for its residents, and the improvement of access to a linkage between housing and employment. • Housing development methods such as PUD's, cluster development, and innovative site plans and building types should be encouraged to help conserve energy and resources for housing. • While density is given by a range in the comprehensive plan, the City shall encourage development at the upper end of the density range. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 8 of 31 SITE PLAN REVIEW B _. _. 13' The structure is proposed to be located on the northwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard. The building has a pronounced entrance, utilizes durable exterior materials, and exhibits articulation. The building maintains all required setbacks. LIGHTING/SIGNAGE Lighting The applicant prepared a lighting plan and includes photometrics. The plan meets city ordinance which requires that light levels for site lighting shall be no more than one-half foot candle at the project perimeter property line. The applicant has not submitted a light fixture design. City ordinances require that light be cut off at a 90-degree angle. The plan is consistent with the city code requiring all fixtures be shielded. Decorative fixtures a maximum of 25 feet tall shall be required. Signage One monument sign is proposed to be located along West 78 h Street. The sign shall be limited in size to 24 square feet, maximum of 5 feet high, set back a minimum of 10 feet from the Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 9 of 31 property line, and outside of sight lines. The sign must comply with the sign ordinance. The letters shall be backlit and use individual dimension letters at least one-half inch deep. The sign materials shall be compatible with the building. The applicant must apply for a sign permit. Parkine The ordinance requires one covered parking space for each unit resulting in 155 spaces in the parking garage; however, only 154 are provided. A parking variance is required for a one -stall reduction in covered parking. An additional 110 surface spaces are required and provided. The site can accommodate an additional 39 surface parking spaces, which are shown in the proof of parking. VARIANCE Sec. 20-58. - General conditions for granting. A variance may be granted if all of the following criteria are met: (1) Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding. The project could meet the parking standards by incorporating compact parking. This project does meet the city's requirements for the use of compact parking; however, staff believes the use of standardparking stalls is preferred. (2) When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding. Because the recycling and the trash facilities for this project are located in the garage level, they are one stall short one of the required parking standard. The project is enhanced by having the trash and recycling incorporated in the building. (3) That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding. The developer could meet the standard, but would give up desired site enhancements. (4) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding. The reason for the request is to permit the trash and recycling inside the building. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 10 of 31 (5) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: Because there will be outdoor surface parking it should not alter the character of the area. (6) Variances shall be granted for earth -sheltered construction> as defined in M.S. 216C.06, subd. 14, when in harmony with this chapter. Finding: Not applicable. ARCHITECTURAL COMPLIANCE Design Standards for Multifamily Developments Article XXIII Sec. 20-1088. - Architectural style. (1) Architectural style shall not be restricted. Evaluation of the appearance of a project shall be based on the quality of its design and in relationship to its surroundings, guided by the provisions of this section. Site characteristics to be evaluated for this purpose include building and landscaping, colors, textures, shapes, massing of rhythms of building components and detail, height of roof line, setback and orientation. Designs that are incompatible with their surroundings or intentionally bizarre or exotic are not acceptable. (2) Monotony of design, both within projects and between adjacent projects and its surroundings, is prohibited. Variation in detail, form, and siting shall provide visual interest. Site characteristics that may be used for this purpose include building and landscaping, colors, textures, shapes, massing of rhythms of building components and detail, height of roof line, setback and orientation. (3) All building shall have a minimum of 20 percent of accent material. Accent material may include brick, stone cut face block or shakes. The use of any EFIS shall not be on the first story of any building or one story in height. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 11 of 31 Sec. 20-1089. - Land use. All development shall create a unified design of internal order that provides desirable environments for site uses, visitors and the community. The following design elements shall be incorporated into a project: (1) The project shall create a unique neighborhood identity. (2) Creation of interconnecting neighborhoods in collaboration with adjoining landowners (street, walkways, preservation of natural features, parks and gathering places). (3) Each neighborhood has a focal point or gathering place including parks, greens, squares, entrance monuments, historic structures (silos/bams) or public furniture (gazebos, benches, pergolas). (4) Recreation facilities (playgrounds, tot lots, swimming pools and gardens). (5) Diversity of product type and design to accommodate different age groups and individuals in different socio-economic circumstances. (6) Broad variety of housing choices —twin homes, row houses, town homes, flats above garages, apartments over shops, garden apartments, senior living opportunities and condominiums. See. 20-1090. - Curb appeal. To encourage roadway image or curb appeal projects shall create a variety of building orientation along the roadways; attractive streetscape and architectural detail. All projects shall incorporate two or more of the following design elements: (1) Orientation to the street or access road: (a) Setbacks (b) Spacing between buildings and view sheds. (2) Architectural detail/decorative features. (a) Windows. (b) Flower boxes. (c) Porches, balconies, private spaces. (d) Location and treatment of entryway. (e) Surface materials, finish and texture. (f) Roof pitch. (g) Building height and orientation. (3) Location of garages. (4) Landscaping including fencing and berming. (5) Street lighting. (6) Screening of parking, especially in apartment and condominium developments. (7) Variations/differentiations in units including, but not limited to, color, material, articulation etc. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 12 of 31 Sec. 20-1091. - Transportation diversity. All developments shall be incorporate multi -modal transportation including two or more of the following elements: (1) Streets with trails incorporated. (2) Off road trials and bike paths. (3) Provisions for mass transit with bus stops and shelters incorporated into the developments. (4) Sidewalk connecting internal developments. (a) Undulating sidewalks. Use of pavers or stamped concrete. (b) On -street parking and use of roundabouts. (c) Landscaped boulevards or medians. Sec. 20-1092. - Integration of parks, open space, natural historic or cultural resources. (1) Integrate nature and wildlife with urban environment. (a) Trails and sidewalks. (b) Vistas. (c) Historic features. (d) Preservation of natural features that support wildlife and native plants (slopes, trees, wetlands). Architectural Compliance Findines The buildings are highly articulated and have a mixture of details in the use of materials and color. The buildings are connected to the neighboring properties through sidewalks. The internal orientation faces Bluff Creek and the preserved parcel to the north. The apartments have an indoor community room as well as a fitness center. There is an outdoor gazebo as well as an outdoor lav area. a v F� 11 ry X. xo . D Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 13 of 31 The building height permitted in the R-16 District is 35 feet, measured at the midpoint of the roof. The proposed building is 37.5 feet, measured at the midpoint of the roof. A flat roof could be utilized to meet ordinance. Staff believes a pitched roof has a more -residential character and enhances the architecture and recommend the PUD Ordinance permit a 38-foot building height. Streets and Traffic The site is located south of West 78th Street (a city collector street), west of Galpin Boulevard (a county road) and north of Trunk Highway 5 (a state highway). The existing street widths and right-of-way widths are adequate. Proposed access to the site is from West 78th Street, approximately 430 feet east of Vasserman Trail and approximately 550 feet west of Galpin Boulevard. The proposed access meets the minimum requirements. The sight distance at this location is acceptable. Staff recommends that the curb radius at the driveway access be increased to facilitate the turning movements of larger vehicles. At the public hearing for the concept plan, residents raised concerns about traffic impacts. The City's consultant has prepared a traffic study to identify potential impacts associated with the proposed development immediately after project build -out (2013) and in year 2033. The study findings are summarized below: Traffic Volume • It is estimated that the proposed 155-unit apartment building will generate an additional 1,031 trips per day. • The estimated increase in morning peak traffic is 16 vehicles in and 63 vehicles out. • The afternoon peak traffic is estimated to increase by 62 vehicles in and 34 vehicles out. • Delays are not expected on West 78th Street at Galpin Boulevard or at the apartment building intersection. • Delay at the Galpin Boulevard/Highway 5 intersection is forecasted to increase by 10 seconds but will remain within the acceptable range. • Turn lanes to/from the apartment building are not warranted. Galpin Boulevard/West 78th Street Intersection • Between 2010 and 2012 there were four, zero and two accidents, respectively. There were no injuries resulting from any of the accidents. Based on the accident history a four-way stop is not warranted. The existing and projected traffic volumes do not wan -ant a four-way stop. U-turn movements (northbound to southbound) on Galpin Boulevard at West 78th Street were analyzed. Improvements based on this turning movement are not warranted. Flashing yellow passive -permissive signals have been installed at various locations throughout the metro; this is a flashing yellow left turn arrow to allow left turn lanes to proceed with caution at specific times during the day. Staff will work with NfnDOT and Carver County to have the existing signals at TH 5 and Galpin Boulevard modified to include the flashing yellow passive- Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 14 of 31 permissive. The developer shall submit $5,000 with the site plan agreement to cover half of the cost of the signal modification. The City's consultant will attend the public hearing to answer specific questions regarding the study. Utilities City water is available to the site. The developer proposes to extend an 8-inch private watermain from the existing 18-inch trunk watermain within West 78th Street. The location of the connection is such that West 78th Street between Galpin Boulevard and Vasserman Trail would be closed for approximately one day while the watermain connection is made. Appropriate signage must be installed 10 days prior to and for the duration of the work within West 78th Street. The developer must coordinate the street closure with the Engineering Department a minimum of 72 hours prior to the closure. A $10,000 escrow must be provided to ensure that West 78th Street is properly restored. Once the street has been restored to satisfactory condition, 50% of the escrow will be released; the remaining 50% will be released if the patch is in satisfactory condition after one freeze -thaw cycle. Minimum 18-inch vertical separation is required between the private watermain and the private storm sewer crossing. An 8-inch sanitary sewer is stubbed to the northeast comer of the site. The invert elevation of the sanitary sewer was not noted on the as -built utility plan. Based on the proposed grading plan the sanitary sewer stub should be deep enough to provide gravity service to the proposed building. In 2001 the property was assessed for the sanitary sewer and watermain laterals installed with City Project 97-6. This assessment has been paid. Based on the total amount assessed with City Project 97-6 and the cost to install the utilities, the lateral sanitary sewer and water connection charges are waived. City trunk sanitary sewer hookup fees (City SAC), City trunk watermain hookup fees (City WAC) and the Metropolitan Council Sanitary Access Charge (Met SAC) are due with the building permit at the rate in effect at that time and shall be based on the SAC unit determination per the Metropolitan Council. Wetlands Three wetlands were identified on the property identified from south to north as Basins I through 3. The boundaries were delineated by Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company on October 22, 2012 and the findings and application for review were submitted to the City on November 26, 2012. The City, as the LGU responsible for administration of the Wetland Conservation Act, noticed approval of the delineated boundaries on January 23, 2013 after modifications were made to the most southerly wetland basin. The delineation did not extend along the flood plain for Bluff Creek but this additional area was not pursued as there is no proposed development on the parcel north of West 78a' Street. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 15 of 31 Basin 2 and Basin 3 are considered one basin in the City's Wetland Protection Plan and is classified as a Manage 2 wetland. Basin 1 is not identified in the plan but, based upon the isolation from the corridor and the lack of a diverse plant community, it is anticipated that this basin would be a Manage 3. City staff, or should the applicant prefer, a consultant of their choosing, shall perform a MN Routine Assessment Methodology and verify the manage class. The applicant is not proposing any wetland impacts, either direct or indirect, in conjunction with this project. The drainage boundaries remain relatively unchanged and the stormwater will be treated priorto discharge into Basin 1. Basin 1 feeds into the more northerly wetlands before discharging into Bluff Creek. Shoreland Overlay District Bluff Creek flows along the northern property boundary. The majority of that portion north of West 78s' Street is within the shoreland overlay for Bluff Creek while that portion south of West 78s' is predominantly outside of the shoreland overlay. The proposed development appears consistent with shoreland requirements. Bluff Creek Overlay District The Bluff Creek Watershed Natural resources Management Plan was completed by Chanhassen in 1996. This plan set forth a number of goals for the management of Bluff Creek. In summary, the intent was to protect, restore and enhance the natural resources within the corridor to provide for a continuous greenway from the source to the confluence with the Minnesota River. This corridor would provide recreational, educational, and habitat opportunities for the community. It would also provide erosion, sediment and water quality benefits for Bluff Creek and the downstream receiving waters. Figure 1. Delineated Wetland Boa. Figure 2. Bluff Creek and the applicable overlays This overlay district is also an important tool for meeting the waste load allocation calculated as part of the Bluff Creek Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Plan. The method for meeting this goal was to create a primary zone, where no development was to occur, and a secondary zone to provide a buffer to the primary zone. While much of the parcel north of West 78"' Street is encumbered by the Bluff Creek Overlay District, the entire area south of West 78s' Street is unencumbered by the overlay district. Because of the need to balance the goals of the Bluff Creek Management Plan, the Bluff Creek TMDL and economic development, this site is an Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 16 of 31 excellent candidate for the transfer of density from the northern parcel to the southern parcel. It would be staff s recommendation that the northern parcel be dedicated to the city for the previously mentioned objectives. Gradinn and Erosion Control Bluff Creek is impaired as defined by the Federal Clean Water Act. There are two listed impairments: turbidity and fish indices of biological integrity. The turbidity standard for a water body of this type is 15 nephritic turbidity units (NTU). Any erosion and sediment control plan must consider this as it is designed. Further, as this site will disturb greater than one (1) acre, a "General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity Under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination" (NPDES construction permit) will be required and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be developed. This SWPPP must incorporate the required elements from Part III, Part IV and Appendix A of the NPDES construction permit. Because Bluff Creek is impaired, the SWPPP must incorporate the requirements listed in Appendix A, Part C of the permit. The applicant must provide a SWPPP to the city for review and comment. The SWPPP must be a stand-alone document and must include those elements listed in Part III. C. including: 1. Location and type of all temporary and permanent erosion prevention and sediment control BMPS. a. It must also discuss protocol for establishing additional or alternate BMPs as site conditions change. b. Standard plates and specifications for the BMPs used must be incorporated into the final plans and specs. c. Although no single drainage area exceeds five (5) acres, a temporary sediment pond should be constructed where the permanent pond is to be located. Upon completion of construction, this pond shall be dewatered and excavated to the original design conditions. An as -built survey shall be provided to the city for confirmation. d. This shall also include a description of any phasing of activities on -site including the installation of all BMPs and any intermediate BMPs. 2. Estimated quantities for erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs in the SWPPP. This should also include seed quantities and any materials for anticipated dewatering. Discharged water should never exceed 15 NTU. 3. The total area disturbed as well as the number of acres of impervious surface pre- and post - construction. 4. A site map showing the following: a. Existing and final grades; b. Drainage area boundaries and flow directions within the project limits. Additional areas may be needed to account for all drainage to the storm sewer system. c. Impervious surfaces and soil types. 5. Location of any areas to remain undisturbed. This should also show any methods used to prevent disturbance during construction. 6. Location of areas where construction will be phased, if any, to minimize the duration of exposed soil areas. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 17 of 31 7. All surface waters receiving drainage from the site within one (1) mile. a. This must identify Bluff Creek as an impaired water, indicate the pollutants identified in the TMDL and identify the area of the site which discharges to it. b. The SWPPP must include BMPs identified in the TMDL and any other implementation activities identified. 8. Methods to be used for final stabilization. The stormwater management plan must include a discussion of Part III. §B and §C of the NPDES Construction Permit. It must include a discussion of water quality volume requirements of the permit. In particular, i-inch of the runoff from the new impervious surface created by this project must be treated and at least Y: inch of the water quality volume must be infiltrated if site conditions allow. The permit is specific about when it is not necessary as volume is an identified stressor in the TMDL. As such, it is necessary to reduce volume discharging directly to Bluff Creek. Staff has reviewed the grading and erosion plan. Staff will reserve most comments specific to the erosion control plan until an updated plan is submitted with the SWPPP which incorporates the requirements of the NPDES Construction Permit. Until then, the following items shall be incorporated into the existing plan. 1. The swale draining into the proposed pond shall be stabilized for its entirety as it is less than 200 feet in length. 2. An appropriate perimeter BMP shall be shown and installed around the proposed outlet modification for the southern wetland. 3. Silt fence or another acceptable BMP shall be installed on the north end of the culvert under West 78d' Street. 4. The EOF from the pond to the wetland shall be permanently stabilized. A turf reinforcement mat or other acceptable practice should be used. Landscanin¢ Minimum requirements for landscaping include 4,396 square feet of landscaped area around the parking lot, 9 landscape islands or peninsulas, 17 trees for the parking lot, and bufferyard plantings along the property lines. The applicant's proposed as compared to the requirements for landscape area and parking lot trees is shown in the following table. R uired Proposed Vehicular use landscape area 14,396 square feet 8,414 square feet Trees/kingTrees/varking lot 1 17 trees 20 trees Islands or peninsulas/parking lot 19 islands/peninsulas 9 islands/veninsulas Applicant meets minimum requirements for trees and landscaping in the parking lot area. Bufferyard requirements: Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 18 of 31 Required plantings Proposed plantings Bufferyard B — south prop. Line, 420' 8 Overstory trees 31 Overstory trees 16 Understory trees 11 Understory trees 24 Shrubs 24 Shrubs Bufferyard B — east prop. Line, 420' 8 Overstory trees 19 Overstory trees 16 Understory trees 7 Understory trees 24 Shrubs 24 Shrubs Bufferyard B — north prop. Line, 620' 12 Overstory trees 14 Overstory trees 24 Understory trees 24 Understory trees 36 Shrubs Shrubs The applicant meets minimum requirements for buffer plantings. All existing trees proposed to be saved must be protected with fencing during construction or replaced after construction. The applicant is proposing to save parts of an established tree line along Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard. The city supports this proposal, but also wants to note that the majority of trees are green ash, a species that is under threat from an invasive pest. These trees are vulnerable to becoming infected and subsequently dying if not chemically protected indefinitely. Before building permit approval for the project, the applicant will need to determine future management for the trees. If preserved, the applicant will be required to treat or, if infested, remove and replace the trees. If the applicant decides to remove and replace the trees at this time, a revised landscape plan will be required. PARK AND RECREATION Parks There are multiple existing parks in the area: Sugarbush Park and Lake Ann Park are situated north of Highway 5, and The Chanhassen Recreation Center/Bluff Creek Elementary School and the Chanhassen Nature Preserve South of Highway 5. No additional parkland dedication is recommended as a condition of approval for this proposal but park fees still apply at the 50% rate (1/2 of $3,800 per unit or $1,900 per unit). Trails Sidewalk connections between the site and the intersection of West 78"' Street and Galpin Boulevard and the intersection of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard should be provided to facilitate pedestrian trips between the apartment and adjoining trails and commercial areas. SITE PLAN FINDINGS In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the City shall consider the development's compliance with the following: Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 19 of 31 (1) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; (2) Consistency with this division; (3) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimising tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing areas; (4) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; (5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping; c. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. (6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. Finding: The proposed development is consistent with the City's design requirements, the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, the design standards, and the site plan review requirements. Staff is recommending approval of the request with conditions. The site design is compatible with the surrounding developments. It is functional and harmonious with the area. Staff regards the project as a reasonable use of the land. The overall design is sensitive to the City's image. Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending approval of the site plan with conditions outlined in the staff report. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 20 of 31 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT INTENT Sec. 20-501. Intent. Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the city has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the other, more standard zoning districts. It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be realized as evaluated against the following criteria. Planned unit developments are to encourage the following: Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. Analysis: The six acres to the north, which has a portion of the property in the Bluff Creek overlay district, will be protected with no development. In addition, the city will require donation or a conservation easement over the northern parcel to ensure preservation. 2. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels. Analysis: The developer proposes a transfer of development to the southern property creating a development that provides its own amenities while preserving the more -sensitive parcel. Development adjacent to Highway 5 could provide a buffer to the properties to the north. 3. High quality design and design compatibility with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. Analysis: The building will be of high -quality design and materials including cement board and brick as well as a landscaping and planting plan that provides a buffer and screening. 4. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city will be encouraged. Analysis: The apartments will provide a transitional use between Highway 5 to the south, the commercial area to the east and the low -density residential to the west. 5. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis: Currently, a portion of the site is guided for ice. A land use amendment to High Density Residential would be required to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 21 of 31 Municipal services are available to the site. The project furthers several goals and policies of the Citys comprehensive plan including the land use and housing elements. 6. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city. Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and overall trail plan. Analysis: There are neighborhood and community parks as well as city trails adjacent to the subject site. The development proposes an exterior playground and gazebo area. The proposed development would preserve the Bluff Creek Corridor as permanent open space. Improving the creek by remeandering may be considered. 7. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD. Analysis: Not applicable with this application. This project will be market rate. 8. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and siting and the clustering of buildings and land uses. Analysis: The building adjacent to Highway S will provide noise and light attenuation to the neighboring residential low density lands to the north and northwest. 9. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate. Analysis: A traffic analysis was done comparing the current proposal with the Galpin Crossings proposal. The study found that the am and pm peak trips would be less, but there would bean increase in overall trips. A more -detailed traffic study would need to be completed to study the function of the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and West 78`h Street. Sec. 20-502. - Allowed uses. Specific uses and performance standards for each PUD shall be delineated in a development plan. (1) Each PUD shall only be used for the use or uses for which the site is designated in the comprehensive plan. Specific uses and performance standards for each PUD shall be delineated in a PUD development plan. Findine: PUD design standards have been created that will control the development of the project. Sec. 20-503. - District size and location. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 22 of 31 Each PUD shall have a minimum area of five acres except the regional/lifestyle center commercial PUD, which must be a minimum of 30 acres, unless the applicant can demonstrate the existence of one of the following: (1) Unusual physical features of the property itself or of the surrounding neighborhood such that development as a PUD will conserve a physical or topographic feature of importance to the neighborhood or community. (2) The property is directly adjacent to or across a right-of-way from property which has been developed previously as a PUD or planned unit residential development and will be perceived as and will function as an extension of that previously approved development. (3) The property is located in a transitional area between different land use categories or on a collector, minor or principal arterial as defined in the comprehensive plan. Findine: The entire site is 14+ acres and is located in a transitional area between a commercial development (developed as a PUD), Highway 5, and low density development. Six acres of the site will be preserved as permanent open space. Sec. 20-504. - Coordination with other zoning regulations. The development must comply with Article II, Division 6 of Chapter 20 addressing Site Plan Review as well as Articles V, VI and VII (Floodplain, Wetland and Shoreland District and the Bluff Creek Overlay District). Finding: The project will be required to meet these standards as described in the staffreport. The development must receive a land use amendment, rezoning and site plan review approvals. Sec. 20-505. - Required general standards. Standards and purposes of the comprehensive land use plan to coordinate between the proposed development and the surrounding use. (a) The city shall consider the proposed PUD from the point of view of all standards and purposes of the comprehensive land use plan to coordinate between the proposed development and the surrounding use. The city shall consider the location of buildings, compatibility, parking areas and other features with response to the topography of the area and existing natural features; the efficiency, adequacy and safety of the proposed layout of streets; the adequacy and location of green areas; the adequacy, location and screening of non -compatible land uses and parking areas. Findine: The project meets elements of the city's comprehensive plan if amended including housing and transportation. The plans provide for preservation of the natural features and the building is efficient in its design location. (b) The applicant shall demonstrate that the PUD plan offers the city higher quality architectural and site design, landscaping, protection of wetlands, creeks and mature trees Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 23 of 31 and buffering for adjoining properties that represent improvements over normal ordinance standards. Findine: With the application of density transfer, the natural features of the northern parcel will be preserved, and with some modifications, they could be enhanced. The Bluff Creek Overlay District gives some recommendations for enhancement and management of the area. The development will meet the higher standards established for high density residential development by the city. (c) Density. An increase/transfer for density may be allowed at the sole discretion of the city utilizing the following factors: (1) Density within a PUD shall be calculated on net acreage located within the property lines of the site in accordance with the land use plan. (2) The area where the density is transferred must be within the project area and owned by the proponent. (3) Density transfer in single-family detached area will be evaluated using the items listed in sections 20-506 or 20-508. Density transfer eligible for multiple -family areas are not permitted to be applied to single-family areas. (4) In no case shall the overall density of the development exceed the net density ranges identified in the comprehensive plan except as specified in policies supporting the city's affordable housing goals. Findine: The developer has calculated the net developable acres of the site and wetland acreage. The project proposes using the net developable acreage at 16 units an acre. The site could be 176 units; however, the developer is proposing 155. (d) The city may utilize incentives to encourage the construction of projects which are consistent with the city's housing goals. Incentives may include modification of density and other standards for developments providing low and moderate cost housing. Incentives may be approved by the city contingent upon the developer and the city entering into an agreement ensuring that the housing will be available to low and moderate income persons for a specific period of time. Findine: Not applicable with this request. The project will be market rate. (e) Hard surface coverage shall be limited as follows: Comprehensive Plan Designation Hard Surface Coverage (%) High density residential 50 hidividual lots within PUD may exceed these standards as long as the average meets these standards. Findine: The development has a hard surface coverage of 34% for Parcel Band 20% for the entire project. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 24 of 31 (f) Building and parking setbacks from public streets shall be determined by the city based on characteristics of the specific PUD. Parking lots and driving lanes shall be set back at least 20 feet from all exterior lot lines of a PUD. Where industrial uses abut developed platted or planned single-family lots outside the PUD, greater exterior building and parking setbacks, between 50 and 100 feet, shall be required in order to provide effective screening. The city council shall make a determination regarding the adequacy of screening proposed by the applicant. Screening may include the use of natural topography or earth berming, existing and proposed plantings and other features such as roadways and wetlands which provide separation of uses. PUD's must be developed in compliance with buffer yard requirements established by the comprehensive plan and chapter 20, article XXV, of the Chanhassen City Code. Finding: The project exceeds the 50 foot perimeter building setback The apartments placed on the southeast corner of the site will provide a visual and sound barrier from Highway 5. The development will be held to these standards. MnDOT requires that all projects meet noise standards. This will be accomplished through design and construction. (g) More than one building may be placed on one platted or recorded lot in a PUD. Findinr: The project proposes one apartment building on one parcel. The propertywill not be subdivided Stormwater and park and trail fees are collected with a subdivision. Because there is no platting, the city is requesting payment of 50 percent of thesefees in force at the time of building permit. Currently, stormwater fees are $116, 560.00 and park and trail fees are $294,500.00 (h) At the time PUD approval is sought from the city, all property to be included within a PUD shall be under unified ownership or control or subject to such legal restrictions or covenants as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the approved master development plan and final site and building plan. After approval, parcels may be sold to other parties without restriction; however, all parcels will remain subject to the PUD development contract that will be recorded in each chain -of -title. Findinr: The project will be developed under singular ownership. (i) Signs shall be restricted to those which are permitted in the sign plan approved by the city and shall be regulated by permanent covenants or design standards established in the PUD development contract. Findin¢: Signage will be consistent with the city s sign ordinance for residential development (Area identification/entrance signs. Only one monument sign may be erected at the entrance(s). Total sign area shall not exceed 24 square feet of sign display area, nor be more than 5 feet high. More than one sign per entrance may be erected, provided that the total sign area does not exceed 24 square feet Any such sign or monument shall be designed with low -maintenance, high -quality materials. The adjacent Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 25 of 31 property owner or a homeowners association shall be responsible for maintenance of the identifecation/entrance sign and surrounding grounds and landscaped areas. Such sign shall be located so as not to conflict with traffic visibility or street maintenance operation, and shall be securely anchored to the ground.) (j) The requirements contained in Articles XXM (Design Standards for Multifamily Buildings) and XXV (Landscaping and Tree Removal) of this chapter may be applied by the city as it deems appropriate. Findinr: The project meets the city's design standards and landscaping, tree removal and buffering requirements. (k) The uniqueness of each PUD required that specifications and standards for streets, utilities, public facilities and subdivisions may be subject to modification from the city ordinances ordinarily governing them. The city council may therefore approve streets, utilities, public facilities and land subdivisions which are not in compliance with usual specifications or ordinance requirements if it finds that strict adherence to such standards or requirements is not required to meet the intent of this [article] or to protect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the PUD, the surrounding area or the city as a whole. Finding: The project will create public sidewalks. (1) No building or other permit shall be issued for any work on property included within a proposed or approved PUD, nor shall any work occur unless such work is in compliance with the proposed or approved PUD. Findine: A site plan permit will be executed and recorded to ensure the project is developed as proposed. (m) Buffer yards. (1) The city comprehensive plan establishes a requirement for buffer yards. ...in areas indicated on the plan where higher intensity uses interface with low density uses and shall comply with chapter 20, article XXV, of the Chanhassen City Code. (2) The buffer yard is not an additional setback requirement. The full obligation to provide the buffer yard shall be placed on the parcel containing the higher intensity use. (3) The buffer yard is intended to provide physical separation and screening for the higher intensity use. As such, they will be required to be provided with a combination of berming, landscaping and/or tree preservation to maximize the buffering potential. To the extent deemed feasible by the city, new plantings shall be designed to require the minimum of maintenance, however, such maintenance as may be required to maintain consistency with the approved plan, shall be the obligation of the property owner. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 26 of 31 Findine: The northern parcel is proposed for density transfer, thus maintaining the natural buffer by preserving this area as permanent open space. Buffer planting can be placed in the building setback area around the perimeter of the building as specified in city code. Sec. 20-508. - Standards and guidelines for single-family attached or cluster -home PUDs. (a) Generally. Single-family attached, cluster, zero lot line, townhouses and similar type dwelling types may be allowed on sites designed for low, medium or high density residential uses by the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan. (b) Minimum lot sizes. There shall be no minimum lot size; however, in no case shall net density exceed guidelines established by the city comprehensive plan. (c) Setback standards/structures and parking: (1) PUD exterior: 50 feet. (2) Interior public right-of-way: 30 feet.* *The 30 foot front yard setback may be waived by the city council when it is demonstrated that environmental protection will be enhanced. In these instances, a minimum front yard setback of 20 feet shall be maintained. (3) Other setbacks: Established by PUD agreement. Findine: With a land use amendment to high density residential and the rezoning of the property, the standard would be met. The perimeter setbacks have been modified to exceed the minimum 50 foot setback from propertyperimeter. The building is 81 feet from Highway 5 at the closest point. Along Galpin Boulevard the building setback is 60 to 65 feet. On west 78th street the setback of the building is 58 feet. (d) Protection and preservation of natural features. The applicant must demonstrate that the flexibility provided by the PUD is used to protect and preserve natural features such as tree stands, wetlands, ponds and scenic views. These areas are to be permanently protected as public or private tracts or protected by permanently recorded easements. Findine: The northern six -acre parcel would be preserved with this PUD request. Without the application of a PUD and density transfer, the northern parcel could potentially provide development capacity. (e) Landscaping plan. An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall contain the following: (1) Boulevard plantings. Located in front yards shall require a mix of over -story trees and other plantings consistent with the site. Landscaped berms shall be provided to screen the site from major roadways, railroads and more intensive land uses. In place of mass grading for building pads and roads, stone or decorative blocks retaining walls shall be employed as required to preserve mature trees and the site's natural topography. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 27 of 31 (2) Exterior landscaping and double -fronted lots. Landscaped berms shall be provided to buffer the site and lots from major roadways, railroads, and more intensive uses. Similar measures shall be provided for double -fronted lots. Where necessary to accommodate this landscaping, additional lot depth may be required. (3) Foundation and yard plantings. A minimum budget for foundation plants shall be established and approved by the city. As each parcel is developed in the PUD, the builder shall be required to install plant materials meeting or exceeding the required budget prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy or provide financial guarantees acceptable to the city. (4) Tree preservation. Tree preservation is a primary goal of the PUD. A detailed tree survey should be prepared during the design of the PUD and the plans should be developed to maximize tree preservation. FindinP: The project meets the landscaping requirements. (f) Architectural standards. The applicant should demonstrate that the PUD will provide for a high level of architectural design and building materials. While this requirement is not intended to minimize design flexibility, a set of architectural standards should be prepared for city approval. The primary purpose of this section is to assure the city that high quality design will be employed and that home construction can take place without variances or impact to adjoining lots. The PUD agreement should include the following: (1) Standards for exterior architectural treatments. Findinr: The building meets the Design Standards for Multifamily Developments Article MR. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the following three motions: A. LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT "The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve a Land Use Map Amendment from Residential -Low Density and Office, to Residential -Low and High Density and Office and Residential -High Density Planned Unit Development (PUD) subject to the following condition: Approval of the Land Use Amendment subject to the Metropolitan Council determination of consistency with system plan." Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 28 of 31 rg "The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve Rezoning of approximately 14 acres from Agricultural Estate (A-2) to Planned Unit Development -Residential (PUD-R) subject to the following condition and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation: 1. Adoption of the Chanhassen PUD Ordinance, which shall be created to govern the site and design standards." C. SrrE PLAN WITH VARIANCE "The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve a Site Plan for a 155-unit Apartment Building with a Variance for parking subject to the following conditions, and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation: 1. Approval of the Land Use Amendment subject the Metropolitan Council determination of consistency with system plan. 2. Adoption of the Chanhassen PUD Ordinance, which shall be created to govern the site and design standards. 3. Execution of the Site Plan Permit. 4. Payment of $294,500 park and trail fee and $116,500 stormwater fee prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. Parcel A shall be dedicated to the City, or have a conservation easement placed on it, for management consistent with the Bluff Creek Management Plan, the Bluff Creek TMDL and the 2"d Generation Surface Water Management Plan. 6. The applicant and the City should work together to develop an appropriate mitigation scenario. Any portion of the wetland presumed to be impacted under an alternate development scenario, which would require the use of Parcel A and is subsequently transferred to Parcel B for density calculations, be mitigated for at a 1:1 ratio. This mitigation should occur within the Bluff Creek Overlay District but does need to be in the form of wetland. The developer must calculate the net developable acres of the site and wetland acreage. 8. The wetland delineation report shall be finalized. 9. All existing trees proposed to be saved must be protected with fencing during construction or replaced after construction if damaged or dead. I - Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 29 of 31 10. The selections of Colorado spruce must be replaced by a different evergreen species in the plant schedule. 11. Before final approval for the project, the applicant will need to determine future management plans for the existing ash trees. If preserved, the applicant will be required to chemically protect or, if infested, remove and replace the trees. If the applicant decides to remove and replace the trees at this time, a revised landscape plan will be required. 12. Staff recommends that the curb radius at the driveway access be increased to facilitate the turning movements of larger vehicles. 13. Appropriate signage must be installed 10 days prior to and for the duration of the work within West 78th Street. 14. The developer must coordinate the closure of West 78th Street with the Engineering Department minimum 72 hours prior to the closure. 15. A $10,000 escrow must be provided to ensure that West 78th Street is properly restored. Once the street has been restored to satisfactory condition, 50% of the escrow will be released; the remaining 50% will be released if the patch is in satisfactory condition after one freeze -thaw cycle. 16. Minimum 18-inch vertical separation is required between the private watermain and the private storm sewer crossing. 17. The developer shall submit $5,000 with the site plan agreement to cover half of the cost of the signal modification at TH 5 and Galpin Boulevard to accommodate a flashing yellow passive -permissive signal. 18. The developer shall pay one-half the cost of the traffic study. 19. City trunk sanitary sewer hookup fees (City SAC), City trunk watermain hookup fees (City WAC) and the Met Council Sanitary Access Charge (Met SAC) are due with the building permit at the rate in effect at that time and shall be based on the SAC unit determination per the Met Council. 20. A "General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity Under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination" will be required for this project. Proof of permission from the PCA must be provided to the City before grading can commence. 21. A Surface Water Management Plan is required and shall be submitted to the City for review and comment. This plan shall incorporate the required elements of Parts III, IV and Appendix A of the NPDES permit. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 30 of 31 22. Both the Bluff Creek Total Maximum Daily Load Implementation Plan and the NPDES Permit require that a portion of the Water Quality Volume is infiltrated on -site. The Stormwater Management Study shall be modified to address this requirement and incorporated into the SWPPP. 23. Because the site discharges to an impaired water, the discharge rates for the one-year design event must also be equal to or less than the existing discharge rates. The Stormwater Management Study shall be modified to address this requirement and shall be incorporated into the SWPPP. 24. In order to protect Bluff Creek, meet the goals of the Bluff Creek Natural Resources Management Plan and the Bluff Creek TMDL Implementation Plan, staff is recommending that the portion of the property north of West 78a' Street is dedicated to the City and that this density should be transferred to that portion south of West 781s Street. 25. Sheet C-3 GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN shall be amended to include the following: a. The swale draining into the proposed pond shall be stabilized for its entirety as it is less than 200 feet in length. b. An appropriate perimeter BMP shall be shown and installed around the proposed outlet modification for the southern wetland. c. Silt fence or another acceptable BMP shall be installed on the north end of the culvert under West 78a' Street. d. The EOF from the pond to the wetland shall be permanently stabilized. This is addressed in the Drainage Report but is not included in the Grading and Erosion Plan. A turf reinforcement mat is an acceptable practice as is called out in the drainage report. 26. Minnesota Department of Transportation will need to review and approve the drainage plan. 27. The applicant shall revise the plans to incorporate sidewalk connections to existing trails. 28. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. A "Code Record" is required (Code Record schematic plans may be same scale as architectural). For "Code Record" information go to MN Dept. of Labor and Industry: httn://www.dli.mn.p-ov/CCLD/PlanConstruction.asp 29. The building(s) must be protected with automatic fire sprinkler systems. 30. An accessible route must be provided to buildings, parking facilities, public transportation stops and all common use facilities. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 31 of 31 31. All parking areas, including parking garages, must be provided with accessible parking spaces dispersed among the various building entrances. 32. Accessible dwelling units must be provided in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. 33. The building owner and/or their representatives should meet with the Inspections Division to discuss plan review and permit procedures (in particular, type of construction and allowable area issues must be addressed). 34. Due to the large size of this building, class III Fire Dept, standpipes will be required. Have developer contact Fire Marshal for exact locations. MSFC Sec. 905.3.9. 35. " No Parking Fire Lane " signs will be required. Have developer contact Fire Marshal for exact locations. MSFD Sec. 505.31 36. An additional on site fire hydrant will be required. Contact Fire Marshal for location. 37. A PIV ( post indicator valve) will be required. 38. A three-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. MSFC Sec 508.5.4." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Recommendation. 2. Planned Unit Development Ordinance. 3. Development Review Application. 4. Reduced Copy Site Plan. 5. Traffic Study dated April 9, 2013. 6. Letter from MnDOT dated April 4, 2013 7. Affidavit of Mailing. 9iplan\2013 planing cases\2013-07 chanhassen apartmentsWatr report pe.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of Oppidan, Inc. to Rezone approximately 14 acres from Agricultural Estate (A-2) to Planned Unit Development -Residential (PUD-R); Site Plan Review with Variances for a 155- unit Apartment Building; and a Land Use Map Amendment from Residential -Low Density and Office, to Residential -Low and High Density and Office and Residential -High Density. On April 16, 2013, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Oppidan, Inc. to rezone approximately 14 acres from Agricultural Estate (A-2) to Planned Unit Development -Residential (PUD-R); Site Plan Review with Variances for a 155-unit Apartment Building; and a Land Use Map Amendment from Residential -Low Density and Office, to Residential -Low and High Density and Office and Residential -High Density. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed rezoning preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District, A-2. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential -Low Density and Office. 3. The legal description of the property is: That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116, Range 23 and the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of said Section 10; thence on as assumed bearing of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West along the West line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1026.89 feet; thence South 79 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 177.77 feet; thence South 86 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 100.40 feet; thence South 78 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 194.14 feet; thence South 74 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 150.00 feet; thence South 47 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 75.43 feet; thence North 82 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds East, a distance of 74.98 feet; thence South 58 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 84.58 feet; thence South 89 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 164.63 feet; thence South 18 degrees 17 minutes 40 seconds West, a distance of 824.19 feet to the northerly right of way line of Trunk Highway 5; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 33.08 feet; thence South 56 degrees 40 minutes 55 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 158.95 feet; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 518.22 feet to the west line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23; thence North 1 degree 37 minutes 50 seconds West along said west line of the Northwest Quarter. a distance of 9.12 feet to the point of beginning. This tract contains 18.1 acres of land more or less, and is subject to right of way in existing county road and subject to any and all easements of record. 4. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are: a) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. b) The proposed use is or will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. c) The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. d) The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. e) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. f) Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. 5. Site Plan Review a) The proposed site plan is consistent with the elements and objectives of the city s development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; b) The proposed development is consistent with the site plan review requirements of city code; c) The proposed site plan preserves the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal, preserving as permanent open space the land north of 78"' Street West and designing the site in keeping with the general appearance of the; d) The proposed site plan creates a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; e) The proposed site plan creates a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: `A 1) An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; 2) The amount and location of open space and landscaping; 3) Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and 4) Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. f) The proposed site plan protects adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. 6. Variance Findings — Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a) Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The granting of the variance is in keeping with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. The reduction of one internal parking stall due to locating trash and recycling inside provides enhanced site design. While the parking could be met through the use of compact parking stalls, the use of standard size stalls is preferred. b) When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: The practical difficulty with the parking standard is that while it could be provided, it would necessitate the use of exterior trash and recycling locations or require the use of compact parking stalls which are not preferred. c) That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The purpose of the variance is not based upon economic considerations, but is to permit the development to provide interior trash and recycling facilities. d) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The reason for the request is to permit the trash and recycling inside the building. e) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The reduction of one interior parking stall will not alter the essential character of the area. The site provides adequate surface parking to accommodate required site parking. f) Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. The planning report #2013-07 dated April 16, 2013, prepared by Kate Aanenson, et al, is incorporated herein. RECONIlAENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the project. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 16th day of April, 2013. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION ffW Its Chairman AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 1 AND 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE, BY REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 1-2 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding the following definition: Conservation Area an area of land that remains in a natural state by means of preservation of existing features and vegetation as well as by means of city -approved restoration of selected species and targeted features. No buildings or structures are allowed except essential services and public improvements. SECTION 2. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code, the City's Zoning Ordinance, is hereby amended by rezoning the following described property from Agricultural Estate District, A- 2, to Planned Unit Development Residential, PUD-R: That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116, Range 23 and the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest comer of said Section 10; thence on an assumed bearing of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West along the West line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1026.89 feet; thence South 79 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 177.77 feet; thence South 86 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 100.40 feet; thence South 78 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 194.14 feet; thence South 74 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 150.00 feet; thence South 47 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 75.43 feet; thence North 82 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds East, a distance of 74.98 feet; thence South 58 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 84.58 feet; thence south 89 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 164.63 feet; thence South 18 degrees 17 minutes 40 seconds West, a distance of 824.19 feet to the northerly right of way line of Trunk Highway 5; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 33.08 feet; thence South 56 degrees 40 minutes 55 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 158.95 feet; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 518.22 feet to the west line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23; thence North I degree 37 minutes 50 seconds West along said west line of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 9.12 feet to the point of beginning. This tract contains 18.1 acres of land, more or less, and is subject to right of way in existing county road and subject to any and all easements of record. Doc. # 169929v. I RNK: 4/22/2013 SECTION 3. Intent. The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD for the Chanhassen Apartments. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. Ancillary uses may be permitted as listed below once a primary use has occupied the site. Except as modified by the Chanhassen Apartments PUD ordinance, the development shall comply with the requirements of the RI District. SECTION 4. Permitted Uses. The permitted uses in this zone shall be residential and their ancillary uses. The type of uses to be provided on common areas shall be outdoor play area and outdoor patio. Parcel A (description attached) Conservation Area Parcel B (description attached) 155 Apartments, including surface parking SECTION 5. Lot Requirements and Setbacks. The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The following table displays those setbacks: Setback Standards Highway 5 50 feet (Perimeter) Lot Line 50 feet Collector Road, etc. 50 feet (Perimeter) Lot Line 50 feet Hard Surface Coverage 50 % over 14 acres Height 38 feet Parking setback for perimeter property line 25 feet Wetland and Buffer Setback Parcel B 31.5 feet SECTION 6. Signage. Signage shall comply with city standards for R12 Zoning District 20-1301(2) Agricultural and Residential Districts. SECTION 7. Landscaping. Landscaping shall comply with the landscaping plan prepared by Mark Kronbeck, ASLA, dated March 15, 2013. SECTION 8. The zoning map of the City of Chanhassen shall not be republished to show the aforesaid zoning, but the Clerk shall appropriately mark the zoning map on file in the Clerk's Office for the purpose of indicating the rezoning hereinabove provided for in this ordinance, and all of the notations, references, and other information shown thereon are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this ordinance. SECTION 9. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. Doc. #I69929v.I RNK: 4/22/2013 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of April, 2013, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on Doc. N 169929v.I RNK: 4/22/2013 PARCEL A Conservation Area That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116, Range 23 and the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest comer of said Section 10, thence on as assumed bearing of North I degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West along the West line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1023.08 feet, to a point on said west line distant 1668.88 feet south of the west quarter comer of said Section 10; thence South 79 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 177.77 feet; thence South 86 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 100.40 feet; thence South 78 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 194.14 feet; thence South 74 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 150.00 feet; thence South 47 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 75.43 feet; thence North 82 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds East, a distance of 74.98 feet; thence South 58 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 84.58 feet; thence South 89 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 163.25 feet; thence South 18 degrees 17 minutes 40 seconds West, a distance of 820.19 feet to the northerly tight of way line of Trunk Highway 5; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 33.08 feet; thence South 56 degrees 40 minutes 55 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 158.95 feet; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 518.22 feet to the west line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23; thence North I degree 37 minutes 50 seconds West along said west line of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 9.12 feet to the point of beginning. Which lies northwesterly of that particular northwesterly right-of-way line of Parcel 216, as shown on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-08, recorded as Document No. 265755 and as amended on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-14, recorded as Document No. 279658, described as follows: Commencing at the southwest comer of said Section 10; thence on an assumed bearing of North I degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West, along the west line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 10, a distance of 401.19 feet, to a particular right-of-way line of said Parcel 216 and the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 47 degrees 18 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 175.14 feet, to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 47 degrees 18 minutes 19 seconds East a distance of 22.71 feet, to a point of curvature in said right- of-way line; thence easterly a distance of 662.60 feet, along a non -tangential curve concave to the south having a radius of 633.04 feet and a central angle of 59 degrees 58 minutes 14 seconds and having a chord of 632.76 feet which bears North 77 degrees 17 minutes 27 seconds East to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 56 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds East, not tangent to said curve a distance of H 4.28 feet, to an angle point in said right -of --way line; thence North 22 degrees 13 minutes 10 seconds East, along said right-of-way line, a distance of 116.13 feet and said fine there terminating. Doc. 'I69929N.I RV K 4 22 20 13 PARCEL B 155 Apartments, including surface parking That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116, Range 23 and the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of said Section 10; thence on as assumed bearing of North I degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West along the West line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1026.89 feet; thence South 79 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 177.77 feet; thence South 86 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 100.40 feet; thence South 78 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 194.14 feet; thence South 74 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 150.00 feet; thence South 47 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 75.43 feet; thence North 82 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds East, a distance of 74.98 feet; thence South 58 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 84.58 feet; thence South 89 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 164.63 feet; thence South 18 degrees 17 minutes 40 seconds West, a distance of 824.19 feet to the northerly right of way line of Trunk Highway 5; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 33.08 feet; thence South 56 degrees 40 minutes 55 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 158.95 feet; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 518.22 feet to the west line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23; thence North 1 degree 37 minutes 50 seconds West along said west line of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 9.12 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPT that part of the above described property which ties northwesterly of that particular northwesterly right-of-way line of Parcel 216, as shown on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-08, recorded as Document No. 265755 and as amended on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-14, recorded as Document No. 279658, described as follows: Commencing at the southwest comer of said Section 10; thence on an assumed bearing of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West, along the west line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 10, a distance of 401.19 feet, to a particular right-of-way line of said Parcel 216 and the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 47 degrees 18 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 175.14 feet, to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 47 degrees 18 minutes 19 seconds East a distance of 22.71 feet, to a point of curvature in said right- of-way line; thence easterly a distance of 662.60 feet, along a non -tangential curve concave to the south having a radius of 633.04 feet and a central angle of 59 degrees 58 minutes 14 seconds and having a chord of 632.76 feet which bears North 77 degrees 17 minutes 27 seconds East to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 56 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds East, not tangent to said curve a distance of 114.28 feet, to an angle point in said right -of --way line; thence North 22 degrees 13 minutes 10 seconds East, along said right-of-way line, a distance of 116.13 feet and said line there terminating. Also EXCEPT said Parcel 216 Doc. �169929%.1 RNK: 4 22"2013 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION PLEASE PRINT AID licant Name an}d Address: Y�// I VL sq< &iwa2fHKOi.�2 /O/ S&,* /OD 14.01 r/e--&w^' z4� i0,1-) 5'$3yT Contact: pa" / Tv«; Phone:I -29N- o3s 3Fax: ySa ��y ois i Email: Planning Case No.A01-J' , 0'1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED MAR 15 2013 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Property Owner Name and Address: //.A,,fiuSSoil, ,esnl 553/7 Contact:?.n 5wAr7*k-.K NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment (L_Cj`_' Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non -conforming Use Permit NIL Planned Unit Development` '5mbrn Iff40 t7¢6vidu�IyU• Rezoning V Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)` (SID Pfr 1,000 $•F) 31tv<I5 = 14t ,S7 1 Subdivision` � L Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) (Additional recording fees may apply) Variance (VAR) S �_p 0 Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment .II(_ Notification Sign - $20G- (City to install and remove) X Escrow for F Fees/ orney Cost" iop -$5( CUP/ PP AC A AP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB TOTAL FEE $��: � ,B i O An additional fee of $00 pelr address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. 'Five (5) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8%" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 ('.tif) format. "Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. SCANNED See Also C ASL— e3Dt a- — ► S7 ple yip Vkl/ PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: aS-akoI TOTAL ACREAGE: WETLANDS PRESENT: __X_ YES NO PRESENT ZONING: REQUESTED ZONING: R )L� — FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: Include number of existing employees: and new employees: This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Q o-4r"e f- .5►2e Signature of Applicant z�F C*�-t2 Y 518 Signature of Fee Owner Date Date aiplan\rormsWevelopment review application.doc Builder of[ovn Creator of value. 5125 CouNTY RoAD 101 • #100 • MwNEroNKA, MN 55345 • PHONE: 952/294-0353 • FAx: 952/294-0151 • WEB: www.oppidan.com CITY OF March 14, 2013 RECEIVED SSEN Kathryn Aanenson, AICP, Community Development Director MAR 15 2013 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment, PUD Site Plan Review Application New Apartment Development NWC Highway 5 & Galpin Blvd Chanhassen, MN Dear Kate: This letter is designed to serve as a narrative for proposed apartment development at Galpin Boulevard and Highway 5. The highlights of the plans are as follow: • Total site area is approximately 14 acres, with 6 acres lying north of West 780' Street and 8 Acres lying south. • There is approximately 1.7 acres of wetland on the northern portion of the lot and approximately .25 acres on the south side, leaving approximately 12 acres developable. • Current zoning allows for medium density residential on the north side and office/light industrial on the south side • A new, market rate apartment building, containing 155 total units. This is a density of 13 units per acre (approximate) well below the 16 units per acre maximum allowed for under the High Density Residential districts. • The target mix of unit is currently being finalized. The unit mix is 104 One Bedroom Units (ranging in size from 624 s.£ to 765 s.f) and 51 Two Bedroom Units (ranging in size from 933 s.f. to 1,132 s.£). • Parking meets City requirements, including one underground stall for each unit. • The building will be 3 levels plus an underground level for parking. • Each unit will have a full appliance package, including washer/dryer and microwave, and some units will be designed to have the potential for a fireplace. • The building exterior will be a materials including brick/block, glass and cement board siding. • Balconies will be provided for the majority of the units. • There will be a Clubhouse with community room and exercise facilities. Also looking at the potential for a small business center for residents (may not need it with the proximity of Kinko's to the site). • An exterior patio and outdoor gathering area is planned on the southeast comer of the site. This will be appropriately fences and landscaped. • Outside sitting/park areas are provided and traiVwalks will be provided to connect to the existing walkway system. SCANNED SITE PLAN: The sight plan has been modified to address concerns heard at the Concept Plan review stage for the project. The most notable comments were directed toward the number of units and the proximity to the adjacent housing, especially the homes in the Vasserman Ridge development. We have reduced the number of unit by 69 to a new proposed total of 155 units. This is a reduction of 31 % from the previous plan presented. Also, because of the reduction in number, the building could be located differently on the plan. The building is now pulled further to the northeast portion of the lot and is approximately 400 feet from the nearest home at Vasserman Ridge and 600 feet to the nearest home on the northeast side of the site. Last, access to the site has been modified to include only one access point. That access point was moved further west in an attempt to allow for additional stacking at the intersection, if that were required in the future. The internal circulation still allows for garage entrances on both ends of the building. ELEVATION• The building elevation has remained similar to the elevation presented at the Concept Stage. The main element of the building is a cement board siding. The accents include glass, decorative CMU, brick and stone. The upper level units are designed to incorporate balconies for the units, with a typical rail and maintenance free materials for the flooring. The building remains designed with a three story footprint and a gabled roof. The midpoint of the gabled roof is at 37' 7" (approximately) with the peak areas at approximately 46 feet. We have made a request for a variance in height to allow the 46 foot dimension LANDSCAPING & LIGHTING: The northern 6 acres of the sight will be covered with a Conservation Easement, in favor of the City of Chanhassen (or another type of document, as determined by the City) with the intent of preserving that acreage as open space and a buffer between the single family and multi -family developments. This is similar to the buffer maintained north of the CVS/Kwik-Trip site on the north side of West 78 h. On the south side of the site, the existing boulevard trees will be maintain except for the tree(s) required to be removed for the new access point. In addition, there are numerous new trees and shrubs being planted to provide additional screening/buffering to both the properties to the north and to the highway. Shrubs are planted in multiple locations at the building base to enhance the look of the budding to guest and residents coming in and to the public using the adjoining streets and pathways. SCANNED New lighting on the site is minimal. We are proposing to add _ new parking lot lights within the development. Those lights will meet City of Chanhassen standards for lens screening and light levels within the site. GRADING & UTILITIES: Grading and utilities will be similar to what was discussed at the Concept Plan stage. There is an additional storm water pond feature added to the southern lot, allowing for even more storm water control and quality. Utility services currently exist either within the property boundary or in the Right -of -Way adjacent to the property. There are ample services to serve this development. TRAFFIC/PEDESTRIAN ACCESS: An initial traffic analysis was completed for the 224 unit development that showed the traffic levels would be similar of slightly less during a 24 hour period when compared to a previously approved concept plan for this site. With the reduction to 155 units, the new proposal will have far less traffic than the previous approved plan. The developer has initiated a traffic study for the proposed development. Car counts and an analysis are complete. We have also worked with the City of Chanhassen Engineering Department to broaden the scope of that study to include other movements on Galpin Boulevard and the intersection at Highway 5. This additional study is continuing at the time of this letter, but will be available prior to the Planning Commission meeting for review. As discussed previously, West 78'" Street is an arterial collector road and Galpin is a county road, both designed to handle the traffic anticipated as development happens. With the reduction in units, overall traffic from this project will be much less than that discussed at the Concept Review stage of this process. Part of the additional study will focus on the intersection at Galpin and West 78'" Street and the U-Turns and other movements. Although the initial review did not indicate a need for traffic control, the expanded traffic analysis will better identify current and fixture needs there. We have added a small park and play area within the property for children of the complex. Additionally, there are new sidewalks/paths that will be installed within the development and on the adjacent ROW to connect to the existing trail system of the City. There currently is a tunnel within the City's trail system allowing for pedestrians to cross under Highway 5 without using an intersection and there is a metered intersection at Galpin and Highway 5 for pedestrians to use to cross to the Community Center, parks and get to the school on the south side of Highway 5. SCAtj"W Overall we fell that we have listened to the comments from the neighbors, Planning Commission and City Council and have address issues brought forth while still allowing for a quality project to be added to the City of Chanhassen. We look forward to working with the City on this matter. If you have any questions or need additional information on this submittal, please do not hesitate to call me at (952) 294-1243. Sincerely,. --2 / Paul 7. T r scai.�.eo d CHANHASSENAPARTMENTS COMP PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING & SITE PLAN REVIEW CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA X malwommilm"wN.-it VICMITY MAP i SHEETINDEX 1. mve9sN f.l .I.MNG fUNw3N W 9 PLAN w S.. w G9AGwGANG eI1G91GNLYINROLPLAN GI VfIIl1Y P1AN w LMMMGPUN LI LWOSAPEPWI AIIW GA9AGE 18V9LPLAM AItlW GA[AM LPVPL YIAN AIP4A EWPP PUN AIwA P LP1Ax AINA SYI'CAM M FLMM PLAN AIOItl ryPIfAL FLEMeLAH A3M eLCVA}IOM Awl LLev.9nwrs OWNER/DEVELOPER .AN.tt OPPIOAX f n! MIINIY RMY 101.9Nf9 I M VMHM1 � h VNf!JH, Flt 9!b:Mnl!1 ARCHITECT 9Peiv.uhlsmu MW(16ARfIP1ELT1 fM BAYNf4W AVLWE 6P. PAYLNN 1f IlA exul+naml CIVIL ENGINEER an9a axRLum.e.a AULAM PN]wVJwJ.wC m PnR9 Avevue9wmx,mn9sm MINNBAMLI&VN!VIS PHnib)Sb1MU P9AIS�n..XM LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MARk [RMJBeIX. A. nILANT eNGwEPA1NG. IXf. Ul1A AVLXVE9Wi1LmIR lM MMMAMLR.MNfHI! MnILlf9dffn PxnlznAarxP CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED MAR 15 2013 CHANHASSEN PUNNING DEPT PRE �1M"' FM OPPILIAN C-0 I .f 15 k! |� 2|! U 2 |\IF] \ R U | § � \ � I"all mill � $ � § §| � / 0 / Nnd 10H1 00 NOISOtl3 UNV ONIOtltlO SYONINOnH'M3WON3WtlN ddWOJ 3�rF pj l rmsoxx:n r�szrrrm A /tjj1)`[!�`ry��jyee3s g 51113Wltltldtl N355WN o a F 0 ' gW§ o- M, Nnd anon ION3WV Nnd .. .W"N359WN 3 a � g s s [j3 a 0 \ 1 1 r a i ` 1 e • � � .:. 0 i J� Lp j x ` 1 ---------------------------- -- Q ig Ntl d "13"IOHd a . i O .] M31I.3tl Ntl1d 311S 4`JNIN023tl'1N3WON3Wtl Ntlld dWOJ 0 S1N3Wltltldtl N355tlHNtlHJ -� noo) t u EEe E' geil +ii�jE qu a aii3 d.-•�F I i:_:-E Ipp jEl:f' a'S E` .,3:a91 i Ei:i >n .mz -:. 11 — N+.a.amm.......wwszmn. --. s... Nnd M31A H Ntld 31159 ONINOI3N'1N3WON3WV N"d. S1N3W1SVdtlN Ssw ������ IIP 11 YYYYYY I/11 III !1 xx:zzxxzxx !lSl�y i11 11 64444ii�!a ° � .. Yt+kt 3 �����ilii i€e `� �41� �giPi �loppi!liNV ��d��9,�'I°1511 WIN €S }Ig��E4'�� 1' 1144811 i P �`. n�lll'llllll'II �� 9 ! 1 7$ S €Y� Q- 9� a jI �ij1 I ILL ILMIFW o- — �— w J LL W cm N co I� LI b � I — Q9S9y� g u Fel� F i 4ilii ii bSl=Ei 116 4 a u it i je J�— I \ it I t� r � B OU) LL CD O OfC6 p 3 w Qz w J !6Q !gal 11 itli €li Q iet5 �x 1,1n�^T x 1 : G n i5�1. ! #1±5 i�s1 N 6s. u a OU) LL v � o LL IT waz €&" °gjg`{!ilPa!s� i1� 1d1i��ill Ill! ! i i'iaje I wz file,;9l § g .aD m r�1 +�c=s 8 2ele k 3e i p �!• � E p 3}3 ! F jJi U V V' \. C 17, ea �_ C 7 i, el ea i i 1 :e .a 'e 3.3 ! e ! K O e§ �� �all Q3 0 5 ii3 11,1� s'pepp yy8ligli�: P f o a yj M fig.. LL C) CV) W z z w 0:5 1 11 I E AI 1 C =„ KimleyHorn and Associates, Inc. April 9, 2013 Mr. Paul Oehme, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Chanhassen Apartments Traffic Impact Analysis 160511030 Dear Mr. Paul Oehme: Suite 238N 2550 University Avenue West St. ParA, Minnesota 55114 Kimley-Horn and Associates was retained by the City of Chanhassen to perform a traffic analysis to assess the traffic impacts of a 155-unit apartment building. The site is located within the City of Chanhassen and would be located north of Arboretum Boulevard (TH 51 west of Galpin Boulevard (CR 117), and to the south of West 78th Street. Figure 1 illustrates the site location. It is anticipated that the proposed Chanhassen Apartments will open in 2013. This report has been prepared to evaluate Year 2013 traffic conditions and projected Year 2033 traffic conditions with the proposed Chanhassen Apartments. STUDY AREA The study area for this analysis includes the following roadways and intersections: Roadways: • Arboretum Boulevard (TH 5) • West 78th Street • RIRO (right -in, right -out) Access Road (east -west road south of W 78th Street) • Galpin Boulevard (CR 117) • Apartment Access Road Intersections: • Galpin Boulevard / Arboretum Boulevard • Galpin Boulevard / RIRO Access Road • Galpin Boulevard / West 78th Street • Apartment Access Road / W 78th Street C �„ Kimley-Horn ant] Associates, Inc. Chanhassen Apartments TIA Mr. Paul Oehme, April 9.2013 Arboretum Boulevard (TH 5), a MnDOT trunk highway, is a four -lane arterial that has an east -west orientation. This section of Arboretum Boulevard (TH 5) has speed limit of 55 miles per hour. West 78th Street, a city of Chanhassen street, is a two-lane collector with an east -west orientation. West78th Street runs parallel to the north -side of Arboretum Boulevard and has a speed limit of 30 miles per hour. Galpin Boulevard (CR 117), a Carver county road, is two-lane collector with a north -south orientation. The speed limit is 40 miles per hour. RIRO (right -in, right -out) Access Road is a two lane access road to the pharmacy and gas station. Vehicle travel speeds were assumed to be 15 mules per hour. Apartment Access Road is a proposed two-lane road providing access to and from the proposed project. The road would be located west of Galpin Boulevard and connect north to W 78th Street. Vehicle travel speeds were assumed to be 15 miles per hour. Existing Coni i/ions and Traffic Galvin Boulevard & Arboretum Boulevard (TH S) Galpin Boulevard & Arboretum Boulevard (TH 5) is a signalized intersection with following lane geometry: Galpin Boulevard • Northbound — One exclusive left turn lane, one through lane, and one shared through -right lane. • Southbound — One exclusive left turn lane, one through lane, and one shared through -right lane. Arboretum Boulevard (TH 5) • Eastbound — One exclusive left turn lane, two through lanes, and one channelized right turn lane. • Westbound— One exclusive left turn lane, two through lanes, and one channelizcd right turn lane. The existing left-tum phasing for northbound and southbound left -turning vehicles at TH 5 operate with protected/permissive left-tums. The current signal indications are 5-section signal heads that include a green -ball, green left -arrow, yellow ball, yellow left -arrow and red ball. There have been citizen concerns related to safety for northbound and southbound left -turning vehicles at this intersection. There has been research completed that shows that there can be driver confusion primarily when the green ball is displayed in the 5-section left -turn signal head. Not all drivers understand that they can proceed but need to yield to opposing thin traffic. Research documented in NCHRP 493 titled, Evaluation of TraSic Signal Displays for Protected/Permissive Left -Turn Control by the Transportation Research Board in 2003 studied a variety of alternative protected/permissive left -turn indication and operation methods. This study found that the flashing yellow indication was well -understood and provides operational benefits. The flashing yellow indication is incorporated into a 4-section head with a red -arrow, yellow -arrow, flashing yellow -arrow and green ball. During the 2 Cam„ Kimley-Horn antl Associates, Inc. Chanhassen Apartments TIA Mr. Paul Oehme, Api 9, 2013 permissive phase of left-tum operations the left -turn signal indication displays a yellow -flashing arrow rather than a green ball indication. This study showed that there were some situations where the flashing yellow indication appeared to operate safer than other forms of protected/permissive left -turn control. MnDOT is in the process of converting the protected/permissive left-tum indications at the 700 hundred signals they operate in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area to flashing -yellow arrow indications. MnDOT will only fund these improvements on the intersection approaches that serve MnDOT facilities. Conversion of these signal indications are recommended at the intersection of TH 5 and Galpin Boulevard as a part of this project given the increase in suthbound left -turning vehicles at this intersection. Galpin Boulevard & RIRO Access Road The Galpin Boulevard and RIRO Access Road form a side -street stop controlled T-intersection. Galpin Boulevard nuts uncontrolled in the north -south direction while RIRO Access Road is stop controlled and forms the westbound leg of the intersection. Galpin Boulevard • Northbound — One through lane and one shared through -right lane. • Southbound — One through lane. RIRO Access Road • Westbound — One right turn lane. Galpin Boulevard & W 781h Street The Galpin Boulevard & W 78th Street intersection is two-way stop controlled intersection. Galpin Boulevard runs free north and south while W. 78th Street is stop controlled Galpin Boulevard • Northbound — Exclusive left-tum lane, one through lane, and a shared through -right lane. • Southbound — Exclusive left-tum lane and one shared through -right lane. W 781h Street • Eastbound— Exclusive left -turn lane and one shared through -right lane. • Westbound — Exclusive left-tum lane and one shared through -right lane. Apartment Access Road & W 78th Street This intersection does not yet exist. The intersection is anticipated to operate as a side -street stop controlled T-intersection, where the Apartment Access Road is stop -controlled and provides the northbound leg. The current and proposed lane geometry is listed below. Apartment Access Road • Northbound — One shared left -through -right lane [proposed]. Cl P'_F, Kimley-Horn Chanhassen Apartments TN \ and Associates, inc. Mr. Paul0ehme, Apr# 9, 2013 W. 781h street • Eastbound —One through lane [current]. One shared through -right lane [proposed] • Westbound — One through lane [current]. One shared through -left lane [proposed] Existing site traffic was determined from traffic counts collected by Alliant Engineering, Inc. on Thursday, March 7, 2013. The existing roadway lane geometry is presented on Figure 2 and Year 2013 AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes are shown on Figure 3. TRIP GENERATION Trip generation for the proposed Chanhassen Apartment was based on the rates provided in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (91h Edition). Using the land use classification, "Apartment" (ITE land use code 220), peak AM and PM trip generation was calculated. Based on 155 dwelling units, the proposed project was expected to generate 79 AM peak - hour trips (16 in, 63 out), % PM peak -hour trips (62 in, 34 out), and 1,031 total daily trips. Table 1 summarizes the estimated traffic generation for the proposed project. TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT The directional distribution and assignment of trips generated by the proposed project was assumed based on a review of existing traffic volumes and access to the site. The following is the projected inbound and outbound distributions: • 25% to/from Arboretum Boulevard (TH 5) west of Galpin Boulevard • 55% tolfrom Arboretum Boulevard (TH 5) east of Galpin Boulevard • 10% to(from Galpin Boulevard south of Arboretum Boulevard (TH 5) • 2.5% to/from Galpin Boulevard north of W 78th Street • 5% to/from W 78th Street west of the proposed Apartment Access Road • 2.5% to/from W 78th Street east of Galpin Boulevard Site traffic distribution is illustrated in Figure 4. Based on the project trip distribution, morning and afternoon project trips were assigned to the local roadway network and through the study intersections. Figure 5 shows the project's trip assignment at the study intersections. PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES Historic Traffic Growth According to the Carver County 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the study area is projected to experience minor increases in traffic by 2030. Using the 2013 count data and the 2030 AADT map of Carver County with base scenario improvements (which matches 2030 volumes in the City's Comprehensive Plan), annual compounding growth rates were calculated for links east of Galpin Boulevard (-0.73%), west of Galpin Boulevard (-1.06%), and along Galpin Boulevard (2.19%). C:=" Kiml Hom Chanhassen Apartments TIA and Associates, Inc. Mt Paul 0ehme, April 9, 2013 Total Traffic To obtain Year 2033 traffic volumes, the calculated annual growth rates were applied to the 2013 traffic counts. The following growth factors, based on 20 year compounded growth, were applied to the 2013 traffic counts to obtain 2033 traffic volumes: 0.81 for links west of Galpin Boulevard, 0.86 for links east of Galpin Boulevard, and 1.54 for volumes on Galpin Boulevard. Figure 6 illustrates the resulting Year 2033 traffic volumes. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS The purpose of the traffic analysis is to identify potential traffic impacts associated with the proposed apartment. Capacity analyses for the intersections within the study area were performed for morning and afternoon peak periods for Year 2013 and Year 2033 conditions. Figure 7 and Figure 8 present the traffic volumes with project trips for Year 2013 and Year 2033, respectively. Level of Serwee (LOTS) Level of Service (LOS) analyses were performed using Synchro 8 and SimTraffic software. Both programs utilize methodologies contained in the Highway Capacity Manual to determine the operating characteristics of a roadway network. Capacity is defined as the maximum number of vehicles that can pass over a particular road segment or through a particular intersection within a specified period under prevailing roadway, traffic, and control conditions. Level of Service is defined as a qualitative measure that describes operational conditions and motorist's perception within a traffic stream The Highway Capacity Manual defines six levels of service, LOS A through LOS F, with LOS A representing free -flow conditions and LOS F representing roadway failure. LOS D is typically recognized by Mn/DOT and other agencies as the minimum threshold value for satisfactory level of service. The Highway Capacity Manual defines delay as "the additional travel time experienced by a driver, passenger, or pedestrian", whereas control delay is defined as "the component of delay that results when a control signal causes a lane group to reduce speed or stop; it is measured by comparison with the uncontrolled condition". Control delay is the principal service measure for evaluating LOS at signalized intersections and unsignalized intersections. Note that LOS for both signalized and unsignalized intersections are measured in seconds of delay per vehicle traveling through the intersection. Table 2 and Table 3 list the level of service thresholds for signalized and unsignalized intersections, respectively. Based on an average of five SintTrafc simulation runs, Table 4 and Table 5 shows the overall average intersection delay and associated LOS for the base and with Project conditions in Year 2013 and Year 2033. For the Year 2013 scenario, the proposed land use was not projected to cause any significant traffic impacts to the four study intersections based on average intersection delay. The signalized intersection at Galpin Boulevard & Arboretum Boulevard (TH 5) is projected to operate at LOS C for both baseline and with Project conditions. All non -signalized intersections were projected to operate at LOS A for both baseline and with Project conditions. P'ZFJ Kimley-Horn \ a� and Auociatm Inc. Chanhassen Apartments TIA Mr. PaulOehme, Apr# 9, 2073 In the Year 2033 conditions, the proposed project was not projected to cause any significant traffic impacts at the study intersections. The Galpin Boulevard & Arboretum Boulevard (TH 5) intersection was projected to operate at LOS D or better for both baseline and with Project conditions. The remaining intersections were projected to operate at LOS A for both baseline and with Project conditions. INTERSECTION CONTROL CONSIDERATIONS Alternative intersection control methods were reviewed due to anticipated traffic increases through the Galpin Boulevard & W 78th Street intersection. Warrants, crash history and operations are the primary factors that are reviewed to determine the recommended type of intersection control. These items are discussed further below: Saft Crash data available from the Minnesota Crash Mapping Analysis Tool (MnCMAT) was reviewed to determine if there were a significant number of crashes that are susceptible to correction by changing intersection control (i.e. right-angle crashes). Crashes for the last three years, where a full year of data was available, were reviewed, and there were four, zero, and two crashes in 2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively that were susceptible to correction through a change in intersection control. All these crashes did not result any injuries. Because there were no more than five crashes susceptible to correction in a single year, there is no justification to change intersection control based on crash history. Warrants The multi -way stop warrant was reviewed to determine if an all -way stop was justified based on the anticipated increase in traffic volumes with and without the proposed project. To satisfy the multi - way stop warrants as documented in the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control (MnMUTCD) the vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches must exceed 300 vehicles per hour and the combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the intersection from the minor street approaches must exceed 200 units per hours for the same eight hours. Table 7 summarizes the results. The minor street volumes do not exceed 200 units per hour during any of the hours analyzed so a multi -way stop installation is not recommended. Operations An alternative form of intersection control is a roundabout. To allow for comparison Synchro was used to analyze two-way stop control and RODEL was used to model a roundabout intersection. A conceptual layout of a roundabout is shown in Exhibit 1 and the traffic volumes used to complete the analysis are shown in Figure 9. The roundabout was tested for geometric sensitivity by running the analysis at an 85% confidence interval. This was done to see if significant changes in delay occurred, which could indicate that predicted operations are approaching capacity of the roundabout. The comparative analysis showing intersection and approach delays are reported in Table 8. The results show that under both two-way stop control and roundabout control the individual approaches and overall intersection LOS are all at LOS B or better under either type of intersection control whether or not the proposed project is constructed. con Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. CONCLUSIONS Chanhassen Apartments TIA Mr. Paul Oehme, April 9, 2073 No significant traffic impacts were found as a result of the proposed apartment building. Study intersections near the project site are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during Year 2013 and Year 2033 conditions. The addition of project traffic was not observed to impact intersection LOS; the intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS. As an alternative form of intersection control the feasibility of a roundabout was reviewed at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard & W 786' Street. This was reviewed in part because there are several vehicles that enter from the gas station and pharmacy at the southeast comer of the intersection that turn north onto Galpin Boulevard from RIRO Access Road and complete a U-turn at the intersection with West 78th Street. These vehicles are not anticipated to experience or cause significant delays and a review of the turning -template for a passenger vehicle design vehicle shows that these vehicles can rake a u-turn at the existing intersection. Given the cost of the roundabout improvements and that the intersection is anticipate to operate adequately under two-way stop control, a roundabout is not recommended. The existing left -turn phasing for northbound and southbound left-tuming vehicles at TH 5 operate with protected/permissive left -turns. There have been citizen concerns related to safety for northbound and southbound left -turning vehicles at this intersection. There has been research completed that shows that there can be driver confusion primarily when the green ball is displayed in the 5-section left-tum signal head. Research has found that the flashing yellow indication is well - understood and provides operational benefits. This research also indicated that there were some situations where the flashing yellow indication appears to operate safer than other forms of protected/permissive left-tum control. Conversion of these signal indications are recommended at the intersection of TH 5 and Galpin Boulevard as a part of this project given the increase in southbound left -turning vehicles at this intersection. Sincerely, KM EY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Brandon J. Bourdon, P.E. Project Engincer Chanhassen Apartments Legend: xO Signalized Intersection 0 Unsignalized Intersection 0 FIGURE 1 6 ==" W. Project Site Plan Chanhassen Boulevard Galpin Boulevard/ Arboretum Blvd (TH-5) Galpin Boulevard/ Access Road Galpin Boulevard/ W 78th Street Apartment Access Rd/ W 78th Street tt- I -,tt- I + IS [proposed) SSignalized Intersection 0 Unsignalized Intersection NOT 70 SCALE FIGURE 2 Gin model Inc Existing Lane Geometry R $ 0 2121 a 46/66 =11357 1e/P c 7671a a s 06/a a e a w a 26/0 UM!r�rw eeele....r wmu SIMON 30161 0 o q o q o 11121 0 o p o 13211IM o g 'm$ 45137 b g agile e 1111" 0 n 261 to Yg VI n m pry O N Y 0 O WffktHorn X�/Y�AY/RIPFAR110U1 116eM61QUI® IIUT 111MNL FIGURE 3 �'�`—� Yo v 2013 Pask4*xr Traffic Vokonow Chanhassen Apartments Proposed Apartment C�� ,a„,�„ _HOM FIGURE 4 ti and ASMdOft Yic Project Trip Distribution Chanhassen Apartments 2 3 ` yL m 0 9134 n { o a a 9/2 n a p 151% AMWhWtpw MM/�uapW Wlrwp W7 St 4116 D R 2/1 2/1 a 57 31 0 �i 1 / 3 N f < m Kmley4lom and Assodatm Im jrlt/�Y•AY/IY PFMIRII/R 1UM'IIB WYIAIE9 IqT IU tIC�LE FIGURE 5 Project Trip Assignment - Shidy lntersecbons Chanhassen Aparhnenfs z 3 m3 2 116 v 391 ]4 1y 4! '�aSS o O l5 449 / 1173 a +.I M e 1051203 - 59/59 -- e ¢ .. n M/M MEenWm BM RMAntiY W1 W WW 91 1 d) 24141 - _- _ r 9112 o a 4 a 1066/666 = 39I30 a 66161 a 90/36 ,. 2+I15 0 y = 3 n 1G6eyiW j�.,ul/PY PFAIfIpUR NWINlI NOI.u41E¢ NOT +os ue FIGURE 6 Year 2033 Baseline Peak -Hour Traffic Volumes Chanhassen Aparbnents : 3 a a � o � a5/tib iO �$ j+ ` o Ofa f a s25/I36r g � a ,!/fi6 75/,55 e a a o • #* a ., n .. 0 29140 a 15150 aw.rrr RaOAvw Ra WMIN wrrr 341" o a g o _j -. 13 / n a o n a o 0 13211M a g 41/33 a r� a2l78 e 111/N e _� n 831" a N _� 1,13 .1rN Ny :, �XIY=AM//V REAI(Hp/R LAMING VQUYES NOT i0 SCALE FIGURE 7 Year 2013 Plus Project Peak -Hour Traffic Volumes a ry 0 11152 ^ 0 39 174 R 0 015 449/1173 i6 a a 14/M 10 IM3 a a a a 59159 3 n a s 25135 a 15 / 59 IN9WE�9M CZ N�I10Aeuu Rtl 91)M1M W)51N t1 25157 10M/9M a 35/J1 0 M/81 a a v �_ yy �_ 90135 w _8 75/AB a d � 1IJ �XIY-AWIPMPEAX~ 1IIg1INp WYLYFB NOT TO IfAIE FIGURE 8 Year 2033 Baseline Plus Project Peak -Hour Tiaft Vokrmes Chanhassen Boulevard 2013 Volumes with Chanhassen Apartment Trips nn m 0/6 0 16/55 M o `29/40 �0/0 13/22J tiw%oni 47 / 38 — 1 o \ j 83 / 49 a, Wj � v a W 78th Street 2033 Volumes with Chanhassen Apartment Trips ry m 0/5 m a O 14/48 M rn o% ry m v o `25/35 J �► U C;: 0/0 W78th Street 0/0 11/18, w w A 38/31� 78/46 , N N a 0 ! o Co c Legend: a 0 Unsignalized Intersection ID XX/XX AM/PM Volumes WT M aCAU FIGURE 9 CAI ,and AssoclebmInc- Galpin Blvd & W 78th St Traffic Volumes TABLE I TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Lid U. �ad Um ar lhted io ITE'. Foils' THp Ram' DH Tri AM Peak -Hoar I']1 I'eaA-Ilnur %OfADT' la:t tRath° In Om '1'u4.1 %ol'ADT' Inalm ltatiu° In out 1'o1.1 Driveway Trips 1 Prnpmrd 'hznha.rt Apanments Apannam 155 du 6Ail du 1.031 8% 0.211 : ONO 16 63 79 9% 1 0.65 0.35 62 34 96 NET TRIP GENERATION s 1,031 16 63 79 it 34 96 1. DU -D llna Unit . TH, rYm rcmrcrce from ITE Trip G.,., 91h Edvion. . Drisxwe t' art the tool runtber of o-i etmted erne. Table 2: Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections LOS Criteria for Signalized Intersections LOS Control Delay per Vehicle (s/veh) A <10 B > 10-20 C > 20-35 D > 35-55 E > 55-80 F > 80 Highmy Capacity Manual 2010; s/veh = seconds per vehicle Table 3: Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections LOS Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections LOS Control Delay per Vehicle (s/veh) A <10 B > 10-15 C > 15-25 D > 25-35 E > 35-50 F > 50 High%w Capacity Manua/ 2010; s/veh = seconds per vehicle TABLE 4 YEAR 2013 CONDITIONS PEAK -HOUR INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMAR Y YEAR 2013 BASELINE PEAK YEAR 2013 BASELINE PLUS PROJECT DELAY a LOS b DELAY a LOS (b) A (c) SIGNIFICANT? INTERSECTION HOUR Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH-5) AM 27.5 C 28.2 C 0.7 NO PM 23.1 C 23.8 C 0.7 NO Performance by movement Galpin Blvd & Access Road AM 1.0 A 1.0 A 0.0 NO 2 Performance by movement PM 1.4 A 1.7 A 0.3 NO Galpin Blvd & W 78th St Performance AM 2.1 A 2.4 A 0.3 NO 3 PM 2.6 A 3.1 A 0.5 NO by movement Apartment Access Road & W 78th St AM - 1.1 A - NO 4 Performance by movement pm- 1.5 A NO Notes: a) Delay refers to the average control delay far the entire intersection, measured in seconds per vehicle. b) LOS calculations are based on the methodology outlined in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual and perfomted using Synchro 8. c Change in delay due to addition of pmjml traffic TABLE S YEAR 2033 CONDITIONS PEAK -HOUR INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SER VICE SUMMAR Y INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR YEAR 2033 BASELINE YEAR 2033 BASELINE PLUS PROJECT DELAY a LOS (b) DELAY a LOS b A (c) SIGNIFICANT? I Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH-5) Performance by movement AM 35.8 D 39.0 D 3.2 NO PM 32.7 C 36.8 D 4.1 NO 2 Galpin Blvd & Access Road Performance by movement AM 0.9 A 2.6 A 1.7 NO PM 1.3 A 1.6 A 0.3 NO 3 Galpin Blvd & W 78th St Performance by movement AM 2.1 A 3.2 A 1.1 NO PM 2.7 A 3.0 A 0.3 NO 4 Apartment Access Road & W 78th St Performance by movement AM I.1 A - NO PM - - 1.5 A - NO Notes: a) Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection, measured in seconds per vehicle. h) LOS calculations are based on the methodology outlined in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual and performed using Synchro 8. q Change in delay due to addition of project traffic TABLE 6 YEAR 2013 AND YEAR 2033 CONDITIONS PEAK -HOUR INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERV7CE SUMMARY Intersection 3: Gal in Boulevard & W 78th Street Year2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT Ni SBL SBT SBR Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS IDela LOS Delay LOS D lay LOS IDelay LOS Existing AM 6.1 A 8.3 A 3.8 A 7.3 A T6 A 0 A 2.8 A 0.3 A 0.3 A 1.6 A 0.3 A 0 A with Project AM 7.6 A 8.6 A 4.3 A 7.5 A T3 A 0 A 3 A 0.2 A 0.1 A 1.8 A 0.3 A ExistingPM T1 A 9 A 3.9 A 8.1 A 8.4 A 2.9 A 2.5 A 0.3 A 0.2 A 2.7 A &5 A with Project PM 9.3 A 10.5 B 3.8 A 9.7 A 9 A 4.3 A 2.7 A 0.3 A 0.2 A 3 A 0.7 A Intersection 3: Gal in Boulevard & W 78th Street Year 2033 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT I WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delayl LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS ExistingAM 11.3 B 10.4 B 4.7 A 10.2 8 9.7 A 0 A 3.1 A 64 A 0.3 A 2.2 A 0-4 A 0.1 A with Project AM 11.7 B 12 B 8.6 A 11.5 B 10.4 B 0 A 4.1 A 0.3 A 0.3 A 2.1 A 1.2 A 0.5 A ExistingPM 10A B 12.3 B 4.8 A 11.8 B 10.7 B 3.4 A 2.9 A 0A A 0.4 A 3.7 A 0.7 A 0.5 A with Project PM 11.7 B 13.6 B 4.6 A 13.8 B 13.1 B 3.8 A 3.4 A 0.4 A 0.3 A 3.3 A 0.9 A 0.6 A TABLE 7 YEAR 2013 AND YEAR 2033 MULTI -WAY STOP WARRANT E [SAL UATION SUMMAR Y YEAR 2013 YEAR 2033 MEETS WARRANT? I MEETS WARRANT? WB EI3 TOTAL SB NEI TOTAL MINOR 3MAJOR WB EB ITOTAL NB TOTAL MINOR MAJOR 06:00 21 48 69 94 46 140 NO NO 06:00 19 39 58 146 1 71 217 NO NO 07:00 33 75 108 274 105 379 NO YES 07:00 29 61 90 423 163 586 NO YES 08:00 56 59 115 171 99 270 NO NO 08:00 49 48 97 264 153 417 NO YES 09:00 38 54 92 133 124 257 NO NO 09:00 33 44 77 206 192 398 NO YES 10:00 37 46 83 74 100 174 NO NO 10:00 32 38 70 115 155 270 NO NO 11:00 36 62 98 87 142 229 NO NO 11:00 32 51 83 135 220 355 NO YES 12:00 53 82 135 94 173 267 NO NO 12:00 46 67 113 146 267 413 NO YES 13:00 46 62 1 106 1 89 1 147 1 236 1 NO NO 13:001 40 1 51 91 138 227 1 365 NO I YES 14:00 48 57 106 90 143 233 NO NO 14:00 42 47 89 1 139 221 360 1 NO YES 15:00 41 67 108 139 1 257 1 396 NO YES 15:00 36 55 91 1 215 397 612 NO YES 16:00 BB 72 138 91 285 476 NO YES 16:00 58 59 117 295 440 735 NO YES 1700 90 68 158 163 314 477 NO YES 17:00 78 55 133 252 485 737 NO YES 18.00 26 81 107 136 240 376 NO YES 18:00 23 66 1 89 1 210 371 581 NO YES Notes', Volumes include vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian counts. Volumes include only vehicle counts. Minor street warrant is met if total vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian volumes exceed 200 for 8 hours and the hic hest delay per vehicle in peak hour exceeds 30 seconds. Major sheet wa'ant is met if total vehicle volumes exceed 300 for 8 hours. TABLE 8 YEAR 2013 AND YEAR 2033 CONDITIONS UNSIGNALIZED AND ROUNDABOUT LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY Intersection 3: Galpin Boulevard 8 W 78th Street - Two-Wa Stop Year 2013 EB WB NB SB Overall Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Existing AM 6.5 A 7.4 A 1.0 A 0.5 A 2.1 A with Project AM 6.1 A 74 A 1.1 A 0.5 A 2.4 A Existing PM 7.3 A 8.0 A 0.9 A 0.9 A 2.6 A with Project PM 7.3 A 9.0 A 1.2 A 1.1 A 3.1 A Intersection 3: Galpin Boulevard & W 78th Street - Roundabout Year 2013 EB WB NB SB Overall Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Existing AM 32 A 2.9 A 3.0 A 3.4 A 3.2 A with Project AM 3.4 A 2.9 A 3.1 A 3A A 3.3 A Existing PM 3.1 A 3.3 A 3.6 A 3.3 A 3.4 A with Project PM 3.2 A 3.5 B 3.8 A 3.4 A 3.6 A Intersection 3: Galpin Boulevard 8 W 78th Street - Two -Way Stop Year 2033 EB I WB NB SB Overall Delay LOS I Delayl LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Existing AM 9.0 A 10.0 B 1.2 A 0.6 A 2.1 A with Project AM 9.8 A 11.0 B 1.1 A 1.3 A 3.2 A Existing PM 10.1 A 10.7 B 1.1 A 0.8 A 2.7 A with Project PM 8.5 A 12.7 B 1.5 A 1.3 A 3.0 A Intersection 3: Galpin Boulevard 8 W 78th Street - Roundabout Year2033 EB WB NB SB Overall Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Existing AM 3.5 AMOA 3.3 A 4.0 A 32 A with Project AM 3.7 A 3.3 A 4.1 A 3.8A Existing PM 3.3 A 4.5 A 3.7 A 3.4with Project PM 3.4 A 4.8 A 3.9 `Existing R/W R=135' \ R-115' \ / R-130' \Existing /R/� I Curb \ I / R 135' I I R=It25' Existing R/W Apron\ r \ R=130' \ DR=115' >B \ � ST R=12 wuntabie Curb \ \ i Existing R/W 25 50 SCALE IN FEET GALPIN BLVD & 78TH ST ROUNDABOUT IMPROVEMENTS ic"►re6wa Am iFi, e"Miss minim zz EXHIBIT I Chanhassen Apartments Year 2013 AM Peak 1: Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH-5) Performance by movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied DelNeh (a) 2.5 0.3 2.2 3.2 0 1 3.0 3.7 0 2 0.2 00 0 0 0.0 Total DelNeh (a) 86.5 18.8 6.7 84.6 10.7 5.1 62.1 85.5 39.6 65.3 63.7 29.7 Vehicles Entered 31 1328 103 71 512 2 33 73 84 136 142 19 Vehicles Exited 30 1323 104 71 509 2 33 73 83 136 142 19 Hourly Exit Rate 30 1323 104 71 509 2 33 73 83 136 142 19 Input Volume 30 1321 111 68 520 2 34 72 86 136 142 20 % of Volume 100 100 93 104 98 100 97 101 96 100 100 96 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1: Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH-5) Performance by movement Denied DelNeh (s) 0,5 Total DelNeh (a) 27.5 Vehicles Entered 2534 Vehicles Exited 2525 Hourly Exit Rate 2525 Input Volume 2542 % of Volume 99 Denied Entry Before 0 2: Galpin Blvd & Access Road Performance by movement SBT '. Denied DelNeh (s) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total DelNeh (s) 2.7 1.7 1.9 0.3 1.0 Vehicles Entered 50 90 51 297 488 Vehicles Exited 50 90 51 297 488 Hourly Exit Rate 50 90 51 297 488 Input Volume 45 93 52 298 488 % of Volume 110 97 99 100 100 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 3: Galpin Blvd & W 78th St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT SBT SBR AN Denied DelNeh (s) 00 0.0 0 0 4 1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 02 Total DeNeh (s) 6.1 8.3 3.8 7.3 7.6 2.8 0.3 0.3 1.6 0.3 0.0 2A Vehicles Entered 11 45 28 27 13 39 97 3 36 219 18 536 Vehicles Exited 10 46 28 26 13 38 97 3 36 219 18 534 Hourly Exit Rate 10 46 28 26 13 38 97 3 36 219 18 534 Input Volume 11 45 26 29 16 44 92 2 38 219 15 538 % of Volume 89 102 109 90 80 86 106 150 95 100 118 99 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 KHA SimTraffic Report SimTraffic Performance Report Page 1 Chanhassen Apartments Network Performance Year 2013 AM Peak Denied DelNeh (s) 0.5 Total DeWeh (s) 28.7 Vehicles Entered 2743 Vehicles Exited 2740 Hourly Exit Rate 2740 Input Volume 7232 of Volume 38 Denied Entry Before 0 KHA SimTraffic Report SimTraffic Performance Report Page 2 Chanhassen Apartments Year 2013 with Project AM Peak 1: Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH-5) Performance by movement Movemat' EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied DelNeh (s) 2.2 0 3 24 3.2 0.1 2.8 3 8 0 2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0-0 Total DelNeh (s) 90.5 18.5 6.0 97.7 11.5 4.0 54.9 81.1 43.0 69.4 63.8 29.0 Vehicles Entered 28 1322 97 77 542 11 30 65 85 174 132 31 Vehicles Exited 29 1321 98 79 543 12 29 65 85 174 133 32 Hourly Exit Rate 29 1321 98 79 543 12 29 65 85 174 133 32 Input Volume 34 1321 111 68 520 11 34 74 86 171 148 36 of Volume 85 100 88 116 104 107 85 88 99 102 90 89 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1: Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH-5) Performance by movement Denied DelNeh (s) 0.5 Total DeWeh (s) 28.2 Vehicles Entered 2594 Vehicles Exited 2600 Hourly Exit Rate 2600 Input Volume 2615 % of Volume 99 Denied Entry Before 0 2: Galpin Blvd & Access Road Performance by movement NBR _ Denied DelNeh (s) 0.1 0.0 0 1 0.0 0.0 Total DeWeh (s) 2.7 1.9 2.0 0.4 1.0 Vehicles Entered 44 95 52 338 529 Vehicles Exited 44 95 52 338 529 Hourly Exit Rate 44 95 52 338 529 Input Volume 45 107 52 355 559 % of Volume 97 89 100 95 95 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 3: Galpin Blvd & W 78th St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied DelNeh (s) 00 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 2 Total DeWeh (s) 7.6 8.6 4.3 7.5 7.3 3.0 0.2 0.1 1.8 0.3 0.1 2.4 Vehicles Entered 16 43 72 25 18 46 91 1 32 218 17 579 Vehicles Exited 16 42 72 26 18 47 91 1 32 217 17 579 Hourly Exit Rate 16 42 72 26 18 47 91 1 32 217 17 579 Input Volume 13 47 83 29 16 58 92 2 38 219 15 614 % of Volume 121 89 86 90 111 81 98 50 84 99 Ill 94 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 KHA SimTraffic Report SimTraffc Performance Report Page 1 Chanhassen Apartments Year 2013 with Project AM Peak 4: Apartment Access Road & W 78th St Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied DelNeh (s) 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total DelNeh (s) 0.1 00 2.6 0.8 4.6 2.6 1.1 Vehicles Entered 76 1 11 72 3 53 216 Vehicles Exited 76 1 11 72 3 53 216 Hourly Exit Rate 76 1 11 72 3 53 216 Input Volume 82 1 15 75 3 60 236 % of Volume 92 100 72 96 100 89 91 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Network Performance Denied DelNeh (s) 0.5 Total DeNeh (a) 295 Vehicles Entered 2810 Vehicles Exited 2810 Hourly Exit Rate 2810 Input Volume 7776 % of Volume 36 Denied Entry Before 0 KHA SimTraffic Report SimTraffic Performance Report Page 2 Chanhassen Apartments Year 2013 PM Peak 1: Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH-5) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied DelNeh (s) 2.8 02 2 6 2.2 0.3 19 3.7 02 0.2 0.0 0.0 0 0 Total DelNeh (s) 69.3 11.1 4.4 77.8 15.4 5.7 66.8 67.2 29.4 61.9 64.0 32.2 Vehicles Entered 50 811 46 62 1358 21 98 103 67 53 91 56 Vehicles Exiled 51 811 47 60 1358 21 95 101 65 53 89 56 Hourly Exit Rate 51 811 47 60 1358 21 95 101 65 53 89 56 Input Volume 51 826 44 68 1357 21 105 105 65 58 98 57 % of Volume 100 98 106 88 100 101 90 96 100 92 91 99 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1: Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH-5) Performance by movement Denied DelNeh (s) 0.5 Total DelNeh (s) 23.1 Vehicles Entered 2816 Vehicles Exited 2807 Hourly Exit Rate 2807 Input Volume 2855 % of Volume 98 Denied Entry Before 0 2: Galpin Blvd & Access Road Performance by movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All Denied DelNeh (s) 0 1 0 1 0 1 0.0 0 1 Total DeNeh (s) 3.2 1.6 1.5 0.3 1.4 Vehicles Entered 84 240 72 201 597 Vehicles Exited 83 239 72 201 595 Hourly Exit Rate 83 239 72 201 595 Input Volume 86 243 71 212 612 of Volume 96 98 101 95 97 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 KHA SimTraffic Report SimTraffic Performance Report Page 1 Chanhassen Apartments Year 2013 PM Peak 3: Galpin Blvd & W 78th St Performance by movement Movement 1' EBL EBT EBR WBL WEIT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied DeWeh (s) 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.9 0.2 0 1 00 0.0 0 0 4.1 02 0.2 Total DelNeh (s) 7.1 9.0 3.9 8.1 8.4 2.9 2 5 0.3 0.2 2.7 0.5 0.3 Vehicles Entered 21 33 16 37 56 6 89 220 14 28 134 10 Vehicles Exited 21 33 16 37 55 6 89 218 14 29 134 10 Hourly Exit Rate 21 33 16 37 55 6 89 218 14 29 134 10 Input Volume 21 37 18 40 53 6 92 224 14 31 137 10 % of Volume 101 89 90 92 104 96 97 97 98 94 98 98 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3: Galpin Blvd & W 78th St Performance by movement All Denied DelNeh (s) 0 5 Total DelNeh (s) 2.6 Vehicles Entered 664 Vehicles Exited 662 Hourly Exit Rate 662 Input Volume 683 % of Volume 97 Denied Entry Before 0 Total Network Performance Denied DelNeh (s) 0.5 Total DeWeh (s) 23A Vehicles Entered 3195 Vehicles Exited 3207 Hourly Exit Rate 3207 Input Volume 7615 of Volume 42 Denied Entry Before 0 KHA SimTraffic Report SimTraffic Performance Report Page 2 Chanhassen Apartments Year 2013 with Project PM Peak 1: Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH-5) Performance bV movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WEIR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied DelNeh Is) 2 7 0.2 2.6 2.2 0.3 20 3.6 02 0 1 0.0 00 0.0 Total DelNeh (s) 71.5 11.8 4.5 76.4 15.8 5.5 65.8 66.5 27.0 55.4 64.0 35.5 Vehicles Entered 60 857 49 68 1357 51 100 107 60 69 101 66 Vehicles Exited 62 851 49 67 1345 52 103 108 60 71 103 68 Hourly Exit Rate 62 851 49 67 1345 52 103 108 60 71 103 68 Input Volume 67 826 44 68 1357 55 105 111 65 77 100 66 of Volume 93 103 ill 99 99 95 98 97 92 92 103 103 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1: Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH-51 Performance by movement Denied DelNeh (s) 0.5 Total DeNeh (s) 23.8 Vehicles Entered 2945 Vehicles Exited 2939 Hourly Exit Rate 2939 Input Volume 2942 of Volume 100 Denied Entry Before 0 2: Galpin Blvd & Access Road Performance by movement 1111111I - ' " "�IBT NBR SBT Denied DelNeh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 Total DelNeh (s) 3.4 2.1 1.8 0.4 1.7 Vehicles Entered 86 297 74 237 694 Vehicles Exited 86 294 74 237 691 Hourly Exit Rate 86 294 74 237 691 Input Volume 86 299 71 243 699 of Volume 100 98 104 98 99 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 KHA SimTraffic Report SimTraffic Performance Report Page 1 Chanhassen Apartments Year 2013 with Project PM Peak I Galpin Blvd & W 78th St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied DelNeh (s) 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 3 0 1 0.0 00 0 0 3.9 02 02 Total DeWeh (s) 93 10.5 3.8 9.7 90 43 2.7 0.3 0.2 3.0 0.7 0.5 Vehicles Entered 19 38 48 41 55 7 150 220 12 33 134 11 Vehicles Exited 19 38 47 40 56 7 149 220 12 33 133 11 Hourly Exit Rate 19 38 47 40 56 7 149 220 12 33 133 11 Input Volume 22 38 49 40 55 6 148 224 14 31 137 12 % of Volume 87 99 95 100 102 112 101 98 84 106 97 90 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3: Galpin Blvd & W 78th St Performance by movement Denied DelNeh (s) 0 4 Total DelNeh (s) 3.1 Vehicles Entered 768 Vehicles Exited 765 Hourly Exit Rate 765 Input Volume 777 of Volume 98 Denied Entry Before 0 4: Apartment Access Road & W 78th St Performance by movement ""'EBT Denied DelNeh (s) 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total DeWeh (s) 0.2 0.0 2.9 1.4 6.2 2.5 1.5 Vehicles Entered 77 4 56 160 2 27 326 Vehicles Exited 77 4 56 159 2 27 325 Hourly Exit Rate 77 4 56 159 2 27 325 Input Volume 76 3 59 156 2 32 328 % of Volume 101 133 95 102 100 84 99 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Network Performance Denied DelNeh (s) 0.6 Total DeWeh (s) 24.3 Vehicles Entered 3353 Vehicles Exited 3355 Hourly Exit Rate 3355 Input Volume 8316 % of Volume 40 Denied Entry Before 0 KHA SimTraffic Report SimTraffic Performance Report Page 2 Chanhassen Apartments Year 2033 Base Growth AM Peak 1: Galoin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH-5) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied DelNeh (s) 22 0.2 2.6 3.3 0 1 4 3 3.7 02 0.2 00 0.0 0.0 Total DeWeh (s) 94.7 2&0 5.8 86.7 12A 3.9 59.2 91.2 7T5 72.3 61.2 30.8 Vehicles Entered 22 1082 82 59 443 1 53 105 133 215 219 28 Vehicles Exited 22 1085 83 58 446 1 53 106 135 212 218 28 Hourly Exit Rate 22 1085 83 58 446 1 53 106 135 212 218 28 Input Volume 24 1068 90 59 449 2 52 111 133 210 220 31 % of Volume 93 102 92 99 99 50 102 95 102 101 99 90 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1: Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH-5) Performance by movement All Denied DelNeh (s) 04 Total DeWeh (s) 35.8 Vehicles Entered 2442 Vehicles Exited 2447 Hourly Exit Rate 2447 Input Volume 2448 % of Volume 100 Denied Entry Before 0 2: Galpin Blvd & Access Road Performance by movement Denied DelNeh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total DelNeh (a) 2.7 1.4 1.8 0.5 0.9 Vehicles Entered 41 137 80 463 721 Vehicles Exited 41 137 81 462 721 Hourly Exit Rate 41 137 81 462 721 Input Volume 39 143 80 460 722 of Volume 105 96 101 100 100 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 3: Galpin Blvd & W 78th St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied DelNeh (s) 0.0 0.0 0 0 42 0.2 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 00 0.2 Total DeWeh (s) 11.3 10.4 4.7 10.2 9.7 3.1 0.4 0.3 2.2 0.4 0.1 2.1 Vehicles Entered 10 41 20 27 16 60 142 3 56 341 23 739 Vehicles Exited 10 41 20 27 15 60 142 3 56 341 22 737 Hourly Exit Rate 10 41 20 27 15 60 142 3 56 341 22 737 Input Volume 9 36 21 25 14 68 142 3 59 338 23 737 % of Volume 108 114 96 109 105 88 100 100 95 101 97 100 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 KHA SimTraffic Report SimTraffic Performance Report Page 1 Chanhassen Apartments Year 2033 Base Growth AM Peak Total Network Performance Denied DelNeh (s) 0.5 Total DelNeh (s) 35.1 Vehicles Entered 2742 Vehicles Exited 2747 Hourly Exit Rate 2747 Input Volume 7964 % of Volume 34 Denied Entry Before 0 KHA SimTraffic Report SimTraffic Performance Report Page 2 Chanhassen Apartments Year 2033 Base Growth with Project AM Peak 1: Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH-5) Performance by movement EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied DelNeh (s) 2.5 0.3 2 4 3 3 0 1 3.7 3.5 0.2 0.2 00 0.0 0.0 Toted DeVVeh (s) 81.4 19.6 5.5 75.3 12 7 4.5 62.8 88.6 78.0 99.2 65.5 39.9 Vehicles Entered 25 1056 91 54 442 10 53 120 129 239 221 53 Vehicles Exited 26 1052 91 53 443 10 52 120 130 240 222 53 Hourly Exit Rate 26 1052 91 53 443 10 52 120 130 240 222 53 Input Volume 28 1068 90 59 449 11 52 113 133 245 225 47 % of Volume 94 99 101 90 99 89 100 106 98 98 99 112 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1: Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH-5) Performance by movement Moiq��_,e__.aeu�.9 _u Denied DelNeh (s) 0 4 Total DelNeh (s) 39.0 Vehicles Entered 2493 Vehicles Exited 2492 Hourly Exit Rate 2492 Input Volume 2520 % of Volume 99 Denied Entry Before 0 2: Galpin Blvd & Access Road Performance by movement -. .. 0.2 Denied DelNeh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 Toted DeNeh (s) 2.8 1.9 1.9 2.9 2.6 Vehicles Entered 37 159 77 513 786 Vehicles Exited 38 159 77 513 787 Hourly Exit Rate 38 159 77 513 787 Input Volume 39 157 80 517 793 %of Volume 97 101 96 99 99 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 3: Galpin Blvd & W 78th St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied DelNeh (s) 0 0 0 0 0.0 4.2 0.2 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total DeNeh (s) 11.7 12.0 8.6 11.5 10.4 4.1 0.3 0.3 2A 1.2 0.5 3.2 Vehicles Entered 10 37 80 21 15 79 145 3 55 340 25 810 Vehicles Exited 10 36 80 21 15 79 144 4 54 340 25 808 Hourly Exit Rate 10 36 80 21 15 79 144 4 54 340 25 808 Input Volume 11 38 78 25 14 82 142 3 59 338 23 813 % of Volume 89 95 102 85 105 96 101 133 92 101 110 99 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 KHA SimTraffic Report SimTraffic Performance Report Page 1 Chanhassen Apartments Year 2033 Base Growth with Project AM Peak Access Road & W 78th St Performance by movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied DelNeh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 02 0 1 00 Total DeNeh (s) 0.1 0.0 2.7 0.8 4.5 2A 1.1 Vehicles Entered 66 2 16 104 4 59 251 Vehicles Exited 66 2 15 104 4 59 250 Hourly Exit Rate 66 2 15 104 4 59 250 Input Volume 66 1 15 105 3 60 250 % of Volume 100 200 98 99 133 99 100 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 otal Network Performance Denied DelNeh (s) 0.5 Total DeNeh (s) 38.8 Vehicles Entered 2791 Vehicles Exited 2788 Houry Exit Rate 2788 Input Volume 8520 % of Volume 33 Denied Entry Before 0 KHA SimTraffic Report SimTraffic Performance Report Page 2 Chanhassen Apartments Year 2033 Base Growth PM PEAK 1: Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH-5) Performance by movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied DelNeh (s) 2 9 0.2 29 22 0.2 2.3 3 4 0.3 0 3 0.0 0.0 00 Total DelNeh (s) 73.6 12.5 4.4 75.8 15A 5.3 112.6 74.2 49.6 59.7 66.5 44A Vehicles Entered 39 659 35 64 1201 16 171 163 99 84 149 90 Vehicles Exiled 40 655 35 63 1191 16 169 161 98 85 149 90 Hourly Exit Rate 40 655 35 63 1191 16 169 161 98 85 149 90 Input Volume 41 668 36 59 1173 18 162 162 100 89 152 88 % of Volume 97 98 97 107 102 90 104 100 98 96 98 103 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1: Galoin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH-5) Perfomlance by movement Denied DelNeh (s) 0.5 Total DeVVeh (s) 32.7 Vehicles Entered 2770 Vehicles Exited 2752 Hourly Exit Rate 2752 Input Volume 2747 % of Volume 100 Denied Entry Before 0 n Blvd & Access Road Performance by movement Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT PJI Denied DelNeh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total DelNeh (s) 3.5 1.6 1.8 0.4 1.3 Vehicles Entered 67 374 106 322 869 Vehicles Exited 67 370 104 321 862 Hourly Exit Rate 67 370 104 321 862 Input Volume 74 375 110 327 886 % of Volume 91 99 94 98 97 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 KHA SimTraffic Report SimTraffic Performance Report Page 1 Chanhassen Apartments Year 2033 Base Growth PM PEAK 3: Galpin Blvd & W 78th St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied DelNeh (s) 0.0 0 0 0.0 4.0 0.3 0.3 0 0 00 0.0 3.6 0 3 04 Total DelNeh (s) 10.1 12.3 4.8 11.8 10.7 3.4 2.9 0.4 0.4 3.7 0.7 0.5 Vehicles Entered 13 36 15 36 43 5 140 328 21 47 208 14 Vehicles Exited 13 35 15 36 43 5 140 327 22 47 209 14 Hourly Exit Rate 13 35 15 36 43 5 140 327 22 47 209 14 Input Volume 17 30 15 35 46 5 142 344 22 48 211 15 % of Volume 75 117 98 103 93 100 99 95 101 97 99 92 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3: Galpin Blvd & W 78th St Performance by movement 0.5 Denied DeWeh (s) Total DeWeh (a) 2.7 Vehicles Entered 906 Vehicles Exited 906 Hourly Exit Rate 906 Input Volume 931 % of Volume 97 Denied Entry Before 0 Total Network Performance 0.6 Denied DelNeh (s) Total DelNeh (s) 30.3 Vehicles Entered 3307 Vehicles Exited 3302 Hourly Exit Rate 3302 Input Volume 8135 of Volume 41 Denied Entry Before 0 KHA SimTraffic Report SimTraffic Performance Report Page 2 Chanhassen Apartments Year 2033 Base Growth with Project PM Peak 1: Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH-5) Performance by movement Moyem2q•- __ EEL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied DelNeh (s) 3.0 0.2 3 0 2.2 0.3 2.2 3.4 0.3 02 00 0.0 0.0 Total DeWeh (a) 70.6 129 4A 79.4 16.4 4.9 150.9 88.5 65.9 57.4 65.9 40.9 Vehicles Entered 54 680 37 60 1181 54 167 170 IN 102 157 97 Vehicles Exited 55 675 37 60 1171 54 163 171 106 105 158 97 Hourly Exit Rate 55 675 37 60 1171 54 163 171 106 105 158 97 Input Volume 57 668 36 59 1173 52 162 168 100 108 154 97 % of Volume 97 101 103 102 100 104 101 102 106 97 103 100 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1: Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH-5) Performance by movement Denied DelNeh (s) 0.6 Total DeWeh (a) 36.8 Vehicles Entered 2866 Vehicles Exited 2852 Hourly Exit Rate 2852 Input Volume 2832 % of Volume 101 Denied Entry Before 0 2: Galpin Blvd & Access Road Performance by movement Own T Denied DelNeh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.1 01 0.1 Total DeWeh (s) 3.9 2.0 2.2 0.4 1.6 Vehicles Entered 69 430 115 357 971 Vehicles Exited 69 427 115 357 968 Hourly Exit Rate 69 427 115 357 968 Input Volume 74 431 110 358 974 % of Volume 93 99 104 100 99 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 KHA SimTraffic Report SimTraffic Performance Report Page 1 Chanhassen Apartments Year 2033 Base Growth with Project PM Peak 3: Galpin Blvd & W 78th St Performance by movement Movement - EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 0 1 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.2 0.3 00 00 0.0 3.7 0.3 04 Total DelNeh (s) 11.7 13.6 4.6 13.8 13.1 3.8 3.4 0.4 0.3 3.3 0.9 0.6 Vehicles Entered 16 28 51 31 44 6 200 337 22 45 212 16 Vehicles Exited 16 28 50 31 44 6 200 336 22 44 212 16 Hourly Exit Rate 16 28 50 31 44 6 200 336 22 44 212 16 Input Volume 18 31 46 35 48 5 198 344 22 48 211 17 % of Volume 90 90 108 89 91 120 101 98 101 91 100 93 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3: Galpin Blvd & W 78th St Performance by movement Denied DelNeh is) 04 Total DelNeh (s) 3.0 Vehicles Entered 1008 Vehicles Exited 1005 Hourly Exit Rate 1005 Input Volume 1023 % of Volume 98 Denied Entry Before 0 4: Apartment Access Road & W 78th St Performance by movement gr-Twlr� EVE Denied DelNeh (a) 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0 1 0.0 Total DeWeh (a) 0.1 0.0 2.9 1.3 10.0 2.3 1.5 Vehicles Entered 56 4 62 198 1 36 357 Vehicles Exited 56 4 62 197 1 36 356 Hourly Exit Rate 56 4 62 197 1 36 356 Input Volume 61 3 59 204 2 32 361 %of Volume 92 133 106 96 50 112 99 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Network Performance Denied DelNeh is) 0 6 Total DeWeh (s) 34.1 Vehicles Entered 3426 Vehicles Exited 3412 Hourly Exit Rate 3412 Input Volume 8860 % of Volume 39 Denied Entry Before 0 KHA SimTraffic Report SimTraffic Performance Report Page 2 O `NNE So Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan District p4f Waters Edge Building 1500 County Road B2 West Roseville, MN 55113 April 4, 2013 Ms. Kate Aanenson, AICP Community Development Director 7700 Market Blvd. PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RECEIVED APR 8 - 2013 CITY OF CHANHASSEN SUBJECT: Chanhassen Apartments Mn/`DOT Review # S12-052A Northwest Comer of TH 5 and CR 117 (Galpin Blvd.) Chanhassen, Carver County Control Section 1002 Dear Ms. Aanenson: Thank you for the opportunity to review the site plan for the proposed Chanhassen Apartments. Before any further development, please address the following issues: Noise. MnDOT'S policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities are responsible for taking all reasonable measures to prevent land use activities listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification (NAC) where the establishment of the land use would result in violations of established noise standards. Without any noise information provided, it is unclear if the City is in conformance with MN. Rule 7030.0030. MnDOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The project proposer should assess the noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any highway noise. If you have any questions regarding MnDOT's noise policy please contact Peter Wasko in our Design section at (651) 234- 7681. Right -of -Way. - Please note that 780' St. W. reverted to the City of Chanhassen under Release No. 1332 dated 11-01-05. Also, a portion of CR 117 (Galpin Blvd.) reverted to Carver County under Release No. 1331 dated 11-01-05. Map 180-46A, B78 covers the review area. For questions concerning these comments, please contact Dale Matti (651-234-7549) in MuDOT Metro District's Right -of -Way section. Permits. - Any use of or work within or affecting MnDOT right of way requires a permit. Permit forms are available from MnDOT's utility website at bap://www.dot.state.mn.us/utility/ Please include one 11 x 17 plan set and one full size plan set with each permit application. Please direct any questions regarding permit requirements to Buck Craig (651-234-7911) of MnDOT's Metro Permits Section. Review Submittal Options: Mn/DOT's goal is to complete the review of plans within 30 days. Submittals sent in electronically can usually be turned around faster. There are four submittal options. Please submit either: 1. One (1) electronic pdf version of the plans. Mn/DOT can accept the plans via e-mail at metrodevreviews.dotngstate.mn.us provided that each separate e- mail is under 20 megabytes. 2. Three (3) sets of full size plans. Although submitting seven sets of full size plans will expedite the review process. Plans can be sent to: Mn/DOT — Metro District Planning Section Development Reviews Coordinator 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 3. One (1) compact disk. 4. Plans can also be submitted to Mn/DOT's External FTP Site. Please send files to: fto://ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/incomingJMetroWatersEdee/Planning Internet Explorer doesn't work using ftp so please use an FTP Client or your Windows Explorer (My Computer). Also, please send a note to metrodevreviews.dotngstate.mn.us indicating that the plans have been submitted on the FTP site. If you have any questions concerning this review please feel free to contact me at (651) 234-7794. Sincerely, Tod Sherman Planning Supervisor Copy sent via E-Mail: Buck Craig, Permits Nancy Jacobson, Design Hailu Shekur, Water Resources Dale Matti, Right -of -Way Diane Langenbach, Area Engineer Merlin Kent, Traffic David Sheen, Traffic Pete Wasko, Noise and Air Kate Aanenson, AICP, kaanensonna,ci.chanhassen.mn.us Ann Braden, Metropolitan Council CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on April 4, 2013, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for Chanhassen Apartments — Planning Case 2013-07 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Subsc 'bed and sw to before me this day of fi 1 2013. Notary Publ c �wu�_ Karen J. Et ge ardt, D uty Clerk KIM T. MEUWISSEN 3.. Notary Public -Minnesota My Commission Expires Jan 31, 2016 Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for Rezoning approximately 14 acres of property from Agricultural Estate (A-2) to Planned Unit Development -Residential Proposal: (PUD-R); Site Plan Review with Variances for a 155-unit Apartment Building; and a Land Use Map Amendment from Residential -Low Density and Office, to Residential -Low and High Density and Office and Residential -High Density Applicant: O pidan, Inc. Property 7750 Galpin Boulevard (northwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Location: Boulevard) A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What public hearing through the following steps: Happens at 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. the Meeting: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project, If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2013-07. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate Aanenson by email at kaanenson(cDci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at 952- Questions & 227-1139. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful Comments: to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 50D feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested parry is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a reporton the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation, Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vole of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerciallindustrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 tlays unless the applicant waives this standard Some applications due to their complexity may lake several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an Item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokespersonlrepresenlative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meal with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in thereport. please contact the Planning Stag person named on the notification. Date & Time: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers 7700 Market Blvd. Request for Rezoning approximately 14 acres of property from Agricultural Estate (A-2) to Planned Unit Development -Residential (PUD-R); Site Plan Review with Variances for a 155-unit Proposal: Apartment Building; and a Land Use Map Amendment from Residential -Low Density and Office, to Residential -Low and High Density and Office and Residential -High Density A licant: O idan, Inc. Property 7750 Galpin Boulevard (northwest corner of Highway 5 and Location: Galpin Boulevard) A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What public hearing through the following steps: Happens at 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. the Meeting: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2013-07. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate Aanenson by email at kaanenson(a)ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at 952- Questions & 227-1139. If you choose to submit written comments, it is Comments: helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in visiting. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. Al the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except ezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokespersonlrepresentative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification, AMERICANA COMMUNITY BANK AMY B TREBIL AMY M PEITZ 600 MARKET ST #100 2406 HARVEST WAY 7846 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4569 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8452 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8451 ARTEMAS ROBERTS III BLAINE D SHANSTROM BLAKE S HULANDER 7762 VASSERMAN PL 8516 IRWIN RD 7850 HARVEST LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4536 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55437-1523 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8453 BRAD L & ELAINE N DALAGER BRADLEY CARR BRANDON R MESSER 7847 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE 2219 BANEBERRY WAY W 7851 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8451 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8339 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8451 BRIAN R & BARBARA C FOLSOM CARLOS J MEJIA CARVER COUNTY CDA 2215 BANEBERRY WAY W 7853 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE 705 WALNUT ST N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8339 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8451 CHASKA MN 55318-2039 CENTEX HOMES-MINNESOTA DIV CNBI LLC CONVENIENCE STORE 7500 OFFICE RIDGE CIR STE 325 PO BOX 47570 INVESTMENTS 2107 EDEN PRAIRIE MN LA 55344-3786 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55447-0570 BOX LACROSSE WI54602-2107 DENEEN D YOUNG DIANE JULSON DIANNE JANICE ERICKSON 7852 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE 7740 VASSERMAN TRL 7735 VASSERMAN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8451 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4506 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4506 ELIZABETH D SANTIAGO ERICA J MAAS GELINO FAMILY TRUST 2386 HARVEST WAY 7851 HARVEST LN 7729 VASSERMAN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8444 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8453 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4506 GERALD P & PEGGY A WOLFE GUY W & JUNE M BLESSING IND SCHOOL DIST 112 7755 VASSERMAN TRL 7844 HARVEST LN 11 PEAVEY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4506 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8453 CHASKA MN 55318-2321 JACLYN N MAAS JAMES H & AMELIA A CHMURA JEFFREY GIBBS 7832 HARVEST LN 7745 VASSERMAN TRL 8061 DAWN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8453 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4506 ROCKFORD MN 55373-9317 JULIA A WOLTER JULIE A SKOOG JUSTIN C ANDERSON 6645 E LAKETOWNE DR 2400 HARVEST WAY 7848 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE ALBERTVILLE MN 55301-4366 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8452 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8451 KAREN ANN OLSON KATHERINE M KORPI LARRY S & TERESA M HANSON 7850 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE 7845 HARVEST LN 7734 VASSERMAN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8451 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8453 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4506 LAWRENCE M & MICHAELE A LONNIE G & JAN M JOHNSON LORI J WIRTZ MARTIN 6706 PROMONTORY DR 2392 HARVEST WAY 7725 VASSERMAN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4506 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346-1919 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8444 LYNN D & VELMA M WILDER MARILYN G LEBLANC MARK C GOODMAN 7754 VASSERMAN TRL 2376 HARVEST WAY 2370 HARVEST WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4506 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8444 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8444 MARYANN TOMPKINS MATTHEW S BLEWETT MICHAEL L & CAROLYN L SHIELDS 7724 VASSERMAN TRL 2396 HARVEST WAY 7759 VASSERMAN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4506 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8444 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4506 MUOI TAM NGU NICHOLAS J SCHULIST PATRICIA S DEZIEL 2050 WATERLEAF LN W 2372 HARVEST WAY 2382 HARVEST WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8342 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8444 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8444 RICHARD A OLSON ROBERT L GRIFFITH ROBERT M & PATRICIA L PETERSON 5081 SAINT ALBANS BAY RD 7739 VASSERMAN TRL 2398 HARVEST WAY EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8632 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4506 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8444 RUTH H MITAL SERLIN PROPERTIES LLC STACY ANN BENNETT 7750 VASSERMAN TRL 1 CVS DR 2388 HARVEST WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4506 WOONSOCKET RI 02895-6146 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8444 STANLEY W VALENSKY STEVEN GUY LEDBETTER THEODORE F & MARLENE M BENTZ 7752 VASSERMAN PL 7756 VASSERMAN PLACE 7300 GALPIN BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4536 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4536 EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8011 THOMAS E & HELEN E ERNST THOMAS S BLUSTIN THOMAS W & SHARON D KRAUS 7749 VASSERMAN TRL 2394 HARVEST WAY 7744 VASSERMAN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4506 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8444 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4506 TIMOTHY DESAULNIERS VASSERMAN RIDGE MASTER VICKIE S KLINE 7845 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE ASSOC 2384 HARVEST WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8451 16305 36TH AVE N SUITE 600 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8444 PLYMOUTH MN 55446-4270 WESTON VOGDS PAUL TUCCI-OPPIDAN INC 7842 HARVEST LN 5125 COUNTY ROAD 101 STE 100 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8453 MINNETONKA MN 55345 Aanenson, Kate From: LynnNelma Wilder [lynnvelma@gmail.coml Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 2:41 PM To: Tom Furlong (Mayor); City Council; Aanenson, Kate Subject: Fwd: Galpin 225 Apartments Proposal Respectfully submitted to Chanhassen Mayor, Council and *Planning, (*Planning via Kate: Please forward to Planning members) This addendum to my attached/forwarded "225 Galpin Apts" email of 12/9/12 reflects the new 155 proposal. I'm still completely snowed with tax prep, so my input is based on only a cursory glance at the Oppidan 155 letter. I apologize for the rushed cryptic and crude composition of this input. In my quick review of what I've written, this is far excessive in length, especially for busy people like you. I don't have time to rewrite, so I've used highlighting to better allow skimming very rapidly of Major Concerns in bold type, and underlining for more deliberate detail skimming. I'm also unhappy with my tone, as some reads pushy, "indelicate" and brusque, and might give the erroneous impression of disrespect. With my tax deadline looming, I can't take time to refine. I assure you that I admire every one of you dedicated public servants, who often deal with complex contentious challenges. THE 225 TO 155 CHANGE is a 30% unit reduction, which might be ball -parked as LEAVING ABOUT 70% OF THE PROBLEMS. THE STRONGLY COMMUNITY -SUPPORTED PRESERVE CHAN 225 PETITION POINTED OUT THE CONCERNS WITH THE MAGNITUDE OF THE 225 APTS AND TRAFFIC SAFETY. Of special concern are the DRASTIC ZONING DEPARTURES FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN that specifies 1-2 story residential and business offices. I had been hoping, if there was a revised proposal, for a 2-story proposal, not the original 3- story. The 46' HEIGHT variance IS ROUGHLY EQUAL TO 4-5 STORY FLAT - ROOFED BUILDINGS, and further emphasizes the HUGE size and appearance of the complex. This is an unwelcome, totally out -of -character visual impact in the roughly one mile radius community of 1-2 story houses and businesses (as zoned). That area obviously excludes the commercial area south of Hwy 5, between Century Blvd and Hwy 41. My I" email gave the 189 UNIT POWERS RIDGE APTS AS A GOOD COMPARISON BUILDINGS IN SIGHT, like the Galpin-W78`" St. Apts location. To compare to the old 225 apts proposal, you had to add another 41 unit 1341 West Lake St building to get a 224 unit complex for comparison. To compare to the new 155 Apts proposal, you'd subtract the existing 41 unit 1341 building to get a 148 unit comparison. I urge you to drive by/through that complex south of Hwy 5, south on Powers Blvd to the SW corner of West Lake St and Powers. SCREENING LANDSCAPING: In my extremely brief review of the Oppidan letter, I only saw shrubs mentioned as screening. If the City persists in supporting the developer, THE 155 PROPOSAL SHOULD INCLUDE EXTENSIVE TREE PLANTINGS FOR SCREENING. Actually the effectiveness of screening the 46' tall building will be token at 1 i best, but at lease might soften the visual impact somewhat. Many large evergreens and scattered tall deciduous trees should be quantified and specified for the proposal. CONCLUSION: It's disappointing, frustrating and seemly inappropriate that the Planning Commission currently has a very strong bias to excessively support development (with limited regard to the petitioned impact on the Citizens in the surrounding community). The major zoning deviations from the valid Comprehensive Plan allows an unacceptable incompatibility with the surrounding 1-2 story community with a HUGE (4-5 story appearing) complex. Increased traffic safety issues at the already dangerous W 7Wh St and Galpin intersection needs a thorough design study completed and approved before the Apt Proposal is pursued further. Despite any traffic theoretic studies, I strongly believe any significant additional traffic will add considerable risks, especially with the speeds on Galpin and the north -to -south U-Turns to reach Hwy 5. I'm through that intersection often, and it takes extreme caution to watch fast Galpin traffic both ways, and also judge whether someone from the South is going to U-Turn or full -left turn. Both type of left turns require the same confusing left turn signals, which some turning drivers may not even use and adds more confusion. I'd greatly appreciate your consideration of my concerns, which I'm sure are typical of the surrounding community. I'm sorry that I have not had the time to double check that all details are 100% accurate. Thanks (especially if you took valuable time to read this lon input), (Mr) Lynn Wilder (and Velma Wilder) FORWARD: GALPIN 225 APARTMENTS PROPOSAL (12/9/12 input) On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Lynn/Velma Wilder <lynnvelmana,gmail.com> wrote: Respected Council Members, (Plus the same email was sent separately to the Planning Commissioners) My wife and I live at 7754 Vasserman Trail just west of the proposed GALPIN "APTS". We are biased as we will be directly impacted by the MASSIVE complex close to and directly out from our front yard. The "APTS" will severely reduce enjoyment of our property, and greatly decrease our resale value. The residents in the surrounding areas will also be impacted visually by the out -of — character size of the MASSIVE APTSin the middle of areas comprised by 1 or 2-story townhouses, and 1-story retail at Galpin and Century Blvds. The APTS' added traffic will greatly aggravate the unsafe Galpin and W78th St intersection, and add more Bluff Creek students crossing risky Galpin and Hwy 5. The Lake Susan Apts with 162 units have been referenced in prior inputs. The visual size affect is lost by the encircled configuration of their buildings, and other large buildings in the general area. A more open area and lined up in an "L" arrangement. Their location is south of Hwy 5 and west at West Lake St, with building street numbers of 1321 (100units), 1331 (42 units) and 1341 (41units). This complex looks HUGE in its open setting, and GALPIN APTS WOULD BE 25% LARGER. The Galpin Apts would be equal to adding another 1341 building (41units) to the 183 unit complex = 224 units. I urge you to drive through the Powers Ridge Apts complex and visualize the addition of another west/1341 building, and then visualize the total in 2 huge buildings arranged more in a line as the Galpin Apts. I believe you would agree such a complex would look MASSIVE when in an 2 How Many Hwy. 5 Accidents Will Occur if You Rezone to Multi -Family Residential? The Result: You would expose residents to the Dangers of about 15,000 crossings per year of Highway 5 with its high traffic, high speeds and high risks to reach their recreation center after school. Nine Aspects of the Dangers/Risks Residents and Their Children Would be Exposed to: 1) So many Crossings: 2) So many Vehicles: 3) High vehicle Speeds; 4) Long wait red lights: 5) Brief green lights: 6) Wide Hwy. 5 Road: 7) Wait on turn arrows 8) Hwy. 5, then Galpin: 9) Underpass no good: 15,000 crossings per year (see derivation below) 1,000s per day (daylight hours) [how many 1,000s/yr.?] Posted speed limit on Hwy. 5 is 55 miles per hour Full 120 seconds Hwy. 5 greens, to keep cars moving Only 30 seconds of green lights to cross Highway 5 Full 20 seconds needed to traverse the 50 ft. width Must not walk when 30 seconds of turn arrows are on After Hwy. 5, must cross Galpin (watch out! cars turn) It's muddy, 1/4 mile away, adds 15 minutes of walking Pedestrians Who'd Cross Highway 5 (annual estimates) If 100 Kids go to School* x 2 (go, then return) x 180 school days/year = 36,000 crossings/year If 25 go to Rec. Center** x 2 (go, then return) x 300 days per year = 15,000 crossings/year Notes: * Assumes 100 kids from the proposed 155 apartment units ** For baseball, football, hockey, tennis, dance, classes, etc. Should be bussed over Walkers at risk (no bus) MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTI GALPIN BLVD, CHANHASSEN 155 UNITS 241 PARKING STALLS - I n - ' 7 0 30' 60' 120' [xGlOT_r I Eel ki I ky, . - SCANNED City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 Date: March 18, 2013 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department Review Response Deadline: April 5, 2013 By: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Community Development Du. 952-227-1139 kaanensonna.ci.chanhassen.mn.us Subject: Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment; Planned Unit Development (PUD); Site Plan Review; and Variances for a 155-unit Apartment Building located on approximately 14 acres of property zoned Agricultural Estate (A2) and located at 7750 Galpin Boulevard (northwest comer of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard). Applicant: Oppidan, Inc. Owner: Americana Community Bank -Chanhassen. Planning Case: 2013-07 PID: 25-0101800 & 25-0101810 The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on March 15, 2013. The 60-day review period ends May 14, 2013. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on April 16.2013 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than Aaril 5, 2013. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. 1. City Departments: a. City Engineer b. City Attorney c. City Park Director d. Fire Marshal e. Building Official E Water Resources Coordinator g. Forester 2. Carver Soil & Water Conservation District 3. MN Dept. of Transportation 4. MN Dept. of Natural Resources -.Tack Gleason 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 6. U.S. Fish & Wildlife 7. Carver County a. Engineer b. Environmental Services 8. Watershed District a. Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek b. Lower Minnesota River c. Minnehaha Creek 9. Telephone Company (CenturyLink) 10. Electric Company (Xcel Energy) 11. Mediacom 12. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco SCANNED CHANHASSEN APARTMENTS - PLANNING CASE 2013-07 $600.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $0.00 PUD (paid with concept review) $1,970.00 Site Plan $500 + $1,270 ($10 per 1,000 square feet of building area) $200.00 Variance $0.00 Notification Sign (paid with concept review) $100.00 Recording Fee (Site Plan & Variance) $0.00 GIS List (paid with concept review) $2,870.00 TOTAL $2,260.00 Less Check 21560 from Oppidan Inc. $610.00 Less Check 21571 from Oppidan Inc. $0.00 BALANCE REMAINING TO BE PAID CITY OF CHANHASSEN P O BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 03/19/2013 3:28 PM Receipt No. 00214527 CLERK: AshleyM PAYEE: Oppidan Inc 5125 County Road 101 # 100 Minnetonka MN 55345- Chanhassen Apartments Planning Case 2013-07 ------------------------------------------------------- Comprehensice Plan Amendment 600.00 Recording Fees 100.00 Site Plan 1,360.00 Variance 200.00 Total Cash Check 21560 Change 2,260.00 0.00 2,260.00 0.00 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 Councilman Laufenburger. Because that's not what he wrote. Roger Knutson: No. This is version 2. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Alright, well I have version 1. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. The motion's been made. We'll consider those in a single motion if that's without objection. Hearing no objections, is there a second? Councilman McDonald: So moved. Mayor Furlong: Motion's been made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, let's proceed with the vote. Councilman Laufenburger moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the Chanhassen City Council approve a Land Use Map Amendment from Residential -Low Density and Office, to Residential -Low and High Density and Office and Residential -High Density Planned Unit Development (PUD) subject to the following condition: 1. Approval of the Land Use Amendment subject to the Metropolitan Council detennination.of consistency with system plan. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Councilman Laufenburger moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the Chanhassen City Council approve Rezoning of approximately 14 acres from Agricultural Estate (A-2) to Planned Unit Development -Residential (PUD-R) subject to the following condition and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation: 1. Adoption of the Chanhassen PUD Ordinance, which shall be created to govern the site and design standards. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Councilman Laufenburger moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the Chanhassen City Council approve a Site Plan for a 155-unit Apartment Building with a Variance for parking subject to the following conditions, change to Section 9 of the ordinance to read as follows: The ordinance shall be effective upon the recording of a conservation easement on Parcel A satisfactory to the City; and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation and 1. Approval of the Land Use Amendment subject the Metropolitan Council determination of consistency with system plan. 2. Adoption of the Chanhassen PUD Ordinance, which shall he created to govern the site and de:,ie,n standards. ""!Ion of the Site Plan Permit. 65 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 4. Payment of $294,500 park and trail fee and $116,500 stormwater fee prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. Parcel A shall be dedicated to the City, or have a conservation easement placed on it, for management consistent with the Bluff Creek Management Plan, the Bluff Creek TMDL and the 2" Generation Surface Water Management Plan. 6. The applicant and the City should work together to develop an appropriate mitigation scenario. 7. Any portion of the wetland presumed to be impacted under an alternate development scenario, which would require the use of Parcel A and is subsequently transferred to Parcel B for density calculations, be mitigated for at a 1:1 ratio. This mitigation should occur within the Bluff Creek Overlay District but does need to be in the form of wetland. The developer must calculate the net developable acres of the site and wetland acreage. 8..The wetland delineation report shall be finalized. 9. All existing trees proposed to be saved must be protected with fencing during construction or replaced after construction if damaged or dead. 10. The selections of Colorado spruce must be replaced by a different evergreen species in the plant schedule. 11. Before fmal approval for the project, the applicant will need to determine future management plans for the existing ash trees. If preserved, the applicant will be required to chemically protect or, if infested, remove and replace the trees. If the applicant decides to remove and replace the trees at this time, a revised landscape plan will be required. 12. Staff recommends that the curb radius at the driveway access be increased to facilitate the turning movements of larger vehicles. 13. Appropriate signage must be installed 10 days prior to and for the duration of the work within West 78th Street. 14. The developer must coordinate the closure of West 78th Street with the Engineering Department minimum 72 hours prior to the closure. 15. A $10,000 escrow must be provided to ensure that West 78th Street is properly restored. Once the street has been restored to satisfactory condition, 50% of the escrow will be released; the remaining 50% will be released if the patch is in satisfactory condition after one freeze -thaw cycle. 16. Minimum 18-inch vertical separation is required between the private watermain and the private storm sewer crossing. Chanhassen City Council - April 22. 2013 17. The developer shall submit $5,000 with the site plan agreement to cover half of the cost of the signal modification at TH 5 and Galpin Boulevard to accommodate a flashing yellow passive -permissive signal. 18. The developer shall pay one-half the cost of the traffic study. 19. City trunk sanitary sewer hookup fees (City SAC), City trunk watermain hookup fees (City WAC) and the Met Council Sanitary Access Charge (Met SAC) are due with the building permit at the rate in effect at that time and shall be based on the SAC unit determination per the Met Council. 20. A "General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity Under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination" will be required for this project. Proof of permission from the PCA must be provided to the City before grading can commence. 21. A Surface Water Management Plan is required and shall be submitted to the City for review and comment. This plan shall incorporate the required elements of Parts III, IV and Appendix A of the NPDES permit. 22. Both the Bluff Creek Total Maximum Daily Load Implementation Plan and the NPDES Permit require that a portion of the Water Quality Volume is infiltrated on -site. The Stormwater Management Study shall be modified to address this requirement and incorporated into the SWPPP. 23. Because the site discharges to an impaired water, the discharge rates for the one-year design event must also be equal to or less than the existing discharge rates. The Stormwater Management Study shall be modified to address this requirement and shall be incorporated into the SWPPP. 24. In order to protect Bluff Creek, meet the goals of the Bluff Creek Natural Resources Management Plan and the Bluff Creek TMDL Implementation Plan, staff is recommending that the portion of the property north of West 780' Street be preserved through an easement to the City and that this density should be transferred to that portion south of West 78d' Street. 25. Sheet C-3 GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN shall be amended to include the following: a. The swale draining into the proposed pond shall be stabilized for its entirety as it is less than 200 feet in length. b. An appropriate perimeter BMP shall be shown and installed around the proposed outlet modification for the southern wetland. 67 Chanhassen City Council — April 22, 2013 c. Silt fence or another acceptable BMP shall be installed on the north end of the culvert under West 78 h Street. d. The EOF from the pond to the wetland shall be permanently stabilized. This is addressed in the Drainage Report but is not included in the Grading and Erosion Plan. A turf reinforcement mat is an acceptable practice as is called out in the drainage report. 26. Minnesota Department of Transportation will need to review and approve the drainage plan. 27. The applicant shall revise the plans to incorporate sidewalk connections to existing trails. 28. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. A "Code Record" is required (Code Record schematic plans may be same scale as architectural). For "Code Record" information go to MN Dept. of Labor and Industry: htgp://www.dli.mn.eov/CCLD/PlanConstruction.asn 29. The building(s) must be protected with automatic fire sprinkler systems. 30. An accessible route must be provided to buildings, parking facilities, public transportation stops and all common use facilities. 31. All parking areas, including parking garages, must be provided with accessible parking spaces dispersed among the various building entrances. 32. Accessible dwelling units must be provided in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. 33. The building owner and/or their representatives should meet with the Inspections Division to discuss plan review and permit procedures (in particular, type of construction and allowable area issues must be addressed). 34. Due to the large size of this building, class III Fire Dept, standpipes will be required. Have developer contact Fire Marshal for exact locations. MSFC Sec. 905.3.9. 35. " No Parking Fire Lane " signs will be required. Have developer contact Fire Marshal for exact locations. MSFD Sec. 505.31 36. An additional on site fire hydrant will be required. Contact Fire Marshal for location. 37. A PIV ( post indicator valve) will be required. 38. A three-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. MSFC Sec 508.5.4." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of g to 0. 68 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 1 AND 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE, BY REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 1-2 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding the following definition: Conservation Area an area of land that remains in a natural state by means of preservation of existing features and vegetation as well as by means of city -approved restoration of selected species and targeted features. No buildings or structures are allowed except essential services and public improvements. SECTION 2. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code, the City's Zoning Ordinance, is hereby amended by rezoning the following described property from Agricultural Estate District, A- 2, to Planned Unit Development Residential, PUD-R: That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116, Range 23 and the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest comer of said Section 10; thence on an assumed bearing of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West along the West line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1026.89 feet; thence South 79 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 177.77 feet; thence South 86 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 100.40 feet; thence South 78 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 194.14 feet; thence South 74 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 150.00 feet; thence South 47 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 75.43 feet; thence North 82 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds East, a distance of 74.98 feet; thence South 58 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 84.58 feet; thence south 89 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 164.63 feet; thence South 18 degrees 17 minutes 40 seconds West, a distance of 824.19 feet to the northerly right of way line of Trunk Highway 5; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 33.08 feet; thence South 56 degrees 40 minutes 55 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 158.95 feet; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 518.22 feet to the west line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23; thence North 1 degree 37 minutes 50 seconds West along said west line of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 9.12 feet to the point of beginning. This tract contains 18.1 acres of land, more or less, and is subject to right of way in existing county road and subject to any and all easements of record. Doc. N 169929v.1 RNK: 4/22/2013 SECTION 3. Intent. The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD for the Chanhassen Apartments. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. Ancillary uses may be permitted as listed below once a primary use has occupied the site. Except as modified by the Chanhassen Apartments PUD ordinance, the development shall comply with the requirements of the R16 District. SECTION 4. Permitted Uses. The permitted uses in this zone shall be residential and their ancillary uses. The type of uses to be provided on common areas shall be outdoor play area and outdoor patio. Parcel A (description attached) Conservation Area Parcel B. (description attached) 155 Apartments, including surface parking SECTION 5. Lot Requirements and Setbacks. The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The following table displays those setbacks: Setback Standards Highway 5 50 feet (Perimeter) Lot Line 50 feet Collector Road, etc. 50 feet (Perimeter) Lot Line 50 feet Hard Surface Coverage 50 % over 14 acres Height 38 feet Parking setback for perimeter property line 25 feet Wetland and Buffer Setback Parcel B 31.5 feet SECTION 6. Signage. Signage shall comply with city standards for R12 Zoning District 20-130](2) Agricultural and Residential Districts. SECTION 7. Landscaping. Landscaping shall comply with the landscaping plan prepared by Mark Kronbeck, ASLA, dated March 15, 2013. SEC—ITO The zoning map of the City of Chanhassen shall not be republished to show the aforesaid zonin , but the Clerk shall appropriately mark the zoning map on file in the Clerk's Office for the purpose of indicating the rezoning hereinabove provided for in this ordinance, and all of the notations, references, and other information shown thereon are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this ordinance. SECTIO This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. c� j� � v _ C`4Jt A 0 4 , Doc. #169929v.1 RNK: 4/22/2013 W—AlWAIMEW PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of April, 2013, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on Doc. N I69929v.I RNK: 4/22/2013 PARCEL A Conservation Area That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116, Range 23 and the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest comer of said Section 10; thence on as assumed bearing of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West along the West line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1023.08 feet, to a point on said west line distant 1668.88 feet south of the west quarter corner of said Section 10; thence South 79 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 177.77 feet; thence South 86 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 100.40 feet; thence South 78 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 194.14 feet; thence South 74 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 150.00 feet; thence South 47 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 75.43 feet; thence North 82 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds East, a distance of 74.98 feet; thence South 58 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 84.58 feet; thence South 89 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 163.25 feet; thence South 18 degrees 17 minutes 40 seconds West, a distance of 820.19 feet to the northerly tight of way line of Trunk Highway 5; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 33.08 feet; thence South 56 degrees 40 minutes 55 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 158.95 feet; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 518.22 feet to the west line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23; thence North 1 degree 37 minutes 50 seconds West along said west line of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 9.12 feet to the point of beginning. Which lies northwesterly of that particular northwesterly right-of-way line of Parcel 216, as shown on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-08, recorded as Document No. 265755 and as amended on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-14, recorded as Document No. 279658, described as follows: Commencing at the southwest comer of said Section 10; thence on an assumed bearing of North I degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West, along the west line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 10, a distance of 401.19 feet, to a particular right-of-way line of said Parcel 216 and the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 47 degrees 18 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 175.14 feet, to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 47 degrees 18 minutes 19 seconds East a distance of 22.71 feet, to a point of curvature in said right- of-way line; thence easterly a distance of 662.60 feet, along a non -tangential curve concave to the south having a radius of 633.04 feet and a central angle of 59 degrees 58 minutes 14 seconds and having a chord of 632.76 feet which bears North 77 degrees 17 minutes 27 seconds East to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 56 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds East, not tangent to said curve a distance of 114.28 feet, to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 22 degrees 13 minutes 10 seconds East, along said right-of-way line, a distance of 116.13 feet and said line there terminating. Doc. # 169929v. I RNK: 4/22/2013 PARCEL B 155 Apartments, including surface parking That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116, Range 23 and the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of said Section 10; thence on as assumed bearing of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West along the West line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1026.89 feet; thence South 79 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 177.77 feet; thence South 86 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 100.40 feet; thence South 78 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 194.14 feet; thence South 74 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 150.00 feet; thence South 47 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 75.43 feet; thence North 82 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds East, a distance of 74.98 feet; thence South 58 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 84.58 feet; thence South 89 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 164.63 feet; thence South 18 degrees 17 minutes 40 seconds West, a distance of 824.19 feet to the northerly right of way line of Trunk Highway 5; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 33.08 feet; thence South 56 degrees 40 minutes 55 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 158.95 feet; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 518.22 feet to the west line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23; thence North I degree 37 minutes 50 seconds West along said west line of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 9.12 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPT that part of the above described property which lies northwesterly of that particular northwesterly right-of-way line of Parcel 216, as shown on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-08, recorded as Document No. 265755 and as amended on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-14, recorded as Document No. 279658, described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Section 10; thence on an assumed bearing of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West, along the west line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 10, a distance of 401.19 feet, to a particular right-of-way line of said Parcel 216 and the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 47 degrees 18 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 175.14 feet, to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 47 degrees 18 minutes 19 seconds East a distance of 22.71 feet, to a point of curvature in said right- of-way line; thence easterly a distance of 662.60 feet, along a non -tangential curve concave to the south having a radius of 633.04 feet and a central angle of 59 degrees 58 minutes 14 seconds and having a chord of 632.76 feet which bears North 77 degrees 17 minutes 27 seconds East to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 56 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds East, not tangent to said curve a distance of 114.28 feet, to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 22 degrees 13 minutes 10 seconds East, along said right-of-way line, a distance of 116.13 feet and said line there terminating. Also EXCEPT said Parcel 216 Doc. N 169929c.1 RNK: 4/22/2013 Preserve Chanhassen shared a link. i Yesterday k Dear Neighbors — The Developer is back with a proposal to develop 155 units at Galpin & 78th. We have only 10 DAYS to STOP this PROPOSAL and NEED YOUR HELP NOW. The developer has addressed the feedback from the City but there is still hope to halt this. What can you do: 1. Attend the City Council Meeting on Monday April 22 — We need you here!! 2. If possible, attend the Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday April 16th — less important to be here but we need a showing so come if you can. 3. Contact your City Council Members with the following topics: a. What is the motivation/rational for changing direction from the Comprehensive Plan. (Note: A comprehensive plan is intended to guide development over a long time period and weather economic ups and downs, so why change it?) b. What are the benefits to the community from this change? (Again, the Comprehensive Plan is designed with the future of the community in mind. There is significant time and money spent to develop the Plan, why change it now?) c. Express concern about the traffic impact on 78th and Galpin. This intersection and infrastructure are not ready for or planned for change by the County or City. We believe focusing on the above points are our best chance at halting this development. We have another opportunity for the City Council to show they are listening to their constituents so please your voice to be heard! Thank you for your support. Preserve Chanhassen Lank to the new proposal is at: http://wvvw.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/index.aspx?NID=903 City Council Member Contac'. Information: Email for the entire Council council @ ci.chanhassen.mn.us Tom Furlong (Mayor) tfurlong(c:ci.chanhassen.mn.us or 952-474- 8891 Bethany Tjornhom bgornhom@d.chanhassen.mn.us or 612-695- 2108 Vicki Ernst vernst@ci.chanhassen.mn.us or 952-474-9708 Jerry McDonald jmcdonald@d.chanhassen.mn.us or 952-253- ,.,' ,*VESTON VOGDS 7842 HARVEST LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8453 u PAUL TUCCI-OPPIDAN INC 5125 COUNTY ROAD 101 STE 100 MINNETONKA MN 55345 qd,p� y�v � '�a I n �� 64a A4C Uzetl Ce�eP,+M J .f a acCu0 mo Future Planning Commission Agenda Items Schedule DATE ITEMS Work Session Items • Kortgard subdivision • Jeurissen Property Subdivision —1500 Pioneer Trail BG • Villages on the Pond (NE comer Main Street and Lake Drive) Site Plan • Sinclair Site Subdivision, Site Plan, Variance • LYMAN BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT: Request for a Possible Future Wetland Alteration Permit for proposed roadway reconstruction and Items (Date improvement project of the segment of CSAH 18 (Lyman Boulevard) between Unknown) CSAH 15 (Audubon Road) and CSAH 17 (Powers Boulevard). Applicant: Carver County — Planning Case 2013-03. • NEMO Minnehaha & Riley Purgatory WSD • PRESERVE AT RICE LAKE: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Amendment BG • Marty Schutrop Subdivision • Bluff Creek Cottages Senior Housing May 7 May 28 CC WORK SESSION (Tuesday) May 21 June 10 CC May 28 (Tuesday) Joint CC/PC Meeting June 4 June 24 CC June 18 July 8 CC July 2 NO MEETING DUE TO HOLIDAY July 16 August 12 CC August 6 NO MEETING DUE TO NATIONAL NIGHT OUT August 20 September 9 CC September 3 September 23 CC September 17 October 14 CC October 1 October 28 CC October 15 November 12 CC November 5 _ November 25 CC November 19 December 9 CC December 3 January 13 CC a CITY COUNCIL CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION SUMMARY MINUTES APRIL 2, 2013 CHAHASSEN SENIOR CENTER 5:30 P.M. — WORK SESSION CITY COUNCIL PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman McDonald, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilwoman Ernst, and Councilman Laufenburger PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Lisa Hokkanen, Kim Tennyson, Mark Undestad and Maryam Yusuf. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Andrew Aller and Steve Weick. STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Laurie Hokkanen, Kate Aanenson, Greg Sticha, Todd Hoffman, Alyson Fauske and Bob Generous. - PRESENTERS: Eric Anderson, Ryan Companies US, Inc.; Bill Beard, Beard Group, Inc.; Kathy Bennett, ULI Minnesota; Gordon Hughes, ULI Minnesota; and Anthony Schertler, Springsted Incorporated. PUBLIC PRESENT: None WORK SESSION 1. Navigating the New Normal Gordon Hughes introduced the presenters and welcomed everyone to the discussion. Gordon Hughes then began a PowerPoint presentation about the function of the Urban Land Institute describing its mission as actively engaging public and private sector leaders to foster collaboration, share knowledge and join in meaningful strategic action to create thriving, sustainable communities. He described the Regional Council of Mayors in which 50 communities voluntarily join together and discuss collaborative, non -partisan solution -oriented issues and concerns. The strategic issue areas of discussion include the environment, housing, transportation and jobs. Kathy Bennett then continued the PowerPoint presentation discussing the changing demographic, social, economic and housing preferences in the state, metropolitan area and City of Chanhassen, noting that the ULI Minnesota had data down to the City level from 2004 to 2011. It was pointed out that the population was aging and that households without children are becoming the dominant household going from 52 percent in 1960 to 72 percent in 2025.- Additionally, [.here are two significant age cohorts: 75 million baby boomer (1946-1964) and 80 City Council/Planning Commission Summary — April 2, 2013 million generation Y (1979-1996). Housing choices of these groups were discussed showing the change in housing choices over time from primarily single-family detached housing to more mixed -used and higher -density development and a decline in the proportion of homeowners. Nationally, the supply of townhouse and smaller lot homes is well below the demand for these housing types and the supply of larger lot detached housing significantly exceeding its demand. Changing economic and social conditions were highlighted including changes in household income versus cost of living and a comparison of walkable areas versus drivable areas and the amount of disposal income. In the capital markets, the equity requirement for developers dropped from 80 percent in 2007 to 60 percent in 2009 to 65 percent today. The emerging market trends in the metropolitan area were shown, which all results in a need for a collaborative approach to find solutions to these issues. Community change in Chanhassen was then highlighted showing the changing household distribution by age, housing preferences by age groups, comparing Chanhassen to key communities, home values, home values by age, median home values, future residential land use by area, changes in job numbers, types of jobs, labor force location and Chanhassen working resident age breakdown. Eric Anderson, Bill Beard and Anthony Schertler as a panel discussed the implications of these changing trends to communities and developers as well as the developer's view of the private market. The Work Session concluded at 8:25 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Robert Generous Aanenson, Kate From: dan@skrove.com Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 10:20 AM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Home Occupation Intent Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hello Kate Per our discussion on the phone today, Dec 31 st 2012, I am sending you the notification of a Home Occupation business. This will be a non -retail, internet based business. My intent is that this will be a federally licensed business with a FFL. My address is: 2154 Stone Creek Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 612-963-6273 Please let me know if there is any other information you need from me. Happy New Year! Daniel Skrove dan(askrove.com 4/22/2013 Chanhassen Apartments •Amendmentto the (Sty Code defining mnservffiioo area -Site Plan Review for a 155-unit Apartment Building; with -Variances to reduce interior parldng by one stall; and -Rezoning of approximately 14 acres from Agricultural Estate (A-z) to Planned Unit Development -Residential (PUD-R); -Land Use Map Amendment from Residential -Low Density and Office, to Residential -Low and High Density and Office and Residential -High Density Planned Unit Development (PUD) on property located at the northwest comer of Highway 5 and Cralpin Boulevard — Chanhassen Apartments. Planning Case saotis-W Planning Commission April 16, sar3 RtyCounelAprd ss,sora .W !� i r� A v Location and Existing Conditions iol i �� ti S m 4/22/2013 History of the Site n y Office Zoning District The intent of the I" district is to provide for public or quasi - public nonprofit uses and professional business and administrative offices Examples of uses that are permitted: Community Center, Churches, Funeral homes, Health Services/Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Offices, Schools U» Ruaata bu&ft Y.M[sr.m MbreR..m ramp orcR�ncwmn s.r v,ua uR mui m..p.�e nm avwz Pahxlmlkloinic 3a] Sgsm i6) nu rwm neathro e.wne loll xa a 3 or apprM orR RM[eNeartllnk 3.8 ]a525 l. 519 MSSSivM pvtlm Z l 2 bw ars I loi IM IDI -v CyWry (Aj) rgdfj 2 4/22/2013 Centennial Hills - Density Transfer ri'ei acres 2 2 3o units an acre � ,_.6xumts Arboretum Village Densitv Transfer Lake Susan Apartments �� Than Mtiidi� munitsNree stariu t >bz ants 9mt saes f sb antta�aae 3 4/22/2013 J Person Per Household 2010 Census City of Chanhassen AvemE Persons per Household 2.80 Avemmp Household size owner o ied AvcmM Household s zc mntal 2. ,Ave Famil size . 3 4 4/22/2013 Comparison of Rental Units Ta.l Nnuvnp oaugea hr l _VMI, . uNb 0pe.PN,o 9,679 8352. %rl. •V 92W 8.916 %4 4.112 3909 95.1% Mi..elwW 23,294_ 2I.901 91.0% �. 25,075 23.930 954% O. .PW linen Oee.pie uw 1 W un tbrd RUW ur 722 K^ 1 1]i% b 92 n2 424 n9X 3002 ]6.8X 90] M9 1 ]3.4% 5835 26.6% 1])91 ]4�% 6139 8.T6 YLm 13,339 12])2 %M 9 ]6.9X 945 n.1% Compared to Revised Plan 4/22/2013 Vtel/l4 UYU-f WV I O ew,.vHn�ssen�:,mn,e",5 z� Building Heights Scones Height ra, Units Ccn ®al Hills 3 35 65 Lake Susan A ent Homan 3 40 162 Po m Ride 3 48 100 Pmbytmen Homes (Jrdq a Living - M ed Income 4. 49 90 Presbytensn Homes U.aam thNg- W. ilrcom 3 40 73 Gntm 3 35 48 N 4/22/2013 Height PUD Standards 0 Variance I CITY OF �' C�!lx8�SS8x ANHASSEN APARTMENTS SITE Traffic Study m 7 4/22/2013 Discussion Topics c• Proposed Development Overview Analysis Procedure Trip Generation Analysis Results :• Multi -Way Stop Warrant t• Flashing Yellow Recommendation Conclusions Proposed Development Overview •: TH 5 & Galpin Boulevard •:• 155 Unit Apartment Building Single Access off W. �78th Street Site Plan F, 4/22/2013 Analysis Procedure Existing Traffic Data (AM & PM Peak) :•Trip Generation :• Trip Distribution Background Growth Model Traffic Existing Opening Day 2033 Future cv�z_ Background Growth Baxdon 2030 Carver Countyound ro Plan -Base Condition +2.19%per Year `06% Ch_ 'JOsen -0•73% year , , �-� o -� per year 23000 SI f 25000 m(.3.0.000.) (30000) %� �3o Yohanef (RR17f)2o08 4/22/2013 Trip Generation rwrcnxamuscvrz.xr Unsignalized LOS Criteria 7alde 3: Level of Service Criteria for Casignallzed INersxtiom I. LOS CAteria for Unslgnalized Intersections 105 Control Delay per Vehide (Vveh) A c10 a > 10-15 C > 15-25 0 > 2545 E > 35-50 F > 50 Atglnary Cvymrey" 20201. R%vh=som &pc vehi* 10 4/22/2013 Signalized LOS Criteria Table 2: Level of Service Criteria for Signalized laterwdioas LOS Crioada for Signalized Intersections LOS Control Delay per Vehicle (s/veh) A < 30 8 > 10-20 c >2035 0 > 35-55 E >5580 F >30 2b8h-CRpve/n M.LdX10. sheh=seconds per vehicle MKRWRZM£RNECTI tPV£L OFS£RWC£NWM Y FGRAOUR LNLER EMM LPV£L OFS£RYM£ SUMMARY G110R rGa P M$IIXP YGRSW MS[IlX[ PLI:SPRNPCI' e[MY • IUS ORIAY • L09 AM17PM J2]A 14A�A�� 16 A A16 A 'Hp R wAM 11 A PM IS A 11 4/22/2013 Multi -Way Stop Warrant ❖ Vehicularvolumes entering from major approaches > 300 vph for any 8 hours; AND %•Combined vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle volumes from minor approaches > zoo vph for the same 8 hours at least 30 seconds delay per vehicle during the highest hour Minnesota MUTCD -Chapter zB n Monitoring Stop Warrant 4 Roundabout Review 12 4/22/2013 Flashing Yellow Recommendation •: TH 5 & Galpin Boulevard •+ Citizen Safety Concerns •: Currently 5 Section Heads R-Y6YLLGIA Fiee-Sntlgiq ,Y¢ ,Grt bill and Yelbw,Gr WtTurnM •: Research Indicated Driver Confusion c�c Protected/Permitted operations Flashing Yellow Recommendation ;• MnDOTModifying ToFlashing Yellow NIA-r164Y1A1#A aN+fNIM 1Yl.M1�ov,Gtxntd( mm ♦+o.wrsNu�yrab.I.N Tum N+w 6. ,-Safety and Operational Benefits :• Recommended That Developer Fund j Half These Signal Modifications FConclusions O t• No Operational Concerns ❖ No Off -Site Roadway Improvements :• Multi -Way Stop Not Wan -anted t• Roundabout Not Recommended :• Flashing Yellow Arrow Improvements 13 4/22/2013 t'tIIitles Landscaping Plan with Sidewalks Rm^. - ffi / / i✓ - / / ' FIVA 69"&Tlo' l� �l Wetlands and Bluff Creek Overlay District 14 4/22/2013 PROPOSED MOTION "City Council approve the Amendment to the city Code, Rezoning, Site Plan Review with Variances, a Land Use Map Amendment, for the Chanhassen Apartments subject to the conditions in the staff report and Adoption of the Attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation." imili GROWTH v Based on 2030 Carver County Comprehensive Plan - with State IlnPRWnpeimyear (used + 2.19% per +0.38% +0.73% per year J'woo�o�8'� peryear X,3= 2030 Volames(X lU(X) 2005 Volumes 'more conservative analysis 15 4/22/2013 S arr 16 V 4/22/2013 De dopm t Uoib Au cr«s Na Na AAorthm w uu.gy pA3 5.gy BIUR tMk lM1ll�ge pnm.n; guiddbw god mNium deoa - Aahmo0.ldke yo 9g.I9 i9g S.B) BIURlmkv�m� ry vest; guilty m Jrn si WWutC ag) pA 5.]1 to cn4k Enr, quitlN end mNium a:m, xIgNUMuo lE 5y }g5 416 BIuRlti4 o�rrl.l dolfCrtgk _ � T qite Plan Current Land Use _ Galpin Crossing Concept �P 17 E d In CD (U O (U 0 0 z 3 73 e O U N 0 0 (lJ LQ H� N N S In C- d C1 0 0 (U o CC X N E d 0 C- _i d Q u.Yv\ N ....._ . CREEK S'LY EDGE �,BL UFF CWY OF WATER- - REEK I S'LY EDGE x..., ,, c I OF WATER - .. �..�.._ ; ., N'LY BANK �.. — .' CREEK O S'LY EDGE I , = �.. OF WATER - c b ..- - o --a-- 0 O 1/ /1 ...,,.-..... ' — SANITARY o O /I ; N SEWER 1\ / O 0 � '7EMPpRgR \� \EASEMENT :^,->..... O y CONS \ \ I 8 ` •; u �� \ T / •� �s,� / / LY ~` A WETLAND BASIN NO. 3 -.T�_ _ �` ` `'' r BANK OF \ !! ��- 0 CREEK # l 962 0 ... / S'LY EDGE— \\\ I QM \\\\// // ' .t,•d 0 _ _ \ O p00 ^ OF WATER - CD ..,0 e R LL 9S6\----- one \\ o� o \ 1 \\ i .,..�..�._�./ � \_o o.� \ ODE SMo O\� O 1 oraueurur uu riar Q ! HIC�.LL i 1y Z1, I1htfN0US ' 342,76 Sq. Ft. a -------- ' �: I (7.868 Acres) II\ \\ ',:tit�.Clw�4�n -------------- I 1 i \ :.'\ �\ \\ \ \ \. \ I / i 11 I i i `lC � 1 � , •: . / '°so11 il g C� . I / / I / 1 _ / 97r .. `�___ _____--' --__� -- I. O/ / O _- -- f 1 r I •� ..;:' d/ . C'.E II II I, 11 i, \11\\\ ~_/ '3 /i 0 •''/ 1\ 0 \ '/ 1—�\I ( 0 0 / 7 ('r>]: .,:r: c,:. �,�;, O 0 ' s O 0 / !! l l i 1 1 1 h Ill 0 .r / O >— 0 / �i 0 \ 0 / / I 0 r O I 0 0// I .....p 0 0 0 00 0 g50' it i i ! I _._.._ 96Q / \ ;r; # .._...... -. \,._.. r -- i _ \ PARCEL 216. MINNESOT J. _ - ..,..... % •., . tie° .._ ... 1._... ......... \.. OF TRANSPORTATI A DEPARTMENT ^l a rvK \ 4 _ - _ 0 / - N � - P AT / - N _ 0 _ 14 TR UNK ---------- - ---------------------- .................:...... SURVEY INFORMATION FROM SURVEY DATED 8-5-04 BY SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. ..... ltq , CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED NOV 0 2 2012 CHMHASSEN PLANNING DfPT u 0 25 50 100 SCALE IN FEET 5125 COUNTY ROAD 101, SUITE 100 MINNETONKA, MN 55345 PHONE (952) 294-0353 FAX (952) 294-0151 ALLIANT ENGINEERING, INC. 233 PARK AVE. SOUTH, SUITE 300 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415 PHONE (612) 758-3080 FAX (612) 758-3099 W Z LO O d a< a =VLd o W =Z O cn Od :2 U Cl) >W 0 2 Z M N QZ //� _ -ia Z U 0c) w 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 LAND SURVEYOR under the laws of the State of MINNESOTA IDENNIS OLMSTEAD, PLS Date License No. QUALITY ASSURANCE/CONTROL 8Y DATE DATE ISSUE PROJECT TEAM DATA DESIGNED: MK DRAWN: EK PROJECT NO: 120103 CIIIIIIIIIII1 �g c - , WETLAND BASH ' (APPROXIMATE 4� / UNDERGROUN PARKING ENTRANCE 4' _ i► _ aazxxx.. S ZZL S SZZx / L Zs' p4' ' 9S;ZS ' , 9i t£ , UNDERGROUND PARKING /0000 ' / r ENTRANCE STgRM WATER `D / POND O o BUILDING / ENTRANCE - I - o L __-- -� OPEN ----- ,- _ \� SPACE? / 2 I i i BUILDING FOOTPRINT ` 39,800 SFf HIGHWAy,5 MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (225 UNITS ±) ° 2 40 80 PREPARED BY: ALLIANT ENGINEERING INC. NORTH GALPIN BLVD. CHANHASSEN 10-1 1 —12 42,147 SQ.FT GARAGE LEVEL PLAN 227 ENCLOSED STALLS Colla!e a r a h i t a a t a www.collage-uds.com CHANHASSEN APARTMENTS OWNER OPPIDAN DATE: NOVEMBER 1, 2012 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A REGISTERED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. PETER KEELY REGISTRATION NO: 10958.5 Collage I architects Architect Pete Neely 651.472.0050 705 Raymond Avenue #200 SL Paul, MN 55114 KEY PLAN PROJECT N0: 11-016 CAD DWG FILE: DRAWN BY: JJ CHK'D BY: PK COPYRIGHT FIRST FLOOR PLAN GARAGE LEVEL PLAN Scale: 1/32" = V-0" - 01 I I I I I I I I I I I I FIRST LEVEL PLAN Scale: 1/32" = V-0" FIRST LEVEE PLAN 53 ONE BEDROOM UNITS 22 TWO BEDROOM UNITS 1 cp Collage ■ r as h i e a a% a www.coIIage- uds.coin CHANHASSEN APARTMENTS OWNER OPPIDAN DATE: NOVEMBER 1, 2012 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A REGISTERED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE SrATE OF MINNESOTA. PETER KEELY REGISTRATION NO: 10958.5 Collage I architects Architect Pete Keely '51.472.0050 705 Raymond Avenue 4200 SL Paul, MN 55114 KEY PLAN DATE: 11.01.2012 MURK DATE DESCRNDON PROJECT NO: 11-016 CID DWG FKi: DRAWN BY: JJ CHK'D By. PK COPYRIGHT: SHEET TITLE FIRST FLOOR PLAN A-102 SOUTH ELEVATION - SOUTH BUILDING SOUTH ELEVATION - SOUTH BUILDING Soak: 1/4" = r-ow COURTYARD (NE) ELEVATION - SOUTH BUILDING Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" NORTH ELEVATION - SOUTH BUILDING Scale: 1/4" = 1'-W NORTH ELEVATION - SOUTH BUILDING Sole: 1/4" = 1'-0" WEST ELEVATION - SOUTH BUILDING sole: 1/v - r-0" FRONT ELEVATION Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" - SOUTH BUILDING 01 FACE BRICK (COLoRum 02 DECORATIVE CMU 03 STONE SILL 04 CEMENT BO. LAP SIDING RAMMIMM (ODIOIITma O5 CEMENT BD. PANEL SIDMIG I000RTM O6 CEMENT BD. TRIM poLm mll 07 PREFIN. METAL FLASHING 08 VINYL WINDOWS 09 PREFIN. ALUMINUM RAILING 10 WOOD FRAME DECKS 1 1 DECORATIVE LOUVER 12 MECHANICAL LOUVER (PTD.) 13 ASPHALT SHINGLES Coll�a53e www.collage-uds.com CHANHASSEN APARTMENTS ON m OPPIDAN DATE: MwM®m 1, 2012 I mmeT CENTffR THAT THU WAIN 9 m=710R OR RE►W WM PR m NE OR UMER HT DTRM aWERVIS R AM TIYT I AR A aMWEEM AMNITICT WIRER THE IAW5 Of THE RATE OF I011121MA. PETER NEELT REGIWRATUNI M SON" CDIIRge I mchhKb Ar~ P4 Eeely GUA73AM TER RgreA Avenue 0200 M. Fmik PER M14 PROJECT NO 11-016 CAD DWG FIE. DRAWN 6f: JJ CHKO BY: PK COPYRIGHT ELEVATIONS A-301 �y ol ir wESFTST" STREET I 1' w•�♦ f3+ .f T HiGFwAys Wr ..." am^ CHANHASSEN APARTMENTS GALPIN BLVD & HIGHWAY 5, CHANHASSEN 1 T� 0 100 200 400 N SCALE IN FEET DATE: 3/15/13 SCANNED CHANHASSEN APARTMENTS - PLANNING CASE 2013-07 $600.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $0.00 PUD (paid with concept review) $1,970.00 Site Plan $500 + $1,270 ($10 per 1,000 square feet of building area) $200.00 Variance $0.00 Notification Sign (paid with concept review) $100.00 Recording Fee (Site Plan & Variance) $0.00 GIS List (paid with concept review) $2,870.00 TOTAL $2,260.00 Less Check 21560 from Oppidan Inc. $610.00 BALANCE REMAINING TO BE PAID OPPIDAN INC. City of Chanhassen Projects & Reimburse in Process:Chanha Comprehensive Plan Amendment Projects & Reimburse in Process:Chanha Site Plan Review Projects & Reimburse in Process:Chanha Escrow Fee - Site Plan Review Projects & Reimburse in Process:Chanha Variance - Height 3/15/2013 21560 600.00 1,410.00 50.00 200.00 109 - Beacon Bank 2,260.00 CHANHASSENAPARTMENTS COMP PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING & SITE PLAN REVIEW CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA VICINITY MAP o woo zom woo SHEET INDEX co covERsxEET Gl F]OSRNG CONDRIONS PLAN G2 SITE PLAN G3 GRADMG AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN GO Il'IIIIIY PLAN GS UGNTMG PUN 41 LANDSCAPE PLAN AIP6-A GAMGE LEVEL PLAN AIWB GARAGE LEVEL PUN A101-A F1BbTFLOORPI A101-B F1R55 FLOOR PLAN A102-A TYPICAL FLOOR PUN A102-B TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN AZ00 ELEVATIONS A201 ELEVATIONS OWNER/DEVELOPER PAM TUCC OPPWAN 5125 COUNTY ROAD 101,U5 SUM 100 M 952E2 353MN 55315 PN 952-2 153 fX 952-2WA151 flEIYM tl PETS KMY, AIM LEER AP COLLAGE ARLWTECIS 303 RAYMOND AVENUE ST. PAUL,MN 55116 PN 651 ]D 51 CIVIL ENGINEER CLARK WICKLUND, P.E ALI.IARK ENGDIF.E UTQ1C. 233 PARK AVENUE 5UI5 . SURE 300 MIN12-APBs, MN 55415 PB 612-]5&3060 FX 612-758-3699 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MARK KRONBECK, ASU ALLIAFNT:MEf.RING, WC. 233 PARK AVENUE SOUTH, SURE 30D MI 612-7 O3 MN 35115 PH 612-]5630L0 FX 612-75&3W9 CITY OF CHANHA$SW RECEIVED MAR 15 2013 CHAIyHASSEN PLANNING DEPT pad GP P£ F �M�N � �,ws ALLIANT mg.L)`LFYso ,V z w z a Z Q =� W N a� Z W 5 Q N Z a a = O O U � U U ry sue) w+ r ra. PWB] AWRMT;iMMG, C-0 — 7 LEGEND Oo - Rn..x.. aril .x • - penolea MnpOi Fir/il o, Way mwmm, - Ov.uxea LLnile6 /.ttes, Rn MCOi Plal ,C—I SITE BENCHMARK BenNmvk qe s 966.8] Top Ri of pecYkd YwJM. i, Swp uM Ot mein m -1 L R,an,e A 8d xM i,tepolb� W Ftlpi, m6 SAM. 5. COtmet kon Snwy py R from lvq SnwTi^9 Fc. o•el�E�iO-q2 ORIGINAL LEGAL DESCRIPTION a. a a �.ss,a..nt a e saio,i°s.TT i`l. Bepnry m o.e penn9 el it SURVEY INFORWTION FROM — -- SURVEY MTED 8-5-0 B! SCHOEU h MADSON, INC. Qµ�Y N RE��M� PTwN µOt I Em OPPIDAN ALLIANT ,ALdIL^x.M v� v s xs n ® I am C-1 2 Of 15 _- _ tiA je / T rl;N.y.. TATI .q 9r-nnk. TRUNK HIGAY NO. 5 SITE PLAN NOTES: .. o,om,e M m r.a a NNac.,ofw n¢ R cea a ,n�imr1O m�rwr�o�`NN�uc'' rca mxoerz floors I NS Oat 9ne v� swL NRS w,x MCm6 pMwmx cu,[woe �eWt S.a9VY[ ,9tED O„[F.n/3. ,P Ory Si4fM0S i,S OIY M� nei' srurs W :mSKW1ID �� Imt M,O R 'pa K rtmvID caaR. n�m, W mE Slwiw'i 6 92 PMxn M � mrMS[ wm N eVs � �Y of xo arvu Rtum i�M,mvxWGE vw', and sA and ,anFq,s. ,i ,w.w un®a W ¢ ,av[o nnw' nc aOa�c. SITE DATA a-x yNoanxn FN.4 NN,oa ms no emN,s ue v4 Nn® u.e,s ,o eosR mma mm• avnas snerc amn wm Nao.y a s,o.mn RR umNss wa. a4s�mrtm om, sawc Y ruons w - ,ys. � a4a - yia s SOf OQ ,FII 4mIR SQ i R AR YYn NOS /Ib. 1RA, 4 1®SO YSY6 T6 eNae �o d,o• wm�9 IgnpO ps6 mrxnon Nm, ,ar® ranac su.:. ,1Q a ae frNm b Sos 4zONm9 aas s 4 art Pam m nve Y�ia 4 � VNm 0 4�o+,mN PAMUG DATA a meo m.0 ra ur i.p aO ea�iaN a m 4 . c , swa ra .wars 1. - ,1. s°� w¢ a'zn m so,i®- ar rm,® vxuuam� := Ne av'..s`nus mus- aG.Tf [SWIS �nl -.a 7I QoMxre rrc4w Em OPPIDAN ALLIANT naiMOP4K �OSOUSR TIIIEm S®,IpLRMOV� IaSO�LTLb. N Q Z N Z Q ih W W si w y� Z a n x p f U u U 0 annm �mwuc/mmn N F� nEV`£+ Nam^ a j � m lFw uN R���M�N t♦�"j � P"kas f�a ��e�aW o n a 3 of 15 I I — TRUNK I HIGWAY -NO. 5 YKNk,ai-: GRADING NOTES: .�,,, a ,.n�Hr•..,: H nE mimes,.. �9xOVm4F6CAYl�v]E4f OY,wY`OI,' /,O WMn N6IRGRN 1. 10. 01611.ICRM MWIRS 9VLLH NCEO NYL OMlYC,4i r[pS TNR `srzuui a6VrHMrr ow,LE Hwrta Y. O}iIYLV A 4ID ILL IeA.iM twCFD MFAS f NRR FH 9,6 ./ MVRM➢ Y[Of 1EILCRVry YF➢ M%. ,s smnm w.osr H,o.w« urvma ww ro nnr a oamwaw ,,. mw A ao,mw:a Hwar .0 ..oxc rsz mn a wro¢,w Hanmons Ho resmc w.w.a,n,¢ sw ro.soa Nmv ro .,. m,mwc+w Has s000ae w s,c IT, ocssi oem. H[,w a ro.4cr rxH rw amnw. a.ao,onz vmx ro sw,.c cae,xromn n< arw:m, ssu H •. HsamE w wx srs nH u Hasa rtans .xs xn own sou.o,n wsw n u H na rtu.nw un,om¢ ,s r,aa r®E Dort H+wtx rwocv avus xA uHs o,mr. sww wawa: sort ro H ,x (w no lH woar usa sort ro H ,z (zh wuaH EROSION CONTROL NOTES' ITT ceno. IT,.un IT,ansPTI-mam..10rmw,nz....n�'°w sx r.wsEs w wu. ry x Hn,mron H r H wma wv ®,.an rms A H I[1R9RD. ITT usm w www,oi a "IT ITT ITT —ITT ITT IT, GRADING LEGEND `I N N Osq,Y ` aE� R PHo� o c�9 o n n o HNL M iFEI ALLIANT M. C-3 ® 4 o/ 15 \ -4.� \� . i row I \ li �t NILLnY NOTES: j I 1 = u ; \\ f/ (•� •• /lr ++// ___ _ __ __________�-__ �-_____.____--____�, 7� t``'L\\ h,1. 4�>� f Sn<°N"ion� �+�crnaowrauiwmrireonmID• ___ SS yj� � % ' \ t t l t� i'. __-� _-I�-� _____ _�'-"--�_'n'-- __ _ a'�r. / xo-'-'rs., :a �.nc •row ,vwmvi vww. wm ` ty .._� y(� f SMW6PE4p®[RM YL PFWR fdAmirE 4Wf Os 1 i l ...! ity 1 , ` , I 1 h `�Zaut¢Re•x3 El _`.wo`"C1p°wwrr1p141roE"s'�`tmro.�"'�:mann.mv mGE OF '//ETLAIID—C� �/ l9L•1®R EYMN F¢-¢ / 1 I , / � � _ t' ' _N< 1 V rt' } !u TE rtaYi' g[wV mx M an v W 7BTHtj I / 1 ,• / ITS:'_" aF�� . 1 r. r'":�.o...m w.� ww ,Ew,Nr m,�. r�« 3 - �� AN�wvNc vw wa ;� j % m.� 1F l / y 3`5'r'S1" :H .18Z-}r 1B'-- \- yR'j R4�•v��` 2 '.,f ! }....a�•s .ro ua�sWrc m•mo.m: vE smnlh 1 ili :•>I ��i /'/rmY¢Tm /!` "/� fr '' rIZ� 1/jp �t rs41R 1 J� \. / f ' .. a ce. a •. t tj \��`i/ m .s 4� °vm<v<rrosow Nmm no....n sw. x.a,,.um .nx r..r RI 1' i .c •i� / , ; Y; � t it ^[.r ; <n- i 1 I � 1 / � ' f 8.7 i ri ,: \?'" . y } au em< - —Ek _•y-.l> Tr�i Permonen. Dm'nv44 1 © or� ! I Nano a.0 N r�.�m n ,�nl,n ms moa aoms wcz. i 1 � �.[ i ��" 1/ / "t <. � Y•[mx •+• II IITE.as3atGt1 f r j zE'L . ,� I r 1 r 1 � � .%t: S � y, � / "'i'' - St i t ` [ �.Y M �- c l wu f nc i f` ,l 1 11 mow o Na � Nu�ron ..�iw rmmxo•rao�rwrimar.� it_; 1 Fi euY•�'2�.' � /A„� i> t �'• t `, � .I !; � � �_ -7-- c � `�t 1 .4 i // 4' •�/ .�/ .1 1 1 t F 1 t scc n[ow i � '\ ®t g � /' A 1 •'// i /i i //rzs t "1 ' t +1 t i ar t � �A , OOi I le t /fii 19, to / G V �// � if I, r• � �, 'tt / _ � ` a` Ij 1 \ s rEnW awr- ' I , \ ` �' •i 6y' W NOII'�< ,i { 9 2 � t i A I <l E4 1 \ NE RSW ,• � EC X i 1 1'• [N t / �• l O 11 N i 9 t YR E¢u�Eo ml�oEi [^iy ¢rrwt r `\ i � 1 ".'FIIMNX •M13 1 ` -' - o� 1{ ( ®' J rf ?05 7a __ --- yPdgtE1 5 ` ,Y --! --- - s< R,+C!rL vJrYfM -- %_ 288,22 ft -- R o - U i TRUNK -HIGAY r N No.i -y- UTRM LEGEND: ■ Nw� o-w� Yap • ..ao� s..nminm rxri • � uroE�wa:2 rml- xaw,r OPPIDAN ALLIANT FNiEFA➢#{ N PAY `1MN V S1¢•' • s x - -. nip ® C-4 ]CV[ N rz}r >0 5 of 15 I ]nF -EDGE OF WETLAND—_ 9¢Iu,m n rmxuc ao-v i N W y jr � 1 1 < / L, aw 4 4 y Pe�mane-x Drc}:ngge Q • / -i •yiay44tej �. % 4 La i. i,, L . iw ie la {.a i., !'a a'• M i.a } �j �� fa i. i.zR�R'yRai aM4l :3 i } iay Ma. .. la la bia a.. tz Ra 0.+1., Lao -u % / • Rey Rr R• 1, // i / \ R�41\,yyi .a fv 5v lay •41 aa444ia La4T., / (^) Oe1 '9: as }a la aai ia4! .L. a4Ta Ta VX yaw !.a t. iw • Ib 1., • 3.. y � i.a y � } i.+aayt.•i..1..4 at. le •y,v0. 4t•t 1 / � %, 'ZJJ�`, %y Iq. Y. yyia aL. ,.a l.. la4 •L.4yL. 14 ✓a.}�. {.a Rasa�4., 1, 4' t., 2. y y - L. 2. 2, .. y i J� R. IaA.,�ayba} t, la i, •�.. i. R.R .,. s.. x., s., i.y w4e., J 44Mljrt 0.RL,:1+L•1 1��� ,ti., Lay ' w•Lr .• y,wp aR'yR xw lv L•L•t T''4y is f.. ,u L. lwt Iaaa it • , a 1 La y 4L`. t; L•41. •1 ,. i. L L i. 4L, y}.a i, 1'a yL y .,y} a / v I '4yyt: la )a sa i, L•,a :.. ]wy} ]w 3a ., 4 a.a y iN Ti y !., Tv to • a., y la iw is R, f j I /� is i., J ,a y is i• y )a 3. / I !., la !a La i, L • ]+ la Iv t. , .• t" T'' i., ' I j L, i.( .a ]. x. ). } ) a ).• • 3 3 l.• w Le Iw i a •• R• !., Lz I a< i fa La • L i f�J /: W 1 i i i� / i N • 1.. Lay0. i. ,., 1. .. L ). ,.. I. ). ' a k. k. t. 1 r Ra Ia iIrI a`+'�t�>+. •w• ky• yl. 5., i, y xk-a )I.a Lka !kw- }k.e ])..a. lw, ].w, l..ra )L.aa lw -• y L, k. k a 1. !-' y i L�uma Sales a e9s95 Associates ssoc la tes Lighting ���asnIS s:oa Ixn +�s. +x�53]9 1 iw t•1., Lao !w }a )..) ay} i- — R,L?i iw ke 1 ] J I ate i., a.. L•i'T, iaT' • aRayyi+la / - i aia .iay • T - .Iw 1. Ta Ta la4la _ I k•yi, is i. i•i, i, Ia i,T "� ',. I • k. ka y T I y i, I, Rat I/` � � � rC. rT' wa w la � •T f.l _� �� ' I la I.. L•) y O fa N tPWTRt5Sa0RiEkYF3ryT� \ n _ ?a'Gt\i: 6aYrriRRr y `J<SS,^ :� 1_ 266 TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 5 i M _fJ t N 0 ` t— IYa pYtrtAe pelt-Il-pLt Rlat .et I. 1 � TcltG< Ptv—tGYt �eM u11W wt m p3vt w ly mmq.a Sn l��•. ley tIR. ptleq Yir'e xf ll�elm Bill a /. tae et3nt wt t...lv- .ry —1R— .-eu:.emu V 'v fOP FEJi£a � xt � l N 15 a Sr4[ • fQT ALLIANT C-5 6 0 15 TRUNK —1 ` �_:{Vi_iAA�J?.tSiS:in RPAk) HIGFIWAY SEED PLANTING NOTES: � r a LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS: o--- �Q ®ice I LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE a®_mm • _- a_us �+�e•.•tru fYa ww� . Xw.mti T[Q ryrw�S,O/ #n. mn. Na i—• Yw-�� rr' X w. ay. N wY+� lsrl X Y mw 1LLQ n,u•Y. n.. w...' 1W M }•Cmf W PMmm w [ml6lmaw.a. ALLIANT e+eeuw.wc. WY m1E eiw 1fY YL 6 L-1 7of 15 Q Q 4 o Q Q a Itl I I 1 D IL I-F, w�xw.[mpeYNedn I CHANHASSEN Fe __ aur�ues[n.lN •1 Ti I � , -o GARAGE LEVEL- I I , 49,822 GSF � I I 1 i w�wn: SET TITLE u GARAGE LEVEL PLAN 1 GARAGE LEVEL PLAN u A100-A �. r....r..: 8 , 1 D \ � 3 AGE LEVEL PLAN a GARAGE LEVEL - 49,822 GSF b CHANHASSEN aurMetwe, AY, a_ 61402111 GARAGE LEVEL PLAN A100-B a - a a a a A a • e c o i I ��` �f� 1 � qTI� / g •. j{11 I i' i Aa+ FF `"^ CHANHASSEN GENERAL � � f gWgyyyEN.1M PLAN NOTES - a. �. 1 , I .-M a�� L - �4 a wmc.u.we � �� ••• • � , FIRST FLOOR - =F 499024 GSF 7®� MU3 SEf TITLE FIRST FLOOR PLAN `1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN, PART W A101-A FIRST FLOOR - (� 49,024 GSF Ngo!) ... 0 v '•: .wry "�S s�.' i'�;" �x \ CHANHASSEN /� v= cunw etwaxaxwnvs » r`EI �'� cxnxw.ssex. Mx GENERALf.. Pr� w PLAN NOTES -A --I / U / e ' b SET TITLE FIRST FLOOR PLAN I FIRST FLOOR PLAN. PART 'R' b I A,U,-B a a a r r � a • e c 0 - Collage • Y �I9Y Y I 9s 1 - 1 I l; wYm9.pvtl.[w. ww MW r _ s l 3 1 eq I I I I 1�; r 1- — - • CHANHASSEN -rT c _I ausx eLwelewlwevs GENERAL =i�� PLAN NOTES (� - I .r�ea-ammsx[n0ia.[e ' 9, ,--»- Y TYPICAL FLOOR 48,930 GSF 11 - f✓ - I il 10 1 � 414 -� SET TITLE // \`\ l9 f - `•\`• \�w ego Is TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN A 1, TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN. PART'A' " b A102-A ,. PLAN NOTES TYPICAL PLAN - 48,930 GSF M7 r 4 ` 12 �4 A CHANHASSEN auras aw a ra AY cw,wws m SEr TIRE TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN I 1 .B. u A102-B S.T YAiYN E Q In M 0 (ll 2 L 6 m 3 L N 0 u M 0 CD cU In N S In C d sl M 0 0 (Ll (U 0 (U X v d L I) 3 d L q COMPPLANAMENDMENT .. REZONING & SITE PLAN RE VIEW CHA NHA SSEN, MINNES 0 TA _........... -........ _.._. - ---- t 1 I Tb , styp, Jr I c -- Fa� v� a 4.M I TRUNK HIGHWAY ' O G _._... 35. .. _ .._ N 0 50 100 200 SCALE IN FEET r i 1.AICE ANN SITE 41 CR 16 W 78TH S 5 l c LVD M CW VICINITY MAP N 0 1000 2000 4000 SCALE IN FEET SHEET INDEX C-0 COVER SHEET C-1 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN C-2 SITE PLAN C-3 GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN C-4 UTILITY PLAN C-5 LIGHTING PLAN L-1 LANDSCAPE PLAN A100-A GARAGE LEVEL PLAN A100-13 GARAGE LEVEL PLAN A101-A FIRST FLOOR PLAN A101-B FIRST FLOOR PLAN A102-A TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN A102-B TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN A200 ELEVATIONS A201 ELEVATIONS OWNER / DEVELOPER PAUL TUCCI OPPIDAN 5125 COUNTY ROAD I,) I, SUITE 100 MINNETONKA, MN 55: 45 PH 952-294-0353 FX 952-294-0151 ARCHITECT PETE KEELY, AIA, LEER AP COLLAGE ARCHITEC"1 S 705 RAYMOND AVENTJE ST. PAUL, MN 55114 PH 651-472-0051 CIVIL ENGINEER CLARK WICKLUND, P.E. ALLIANT ENGINEE?X'4G, INC. 233 PARK AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 300 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415 PH 612-758-3080 FX 612-758-3099 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MARK KRONBECK, ASLA ALLIANT ENGINEERING, INC. 233 PARK AVENUE -S ffl, SUITE 300 MINNEAPOLIS, WM 53 115 PH 612-758-3000 FX 612-758-3099 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED Il MAR 15 7013 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT r o Alan IF ALLIANT ENGINEERING, INC. 233 PARK AVE. SOUTH, SUITE 300 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415 PHONE (612) 758-3080 FAX (612) 758-3099 W Lo a a 3:o =W C7 z L = Cl) '�d :2 Q J(LLJ m n fN Q Z _ _J Z a U (DC W W 41 a W 0 Z O N W oc Z W Z Z a O V LU W Cn W O V 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 ENGINEER under the laws of the State of MINNESOTA CLARK WICKLUND, PE 3-15-13 40922 Date License No. QUALITY ASSURANCE/CONTROL BY DATE DATE ISSUE PROJECT TEAM DATA DESIGNED: MK DRAWN: EK PROJECT NO: 120103 SHEET 1 of 15 E a v In r. M CD (U Lr) S d m 3 O U OI M 0 0 (U / In N N S Ln d 11 M 0 CD 0 (U (U CD cu / X Dl d 3i d L q 1 I I I N'LY EDGE OF - WATER S'LY EDGE OF - WATER SPN SAN MH Top= 954.9 / 1 I 1 I � I � 1 1 1 I / WILY BANK OF / -CREEK 1 / 1 WILY I BANK OF -CREEK S 7g°►6,49 UFF CRE // 1 /� S'LY - _ =77-77 ' \ S 85°I6'49" E i EDGE OF \ - - 100.4 WATER oo- - �� MH o WILY BANK OF .Top�9 3.i9� a _x /-CREEKEDGE �� S'LY $ 73e►49v f-_` WATER F o o - , ►Soo ' / / / N _� SANITARY SE�� O O 0 0 WO O O 1 'TEMPORAR J_ i�7"'ENT SA n ® Opp_ L s' - \ Y CONSTR(1C pN `-_ /�L j // O O \ T1 .4 f /� / -- SAN Mll O /1 I / _ ENT I 1 ram[ -- Top= 960. R� 9., _ V N'LY --- ---- O �!. N 83c BANK OF - �o 58 It E - CREEK 74.98 // /, = 964- - - S- O O O 8RS R9„ S'LY _ `\ / / / / / O \ O O O OO B �.\� / EDGfER F ' Z MN7• �' / / / / / / / / LATH® 6 _ _ \ \, \ `\ 4<W �� / --96 - O 6 C "954--I-_��o / _ �- / ®� - O S88�01E/� �_ u T LAM O - 101./72_ d IN - 48.10 $°DZ / / / / �3.y7_ -p--------------------EDGE OF WETLAND- I / i \ °RMy lam` -__` \ O CA O� - O 4 t-- 0] J W DE NEATED BY KJOLHAUG 11-12-12 1 / / \ - O PERMANENT MIN 11 // P /,�, R E� /A / \ 1 C0.4/ \ `\ /`* \ O ODRAINAGE EASEMENT OO --------� 26��595 �q. FA. j // I\ \ �`� _ O /s `\ aG} \ �� / J / (5.097/ACre�) / \ \ Sf `� O®O � 05 l �\ WNa \ \��� -� , / / / / / / \ fit/ q \ / np PERM E MNDOT 1 \ KaN \\ -�\/ yam, �� 0Q 0� ��0 _ _ _ . . Tt ��\� NAGE EASEIp�� I ----------- \ \968 \ p= 960.51 _ \ Df3AI T g � � o, o, o, � � � � _`1 ____ '� T!� � .y°' 2 SAN:'MH I \ \ / Via WUJX I // / / / - �/ J (� \` \\ rye\ 4' t/ // / - - - -- - - - --- ----- \ lei ti A \ i < ' 4 --- EDGE OF WETLAND ---= / \\ ,' ,' ' / v '- ► _ �? L� DELINEATED BY KJOLHAUG II-12-12 I o _ i II �< «�«_-------N Bt^5T07�, W 8305141 it FEk�o� U _ _ Q� V 0 o I O/ I / Mti. I // x ,! `bc LL / I II it \ 1 f \- - Qra n // i / ��� � /qv /// 'L --, 11 rn II - I1 II ENT~ 1-�\ OV% a \' ' -\ \ - -�- 11 I ti raina9g !L/ 0 L C \A( 6 t I \ I ,/ K3• // ,� /.:x. Ik- i / \ \✓ \ 1 / BULiMNCG.�C�lj(7//J, 1 ` _`9jo t w I \ I / ,'� / ''' .(4 ,:O'\ / a9' �: t�'• I I \\ 1 \ 1, / �• l 1 I s.,` � . � _.,,!i \� � ` .P � � «- V f, y / , 3 p �L #rl0 / I 1 I �.�v F' EP / Go N f / / �L'#H1 - _ / I I 1 \ W I // WL4./I911 Oo I X PARC,EL°'B ri m 342.7*6 Sq. Ft.l (7.86I Acres) \ \ o'\ / rn 00 LO / BWDING 3 II 1,1\\ \\\\ I \ I `\ \`�\ \`_•' �J/ II E)GSDNG• I_--1 / // //' ,/ 11 BUILDING CO 11 C6T I I I �� I / / / / O II 11 rn 1 I N 1 I. 1\\ /' / / \------------ / O: O .. O G) \ O / / \ 61 / J Irnl I I 1 1\ I O/ O 0'<� O O / /' / \ O O O 1 I I 11 11 �1 11 II f Ii yl I I0 /�-SOIIIN LINE OF THE SW/1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF sEC. I� O O O 96N O . O / 1 UN �p 11 II 1 1 1 0l 1 1 (p°q> 1- O / / \ O O / 66/ O I O QO O 1 ' 1111 I - O I /'9 O O Q O O O O O 10 -0 O O O O O 1 _ I - , �pE 0 3 35 53 EoE� \\ oe��` SOUTHWEST. I*. FL/23 OF ...1 -�,.. SEC. 10. T. 115, R./23_ I__.. 206.78 PARCEL 216 o�-..� .._....o (CARVFB COUNTY CAST RON MOE ONlMf:NTj \ _ _ _ /-....... \ .. r MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT e .. _ ........, OF TRANSPORTATION PLAT N0. 10-14 `1 S82 852 3°E I ,' ' / - - 0. oe 1 ---------------964 ----- --'FINAL BOUNDARY PER DESCRIPTION 2_ ----- --------- TRUNK HIGHWAY -oE OE -NORTH UK OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC. 15 - `-' - / -BENCHMARK NO - r -- 5 ELEC MH • Top= 966.82 LEGEND Q - Denotes cast iron monument • - Denotes MnDOT Right of Way monument - Denotes Limited Access per MnDOT Plat 10-14 -� - Denotes Concrete Surface - Denotes Bituminous Serface SITE BENCHMARK Benchmark - 966.82 Top Ring of Electrical Manhole in the South end of median on Galpin Avenue at the intersection of Galpin Avenue and C.S.A.H. 5. Obtained from Survey by W. Brown Land Surveying Inc. Bloomington, MN Dated 1-10-02 ORIGINAL LEGAL DESCRIPTION That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116, Range 23 and the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of said Section 10; thence on as assumed bearing of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West along the West line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1026.89 feet; thence South 79 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 177.77 feet; thence South 86 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 100.40 feet; thence South 78 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 194.14 feet; thence South 74 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 150.00 feet; thence South 47 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 75.43 feet; thence North 82 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds East, a distance of 74.98 feet; thence South 58 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 84.58 feet; thence South 89 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 164.63 feet; thence South 18 degrees 17 minutes 40 seconds West, a distance of 824.19 feet to the northerly right of way line of Trunk Highway 5; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 33.08 feet; thence South 56 degrees 40 minutes 55 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 158.9:) feet; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 518.22 feet to the west line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23; thence North 1 degree 37 minutes 50 seconds West along said west line of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 9.12 feet to the point of beginning. This tract contains 18.1 acres of land, more or less, and is subject to right of way in existing county road and subject to any and all easements of record. SURVEY INFORMATION FROM SURVEY DATED 8-5-04 BY SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. 11 0 15 30 60 SCALE IN FEET plan 5 ALLIANT ENGINEERING, INC. 233 PARK AVE. SOUTH, SUITE 300 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415 PHONE (612) 758-3080 FAX (612) 758-3099 W W cc 5 IL W I-- z z N W z z � Q O Q Z Q 3 0 LJ LU Q =Z C a LU O Z a m N z z a F_ Z= = a= O X V 00 V W 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 ENGINEER under the laws of the State of MINNESOTA��`'��CQ. CLARK WICKLUND, P.E. 3-15-13 40922 Date License No. QUALITY ASSURANCE/CONTROL BY DATE DATE ISSUE PROJECT TEAM DATA DESIGNED: DO DRAWN: EK PROJECT NO: 120103 C-1 SHEET Of 15 E a 'q- un M CD (U Lrl L d Ql 3 N UI (n 0 0 In (1i W S d a / M 0 0 (U (U O (U X N E d Ql 3 d q U) V' \ / Q Q \ wJ \\ JUJQ' \ H W Q \ / ----- EDGE OF WETLAND --- DELINEATED BY KJOLHAUG II-12-12 I //I ) 1 / I � I / r i �IAJ v--- _...... i t. . n .ti ....,.,_...:� 4. �... IN r. r, REPLACE BIT PATH AT EXISTING ACCESS, SLOPE TO MAINTAIN PROPER DRAINAGE SITE PLAN NOTES: 1. UIMLN51UN5 ARE TO FACE OF BUILDING AND/OR FACE OF CURB. 2. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR CONCRETE STOOPS ADJACENT TO PROPOSED BUILDING. 3. ALL CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER ADJACENT TO CONCRETE WALK BE SEPARATED BY A 1/2 INCH EXPANSION JOINT. 4. ALL EXISTING CURB CUTS TO BE REPLACED WITH CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER EQUIVALENT TO THAT WHICH CURRENTLY EXISTS. 5. STRIPING SHALL BE 4 INCH WHITE. 6. ALL WORK WITHIN THE R.O.W. SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ENGINEERING DESIGN STANDARDS. 7. ALL CURB AND GUTTER TO BE CONCRETE B612 CURB UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, PER CITY STANDARDS. 8. CONCRETE APRONS TO BE INSTALLED FOR ACCESS DRIVE ONTO PUBLIC STREETS PER COUNTY & CITY STANDARDS. 9. 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 OF VARIATIONS FROM THE PLANS. 10. ALL CONCRETE PADS TO BE 3000 PSI AIR ENTRAINED 6" CONCRETE WITH #4 BARS ® 12" O.C. AND BROOM FINISHED 11. REFER TO LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING PLAN FOR LOCATIONS, FOOTCANDLE PRINT OUT AND SPECIFICATIONS. 12. TRASH ENCLOSURE TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE BUILDING. SITE DATA EXISTING ZONING A-2 AGRICULTURAL ESTATE PROPOSED ZONING PUD EXISTING LAND USE VACANT PROPOSED LAND USE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PARCEL A 265,595 SF, 6.097 ACRES PARCEL B 342,746 SF, 7.868 ACRES BUILDING HEIGHT REQ. MAXIMUM 3 STORIES/35 FEET BUILDING HEIGHT PROP. 3 STORIES/33 FT TO FASCIA BUILDING SF FLOORS 1-3 = 146,884 GSF GARAGE = 49,822 GSF FRONT SETBACK REAR SETBACK SIDE SETBACK 50 FT 50 FT 50 FT GROSS FLOOR AREA 196,701 SF REQUIRED IMPERVIOUS 50% BUILDING AREA (INCL. BALCONIES) PARKING & DRIVES SIDEWALK/PATIO AREA PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS 53,504 SF, 15.6% OF SITE (PARCEL B) 54,638 SF, 15.9% OF SITE (PARCEL B) 7,653 SF, 2.2% OF SITE (PARCEL B) 115,795 SF, 34% OF SITE (PARCEL B) PROPOSED PERVIOUS 66% OF SITE (PARCEL B) PARKING DATA PARKING SETBACK 25 FT PARKING REQUIRED 1.5 STALLS PER UNIT (1 BR) 2.0 STALLS PER UNIT (2 BR), 1 STALL PER UNIT MUST BE ENCLOSED. VISITOR PARKING: 1 STALL PER 4 UNITS 104 UNITS X 1.5 = 156 51 UNITS X 2.0 = 102 155 UNITS / 4 = 39 TOTAL REQUIRED = 297 PARKING PROVIDED UNDERGROUND PARKING = 154 STALLS SURFACE PARKING = 110 STALLS PROOF OF PARKING = 33 STALLS TOTAL PROVIDED = 297 STALLS INCL. 4 ACCESSIBLE STALLS SITE LEGEND: CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER -_=---------- EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER CONSTRUCTION LIMITS LUMINAIRE CONCRETE PAVEMENT z 0 15 30 60 SCALE IN FEET 1?10h do ALLIANT ENGINEERING, INC. 233 PARK AVE. SOUTH, SUITE 300 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415 PHONE (612) 758-3080 FAX (612) 758-3099 W_ W IM z 41 a H Ca 0 z z 0 N LLI Ch CC H z W z WWC C M L Q )-a z Q =V) W w z z a W =z Cl) '�d z Z z = 0 J a z mN a a z= = a= Q H U U u) 1 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 ENGINEER under the laws of the State of MINNESOTA6. c'/�2� `�'ICKLUND, I CLARKWPE 3-15-13 40922 Date License No. QUALITY ASSURANCE/CONTROL BY DATE DATE ISSUE PROJECT TEAM DATA DESIGNED: MK DRAWN: EK PROJECT NO: 120103 Cl=2 SHEET 3 of 15 £ a m 0 N I M 0 (U U� L 01 3 75 75 d i 0 M O_ O Od U) N 0) S d Q i M CD C) (U Cv 0 Cd X N d m 3 d i Q € \ V) 0 \ / \ f JW� \ j l`WQ ,,r ! t - / f -- _ -_- -.-.__. ....... �'�t�iA` [t , ' `.' -.. _. :y t -w, ^N ° y_ ----EDGE OF WETLAND---- % J DELINEATED BY KJOLHAUG II-12-12 it i gym. \ „ , �•' " ✓e.,. ~ \N f \ it. A,711'�J A' ....... .. / 1 _- ` __ ,rJ C) .`_ ,I // f "�`' rr rrrrrrr. rrrrrr rrrrrrrr, w ,".. / . C? / _ .. . rrrrrrrrrrrr,,a rrrrrr.rr r •rftft r•rr '•`. ,/ \ iI " _ • rr Cj. % % / / / .�♦" rp,r rrrrrrrrrrrr. r.rr. \ 1 _.___ � ' � ♦ f962.D ,.'- �I„ • r••rrrrrrrr \ MATCH EX. \ •rr l ✓ i ( / ly t} f , ,r: Lb ,r� r TH ' 4 v \\�• / / / \�% 1961:8 ♦♦ ,� �� 0 j i s =� `' • MATCH EX. t r. i, , ' 961.00 RIM r, 971.5 i J r970.5 ID > 970.0 , , - _ 58.12 9715 , NWL 956 _ 971.5 S� € FI L Q/ / 3/ f i f •• r•••rr t ' t h I t t t 7 t I - 10N HyyL� -/ T `Y 1- t 100yr HWL _957.30 oh�;p - 958.11 f CO k �•.' 4 / 970.0 f 971 5 ,rrrr 963.1 f 970.0 �� f v ,, �IM ,6 CO Of 970.8 ,4 , / I 6 966.704 18 966.2 970.3 3 r a ♦xi ?.,/ ' .... � 96 / FFE 972.00 FFE 961.33 ' t �r 970.8 972.0 ``a� I♦ FFE 70.3 �•' 9 j 04 0. 969.85 l f t i el Lt4., ,t,� '`,,I ♦;♦ I ��A., a.:aa �\ q :.'\i�, \� `: /'♦ \ 'a'< \X ..._. '•f .♦ �� 971.5 971.5 f f 72.0 i I x �♦.,,\ g FFE ; $ ♦ 1 i f 971.5 t \ 1 I 961.33 ♦Y "'v. Al 't€�r ,t t / \ •,•per 9,61.00 RIM f ``. / • it -- r a® / : t : \ / _, - �", _..� r.• gyp, ' h, , a i i C31 ? i �'t.: � � ,-'�.,. �. \,: � ♦Y -fir r.•• r � , ,Y .' r ,,, ` ice-._; .- -'�� rr •'- � •,.,.,, .-�'v..__... €, t � _ •�,..__ 'sic\ i ...._ . y rJ r t i at , V,...T �\ '_"_iti~ "...-. .,l)" :.�\ Tip � 3�..1 \�`: a,m\'_'+'�.; 1'':' ♦� ,��r••, t , ;�/' .e. M r` y_ i r ._.,._`S•_. elm wr i x _T -.-._a._..._ _.. _, -`-• � -mac-. e .,f 1 a � . , s Ji r--_-_.- _ a.,<,. ". ,t"> •' is - _ •- -___. - w.• , N Is __ /„, w� _ ._`l` .' r �`: i;. _ \ i 5' : f ` ._.. i I J ry , i n \ ' "' ARK rN E r Mir! i GRADING NOTES: 1. ALL PAVLMLNIS SHALL SLOPE AWAY FROM PROPOSED BUILDING. 2. ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES AND ACCESS AISLE NOT TO EXCEED 2.0% IN ANY DIRECTION. 3. ALL CURB AND GUTTER AT ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES TO BE DEPRESSED WITH CURB TAPER, PER DETAIL. 4. 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/COUNTY. 5. NOTIFY GOPHER STATE ONE CALL, AT (800)252-1166, 48 HOURS PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION. 6. ALL IMPROVEMENTS TO CONFORM WITH CITY AND COUNTY CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS SPECIFICATION, LATEST EDITION. 7. ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES SHALL BE PROVIDED AT ALL CONSTRUCTION ACCESS POINTS. 8. CONTRACTOR TO KEEP A COPY OF THE FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT ON SITE AT ALL TIMES. 9. CONTRACTOR TO SEED ALL ROUGH GRADED AREAS & FUTURE PAD SITES W/ APPROVED MNDOT TEMPORARY SEED MIX. 10. SURVEYOR TO VERIFY BENCHMARK ELEVATION PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION. 11. REFER TO GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND PROJECT MANUAL, FOR SOIL CORRECTION REQUIREMENTS AND TESTING REQUIREMENTS. 12. STRIP TOPSOIL PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION. REUSE STOCKPILE ON SITE. 13. REFER TO SITE DESIGN CRITERIA SECTION OF PROJECT MANUAL FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS. 14. PRIOR TO STARTING CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS HAVE BE EN 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. 15. PROVIDE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE BETWEEN HANDICAP STALLS AND BUILDING ENTRY. MAXIMUM RUNNING SLOPE TO BE 1:20 (5%) AND THE MAXIMUM CROSS SLOPE TO BE 1:50 (2%) MAXIMUM. EROSION CONTROL NOTES: I. PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION OR DEMOLITION, SILT FENCE AND FILTERS SHALL BE INSTALLED AS SHOWN TO INTERCEPT RUNOFF. 2. IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING GRADING OF SIDE SLOPES, WOOD FIBER BLANKET (OR OTHER SLOPE STABILIZING METHOD APPROVED BY ENGINEER) SHALL BE APPLIED OVER APPROVED SEED MIXTURE AND A MINIMUM OF 4" TOPSOIL. 3. ALL EROSION CONTROL INSTALLATIONS SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE AND BE MAINTAINED IN GOOD CONDITION BY THE CONTRACTOR UNTIL THE SITE HAS BEEN RE -VEGETATED. CONTRACTOR MAY REMOVE NECESSARY SILT FENCING/FILTERS TO CONSTRUCT ROADWAYS, WHILE MAINTAINING ADEQUATE EROSION CONTROL IN ADJACENT AREA. 4. SUFFICIENT TOPSOIL SHALL BE STOCKPILED OR PROVIDED TO ALLOW FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF 4" OF TOPSOIL FOR DISTURBED AREAS TO BE RE -VEGETATED. 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SCHEDULE SITE GRADING, UTILITY INSTALLATION AND ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION SO THAT THE GENERAL SITE CAN BE MULCHED AND RE -SEEDED SOON AFTER DISTURBANCE. AREAS THAT WILL NOT BE SUBJECT TO CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC SHALL BE SEEDED AND MULCHED OR SODDED WITHIN THREE (3) DAYS OF BEING DISTURBED. 6. THE GRASSES UTILIZED IN THE SEED AND SOD AREAS SHALL BE OF A SHADE TOLERANT TYPE APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. GRADING LEGEND --- EXISTING CONTOUR 970 PROPOSED CONTOUR 965.0 TOP OF CURB 964.5 FLOW LINE RIM 960.0 CATCH BASIN RIM ELEVATION FFE FIRST FLOOR ELEVATION ■ PROPOSED CATCH BASINS -> - PROPOSED STORM SEWER - - - DID- - - DRAINAGE DIVIDE .,2.00% DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE ---a--�- SILT FENCE INLET PROTECTION EMERGENCY OVERFLOW ROUTING ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE N 0 15 30 60 SCALE IN FEET 0 I , ALLIANT ENGINEERING, INC. 233 PARK AVE. SOUTH, SUITE 300 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415 PHONE (612) 758-3080 FAX (612) 758-3099 M Z 5 a. W` /r V/ Z Z J Z O W Z O W Z Z Z LIJ O H Lo Q >­Q Z O a =o W w 2 Z 0w z Q = Z n'^ 4 V/ 0 z J �/aR� V z Ma a o z= = JQ O U 0 � U C� I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared direct supervision by me or under my and that I am a duly Licensed PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER under the laws of the State of MINNESOTA�� CQ CLARK WICKLUND, PE� 3-15-13 40922 Date License No. QUALITY ASSURANCE/CONTROL BY DATE DATE ISSUE PROJECT TEAM DATA DESIGNED: MK DRAWN: MK PROJECT NO: 120103 C-3 SHEET 4 of 15 F11 an b wa_ �� `� UTILITY NOTES: E C1 o_ OU M 0 OU Lr L 0 O7 3 75 i3 M CD CD Cd In 41 W Q) S 0 (1 CD O OU .� 0 O X N E d 01 .3 a i Q C: I I'D J I rF Al. f a, M I I A 1P _... ,��J J. !•mil ..... ...... ..... r R, 1. EXISTING UTILITIES, SERVICE LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS SHALL BE VERIFIED IN THE FIELD AND WITH THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA, PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 2. MAINTAIN 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION AT ALL PIPE CROSSINGS. WATER AND SANITARY SEWER LINES TO MAINTAIN 10' HORIZONTAL SEPARATION. LOWER WATERMAIN AS NECESSARY. 3. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL PERMITS PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION. 4. UTILITY CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE POLYSTYRENE INSULATION FOR ALL STORM SEWER AND WATERMAIN CROSSINGS WHERE VERTICAL OR HORIZONTAL SEPARATION IS LESS THAN 6'. 5. ALL UTILITY WORK WITHIN THE R.O.W. SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ENGINEERING DESIGN STANDARDS. 6. NOTIFY GOPHER STATE ONE CALL, 1(800)252-1166, 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF ANY UTILITY WORK. 7. PROVIDE TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL IN COMPLIANCE WITH MNDOT "TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL ZONE LAYOUTS —FIELD MANUAL" DATED FEBRUARY 2011, FOR ANY UTILITY CONSTRUCTION WITHIN PUBLIC R.O.W. 8. ARRANGE TEL, GAS, AND ELECTRIC SERVICE CONNECTION WITH THE RESPECTIVE SERVICE COMPANY. 9. REFER TO PHOTOMETRIC PLAN FOR LOCATIONS, FOOTCANDLE PRINT OUT OF LIGHT FIXTURES. 10. PROPOSED WATERMAIN, SERVICES, AND VALVES SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH MINIMUM 7.5' OF COVER. 11. ALL CURB BOXES SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO AN ELEVATION OF 1" BELOW FINISHED GRADE. 12. THRUST BLOCKS SHALL BE PLACED AT FITTINGS, TEES, BENDS, CROSSES, PLUGS, ETC... 13. CONTRACTOR TO MARK ENDS OF UTILITY STUBS WITH A WOOD 4X4 POST (UPON COMPLETION OF EACH PHASE). BLUE FOR WATER AND RED FOR SANITARY. UTILITY LEGEND: ---- PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED WATERMAIN — — — — PROPOSED CATCH BASIN PROPOSED SANITARY/STORM MANHOLE O PROPOSED GATE VALVE PROPOSED HYDRANT -- EXISTING STORM SEWER EXISTING SANITARY SEWER -- ------ -- EXISTING WATERMAIN EXISTING MANHOLE/CATCH BASIN EXISTING HYDRANT 0 15 30 60 SCALE IN FEET P14A f0v PP S i I,.A ALLIANT ENGINEERING, INC. 233 PARK AVE. SOUTH, SUITE 300 MIINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415 PHONE (612) 758-3080 FAX (612) 758-3099 w 2 OC Ln a0 a a =W W =cZ in Sl 2 MN N Q Z Z Q V Ca7 U W W M q Z 4% a w ad 0 Z Z N LLI w 2 0 w IL IL O U 5 IL P D 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 ENGINEER under the laws of the State of MINNESOTA CLARK WICKLUND, PE 3-15-13 40922 Date License No. QUALITY ASSURANCE/CONTROL BY DATE DATE ISSUE PROJECT TEAM DATA DESIGNED: CW DRAWN: CB PROJECT NO: 120103 C-4 SHEET 5 Of 15 <<> UJ V�< T 1-- 0 H I 'D Uj II j n n EDGE OF WETLAND ------- DELINEATED BY KJOLHAUG 11-12-12 N % Z' <\ < ----- ------- .. .... . ... < : : . �- : 0 U'2 0 X rcir 2 .2 2 Xj .2 .2 .0.2 .0.2 pb 2 0. 01<1 1 11 1 1� . .1 ().1 0..3 0-3 .2 t.3 +0 .2 0.2 .2 .2 10.2 + *0. 1 -0. 5 + 0-5 +-5 'a. 1 0.1 0. .4 +().3 t.4 + b-2 + 0.3 b • b. 6 0.3 b.3 b.3 0.7 .2 + 0. "�o 0 6 0.1 + 4 + 4 + 0.0 0" I + '0 0 0 11-3 -2 \b'9 0 8 .0 5 .0 0.0 .0 0 + -2 + .1 b. 0.1 + 1.4 + 0 . + + + * 0-7 a 1.1 -9;9 0.6 .2 b.1 b., �5 1.5 2 1.4 1 0 3 0. 12 0.3 b.5 + 1.3 0.1 b., 0.8 1-1 .0.4 t.2 - b, 7 - 1 1.3 11-2 +.2 0.2 b + 2 b-2 + X .2 0 . .4 1 + b2. \]- b-2 .3 0 1 t.3 b.6 t. 1.2 0.9 +0.7 b.'j O'l b" b.4 0 3 1.1 4� .4 + + b-2 +0. b-2 b.1 b. b'l\ t +0 2 - 0. AA 11-2 1. .3 + 0-4 7 1-0 t.7 b.5 b..1 0. + + .5 4 + 2 0. j 0.4 b. + V 0. 1 1.3 1 3 27 0.2 b-2 .0.2 A b-1 1.3 1.5 + + + b .2 10-2 + b\1 b.1 +0-3 b., 0 0 . 6 + 0.1 + 0 . '0.8 + 0.4 5 +0 •4 1.3 1.4 + .4 + I b., b-1 t., 0-3 b-2 0-2 +0.2 +0.2 + 0 + + .8 0 0 4 b. 7 1.+ + 0 0'6 b.5 .2 + 1.3 b.5 +0 b-2 0.2 +0. b. + 0.2 b-2 0.1 1.4 2 .4 b.3 +0 b 'b + 1.2 + + 1,0 b.8 b.8 + + 0.1 b., 0.3 b. + 0 A 8 +C) 6 4 )-3 + .2 1 1. +0.8 b b.4 3 b-2 0 + 40 b. 1 .5 + 0 V• t. I b-2 + .4 1-2 -0.1 A�\l 0 + 0.1 b., + U-6 + .2 0.1 0-4 b.7 I + 0-9 0.7 + 1.2 + 1.2 +0.5 + .6 .0 1�0 1; 0.3 0.2 O'l b-2 +0-2 + 1 0.8 + b.2 t.1 0,2 b.4 + • + 0.1 0 0. b +0.7 1.0 + + 0-8 b.7 0.1 1.4 b t 2 + b-7 +-7 1 0 1.3 -5 1.3 + 0 .0 + + 0-2 +0-3 + .4 +o.6, t 8 + 1.4 + 1.2 + + U-2 0.1 0,7 +1 4�:')/ 0 1 . + 3 1 3 b.9 -0.8 + .2 1.6 1.3 +1 3 + 0.8 + + 0.4 b + I + I 1 -8 0.7 + 0 1 co .5 6 1,7 + b.8 0 + .7 - ----- 1.2 b-3 + + '6 1-6 1 7 + + .2 1.7 + + + 2,+ + + 2 1 -.3 1_9 1 f i + 1.6 1'3 0-9 5 7 17 11 �_ Ro' I b.2 8 + _q +0 3 'o .7 _9 �.7 7 + +0 . -0 1; 2.0 b. /+ 8 b. 9 0 "5 .6 b.5 +0 3 0-' R12 b \ .5 + 7 .9 2 + 7 + 2 1'4 1 6 +3 7 + 1.7 + , - . : 11 1 .3 bffi3 b,4/ 1'. 7 + + 3 2 + 1.3 + • I + 2 1 + b.8 1.8 6 + 2. + I + z �-5 + 0.2 0.1 b., + -u 1.2 +3..6 AA 4 + �-b 2. 0.1 1.5 2 9 2 .4 1.7 + b 1.4 1'9 .2 + Iffi3 5 + + 8 + .4 .3 1 r'* b. 0 1 1 7 b-3 +0-2 +.1 +0 0 + 4-6 1.4 + .4 + 0 7 1 9 ­9 4 3 2.7 b 3 �,2 1-9 b-4 1.7 "3 .5 - I . 6 *j.. 6 �.2 5 + + z: 0-6 b.7 + b + . .... . .... 0.3 + + 2 5 0.1 - 0.2 0 '� , / _/ e / b.l , j 0 b - 3 91 1.2 :1 1.7 5 1.9 + 5 .3 3 Jffi3 0 + + 7 .5 + 11 1 .7 .6 + 4 b-5 b. 7 + 0.3 2 b. I .170.1 .7 -6 1.5 + 7 t:q, + 0 2.1 '3 b.2 2.2 2.4 �-3 0.9 b b. 6 b. 1.2 jffi4 + 1.6 j .9 + 1.5 9 7 .9 b.8 -j + 9 + Offi5 0. 2,7 + .2 + 0 + + 5: .7 2 0 0 offij--��' .4 0.3 .1 b 1.0 1.6 b- 0.7 b. + 12-2 .5 + 9 0. 1.0 + .4 �.3 1 . / / b. 1 0.1 + .7 +0.4 2. 1.9 + + 5 + b. 2 +0. 1 0 2 b' .5 7 �-2 .5 0.3 • 4 4 �-5 �.j �-3 -5 +.3 +0-2 b., + 0' .1.3 .3 1.3 + 0.1 I 0.2 0-3 +0 ' ' .6 1 + 0 + I + + 2.0 .4 '0; 1.0 1. 1. �ffi7 �, 7' + �-2 + 0 1.2 1.8 + 9 1.8 + 2-1 7 2 9 + b-3 b-1 b-2 + �.2 + �-3 �.o + �.2 + - -0 1-9 1.5 4 0 5 + 2.1 2 + 1-2 2-0 7 �-6 a I + + b-5 +0-4 b.l0.2 +2.2 - .9 �'6 �'9 �.3 2.4 1 4 -., .0.2 A. 6-- .0 4 2.2 �.q 2-4 2-3 �.5 6 2. 1. 1.3 1. _9 -6 +0.4 + + .1 1.4 4 1 .8 2.5 + 9 1-4 1 0.2 2 + �'8 �-7 �.7 .2 1.0 +0 9 0 0.3 .0 + J'? 15o. b-4 0-3 -8 2 7 5 .7 b., b -6 .3 9 2+ .4 1-8 1.3 + b,4 + 7 + �.5 .3 + . () -0.8 - 2., + I . 0.3 •0 1 4 0.2 +0 b-2 5 + -.V .7 .0 1. 2. 2 + 1 6 2.8 +-5 + + + U-3 b-2 0.2 +0 27 2. 1-6 1.2 1� a 0 2. 5*0 �-5 .7 + 6 .... b-4. + .6 �.8 �.6 -6 1 + +0 2 b• + .6 .8 �.6 2.3 �.2 .3 Z.1 2. + �-2 �.3 +2 2-3 +2 0.3 3 .1 b + �.3 .4 �'8 �.2 +2 .3 �.2 2.7 0.6 .0 + 5.2 +0. - b.9 1.2 .8 + '0 1.5 �.5 1.9 1 1.7 b. + b., 2-4 2.2 1 .4 2 +0-2 �.2 + �-3 + .9 +2,4 0 .2 b-5 b.6 8 + 2*2 +.3 +.8 + + 2 1 4 / 1 1.4 1.2 +1-4 2.1 + 4 + 4 2• -8 2 7 0.3 + 1-3 + t-3 b-2 0 7 '1 1.4 + .3 3 + 1.3- 1. 0,6 .1 0 . 2 .3 0 + 0 5 0.9 V. .7 0.1 b-2 2 0.3 0.4 + 0.5 b.5 0.4 b.3 b.2 b.2 b-5 b. 0.5 0 . 5 b.6 *0.4 b.4 +0 .2 0 1 b., () 5 b.5 + .3 b.3 b.2 b.1 .1 b.2 0,4 + b.3 + 0.3 b.2 b-3 0.3 +0-3 + 0.3 b-3 b-3 0.3 b-3 b-2 +0.2 0 0 0.1 0 3 b-3 b-2 b-2 b-2 b.2 - + b.2 0. 1 b. 0-1 b-2 b. 2 +0. + 0 2 0.2 b.2 .0 b., + 0.0 + 0.1 0 .1 0.1 0. b.1 b-2 b-5 b .0 .0 ' 1V 3 .2 X .0 b-5 4'. +0.1 D 12 N\' 0.1 0\\ \N' -- - ----- - - . . .. . . ... .......... N, f ........ . .. lF ....... ...... . ...... 41- .. ... .... ... .... .......... ............ . ..... �tE 1 . .... .. .. .......... N.......... , . .............. , - � "'; 'j . ........... .... ....... n . . . ........... . ...... 2 .. . .... . .. '5 ti L.. . ......... -- ----- - - . . .... .... --------- P ivf f) ij: ... . ... 7 .......... ........ . .... ... . .. . .... ........ ... ... .... . .... ....... .. ........ ... ... 0: Y' .... .... ..... ..... ... ........ . .;� .. .... ........... .. .... -------------------- ji-L z] G H f I f I a Luma Sales Associates Lighting and Controls 5200 12th Avenue East Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 TEL: (952) 995-6500 FAX: 19521 995-6565 Luminaire Schedule Symbol Qty Label Arrangement LLF Description 2 AA SINGLE 0.750 LSI GFM-2-320-PSMV-F-MT-BRZt5SQB5-S07G-24-S-BRZ 3 CC2 BACK -BACK 0.750 LSI (2)GFM-5-320-PSMV-F-MT-BRZ15SQB5-S07G-24-D180-BRZ 2 DID SINGLE 0.750 LSI GBWS-Fr-150-MH-F-VOLT-BRZ FCalculation Summary Label CalcType Units Avg Max Min Avg/Min Max/Min Description Area Illuminance Fc 1.00 9.9 0.0 N.A. N.A. Horiz FC at Grade This photometric point -by -point print out is based on the specific data produced by the light fixtures specified on the fixture schedule called out on the print out. Any changes in location, lamp type, mounting height and lighting manufacture will change the print out results. Date 3/14/13 Sales rep Steve Hahn Drawn by TCP Scale V, = 401-01, , I soi, OIR V"� 04 0�1 0 15 30 60 SCALE IN FEET 1lah F P11- I DL-f A;0, N ALLIANT ENGINEERING, INC. 233 PARK AVE. SOUTH, SUITE 300 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415 PHONE (612) 758-3080 FAX (612) 758-3099 Cn z LLI M LO F- 0 U) LLI z LLI z Cl) 4d H (1) 0 z _J M z z < 0 C) LLI LLI M z a. LLI w. z 0 N LLI z LLI z LLI z (L 2 0 0 QUALITY ASSURANCE/CONTROL BY DATE DATE ISSUE PROJECT TEAM DATA DESIGNED: MK DRAWN: EK PROJECT NO: 120103 C-5 SHEET 6 of 15 E 0_ �10 0 - � | M � o 0 ` 0 -T L d :F: 0 � 6 76 �_ C5 � n o I o N � � m V 0 W I m c 0 � � / M o � o CIL.] . 1� 0_1 I o 0 / - � - � E d L 0 c _ � u c� r:�� | PLANTING N ���N�^������� �-�=���Q��NNU����UU,����N����m || 1. INSTALL 4^ MIN. TOP 30|L TO ALL S8D, SEED AND SHRUB AREAS. FINE GRADE ALL SOD AND SEED AREAS. INSTALL 12^TOP S0LTOPER[NN�LAREAS. |xll<2.�l�K�0RkWU�KALLP�^�TWAJER|ALLOC/�|0N3PR|URTV|N3TALU�|ON�HAVE00/NERSR[PRE3EN7�7|YE � APPROVE ALL STAKING PR0RTOINSTALLATION. ! 3.ALL SHRUB AREAS UNLESS SPECIFIED ASOTHER, TVBEBED MULCHED YY|TH4°DEPTH UFSHREDDED HARDYYO0D�VLCH0VFRRU�RFA80C.VNLESSSPEC|RrDASOTHER. POLY -EDGER TOREVALLEY VIEW BLACK DIAMOND OR APPROVED EQUAL. 4� INS 4-0" DEPTH SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH AROUND ROOT SAUCER OF ALL TREES ISOLATED FROM 1­1PU0Q� BEDS. . 5. PLANT 5V|L SHALL CONSIST OF 33% SELECT LOAMY TVPSO|L, 33% PEAT MO33, JJ% P� RUN SAND. �/ V. COMPLETELY GUARANTEE ALL WORK FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR BEGINNING AT THE DATE OF ACCEPTANCE. W/N�E ALL R[PUk�E�ENTS PRVMPER DIRECTION OF OWNER). 7.ALL MATERIAL SHALL COMPLY VV�HTHE UnI3TE0�0NOFTHE AWER|CANSTANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK, A�ER|CAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN. O. ALL TREE TRUNKS SHALL BE WRAPPED YV[�H BROWN CREPE TREE WRAP. APPLY WRAP IN N0VEWBER AND � REMOVE |N APR|L� � 9�Cp�L�OPHERST�TEONECALLAJ�51-454-OUO2PORLUC/0lNV/&LUNDER�ROUND�ULDlESANDAVD|D � | OAk�@[ TO UTILITIES DURING THE COURSE OF THE WORK. � �| 1O. M�N3NNALL PLANT W/QIRi4L3.|NCLU0NG0wJER�*�UN0LTHE TIME OFACCrPTANCE. � � �, 11.CVOR0NATE INSTALLATION vv�H GENERAL CONTRACTOR. 12� STAKING AND GUYING OF TREES OPTIONAL: MAINTAIN PLVM8NES3 OF TREES FOR DURATION OF WARRANTY �11 PERIOD. 13. SWEEP AND WASH /U'L PAVED SURFACES AND REMOVE ALL DEBRIS RESULTING FROM LANDSCAPE OPERATIONS. 14. SUPPLY DESIGN AND |N3lAU��0N OF NEW |RR|SK7|0N SYSTEM 0xw[rH COVERAGE OF SOD AND PLANTING |%11 AREAS. USE RA|NB|RD OR APPROVED EQUAL COORDINATE WITH G.C. ����� PLANTING ��o����w �������w����=���N��8NH����U0�����N����m | NKDvESEED MIX (TYPE TOBEDETERMINED) 1. S[E0NGRATE TO8E94LBS/YKCR[(PURE LNESE[D). 2. RECOMMENDED 3[[0NG RATE HAS BEEN MULTIPLIED BY 1.25 TO ENSURE MORE COMPLETE SEEDING COVERAGE. J. MULCH SEEDED AREAS �v�HMn/DOT TYPE J(MC�C[RDREDYY[EDFREE) MULCH AJARATE VF2TONS PER ��� �y ACRE WITHIN 48 HOURS OF SEEDING. MULCH SHOULD THEN BE DISC ANCHORED TO KEEP IT FROM BLOWING c� AWAY. ^` 5�E TO BE PREPARED BY LOOSENING TOPSOIL TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 3 INCHES. o� SEEDING SHALL BE APPLIED FROM APR|L 15 - JV[Y 20 OR 3EPT[MBER 20 - FREEZE VP THE SITE TO BE ! HARROWED OR RAKED FOLLOWING 3EE0NG, AND THEN PACKED USING A CULT] -PACKER OR EQUIVALENT. /. . �� �� �� �NN7�|� SEEDED AREAS BY 0V�ER|N(� RB�VLCH|N� AND R[PK0�lN� AS NECESSARY TO [57v�USH A ! � ']N|FDRMLY DENSE STAND OF THE SPECIFIED GRASSES UNTIL ACCEPTED. 7 ANY � � AREAS RNUN� TO [3l�BUSH A STAND SHALL 8E RESEEDED, REFE�DUZED AND REWULCHED VYHEN[YER 70% VEGETATIVE COVER IS NOT ACHIEVED. RESEEDING SHALL CONFORM IN ALL RESPECTS TO THESE ! � � SPECIFICATIONS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR ANY DAMAGE TO THE WORK AREAS RESULTING FROM EROSION ' ��� �|� 11 4NO V|P�ENT� THE �VNTRAC7DR SHAU' R[P/NR DA�A�[ |NCLU0NC REGRA0N� RES[[D|NC []� A3 � ' �� �'� mEI'��J�'^-a�FCi-��-|--~~�`^'`~�^^~'�~~�~�~`~~`."`"`"""`""`"."`=."..`^``=,",�.��m, FICANT DAMAGE OCCURS. !� \ `` , � ' "�' LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS: ���� NN��U�����n tD�N6 ' ��U�������� ���v��N��U�U�U� N � \ -^~^ " � - ~`rptImr -'� / ° � PARCEL AS�EAREA (-WETU\ND) =JJ7.2095F � ~ � � [x� 8A3[UNE CANOPY COVERAGE = �2.275 SF G���) .X~ _ � / ~' \ REQ. W|N� CANOPY COVERAGE = 50.59O �F (15�) \ ~ ~ �(�_�' � / REQ. ADDITIONAL COVERAGE = 2OJ15 3F , ,,, X/ I / / / ~ ~ � `�/ \ / \ ) ' R[Q�1TR[[P[R1.OV9SF =26'TREES � � ~ ° \ Ah � -- ���� TOTALTREESPRVND[D =J7TR[ES `�` � \ o ~ ~ - ~ ^ / ` « ~ ~INTERIOR PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING �� ` o ~ ~ / ,~w»�mmr /o ~ 9-NF °~~ |wn�!oRPARKING 0TAREA =54�53SF \ RED ��� `�«'" /' / /« ~ ��--SJ--/- °°°~ ��/ nsou| L�NV3CAP|NC=��=4,Jg6SF , �� ' ��/ ,/ ' / « � \ ~ ~ � o ,/ ~ , \~ ~ ° � / PRDAD[D LANDSCAPING = 15� = 8414 3F !�\ ] / � 'BUFFERYARD LANDSCAPING ��7� �,/ '' ' / v / ~ + ~' N� 1--<�R /^ ° ° ~ ' ' `� � � , // / / " ' � ~ ° °/^ /vu ° ^ ~ ~ ' , �/ � « / ` ' " / '' LD�|N 0. ~ ~ ° ° ��~ �� � ` � /� +�z ' ./ // ,^ / �� /' � ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° BUFFERY;�RDBPRVNDED/U1}NGPVBUCROADS EXCEPT ATAREAS WDHEX|SUNGTREES VRW[TU\NDS � ) ! ���'�,/ /| ���(� x�r� ' �� // // ^^' ^Y'�/�" ' »z/ * /�J//' Y�\. ~ �-�'r^~~� � °�� ~ �\`�- ~ ~ 7AH �y /^ y ~ ~ ~ '/�� / // // 11'�!� �k � j, W/ I . ,; -i"", �, \ 11 / I _�Ir _j I * I /I �L,,-` . --- - ., I � , ___ I s / / # '. ; i. ::111 . 1, /. . �".,_ � I/ / / / / . I , I `/ , &"� I n f?,." " , I , . 1_t 1. 1 -HB /1 5 AH 1)� . . . . - : ! ��/ / �� - �- �° ^ ° ~ \ �� ~ ~ ~ ° ' / / � ~`� �� ` | nu ^���~ �-4-�\H ~ ~ ° \ �^*' ```- x{/��o �/77� /�/ ' «" °/%~ . ��>�[l/ ``` ~ ° ~ ~ ~/~ ~ ° ~ �z , , I", I , -1 11 . . I , . . V ." , j,.Q -, i, 11 QTY. KEY I COMMON NAME/ BOTANICAL NAME SIZE 3 2.5" B&B STRAIGHT TRUNK 5 WO SWAMP WHITE OAK 2.5" B&B STRAIGHT TRUNK NO vii-CROICH Quercus bicolor CONIFER ORNAMENTA 8 RB FOX VALLEY RIVER BIRCH CLUMP 8' HT. B&B CLUMP RORd Betula nigra 'Little King' SHRUB 90 AD ALLEMAN'S COMPACT DOGWOOD 24" HIT. CONT. M 5 CANES 52 AH BELLA ANNA HYDRANGEA 24" HIT. CONT. MIN. 5 CANES 12 BA BLUE ARROW JUNIPER 3' HT. CONT. MIN. 5 CARES Juniperus virginiano 'Blue Arrow' AT W. SPEC. 16 BC 24" HT. CONT. MIN SCARES Aronia melanocarpa 'Morton' AT W. SPEC. Diervilla lonicera AT W. SPEC. Physocarpus opulifolius 'Seward' AT ITT. SPEC 24" HT. CONT. MIN 5 CANES Spiraea japonica 'Neon Flash' AT W. SPEC. 57 BE PERENNI BLACK EYED SUSAN 1 GAL. CONT. Rudbeckia hirto 'Pot of Gold' 73 CS CORAL BELLS 1 GAL., CONT. Heuchera 'Plum Pudding' GUACAMOLE HOSTA 1 GAL. CONT. Hosta 'Guacamole' 52 KF KARL FOERSTER FEATHER REED GRASS 3 GAL CONT. Hernerocallis 'Stella Supreme' NOTES: QUANTITIES ON PLAN SUPERSEDE LIST UUANTM[S IN EVENT OF DISCREPANCY. ` ` . i -1 ----------- .- I ir (D .11, .ill �, .... - . _ - _­ I/ - F I , ­­ ........ I ". "C .. .. - ... . ... l, 01.. - . � � \ ....... 11 : ,, 1: / ,; �, %i%, ",� . , \ If 11 ; � / ^ n - T1\1 " J11G:71-Tj141 _T' A I I 11 if Nfi`�N I I � 41 /~-8�N������� �� "'.".. six" �� �� ����,n ... : PRUNE DEAD AND BROKEN BRANCHES SHREDDED KARDWOOO WLCH PLANTING SOIL DRAINAGE MOUND 0 15 JO GO SCALE IN FEET T 10A ��� �� ALLIANT INC. 233PARK AVE. SOUTH, SUITE 300 M]0NEAJYJLJ3,&0N 55415 PHONE (6l%)75x'3V80 �FAX (6l%)758'3V99 LLJ A� n� a. . �� m,� �� �� "� �� . "� .� CO U� n� ' = z NN "� � "o� NN .� o� o� LO o� n� � - "� ��. �CL �� C3 �� - � Z � � K�� �� '� � �� _�� m� �� �� �� C `� = Z� U� — = � U� �� ad CL . � �� � �� -�� �� � ~�� � ��� �J«) ~� � _ < � Cl) �L �� �Z 14—Z � � m� m� m� �� �� .� �� v� �� �Z� �� ��� �� �� �� �� | hereby certify that this plan, specification, o, report was prepared by nno or under my direct supervision ondthnt| nnn o duly Licensed LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT under the laws ofthe State nf W|NN[3OTA MARK KRVNB[CK, A3LA �-15-13 26221 Date License No. BY DATE DATE ISSUE PROJECT TEAM DATA DESIGNED: MR DRAWN: [K PR�JECT N0� 120103 nIIIIIIIIIII SHEET / � � �7 D/ 1,�� GARAGE LEVEL 494822 GSF M,gT�y 1 GARAGE LEVEL PLAN A-100 'A' SCALE: 3132" = 1'-0" Colla!ga architects www.collagearch.com -----........_1 C CHANHASSEN GALPIN BLVD & HIGHWAY 5 CHANHASSEN,MN _ — — — -- ...--- ...... --- — A I 0 0) I DATE: XX.XX.XXXX HC 0 3 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN SPECIFICATION OR 21. N A200 REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. .................._...._.. 21 PETER KEELY LOBBY REGISTRATION NO: 23570 F.ELEQ Collage architects 0 Architect a Pete Keely 651 .472.0050 705 Raymond Avenue 0200 St. Paul, Minnesota 55114 2 A201 _. 2� DATE: 03.13.2013 SET TITLE PROJECT NO: 12_013 DRAWN BY. IN, IN, IN CHKOBY: PK MEETTITLE GARAGE LEVEL PLAN plat * Al00-A A r3 M O !7 1 GARAGE LEVEL PLAN A-100'13' SCALE: 3/32" = V-0" 4 A201 i O 5 A200 GARAGE LEVEL ei 49,822 GSF �A, N 11 4 15 i[j ME tv Colla!aa architects O 5 A200 GARAGE LEVEL ei 49,822 GSF �A, N 11 4 15 i[j ME tv Colla!aa architects www.collagearch.com CHANHASSEN GALPIN BLVD & HIGHWAY 5 CHANHASSEN,MN DATE: XX.XX.XXXX 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 ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. PETER KEELY REGISTRATION NO: 23570 Collage I architects Architect Pete Keely 651.472.0050 705 Raymond Avenue #200 St. Paul, Minnesota 55114 DATE: 03.13.2013 SET TITLE MARK DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECTNO: 12_013 DRAWN BY: IN, IN, IN CHKD BY: I N SHEET TITLE GARAGE LEVEL PLAN dart TV A100-B 0 61 GENERAL PLAN NOTES • ALL EXTERIOR DIMENSIONS ARE TO OUTSIDE FACE OF SHEATHING OR OUTSIDE FACE OF MASONRY UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. • VERIFY SLAB EDGE LOCATIONS, BRICK AND MASONRY FACE WITH ARCHITECTURAL AND STRUCTURAL DETAILS. • INTERIOR WALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO CENTERLINE OF WALLS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. WHERE CLEAR DIMENSIONS ARE INDICATED, THESE DIMENSIONS SHALL BE MAINTAINED. • ROUGH OPENING DIMENSIONS OF WINDOWS, DOORS AND OTHER COMPONENTS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH ACTUAL DIMENSIONS OF SUPPLIED COMPONENTS. • NOTIFY ARCHITECT IF DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCIES OCCUR, • PROVIDE WOOD BLOCKING BEHIND ALL WALL HUNG CASEWORK, MILLWORK, SHELVING, FIXTURES AND ELSEWHERE AS NOTED OR AS NECESSARY BASED ON MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. • GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY WITH MECHANICAL SUBCONTRACTORS AS TO LOCATIONS FOR EQUIPMENT, DUCTWORK ETC. NOTIFY ARCHITECT OF ANY NECESSARY MODIFICATIONS. • CONSTRUCT RATED ASSEMBLIES AT ALL LOCATIONS INDICATED IN CODE REVIEW AND PER DRAWINGS. INCLUDING ALL CEILING AND FLOOR ASSEMBLIES. • PROVIDE FIRE STOPPING AR ALL PENETRATIONS OF RATED ASSEMBLIES. ANY DISTURBANCE OF ASSEMBLY SHALL BE REPAIRED. • SEE SHEET G-100 FOR ALL WALL TYPES. FIRST FLOOR PLAN. PART'A' SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" CP Colla!aa architects www.collagearch.com CHANHASSEN GALPIN BLVD & HIGHWAY 5 CHANHASSEN,MN DATE: XX.XX.XXXX 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 ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. PETER KEELY REGISTRATION NO: 23570 Collage I architects Architect Pete Keely 651.472.0050 705 Raymond Avenue #200 St. Paul, Minnesota 55114 DATE: 03.13.2013 SET TITLE MART( DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT NO, 12_013 DRAWN BY. IN, IN, IN CHK'D BY: IN SHEET TITLE FIRST FLOOR PLAN Plan T A101-A z Azoo GENERAL PLAN NOTES • ALL EXTERIOR DIMENSIONS ARE TO OUTSIDE FACE OF SHEATHING OR OUTSIDE FACE OF MASONRY UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. • VERIFY SLAB EDGE LOCATIONS, BRICK AND MASONRY FACE WITH ARCHITECTURAL AND STRUCTURAL DETAILS. • INTERIOR WALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO CENTERLINE OF WALLS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. WHERE CLEAR DIMENSIONS ARE INDICATED, THESE DIMENSIONS SHALL BE MAINTAINED. • ROUGH OPENING DIMENSIONS OF WINDOWS, DOORS AND OTHER COMPONENTS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH ACTUAL DIMENSIONS OF SUPPLIED COMPONENTS. • NOTIFY ARCHITECT IF DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCIES OCCUR, • PROVIDE WOOD BLOCKING BEHIND ALL WALL HUNG CASEWORK, MILLWORK, SHELVING, FIXTURES AND ELSEWHERE AS NOTED OR AS NECESSARY BASED ON MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. • GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY WITH MECHANICAL SUBCONTRACTORS AS TO LOCATIONS FOR EQUIPMENT, DUCTWORK ETC. NOTIFY ARCHITECT OF ANY NECESSARY MODIFICATIONS. • CONSTRUCT RATED ASSEMBLIES AT ALL LOCATIONS INDICATED IN CODE REVIEW AND PER DRAWINGS. INCLUDING ALL CEILING AND FLOOR ASSEMBLIES. • PROVIDE FIRE STOPPING AR ALL PENETRATIONS OF RATED ASSEMBLIES. ANY DISTURBANCE OF ASSEMBLY SHALL BE REPAIRED. • SEE SHEET G-100 FOR ALL WALL TYPES. 27 27 26 25 24 Az00 23 O B) OC CD 8 28'-0" 27'-0" 27'-O" 27'-0" 27'-0" 17'-0" 17'-6" 27'-0" 17'-6" TYPICAL FLOOR 48m930 GSF IBR/ IBA 2BR/2BA 2 717 GSF 1008 GSF A201 _ IBR/1BA IBR/ IBA 667 GSF 667 GSF IBR/IBA 1BR/IBA 624 GSF 667 GSF ................ 1 TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN, PART 'A' 14 A-102'A' SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" Y ............. 0 Co lac3� are hits cts www.collagearch.com $ (C CHANHASSEN GALPIN BLVD & HIGHWAY 5 CHANHASSEN,MN 22 0 3 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN SPECIFICATION OR N A200 REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT 1 AM A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. N OW 19 im 1 PETER KEELY REGISTRATION NO: 23570 Collage I architects Architect Pete Keely 651.472.0050 705 Raymond Avenue #200 St. Paul, Minnesota 55114 DATE: 03.13.2013 1 SET TITLE I MARK I DATE I DESCRIPTION I PROJECT NO: 12_013 DRAWN BY: IN, IN, IN CHK'D BY: IN SHEET TITLE TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN lop l-0 A102-A GENERAL PLAN NOTES • ALL EXTERIOR DIMENSIONS ARE TO OUTSIDE FACE OF SHEATHING OR OUTSIDE FACE OF MASONRY UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. • VERIFY SLAB EDGE LOCATIONS, BRICK AND MASONRY FACE WITH ARCHITECTURAL AND STRUCTURAL DETAILS. • INTERIOR WALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO CENTERLINE OF WALLS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. WHERE CLEAR DIMENSIONS ARE INDICATED, THESE DIMENSIONS SHALL BE MAINTAINED. • ROUGH OPENING DIMENSIONS OF WINDOWS, DOORS AND OTHER COMPONENTS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH ACTUAL DIMENSIONS OF SUPPLIED COMPONENTS. • NOTIFY ARCHITECT IF DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCIES OCCUR, • PROVIDE WOOD BLOCKING BEHIND ALL WALL HUNG CASEWORK, MILLWORK, SHELVING, FIXTURES AND ELSEWHERE AS NOTED OR AS NECESSARY BASED ON MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. • GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY WITH MECHANICAL SUBCONTRACTORS AS TO LOCATIONS FOR EQUIPMENT, DUCTWORK ETC. NOTIFY ARCHITECT OF ANY NECESSARY MODIFICATIONS. • CONSTRUCT RATED ASSEMBLIES AT ALL LOCATIONS INDICATED IN CODE REVIEW AND PER DRAWINGS. INCLUDING ALL CEILING AND FLOOR ASSEMBLIES. • PROVIDE FIRE STOPPING AR ALL PENETRATIONS OF RATED ASSEMBLIES. ANY DISTURBANCE OF ASSEMBLY SHALL BE REPAIRED. • SEE SHEET G-100 FOR ALL WALL TYPES. EO O 1 TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN, PART 'B' A-102'B' SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" c Rnicor 1102 GSF Mqr�ti TYPICAL PLAN 4851930 GSF \nv\ n 0 11 15 W 0=11a!ga architects www.collagearch.com CHANHASSEN GALPIN BLVD & HIGHWAY 5 CHANHASSEN,MN DATE: XX.XX.XXXX 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 ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. PETER KEELY REGISTRATION NO: 23570 Collage I architects Architect Pete Keely 651.472.0050 705 Raymond Avenue #200 St. Paul, Minnesota 55114 DATE: 03.13.2013 SET TITLE MARK DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT NO: 12_013 DRAWN BY: IN, IN, IN CHrD BY: IN SHEET TITLE TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN plan A A102-B A300 SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" 4 SOUTHEAST ELEVATION A300 SCALE: 3/32" = V-O" 04 l— 03 13 04 03 05 I04 ,-13 04 03 m 11 01 Oonn11 1�on 00 ►l111 Xx C DD IC'101 liXMtIEC01 11011811LE�0� Nn 1 C�� XIM �lme IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIII��llllllllf ulull�� IIII�IIII1�_ luuu��lunlll�_ _ _ Il�llllllfllll���iL� �0 ��l ZI --w ��1�■J �'�� IJI�I� f�[� I■WI�I HOME ��JI III' �1 WIM MMlu �u f■II-1_ nll-1' ■�u�-f�lll�l u�� uuu I II-1 u�u �u �u u� I ON 1707 NJ I® Illlllllllli III= IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ® IIIIIIIII!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII; IIIIIIIIIIIII ®;i ®�� IIIIIIIIIIIIIII�I�I; ME ULK ME! ME ME ICI 71111r,11111 I= �!IIIIIIiumlllll A300 SCALE: 3/32" = V-O" MATERIAL INDEX ❑i DECORATIVE CMU �2 STONE SILL CEMENT BOARD LAP SIDING �4 CEMENT BOARD LAP SIDING CEMENT BOARD PANEL SIDING 0 CEMENT BOARD TRIM ❑1 PREFINISHED METAL FLASHING F VINYL WINDOWS ❑s PREFINISHED ALUMINUM RAILING 10 WOOD FRAME DECKS 11 DECORATIVE LOUVER 12 MECHANICAL LOUVER (PTD.) H ASHPHALT SHINGLES 2 NORTHWEST ELEVATION A300 SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" POINT OF GABLE 137'-7 1 /2" ROOF BEARING 130'-8 7/8" R._THIRD FLOOR 121'-11 3/4" SECOND FLOOR 110'-11 7/8" FLOOR TOPPING 100'-W GARAGE LEVEL 89'-4" POINT OF GABLE 137'-7 1 /2" ROOF BEARING 130'-8 7/8" R. THIRD FLOOR 121'-11 3/4" SECOND FLOOR 110'-11 7/8" 100'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 89 4" POINT OF GABLE 13T-7 1/2" ROOF BEARING 130'-8 7/8" R. THIRD FLOOR 12V-11 3/4" SECOND FLOOR 110'-11 7/8" FLOOR TOPPING 100,-0" GARAGE LEVEL 89'-4" MIDPOINT OF GABLE 137'-71/2" Y ROOF BEARING 130'-8 7/8" R. THIRD FLOOR 12V-11 3/4" SECOND FLOOR 11U_11 7/8- FLOOR TOPPING 100'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 89'-4" cv Collage architects www.collagearch.com CHANHASSEN GALPIN BLVD & HIGHWAY 5 CHANHASSEN,MN DATE: XX.XX.XXXX 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 ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. PETER KEELY REGISTRATION NO: 23570 Collage I architects Architect Pete Keely 651.472.0050 705 Raymond Avenue #200 St. Paul, Minnesota 55114 DATE: 03.13.2013 SET TITLE MARK DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT NO: 12_013 DRAWN BY: IN, IN, IN CHICO BY: I N SHEETTRLE ELEVATIONS ar �/ A200 A201 SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" 3 NORTHWEST ELEVATION (INTERIOR SIDE) A201 SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" MATERIAL INDEX ❑i DECORATIVE CMU �2 STONE SILL 3] CEMENT BOARD LAP SIDING 41 CEMENT BOARD LAP SIDING ❑s CEMENT BOARD PANEL SIDING ❑s CEMENT BOARD TRIM PREFINISHED METAL FLASHING ❑e VINYL WINDOWS PREFINISHED ALUMINUM RAILING to WOOD FRAME DECKS DECORATIVE LOUVER 12 MECHANICAL LOUVER (PTD.) D3 ASHPHALT SHINGLES 4 NORTH ELEVATION (INTERIOR SIDE) A201 SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" 2 WEST ELEVATION (INTERIOR SIDE) A201 SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" minPOINT OF GABLE 137'-7 1/2" ROOF BEARING 130'-8 7/8" R. THIRD FLOOR 121'-11 3/4" SECOND FLOOR 110'-11 7/8" FLOOR TOPPING 4� 100'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 89'-4" 0mila!ae architects www.coliagearch.com CHANHASSEN GALPIN BLVD & HIGHWAY 5 CHANHASSEN,MN MIDPOINT OF GABLE gk 137'-7 1 /2" DATE: XX.XX.XXXX ROOF BEARING 130'-8 7/8" 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED T.O. SUBFLR. THIRD FLOOR ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF _ 121'-113/4" MINNESOTA. PETER KEELY T.O. SUBFLR. SECOND FLOOR REGISTRATION NO: 23570 110'-11 7/8" Collage I architects T.O. FIRST FLOOR TOPPING Architect 100'-0" Pete Keely 651.472.0050 705 Raymond Avenue #200 St. Paul, Minnesota 55114 GARAGE LEVEL 89'_ MIDPOINT OF GABLE 137'-7 112" ROOF BEARING 130'-8 718" _ T.O. SUBFLR. THIRD FLOOR N 12V-11 3/4" n r` _T.O. SUBFLR. SECOND FLOOR 110'-11 7/8" T.O. FIRST FLOOR TOPPING 100'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 89'_" DATE: 03.13.2013 SET TITLE MIDPOINT OF GABLE T.O. SUBF r` �n T.O. SUBFLR. T.O. FIRST 13T-71/2" Y ROOF BEARING 130'-8 7/8" LR. THIRD FLOOR 121'-11 3/4" SECOND FLOOR 110'-11 7/8" MARK DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT NO: 12_013 DRAWN BY: IN, IN, IN CHKD BY: IN SHEET TITLE FLOOR TOPPING ,OD'-D" ELEVATIONS GARAGE LEVEL 89'-4" 0— A201