The URL can be used to link to this page

CAS-18_CHANHASSEN APARTMENTS - 7750 GALPIN BOULEVARDNotice of Public Hearing (a Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of theagenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a Proposal: 224 -unit Apartment Building on 8.08 acres of property zoned Agricultural Estate Ara — Chanhassen Apartments Applicant: Oppidan, 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 obta'n input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What Happens public hearing through the following steps: at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the 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/2012-18. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate Aanenson by Questions & email at kaanenson()a ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at Comments: 952-227-1129. 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 prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will Gose 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 commerciallindustrial. • 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/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are enmumged 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 lease contact the Planning SWR person named on the noti®U - CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 www.ci.chanhassen.nnn.us Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrep are found please contact 952-227-1107. The preceding disclair N I X I F 5 3 5 E 2 provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), a user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable fi damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, inde and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by U! employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's act R use of data provided.. APSfS PQSr `Vn y ptTNEY BONE! 02 IP $ 000.450 0003195036 NOV 21 2012 MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 55317 o0 1.1,124/12 11RI Tii 'TF N -FR rine nriTVER413L_F AS ADDRESSED UNA81-t 10 FORWARD 5'1317014747 "'F7R-!17141-71-37 IIIIIII1IIYY111101,qG1--A11111YA,A1111"1!111! AIA AIIAAAIA11It, Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 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 Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a Proposal: 224 -unit Apartment Building on 8.08 acres of property zoned Agricultural Estate A2 – Chanhassen Apartments Applicant: Oppidan, 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 it-)ut from the neighborhood about this project. During f` I —rij, the Chair will lead the What Happens public hearing through the ,wing steps: at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the 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/2012-18. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate Aanenson by Questions & email at kaanenson(dci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at Comments: 952-227-1129. 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, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, 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 party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that induces all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request At the Planning Commission meeting, stat( 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 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 item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to 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 induced 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 floftaligg, M� CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 www, c i. c h a n h a s se n. m n. u s Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, stale and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direcN^n ^r precision in the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepi are found please contact 952-227-1107 The preceding disalain N I X I c 5 5 3 7 E I ��PSFS PQST'M L 02 1P $ 000.450 0003195036 NOV 21 2012 MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 55317 QO 11124712 provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), ai R E T!; R it T - 'F R r; r'. R user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable fc NOT DEL I !;E R AR L F AS ADDRESSED damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, inde U N AB L E _f U l- UR WAR U and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by Us employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's aco R C: S S T 1 7 f! 1 17 4 7 "' 3 7 R- 19F, O 7 q- 2 1- A 7 use of data provided. 1 11 pp yy + ��i I{ :�y��+�4�2 ISI ltuol YA�w�priewl�lll l�llerree��A i��i�leltl�It �I��I��fA^1� . r --►7 Affidavit of Publication Southwest Newspapers CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN State of Minnesota) COUNTIES NOTICE OF PLIC )SS. PLANNING CASE NO. 2A012 -18G 0 2-118 County of Carver ) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning com- the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both mission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, December 9, at 7:00 inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition P.M. in the Council Chambers in Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly sworn, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- Blvd. The purpose of this hearing lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: is to consider a request for Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a 221 -unit Apartment Building (A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal laws, on 8.08 acres of property zoned e..,..,....�.�,�._. ,. - newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331 A.02, 331 A.07, and other applicable as amended. -L I ravatsrpmBoulevard (northwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin printed () g The public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No.y -7y9 Boulevard). Applicant: Oppidan, was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said Inc. Owner: Americana Commu- Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of nity Bank -Chanhassen. the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition public review on the City's web site at and publication of the Notice: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2012-18 or at City Hall during regular busi. abcdefghijkhn7;�LA neer hours. All interested persona are invited to attend this publichearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Kate Aanenson, AICP, Community Laurie A. Hartmann Development Director Email: kaanensonGci.chanhassen. mn.us Subscribed and sworn before me on Phone: 952227-1139 (Published in the Chanhassen t Villager on Thursday, November 11 22- 2012: No. 9799) this Z�day of 2012 JYMME JEANNETTE 1A11 L/ NOTARY PUBUC-MINNESOTA N blit My COMMISSION EXPIRES 01/31/13 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 OPPIDAN INC. 21189 City of Chanhassen 12/5/2012 Projects & Reimburse in Process:Chanha Planning Case 22012-18 273.00 SCANNED 109 - Beacon Bank 273.00 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 To: Paul Tucci Oppidan, Inc. 5125 County Road 101, Suite 100 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Invoice RE: Chanhassen Apartments Concept PUD 7750 Galpin Boulevard Planning Case 2012-18 SALESPERSON DATE TERMS KTM 11121112 upon receipt QUANTITY DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNT 91 Property Owners List within 500' of 7750 Galpin Boulevard (91 labels) $3.00 $273.00 TOTAL DUE $273.00 NOTE: This invoice is in accordance with the Development Review Application submitted to the City by the Addressee shown above (copy attached) and must be paid prior to the public hearing scheduled for December 4, 2012. Make all checks payable to: City of Chanhassen Please write the following code on your check: Planning Case #2012-18. If you have any questions concerning this invoice, call Kim at (952) 227-1107. THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS! i;CANNED Meuwissen, Kim From: Meuwissen, Kim Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 11:54 AM To: 'Paul Tucci' Cc: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Chanhassen Apartments Property Owners List Invoice Attachments: 12-18 invoice-GIS.doc Paul, The attached invoice in the amount of $273 is past due. Please submit payment before December 10, 2012 (City Council meeting). Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. 0 KIM MEuvwssEN CITY ANNiNG EcRErA Y SEN PLANNING SECRETARY 952-227-1107 KMEUVIISSEN@CI.CHANHASSEN. MN. US CITY OF CHANHASSEN P O BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 12/06/2012 1:17 PM Receipt No. 00205792 CLERK: AshleyM PAYEE: Oppidan Inc 5125 County Road 101, # 100 Minnetonka MN 55345 - Planning Case 2012-18 ------------------------------------------------------- GIS List 273.00 Total Cash Check 21189 Change 273.00 0.00 273.00 0.00 ,D -I2 Carver County, MN Drsdawner This map wee created ua' carver coon s G si9 ry eogrdata a Scale p N Informbion Systema (DIS, data from a compilation of informationI,ismap iand v Van0si City.Canty. State, and Federal and map is not a 1 inch = 317 feet ela surveyed a Ie9eRY recorded map and is intended intend to to be used as a W E reference. Carver Canty is not responsible la any inaccuracies a contained! here;, Map Date 11/2/2012 S PLAN DATA NET SITE AREA: NUMBER OF UMTS: DENSITY: IMFERVIOU5 GOVERASE: 14.58 AO (626,4412) 52 3.6 UNITS / AORE 50% 4.Bq AO (Igl,150) NOTE: BASE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY MnDOT. NOTE: TOPOGRAPHY AND UTILITY INFORMATION SUPPLEMENTED BY: W. BROWN LAND SURVEYING, INC,. BLOOMINGTON, MN DATED 1-10-02 AND C,ONSTRUC,TION DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY THE GIT'( OF C,HANHA55EN W NORTH a ea 120' 180, s u = m N N m X< N z m m U F f UU w U 0 m Q j Q 0 0 P y�j Q ¢ZjQ 4 0 QUA Y 2 f N p a O j a SNS c ��W � m ry �� X® a L 0 0 N 0 O N W O N m 0 m m Z Ce H LU Q O Q O w a Z 0. Z °a LV �— H V) � � w Z H = = w J V Z QQ Z Ur) V) = O U v a V n Certified By: I hereby certify that this plan specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 12320 Date Reg. No. Drawing Number: Job Number: 2116 �y >>.}; ra 1y12r i k 6.097 Acresii A. "e fU r�� Petition I City of Chanhassen: Preserve Chanhassen - STOP Galpin Apt. Proposal a 225 u... Page 1 of 1 A. The City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan zones the site as A2 (Agricultural Estate) for Office use, last revised in 2008. B. The Proposed Development requires a change to PUDR or High Density Residential. The density of units would be in excess of 27 units per acre which exceeds the guided maximum density of 16 units per acre. C. This is significant difference and not in line with the Comprehensive Plan. D. In the 4 years since the Comp. Plan was last revised, the city's growth has been south and west, particularly around new 212, so the Development is going further against the natural growth of the city. 2. ilpffic Density & Public Safety ; A. At 225 units, this will bring 350+ new cars on the road everyday. B. A stoplight at Galpin & 78th may be too close to the one at Hwy 5 and Galpin to be added. C. Increased risk for children and adults crossing at Galpin & 78th to visit Kwik Trip, CVS, walk to school, etc. D. This is already a dangerous intersection, adding more traffic to this intersection would increase the likelihood of accidents. 3. XN'etland Protection for Bluff Creek Overlap District (BCOD). While the site does not have any wetlands on it, the proximity to the BCOD and proposed underground parking suggests water runoff, raising environmental concerns. This is particularly problematic in light of a MPCA report outlining problems with water quality at BCOD. There may be significant costs to the city in addressing BCOD water quality and the proposed development could increase those costs to the city taxpayers. 4. Police & Utility Services. - A complex this size may strain resources and cost the city to upgrade existing utilities (water, police, fire) leaving very little realized tax income to the city. As noted in the recent citizen action against the proposed Chanhassen Walmart, the net realized tax income was greatly offset and amounted to just over $1,000 a month due to increased investment to utilities. http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-chanhassen-preserve-chanhassen-stop-galpin-apt-... 12/4/2012 Aanenson, Kate From: Gerhardt, Todd Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 2:15 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: FW: Galpin Apts. propofal for 12/4 PC & 12/10 CC mtgs. Attachments: PastedGraphic-2.pdf-, ATT00001.htm From: Deborah Zorn rmailto:deborah.zornCalmac.coml Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 11:44 AM To: Gerhardt, Todd Cc: Deborah Zorn Subject: Galpin Apts. propofal for 12/4 PC & 12/10 CC mtgs. Dear Mr. Gerhardt, My name is Deborah Zom. I live at 7574 Ridgeview Point, Chanhassen, within one mile of the proposed project. Together with surrounding neighborhood developments and residents, we have collected over 570 petition signatures against the proposal: http://www.change.orglpetitions/city-of-chanhassen-preserve-chanhassen-stop-galpin-apt-proposal-a-225-unit- develonment#share While nearly 600 residents may be a small number, the context to consider is collecting this number in less than one month (11/13-12/4) and during the holiday season. After the recent local election last month, we all know the importance of nearly 600 residents casting their opinion. I will present my viewpoints at the Planning Commission this evening (12/4) and at your City Council meeting on 12/10, that is if there is a public hearing component. In the event there is no public hearing at CC, I wanted to share with you the following: 1. Chanhassen Best Place to Live — let's keep it that way! I encourage City Council to welcome thoughtful development, according to the 2030 Comp Plan that enhances our community. 2. Zoning — why consider a zoning change when there is land already guided in the 2030 Comp Plan for high- density residential? Even without this project, there are or will be 1,706 multi -family units in the Highway 5 corridor from Audubon to Highway 41 *....and including this project, over 1900 units. There is no glaring need to add more high density residential units into this area which has no public transportation or retail services. Just to the east on 78`h Street there is already 103+ acres zoned medium and high density residential. This area has already been planned with medium and high density residential in mind and does not need additional areas such as the Galpin Apartment proposal. *Note: attachments below. 3. Density transfer — how can a density transfer be applied to two distinct legal parcels that are separated by a public street? Internal is defined as "existing or situated within the limits". In most cases and most cities, density transfers are utilized within a single property. Furthermore, on May 22, 2006, City Council denied the Galpin Crossing proposal on the north parcel with one finding being that the 12 units were too many (PC had also denied on 5/6/06). 112 ni were not app oved in 2006, why ouid 96 units be considered for transfer? Evan farce d.futlo�eq In closing, let's welcome the developer to Chanhassen and build 225 units of market -rate apartments. This is the wrong site for many reasons. Let's encourage them to come to Chanhassen and build in spaces guided for this type of use and in areas of with retail and transportation services. Sincerely, MAP OF MULTI -FAMILY UNITS IN CORRIDOR CAMERICANA COMMUNITY BANK Date: December 3, 2012 To: Kate Aanenson Community Develo Director, City of Chanhassen From: James J. Swiontek Sr. Credit Officer, ricana Community Bank RE: Galpin Boulevard Property This memo is to present facts regarding the role Americana Community Bank has had in the sale of the land at the corner of Galpin Boulevard and Highway 5 in Chanhassen. Americana Community Bank (ACB), along with two other community banks, became the owner of the Galpin Boulevard property through a default by a borrower in March, 2009. Community banks are prohibited from developing real estate or speculating on real estate development. They are also prohibited from owning land that was acquired through a default for an indefinite period of time. The Galpin Boulevard property has been listed with a realtor since the default of the borrower and was recently sold to Oppidan, Inc. Oppidan, Inc. and the three banks are buyer and sellers, respectively, and have no other ties in this transaction. The buyer and the City of Chanhassen have been working on concept plans for the property, which are now before the City of Chanhassen Planning Commission. Administrative Office 600 Market Street, Suite 230, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone 952.230.9720, Fax 952.230.9727 RE: Conceptual Planned Unit Development at 7750 Galpin Boulevard Case #: 2012-18 Date: December 4, 2012 My name is Gerald Wolfe and I live at 7755 Vasserman Trail. I am in the first twinhome on the east side of Vasserman Trail. The north parcel (Parcel A) of the proposed development abuts the back of my property and the south parcel (Parcel B) is directly across 78th street. Along with our "roof -mates" we are the closest residential property to the proposed development and will be looking directly at it day in and day out. I have studied the entire 20 page Planning Department Staff Summary on the proposed development and have looked over the remaining 30 pages of attachments giving some of the attachments more scrutiny than others and I have spent hours (literally) writing and rewriting this document attempting, without success, to shorten its length. So, rather than use an inordinate amount of time at the Planning Commission meeting reading it into the minutes I decided to send this to Kate Aanenson and have her include it in your packets. I first want to say, for the record, that I'm not against development on Parcel B of this proposal and I'm not against an apartment building being that development if everyone agrees that is the best use for the property. However, I am against an apartment building of 3 stories and 224 units. It is simply too large for the site and proximity to the R4 Mixed Low Density Residential District of Vasserman Ridge. My first choice for development would be for office buildings similar to those in the 2006 Galpin Crossings proposal and secondly for an apartment building. Since the proposal before us is for the apartment building let's discuss it. ` I want to start with the proposed transfer of density from Parcel A to Parcel B. The developer is using 100% of the size of Parcel A to come up with a density transfer of 96 units to Parcel B. You all know what Parcel A's property looks like and the difficulties it presents for anyone desiring to develop it. The staff report conclusion on page 18 states that "while some development of Parcel A is possible, the presence of wetlands, Bluff Creek, a shallow water table and poor soils make this parcel a difficult site for development". Because of this any development of Parcel A will most likely make the preparation of the site for building extremely expensive and those increased costs would probably mean there would be little or no profit in developing the property. And, it is no secret that the residents along the east side of Vasserman Trail would prefer to see Parcel A remain in its current state as would many others in the Vasserman Ridge neighborhood. So, transfer of density makes sense in order to keep Parcel A as is. Having said that, I also believe that even without this transfer'of density Parcel A will remain undeveloped simply because of the difficulty and cost of developing the property. And, without the transfer of density the apartment complex will be much smaller in size and more palatable to everyone. On page 11 of the Staff report under letter (c) Density, in the Findings paragraph at the bottom staff states that the "developer must calculate the net developable acres of the site" and under number 1 of letter (c) it says that this number is to be used in determining the density per acre. As an aside, I believe this causes a conflict of interest to allow the developer to do this calculation because it is in their best interest to make that number as large as possible. For the proposal before us the developer has used 100% of the acreage of both parcels to come up with a maximum of 224 units. If the transfer of density from Parcel A to Parcel B is denied then the apartment could only be a maximum of 128 units. Since we know there are wetlands on Parcel A not all the land is developable which means that the building cannot be 224 units unless the Planning Commission and City Council waives the 16 unit maximum on net developable acres. Please don't do that. It is my understanding that there is estimated 2 to be up to 1.5 acres of wetland on Parcel A. Since net developable acres eliminates wetland acreage from total acres that means that only about 4.5 acres are developable on Parcel A. A sewer line bisects across the north end of Parcel A and I know nothing can be built on top of this sewer line so I'm not sure if that land can be considered developable or not. And, I suppose there could be other factors which could reduce this even more. For sure we know that 1.5 acres is not developable so assuming a transfer of density, the development can have a maximum of 200 units or 72 units more than if the transfer of density were denied. A drop from 224 to 200 is not a huge difference but enough that it will throw off the sizing of the current proposal and require some redesign of the buildings. But, it is still too large. I would suggest that transferring the density from Parcel A and then limiting the maximum size of the apartment to 2 stories and a maximum of 140 units comprised of 1, 1+den, 2 and 2+den bedroom units would make much more sense. On page 9 under point number 8 in the Analysis staff says the building will provide noise and light attenuation to the neighboring residential low density lands to the north and northwest. With all due respect to the staff I have to say this is a moot point. We already have light attenuation because of the mature trees along part of the east side and the entire south side of Parcel B. These mature trees provide almost 100% blocking of lights along Galpin Blvd and Hwy 5. 1 hope, if this proposal goes forward, the city will not allow the developer to cut down those beautiful mature trees. To be clear, I have absolutely no problem with light from vehicles, stop lights, Hwy lighting or the lights on the CVS Pharmacy. I do see light from the Kwik Trip but it does not cause any kind of inconvenience to me due to the way it is installed. The only thing an apartment building will do is completely block my view of Hwy 5 even when I want to be able to see it and force all residents of the apartment along Galpin Blvd. to look directly at the lighting from the CVS Pharmacy and Kwik Trip. As for noise reduction, in my opinion, there would be no attenuation of that from the apartment building at all. There is a 100% open view of Hwy 5 immediately to the west of the proposed 3 development and noise from Hwy 5 will not be lessened because a building is present. The people that will have to deal with noise, dirt and light are the people in the approximately 75 units of the proposed development that will look directly on Hwy 5 from about 100 feet away with nothing to attenuate that noise and lighting. I'm not sure who would want to pay $1100 or more per month to have that view and to deal with that noise. I suggest that the developer do something to block that view for those apartments on the south side of the development or I believe those units will be very difficult to rent. On page 16 under the Streets and Access heading it says the easterly access will be a right-in/right-out access. The developer said at our neighborhood meeting that this would be enforced with a "pork chop" island. With all due respect to the developer and anyone else who believes a pork chop island will stop vehicles coming from the east from entering the development at that entrance, I say you are naive, it simply will not work. 78th street is wide enough for a driver to easily make a U-turn to use that entrance to access the development and I believe many, if not most, of the residents of the east building will make that U-turn even, I suspect, if a no U-turn sign is present. I see many people making U-turns now and there is no development to access. And, those U-turns will increase the possibility of accidents. Even extending the median, unless it is extended almost all the way to the west entrance, will not stop U-turns to use the east entrance. It only makes sense that drivers will make the U-turn because why would you want to enter the property at the west entrance if you park your car in the underground parking of the east building whose entrance is just inside the east entrance to the development? I would do it if I lived in that complex. And, face it, most people will be coming off Galpin to enter the complex simply due to the fact that downtown Chanhassen and almost all business and shopping areas are to the east. I don't really know what a solution to this problem would be except for the extension of the median all the way to the west entrance. 4 On page 8 of the staff report under number 1 it says that Parcel A will never be developed because its density will have been transferred to Parcel B. I think I remember the developer mentioning at the neighborhood meeting that they might be required to put a storm water pond on Parcel A to handle the run off from the parking lot. I would suggest that it would greatly improve the visual palette of Parcel A to have that pond be quite large and geometrically aesthetic with a fountain in it to keep the water from stagnating and becoming a mosquito breeding spot, a walking path around it (preferably paved), trees, shrubs, grasses and possibly flowers in season for landscaping and a few sitting areas with benches. It might be reasonable to determine if it would be feasible or desirable to connect this pond to the existing storm water pond of the Vasserman Ridge neighborhood. This would improve Parcel A aesthetically and give the renters and others a pleasant place to view, relax at and watch the wildlife. The apartment management company would be responsible to maintain the fountain and keep the grass and landscaping watered and mowed. Also, on page 8 under number 3 it says the building will be cement board and brick. This is proposed as an upscale development therefore, I would like to see the building be all brick and other decorative stone work and masonry rather than a lot of cement board which will have to be painted every 5-8 years. On Page 15 under letter (d) Protection and preservation of natural features staff says that the "applicant must demonstrate that the flexibility provided by the PUD is used to protect and preserve natural features such as tree stands". Under letter (e) Landscaping plan and number (4) Tree preservation staff states that "tree preservation is a primary goal of the PUD". And, at the top of page 16 staff says "Canopy coverage for the site should be around 25% (78 trees or so)". There are at least 20 mature deciduous trees (I counted them) and a couple of mature pine trees on Parcel B. I think those trees appear to be where the building footprint shown on the proposal plans will fall which means those trees will end up being cut down. In order to meet the s requirements stated please require the developer to change the location of the building enough to spare the demise of as many of those mature trees as possible? Again, on Page 15 under letter (e)'s Findings and under the Building requirements heading staff says that the developer will need to provide headlight/traffic screening. I'm assuming that means for the 1st floor residents of the building. However, I would like to see something done along the north side of 78th street to screen headlights from our twinhome building. Currently, vehicle headlights shine right into our sunporch and bedroom windows as they come around the curve from Galpin Blvd. With the additional vehicles driving into the apartment complex at all hours of the night that will significantly increase that intrusion into our homes. So, the addition of some tall pine trees on the north side of 78th street to mitigate vehicle headlights shining into our homes would be desirable. In order to accomplish this trees would have to be placed on Parcel A from approximately half the distance between the yellow diamond shaped sign and the fire hydrant to an equal distance west of the fire hydrant. Since the developer is proposing this as a "market rate" development I would like something put in the covenants of the property to preclude a future investor from changing that designation to low -rent or Section -8 use. And, finally, I do not know how good the soil is on Parcel B. But if the contractor has to drive pilings to provide solid footings for the complex can the developer and/or contractor be required to carry insurance to cover any damage to our foundations and/or interior walls and ceilings? I know this isn't something the city normally requires but, if pilings need to be installed, could it be done for this project so we don't have to sue the developer/contractor to fix any damage that may occur? At the very least there should be something in writing as part of the formal documentation on this project that obligates the developer and/or contractor to repair any and all damage incurred to residential or commercial property due to the driving of pilings. 0 I hope that if you approve this concept PUD that it will be for no more than 2 stories and no more than 140 units with the building(s) being all brick, stone and masonry with the units being 1, 1+den, 2 and 2+den sizes. There should be no studio apartments unless those studios are furnished and permanently reserved for use by resident guests. Underground parking should provide 1 parking spot for each apartment with some additional spots available for rent to residents with 2 vehicles. If you have read this entire document, I thank you for your interest and concern to do your job well. 7 Aanenson, Kate From: Norma May [cornercotg@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 3:49 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Cc: Chuck Engh; William and Barbara Brown Subject: Proposed Apartment Complex at 7750 Galpin Blvd. Dear Ms. Aanenson-- I am a homeowner near the the site of the the proposed apartment complex at 7750 Galpin Blvd. I have reviewed the relevant documents on the Planning Commission section of the City website. I am against changing the current zoning, and I request that the Planning Commission deny approval to change the zoning. This site is appropriately zoned for office/professional use. But even if the zoning were changed to High Density Residential, using the City's density criteria, the site is too small to accommodate the proposed number of units. And reclassifying property on the north side of W. 78th and transferring the density to the other plot is a dishonest remedy, in my view. This site is too small for the proposed use as a 224 -unit apartment building. Surely there must be land elsewhere within Chanhassen where such a project can be built without compromising the City's comprehensive plan standards. Ms. Aanenson, as a Chanhassen resident, homeowner, and voter, I oppose this development and I urge you and the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council that the zoning changes needed for this project not be approved and no apartments be built at this location. Sincerely, Norma J. May 2050 Clover Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 Aanenson, Kate From: Karen Suedmeyer [bogeykas@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:47 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Galpin Blvd/proposed Chanhassen Apartments. Please pass this message on to the appropriate individuals within the City Planning Commission. I am very surprised and concerned that the City of Chanhassen would consider this large of a complex in the middle of what is already a very busy and congested area of the City, along with the fact that it would be in very close proximity to a school with children trying to cross already congested streets via both bicycles as well as by foot. This just doesn't sound like something that has been very well thought through. Chanhassen has historically spent significant time and money to give clear thought and foresight toward zoning issues taking into consideration what is in the best interest of the City, community, and it's residents. I think the current zoning should stand, which was well thought through and with clear rationale behind the thought process. The proposed plan sounds more like a short term access to additional dollars for the City, without thinking this through thoroughly and assessing the long term impacts. I clearly do NOT support this proposal. A very concerned citizen, K.A. Suedmeyer. Sent from my iPad 1 Aanenson, Kate From: Andrew Aller faaller@mchsi.com) Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 8:04 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Community Contact - Proposed Apartment Complex @ Galpin & 78TH Kate - I received a VM message from Dan Beno (952)-474-1104 Thursday 11/29/12 at @ 3:15 pm requesting a call back regarding the proposed project. You might do a quick call back to him, or 1 can if you prefer. I still like written submissions, attendance and open discussion at the hearing, or both for a cleaner record. Tonight, I spoke with Ms. Mary K Roberts of 7762 Vasserman Place, and intends to be at the hearing: She stated that she attended the neighborhood meeting and thought very well done. Has primary concerns regarding Density and Public Safety: Thinks the Buildings too large for the lot and too many people in small area. Believes Crossings will be hazardous for children and pedestrians. (she is a walker and doesn't like the lack of X -walks and lights even now). Higher density will most likely bring more children using school and rec center and walking across 78th, Galpin, & 5 Also concerned with the maintenance for the buildings once developer sells. I requested that she make these points and any others at the meeting, and thanked her for her interest and participation. Andrew Aller Aanenson, Kate From: Les & Carol Anderson [lesancar@me.com] Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 9:19 PM To: Aanenson, Kate; City Council; Furlong, Tom; Hokkanen, Lisa Subject: Galpin Apartment Project I live in the Walnut Grove Community on Clover Court. I attended the neighborhood meeting last night on this project by Oppidan Inc. The presentation was very complete and there was a lot of good discussion. However I came away from the meeting like most of the community members, very concerned that this project should not proceed. Building this large apartment project on that small parcel of land seems to make a mockery of the zoning ordinance. This is VERY HIGH DENSITY project and does not belong in that location and our neighborhood. In addition the intersection of Galpin and Highway 5 is already a major problem. The short distance to W 78th Street and traffic from this project would make that intersection even more hazardous. This project is NOT a good fit for our community. Please reject this project. 1 1 � eMfN �, fuReom�ID. UM pMING KU INC 1RMVQ J MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (225 UNITS ±) 0 30� 6r0 Nis ORTH GALPIN BLVD, CHANHASSEN 8-13-12 PREPARED W. n ANT ENGINURiNc wc. OPPID,AN Q BUIIgNc \ � �y �� / EW1PflINi \ JY.EW SF2 1 T"� R�IOfN14 u�murte � Y-4T•Mi / II�.SEiR�� -------------- / senwc FN1RN!(E / � B MRIN fW1PRINi SLOW SFS / LBHWY / MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (225 UNITS ±) 0 30� 6r0 Nis ORTH GALPIN BLVD, CHANHASSEN 8-13-12 PREPARED W. n ANT ENGINURiNc wc. OPPID,AN Q BUIIgNc \ � �y �� / EW1PflINi \ JY.EW SF2 1 T"� _ Y-4T•Mi II�.SEiR�� -------------- HIGHWAY 5 __.. MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (225 UNITS ±) 0 30� 6r0 Nis ORTH GALPIN BLVD, CHANHASSEN 8-13-12 PREPARED W. n ANT ENGINURiNc wc. OPPID,AN Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation 6th Edition, 1997 Scenario , Apartments Bank 5,000 1326.05 177.4 256.15 329.9 11.19 5.01 0.80 Drive In Bank 5,000 1 1326.05 1 177.4 1 256.15 1 329.9 1 11.19 1 5.01 1 0.80 General office 61,000 671.61 95.16 90.89 1 144.57 25.01 1 59.78 1 8.54 Twinhomes 10 95.7 Z7 10.2 100.9 9.4 87.80 50.00 Total 66,010 2093.36 280.26 357.24 575.37 45.60 152.59 59.34 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation 6th Edition, 1997 Scenario , Apartments Bank 5,000 1326.05 177.4 256.15 329.9 11.19 5.01 0.80 Medical office 36,000 1300.68 129.6 156.96 322.56 130.68 55.80 14.40 General office 25,000 275.25 39 37.25 59.25 10.25 24.50 3.50 Twinhomes- per unit 10 95.7 7.7 10.2 100.9 9.4 87.80 50.00 Total 66,010 2997.68 353.7 460.56 812.61 161.52 173.11 68.70 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation 6th Edition, 1997 Apartments Use units Ave Daily JAM Peak JPMPeak ISaturday lPeakSaturday jSunday Peak Sunday Apartments 225 1 1491.75 126 150.75 1437.75 117 1318.50 114.75 Total 225 1 1491.75 126 150.75 1437.75 117 1318.50 114.75 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation 6th Edition, 1997 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation 6th Edition, 1997 file: g:/plan/2012 planning cases/2012-18 chanhassen apartments/trip generator Vasserman ,.- Use units SF SF Avg Daily AM Peak PM Peak Saturday Peak Saturday Sunday Peak Sunday 1st add. - twinhomes 22 n/a 210.54 16.94 22.44 221.98 20.68 193.16 18.92 2nd add. - single faro 28 267.96 21.56. 28.56 282.52 26.32 245.84 24.08 3rd add.- 18 twinhomes and 16 single family 34 325.38 26.18 34.68 343.06 31.96 298.52 29.24 General office n/a 7,764 85.48 12.11 11.57 18.40 3.18 7.61 1.09 Fast food resturant 2885 1431.31 158.13 133.52 2083.06 169.96 1565.75 209.85 Total residential 84 0 803.88 64.68 85.68 847.56 78.96 737.52 72.24 Total commercial 0 10,649 1516.79 170.24 145.09 2101.46 173.14 1573.36 210.94 Total 84 10,649 2320.67 234.92 230.77 2949.02 252.10 2310.88 283.18 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation 6th Edition, 1997 file: g:/plan/2012 planning cases/2012-18 chanhassen apartments/trip generator ;' �. ��FrEn�No�N�an'Yal d�G..; m` a '��._"`��\ � •�°-. "B[ucFvt� - �` __ ._ fes PARCEL A, 7-7 OP XUi /tel r' 1viff "Tnvi8 '� y e , _ �� : �L✓ �' "'K ��y�. � L •i- J/� _c - I - 4�90N �_ SCMpEll f Y1050N. NK'. (t[wi. INC.MM,. �f1 ' T m � � � � JQN PNZYYYB CMANIIASSEM� YL CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 542 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20, ZONING CHANHASSEN CITY CODE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 20-506 (b) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: (b) Minimum lot size. The standard single-family residential PUD allows lot sizes down to a minimum of 11,000 square feet (excluding identified wetland areas from lot calculations). Average lot sizes��f the entire PUP shall FnFlint—sinal -min-imum area a -15,000 square feet. The applicant must demonstrate that there are a mix of lot sizes and proposed housing types consistent with the local terrain conditions, preservation of natural features and open space and that lot sizes are consistent with average building footprints that will be concurrently approved with the PUD. The applicant must demonstrate that each lot is able to accommodate a 60 -foot by 60 -foot building pad without intruding into any required setback area or protective easement. Each home must also have a minimum rear yard 30 feet deep. Section 2. Section 20-516 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: Prior to filing an application for PUD, the applicant shall attend a conference with the city staff. The primary purpose of the conference shall be to provide the applicant with an opportunity to gather information and obtain guidance on the general merits of the proposal and its conformity to the provisions of this article before incurring substantial expense. Section 3. Section 20-517 (c) (3) and (4) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: (3) The planning commission shall conduct a hearing and repeft its findings, and make recommendations to the city council. Notice of the hearing shall consist of a legal property description, description of request, and be published in the official newspaper at least ten days prior to the hearing, written notification of the hearing shall be mailed at least ten days prior thereto to owners of land within 500 feet of the boundary of the property and an on-site notification sign erected. (4) Following the receipt of the report and recommendations from the planning commission, the city council shall consider the proposal. without the rep . The council may approve comment on the concept plan and m4aeh .e6 .ennuis.s e..:t doom,; r nable A....FOyal ..hall requifv a simpie major -it), vote a vitV a, a eils a ept for PFePe..aS MqUiring eempr-ehensive plan e6anges whie6 shall -fth9 it Section 4. Section 20-518 (a) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: (a) FOROWifig geneffil eeneept appreval ef a PUD, The applicant shall submit the development stage application, preliminary plat and fee. if apprepriate beeause of the limited .sale of the p eel the a ept stage and prel:.. ina...., plan stages M pFeeseal simultaneously. The applicant shall file the development plans and preliminary plat, together with all supporting data. Section 5. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25w day of June, 2012, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota. Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on July 5, 2012) CITY OF CHANHASSEN P O BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 11/02/2012 3:02 PM Receipt No. 00202509 CLERK: AshleyM PAYEE: Oppidan Inc 5125 County Road 101, #100 Minnetonka MN 55345 - Chanhassen Apartment Planning Case 2012-18 ------------------------------------------------------- Concept PUD 750.00 Notification Sign 200.00 Total Cash Check 21066 Change 950.00 0.00 950.00 0.00 SCANNED a� o 0 .� cu N y Q Q 7 � L U Q C r O V 4.5.3 CARVER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY Homebuyer education Foreclosure prevention counseling and financial assistance to all County residents Partner with the County for additional affordable rental units Section 8 rental assistance Transitional housing Rental Rehabilitation Grants 4.5.4 MINNESOTA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY MHFA Community Fix -up Fund MHFA Community Rehab Fund MHFA Revolving Loan Program MHFA Accessibility Loan Program MHFA Purchase Plus Program 1`4.6 - HOUSING GOALS AND POLICIES 1. Goals. Provide housing opportunities for all residents, consistent with the identified community goals: • Balanced housing supply, with housing available for people of all income levels. Accommodation of all racial and ethnic groups in the purchase, sale, rental and location of housing within the community. kA 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. Policies Continue to enforce the City Code regarding property maintenance and rental licensing to maintain the existing housing stock. • As state and federal funding permits, efforts should be made to provide low and moderate housing where needed, to provide balance to the generally high cost of new housing. The City should promote the use of state and federal programs to reduce land costs for developers of low and moderate income housing. City of Chanhassen • 2030 Comprehensive Plan HOUSING 14 17 • The City will cooperate with other governmental units and public agencies to streamline, simplify, and coordinate the reviews required for residential development to avoid inflating the cost of housing due to unnecessary delays in the review process. • The City will continue to encourage the development of affordable housing; the City may increase the permitted net density of a project by 25 percent. The "bonus" units must meet affordable housing criteria as defined by the City. Developers shall be required to enter into an agreement ensuring the affordability of the units. • Subsidized housing should be given equal site and planning considerations to non -subsidized housing units and should not be placed in inferior locations or in areas that do not provide necessary urban services including transit and commercial services. • The City will continue to provide alternative types of homes including smaller lot homes, townhouses, etc. that will supplement the conventional single-family homes. • New residential development shall be discouraged from encroaching into natural resources or physical features. y�j• Housing development methods such as PUD's, cluster development, and innovative site �F plans and building types, should be encouraged to help conserve energy and resources for housing. • Citizen participation in developing plans and implementing housing programs is encouraged in redevelopment, rehabilitation, and in planning for the future. ?�• While density is given by a range in the comprehensive plan, the City shall encourage development at the upper end of the density range. • The City will promote the mixing of housing densities within projects in order to provide a wide range of housing styles and types. Such mixed densities must provide appropriate transitions for existing development. The City will continue to participate in the Livable Communities Act of 1995 as stated in the Housing Plan. The City will promote the integration of life- cycle housing opportunities throughout the community. Affordable and subsidized housing shall not be overly concentrated in one area of the City. 4 18 1 HOUSING City of Chanhasser • 2030 Comprehensive Plan November 15, 2012 RE: Proposed Development Northwest Corner of Galpin Blvd & Highway 5 Dear Neighbor: On Wednesday November 28th, 2012, we will be holding a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposed multi -family development of the site of the former driving range/miniature golf course site at Galpin Boulevard and Highway S. The meeting will be held at the Chanhassen Community Center from 6:00-7:30 p.m. that night. We will make a brief presentation at 6:30 and we will be available after to answer questions you may have. Thank you, PauIJ ucci Oppidan, Inc. 952-294-0353 EM_ RECERMI) ®PPI®AN NOV 1 U 2012 Ad*rOf&� 0%wrOfWW_ CITY OF CHANHASSEN 11 oxoERCRwrvo � PnRN�Nc � I ynCE L�X7 whgN4 /1 ' RNIX4 FMiPMNi I 1�9nJt XEw SFY / I � I PUNIxc - .. NiN.NC[ UBN [ / I a / eulaNc M n Ew1FRMl •�__�waa�Rn Lw� 8 / V / HIGHWAY g MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (225 UNITS ±) GALPIN BLVD, CHANHASSEN 10-11-12 Figure 4-17: Demand for Additional Rental Housing Source: Maxfield Research Inc. 4.5 - LIFECYCLE HOUSING Figure 4-18: Livable Communities Act 2005 to 2015 2015 to 2030 Projected Household Growth 2,135 2,300 Estimated Percent Renters 22% 25% Total New Renters 475 580 Ratio General-Occupancy/Senior 63/37 40/60 No, of Units (General-Occupancy/Senior) 300/175 230/350 General Occupancy Type (non -Single Family detached) Percent Subsidized 32% 35% 50-80% Median 50 40 50% of Median 45 40 Total 95 80 Percent Market Rate 68% 65% Number 205 150 Senior Rental Housing Overall Average Percent Affordable Adult 31% 34% Number 55 120 Percent Market Rate 69% 66% Adult 65 70 Congregate 20 70 Assisted Living 20 55 Memory Care 15 35 Number (total) 120 230 Source: Maxfield Research Inc. 4.5 - LIFECYCLE HOUSING Figure 4-18: Livable Communities Act Source: City of Chanhassen The Metropolitan Council defines affordable ownership housing as housing that is affordable to buyers earning 80% of the area median income or a home price at $201,800 in 2006. In the Housing Choice Voucher program, units must have rents below the Metro HRA Payment Standard City of Chanhassen • 2030 Comprehensive plan HORSING 14 11 City Index Benchmark Goal Affordability Ownership 37% 60-69% 30% Rental 44% 35-37% 35% Lifecycle Type (non -Single Family detached) 19% 35-37%% 1991 Comp Plan Owner/Renter Mix 85/15% 67-75 / 25-33% 80-90/2 - Density Single family detached 1.5 units / acre 1.8-1.9 units /acre 1.8 units / acre Multifamily 11 units/ acre 10-14 units / acre 9-10 units /acre Overall Average 3.3 Source: City of Chanhassen The Metropolitan Council defines affordable ownership housing as housing that is affordable to buyers earning 80% of the area median income or a home price at $201,800 in 2006. In the Housing Choice Voucher program, units must have rents below the Metro HRA Payment Standard City of Chanhassen • 2030 Comprehensive plan HORSING 14 11 UNIT TYPE 31 705 sf SURVEY INFORMATION FROM SURVEY DATED 8-5-04 8Y SCHOELL & MADSON. INC. FOR REVIEW ONLY g� PRELIM!NATION NOT FOR N 0 25 W 10D SCAI£ 1N FFiT FIG pa OPPIDAN f11f WUMYROAD,DI.3UIlE lm nfRMBS0NKA 61N 55Nf PHONE ry52]391-0ffl FAX (951)191-0Ifl ALLLANT F MEERWG, WG WPAR AVESOVIII. S1=3011 Ai QiNFAroL6,Ace 55115 PNONE(611)1S .Mm FAX(612)7593099 N H Z W F Q Q CL a z W V) U) Q z Q U y z O z Z O U a z F Vl X W 16.r.p, o.NRy . M1. plop. xp.cflcollonr or mW . pnport by m under my bled cube...... Mel I u duly u..nud LAND SVEYETOR und.r n. 6r.. of M. sloe of MINNESOTA DLN6 OE16if/iD. MS Dole -1 Me. OWlI1T ASWMMCE/CONTROL DEsmNED: •• g4wrv: EN rnacEc* ND: 12.10 C-1 RE 2 Date: November 5, 2012 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Boa 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department Review Response Deadline: November 21, 2012 By: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Community Development Dir. 952-227-1139 kaanenson(a ci.chanhassen.mn.us Subject: Request for Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a 224 -unit Apartment Building on 8.08 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: 2012-18 PID: 25-0101800 The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on November 2.2012. The 60 -day review period ends January 1. 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 firture 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 December 4, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than November 21, 2012. 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 - 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 -Purgatory -Bluff Creek b. Lower Minnesota River c. Minnehaha Creek 9. Telephone Company (CenturyLink) 10. Electric Company (Xcel Energy) 11. Medincom 12. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco CHANHASSEN APARTMENTS - PLANNING CASE 2012-18 $750.00 Concept PUD $200.00 Notification Sign $950.00 TOTAL $950.00 Less Check #21066 from Oppidan, Inc. $0.00 BALANCE SCANNEU OPPIDAN INC. 21066 City of Chanhassen 11/1/2012 Projects & Reimburse in Process:Chanha Concept Plan Review Application 950.00 SCANNED 109 - Beacon Bank 950.00 2.13.3 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING MAP INCONSISTENCY Regardless of a property's land use designation, properties not served by urban services shall not be rezoned to a zoning category consistent with the land use designation until such time as urban services are available. Current zoning of a parcel with a less -intensive land use designation may remain. Intensification of land uses may only happen with the provision of urban services. 2.13.4 MAXIMUM USE OF ALLOWABLE DENSITY Based on the City's housing goals and participation in the Livable Communities Act, the City has the right to deny any project that does not meet the minimum density allowed in the land use designation. Reasons for denial include deviation from City requirements, or off -setting the goals of the City. Additionally, the City may provide for a density bonus for the provision of affordable housing. 2.14 MUSA STAGING The City will be fully developed by 2020. It is anticipated that infill and redevelopment will take place between 2020 and 2030. The lift station planned approximately in the year 2010 will serve the rest of the development area in the City. A revised phasing plan is being proposed in order to provide enough developable land for the construction of this lift station. Because of the number of large lot subdivisions in the southern portion of the City, the phasing plan will be modified to 2010 and 2015. 2.15 - GOALS & POLICIES 1. Goat Achieve a mixture of development which will assure a high quality of life and a reliable tax base. Policies • Develop and maintain the City's land use plan so it is utilized as a fundamental tool for directing the community's growth. • Recognizing some uses pay their way in terms of the property taxes they generate and some uses do not. Chanhassen will strive for a mixture of development which will assure its financial well being. • Development will be encouraged within the MUSA line and at the same time Chanhassen will plan the reasonable and orderly expansion of the MUSA line to meet its need for additional developable land. • Encourage low density residential development in appropriate areas of the community in a manner that reinforces the character and integrity of existing single-family neighborhoods while promoting the establishment of new neighborhoods of similar quality. • The plan should seek to establish sufficient land to provide for a full range of housing opportunities. These opportunities require that adequate land be designated for medium and high-density land uses. The City will seek to discourage the conversion of these areas to lower City of Chanh"en • 2030.Comprebensive Plan LAND USE 11-13 density uses to ensure that the goal of housing diversity can be met regardless of temporary market fluctuations. Chanhassen will continue to encourage the location of commercial uses in the central business district. Commercial development outside the central business district and its fringe should complement the Central Business District. • The City will encourage the development of neighborhood service centers where appropriate. These may be developed as a part of a mixed-use development or a PUD. Development of unplanned and strip commercial centers shall be discouraged. • Planned industrial and office development will be encouraged as a means of strengthening tax base growth and creating new employment opportunities. It is believed that planned growth can and should be designed to minimize environmental neighborhood and traffic impact. • The City will seek opportunities to provide transitions between different uses of different types; the more incompatible to the neighboring uses, the more important the transition zone. For example, natural features may provide good transitions between incompatible uses or uses of moderate intensity. The Land Use Plan also seeks the establishment of buffer yards which represent areas of increased setbacks where a developer will be required to install landscaping and berming to offer improved separation of incompatible uses. • Development should be phased in accordance with the ability of the City to provide services. Development should occur in areas where services are available before extending services to new areas. • Development should be planned to provide adequate internal street linkages. The land use should also seek to direct growth in a manner that makes the most efficient use of the area's highway system. Development should he planned to avoid running high traffic volumes and/ or nonresidential traffic through residential neighborhoods. • The Land Use Plan will be utilized to facilitate the City's efforts to anticipate future needs for open space, roads, parks, schools, utilities, etc., and make adequate provision for them prior to the time they are needed. • Areas outside the MUSA shall be preserved as an agricultural zone or used to support very low density development. It is the City's policy to ensure that this area is not prematurely developed. The City will discourage the expansion or construction of commercial and industrial facilities in this area. • Large lot subdivisions that do not have City sewer or water shall be allowed to remain as is without requiring urban services even when they are in the MUSA area, until the majority of the residents want/request to change their use. The smallest lot allowed in these subdivisions is two and one-half acres. Larger lots may be subdivided if the lots meet the minimum 2'h acre requirement and a suitable location is available for septic and well. 2 14 !LAND USE City of Chanhassen • 2030 Comprehensive Plan LAKESIDE 5TH ADDITION Cash Fees 9/13/2012 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 225 Sewer and Water Hook Up Fee (Residential) Sewer 225 units Water 225 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 225 units Water 225 units MCES SAC 225 units City Surcharge 225 units TOTAL FEES WITH BUILDING PERMIT Combined total S - $ - 3% if less than $500,000; 2% between $500,000 and $1,000,000; 2.5% of first $1,000,000 than 1.5% in excess of $1,000,000 $ 25.00 ''r%)'Ql Ir 1� $105,600.00 Quantity and Quality /� y 6rov-e $ ( 855,000.00) $ 3,800.00 per unit multi -family $ 142,200.00 $ 632.00 per unit $ 355,875.00 $ 1,715.00 per unit $ 1,488,700.00 $ 331,875.00 $ 1,475.00 per unit $ 900,450.00 $ 4,002.00 per unit $ 532,125.00 $ 2,365.00 per unit $ 16,875.00 $ 75.00 per unit $ 1,781,325.00 $ 3,270,025.00 Page 1 *v �+ port 25'-4' UNIT TYPE B 755 sf UNIT TYPE B 1077 sf l 1090 sf N N r r Z Z 7 D mm 00 O O 00 ww mm w O Z3 O �- 11 \ \ 1 1 \ 0 \ \ i 00 rz zz 00 00 00 00 mm mm �o z3 o� m� v�v IM, 0 O w,. i 00 rz zz 00 00 00 00 mm mm �o z3 o� m� v�v Aanenson, Kate From: Aanenson, Kate Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 1:17 PM To: Laufenburger, Denny Cc: Gerhardt, Todd Subject: RE: Questions on Oppidan Apartments Concept Denny, If you need additional information let me know. Kate Kathryn Aanenson, AICP Community Development Director City of Chanhassen 952-227-1139 "Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow" From: Laufenburger, Denny Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 11:42 AM To: Aanenson, Kate Cc: Gerhardt, Todd Subject: Questions on Oppidan Apartments Concept Kate - I've got some questions that I'd like you to be thinking about, or even answer before the meeting on Monday. Will you clarify the meaning of Zoned and Guided from the Comprehensive Plan. The only reference to the subject property that I can find in the Comp Plan is where it shows in Figure 2-4 as Commercial. That specifically references Plan. Where is the property ZONED or GUIDED? Is it in another document? Land Use — this designation defines how the land will be used residential (low. medium or high) commercial, industrial etc. Zoning — is the district defining the uses and standards. For instance the if the guiding is low density the following zoning districts could apply RSF, R-4. RLM and PUD. Market forces or the developer chooses when district they want depending on the product they want to bring to the market. Generally land is left in the A-2 zoning district for taxes purposes. When an development application is made is must be the zoning district requested must match the land use designation consistent. In the case of the apartment the land use must be changed from office the high density residential for the project to advance. Where else do we have MARKET RATE rental property in the city at this time? (A summary of these projects are in my presentation) Centennial Hills Lake Susan Apartments Powers Ridge Built as apartment went Condo 75 unties are owned by invest group Senior Housing 162 Units 30 units an acre 16 units an acre 65 units Powers Ridge Apartments Phase Building Number of Apartments Acres Features Phase I A 100 units 6.09 1 building Phase II Bl & 62 80 units 7.36 2 buildings w/ underground parking Phase III C 88 units 3.69 1 building Phase IV D 76 units 3.2 Senior housing Totals 344 units 20.34 116 units an acre And How many acres of HIGH DENSITY Residential property do we have? IN the Comp Plan, figure 2-1, it suggests that the plan is to have 218 acres in HIGH DENSITY by 2030. I wonder how many we have in HIGH DENSITY today? 218 is correct the number of High Density acres. It doesn't mean it is all developable you have to take out for wetlands, slopes, right of way etc. Mr. Gorra has approximately 28 acres gross developable The Moon Valley is 60 acres gross and probably 20 development because of slopes. Remember just because it is guided high density does mean it will be apartments it could be condominiums. Is it possible to update the figures 4-10 and 4-11 on page 4-6 of the Plan? verbally would be fine, I think. I work on this and have it available for the meeting. Regarding roads, The plan suggests that Galpin Boulevard, north of highway 5 is currently under county jurisdiction. Is that true? Yes The land Use Plan map, figure 2-4 shows the Gorra Property as HIGH DENSITY. What is the basis for making that distinction? Could it just as well have been made medium or low? It could have been given low or M Generally higher density or more intensive uses are located adjacent to the collector roadway system. Mr. Gorra's property is located next to a large park, employment center and is convenient to downtown. Again a variety of housing types could come in on this development . More than likely it will be a master plan development. This would be similar to what we did with Walnut Grove It was guided low density on the north and medium on the south . It ended up with 3 types of housing , traditional single family, cottages ( zero lot line) and townhouses. It had a net density of 5.77 units on 43 acres net with a total of 247 homes. If there were no Density Transfer from the north parcel to the south parcel, what would be the maximum number of apartments that would match the 16 per acre for High Density? 8 acres x 16 units an acre = 128 units I may have more. Thanks! F Aanenson, Kate From: Aanenson, Kate Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 1:52 PM To: Laufenburger, Denny Cc: Gerhardt, Todd Subject: vacancy rate and rents Denny, Here is a link to the apartments in Chanhassen. This five s a update of all the rentals in Chanhassen. http://www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/index.aspx?NI D=767 The data I have seen shows a vacancy rate of around 2.5 percent in Chanhassen. Today's average rents are around: 1 bedroom $950 1 bedroom plus den $1,000 2 bedroom $1,110 3 bedroom $1,425 Hopefully this answers your vacancy and rental rates update question. Kate Kathryn Aanenson, AICP Community Development Director City of Chanhassen 952-227-1139 "Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow" 1 Aanenson, Kate From: Gerhardt, Todd Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 12:46 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: FW: Why I signed — Lived in Longacres subdivision From: Robyn Chargo [mailto:maiI(@chanae.oro] Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 12:16 PM To: Gerhardt, Todd Subject: Why I signed -- Lived in Longacres subdivision Dear Todd Gerhardt (City Manager), I just signed Chanhassen Vasserman Ridge Community's petition "City of Chanhassen: Preserve Chanhassen - STOP Gallpin Apt Proposal a 225 unit development" on Change.org. Here's why I signed: Lived in Longacres subdivision for 12 years. Love the neighborhood and love that it's all inhabited by private homeowners. Apartments promote the feel of "temporary" dwellers. Great for young people, and young couples with no children, but doesn't really fit in to the Family neighborhood feel of this area. I believe would bring home values down either further than they already are. NOT the right timing for this, at all. Sincerely, Robyn Chargo Mound, Minnesota There are now 148 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Chanhassen Vasserman Ridge Community by clicking here: http•//www change org l)etitions/city-of-chanhassen-preserve-chanhassen-stop-galpin-apt-proposal-a-225-unit- development?response=7f2b4a04e740 > I was hoping to get some insight on the proposed zoning changes for this land to allow such a development. My understanding is that the proposed 8 acre site is not currently zoned for this type of development. But, the developer is attempting to move the 'density' from the lot on the north side of W. 78 th Street to the south side of W. 78 th street to enable building the proposed apartment complex on this land. Is that truly feasible? I'm just learning about zoning with this building. But, if he can do that, couldn't I buy my 3 neighbors houses and build a 4-8 unit apartment complex in the middle of my neighborhood? > Is there justification for that which I'm missing? There's a road right between the lots so I don't understand the rationale allowing for this. > I appreciate your time and dialogue on this issue. > Cathy > 2 Aanenson, Kate From: PAUL and VERA BRADY [veriemae@msn.com] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 11:30 AM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: High Density apartment complex Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Kate, I am writing to voice my opposition to changing the zoning of the parcel of land across from CVS on Galpin in Chanhassen from that of presently being zoned for an office complex to the zone change to allow high density housing. I always thought Minnesota embraced environmental concerns. Adding that high density apartment complex creates a very poor environment for the human beings living there. Think of the constant noise and exhaust pollution from the traffic on 3 sides of the complex. Think of the stress and respiratory ailments, such as asthma, that living there will intensify. I can not imagine that a dog and cat motel would be approved at such a site, but you are thinking of approving it for maybe 500 humans. Not only will the impact be huge for the apartment dwellers, but there will be a huge impact for residents who already live in this area. There will be an overcrowding of nearby bike and hiking trails, over -use of nearby parks and schools, and an increase in traffic noise and pollution for all of us. Please reconsider this change in zoning and vote "no". Thank -you. Vera Brady 2028 Clover Court Chanhassen, Minnesota, 55317 952-470-7488 v_eriemae(a)msn.com Aanenson, Kate From: Bill Brown [wabrown@centurylink.net] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 10:12 AM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Proposed zoning change 7750 Galpin Blvd Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Ms. Aanenson, I live on Prairie Flower Blvd near the proposed 224 unit apartment at the intersection of Galpin Blvd and 78th Street. I feel very strongly that this would put a very negative impact on my neighborhood. The likelihood of greater traffic congestion and the potential for increased crime will negatively affect my property values and the quality of life in our community. Please do not allow this change to take place. Regards, Bill Brown 7676 Prairie Flower Blvd Chanhassen 55317 952-470-4069 Aanenson, Kate From: Jerry Wolfe [Jerry.wolfe@mchsi.com] Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 3:26 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: 7750 Galpin Blvd -Chanhassen Apartments Kate, I live at 7755 Vasserman Trail which is directly across 78th street from the proposed development. I have a question about the land development for this proposal if it is approved. Based on the soil borings that were done on the property, do you know if the builder will need to drive pilings in order to provide a solid foundation for the buildings? If so, what recourse will we homeowners in Vasserman Ridge have against the developer or builder for cracking in our foundations and/or walls and ceilings of our units? Will the developer and/or builder be required to carry insurance to cover 100% of the cost to fix any and all damage? Thank you. Gerald P. Rolfe phone (952) 937-2342 cc11. 1952) 426-8520 email: iem wolfeAanchsi com To: Denny Laufenburger Chanhassen City Council 7700 Market Blvd. (P.O. Box 147) Chanhassen, MN 55317 dlaufenbureer(&ci. chanhassen.mn.us (Sent by U.S. Mail and Email) From: Robert Webber 7608 Ridgeview Way Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Proposed Galpin Apartments (Galpin/Highway 5) Date: November 29, 2012 Dear Mr. Laufenburger: An Introduction As you know, you and I have been in brief, prior email correspondence about the proposed Galpin Apartments at Galpin and Highway 5. We also had a phone conversation. I was really appreciative that you took time to talk to me about the project. As you know, I oppose the project. I have worked with some of my neighbors to prepare an online petition in opposition of the project and we will be trying to speak out against the project at the December 4 Planning Commission meeting and the December 10 City Council meeting. We also met with the developer today, in a packed room at the Chanhassen Recreation Center. The meeting with the developer only makes me oppose the project more. I am writing you this letter in advance of the City Council meeting and the Planning Commission meeting in order to articulate my views in some detail. I am sure you have plenty of things to read as a member of the City Council and I apologize in advance for the length of this note, but I am not certain whether the City Council and/or Planning Commission meetings will be an adequate forum for a somewhat detailed argument. I do greatly appreciate your service to our community and the time you spend on these issues. I appreciate that you would review this letter when you have time (but before December 101) Webber Letter to Laufenburger Page 2 Section 1: About Myself First, by way of background, let me tell you about myself: • My wife Carrie and I met at Wooddale Church in the Young Adult ministry in 1999. We were married in December 2001 and lived in St. Louis Park from 2001 to 2007. • My wife is a graduate of Bethel University and teaches at Minnewashta Elementary in the Minnetonka District. She is currently on a leave of absence. She teaches morning kindergarten in the Spanish Immersion program. In May 2007, we purchased our home at 7608 Ridgeview Way. It is our "dream home" and when we purchased, we planned to live there for a long, long time. When we moved into our home in 2007, we only had 1 child, Abigail. Now, we have 2 children: • Abigail (age 7; 2nd grade at Chapel Hill Academy); and • Henry (age 3; adopted from South Korea in 2010 and at 3 -day Westwood preschool). We are Westwood regular attenders. I have to admit my involvement in the church has been relatively modest although I have connected with Mark Bendall who has gotten me involved in a few "international" issues from time to time. I have also been an off/on Saturday morning Bible Study person. This is a group led by Mike Sommer. My wife is currently in Wednesday morning BSF at Westwood. My wife is also pregnant with our third child, William, due in February 2013. Regarding the timing of our home purchase, I like to joke that we wanted to "really nail" the peak of the housing market. We purchased in May 2007 and obviously our home is not worth what we purchased, even though we have finished the basement and done a lot of other improvements in the last 5+ years (new roof, new deck, new landscaping, etc.) I tell Carrie that perhaps we will get our purchase price back if we stay in this house until our kids go to college and we are empty -nesters in 25 years. I am not happy about this fact, of course, but it is what it is, and we have it a lot better than some people. The economy in the last few years has obviously been terrible for so many people. We feel very blessed, and one of our blessings that we do pray about regularly is our home and our neighborhood. This all may seem like a random point but it ties into a big concern I have about the project, as discussed further into this letter. Webber Letter to Laufenburger Page 3 Section 2: What My Neighbors Believe Second, let me say that others in my neighborhood have studied other aspects of the proposal and will be raising very valid concerns related to zoning, density, traffic, and environmental concerns. I know you will consider all those points and I think the developer will have their responses to those points. People will tell you about the difficulties with the intersection of Galpin and 78a' Street, and the developer will tell you that they will "work with you" to figure out a solution there, with the county and state. And one thing you will consider is the cost of a major renovation to that intersection and whether the cost involved is worth it' for this new development. I certainly think the developer `wins' if we are left arguing about stop signs versus roundabouts. To me, those things are relevant but slightly distracting. I will say that at the very least there should be a rigorous traffic study and Environmental Assessment Worksheet prior to any approval of the project. Related to environmental concerns, I think the research should be rigorous, particularly in light of the project's proximity to the Bluff Creek watershed area. I understand there is a relatively recent report by the MPCA regarding water quality. The city planners seem fairly confident that the project has zero environmental impact but I think the City Council has a duty to push back on that in light of all the various zoning and density variances requested for this project. The developer here, as you know, is asking for a lot of changes to zoning and density. Those are not changes that the city is required to grant, particularly when this project could fit perfectly well on several other parcels of land in the city without so many changes and costs to the city and risks. My understanding is that there is wide discretion in how you and your brethren will consider these issues. Section 3: My Main Concern - Wrong Site/Wrong Reason Related to the zoning and density changes/ variances requested, that ties into my main argument in opposition to this project. When I first heard about this project, I was taken aback by the scope - a building with 225 units seems just huge. I was so perplexed why a developer would want to build such a huge development on what seems to me like a `medium-sized' parcel at best, knowing that there are many, many parcels of land open in Chanhassen, some of which seem ideally suited for such a development. I am certain you know Chanhassen better than me. If someone came to you as a member of the City Council and said: Webber Letter to Laufenburger Page 4 "We believe there is demand for 225 units of market -rate Class A apartments in Chanhassen, where should we build?" Would you, Denny, in 25 guesses, have said Galpin and Highway 5? Be honest! So initially I was just opposed at a gut level but trying to get my bearings on why this seemed like a bad idea. After meeting with neighbors and becoming more educated, I definitely supported their arguments related to traffic. I also developed a better understanding for the changes in zoning and density requested. But still, I could not get over the fact that if we assume that there is market demand for 225 rental units in Chanhassen, there are still several other places for this development within Chanhassen, which are already zoned for high density multi -unit residential and are in better locations for public transportation and access to highways, particularly open land near new 212. There are several other sites with minimal needed changes to city/county streets and sufficiently distant from critical wetlands. So why this site? Tonight, the developer admitted that they did not study ANY OTHER parcels in Chanhassen. This was the only one. Basically they were pitched this parcel by the bank and commissioned a market study to justify their plans and are proceeding along those lines. They did not not look at the city of Chanhassen and say, `where is the best place to put the largest apartment building in the city?' They absolutely did not not do that. No - they simply said, "This must be the best place because we can get a sweet deal here." So my main request of you and my main argument against this project is that the City Council should be asking WHY this project is being proposed for this parcel. The answer, it seems, is that the parcel is owned by a bank, and the bank paid a lot of money for the land, or at least loaned a lot of money to someone who paid a lot of money and then could not pay back the loan. Webber Letter to Laufenburger Page 5 It was very revealing that the developer did not want to disclose any bit about the proposed purchase price and that the owner of the development company only felt compelled to chime in during the neighborhood meeting when someone said this smelled like a bank bailout. Of course you might say, "Why do I care how much the developer is paying and how much the bank loaned?" You should care because you are making big changes to the Comprehensive Plan to facilitate these actors. So what is happening here is this: A. You, as a member of the City Council, are being asked to make significant changes to the City's Comprehensive Plan - the City's vision for the future - you are being asked to make these changes - why? B. So the bank can finally sell off this land that it received back in foreclosure, to a developer at a price where the developer can get a `sweet deal' and build something that benefits only the developer. The bank and the developer want to change the zoning and density and do all these things to make the deal work economically for the bank and the developer. These are changes to the City Code and Comp Plan that are really exclusive benefits to the bank as the landowner/ seller, and to the developer/buyer. These changes in the Comp Plan and zoning are not benefits to the community and that is clear by the fact that they could build this building in about 10 other places in the city but they don't want to do that. They didn't even consider it. They only want to build right here, because the bank is so desperate to sell that the finances are irresistible here, as long as they can get you City Council folks on board. I believe the city code supports my view that all these major changes should not be done to the limited exclusive benefit of the landowner. The developer will tell you they are being somehow generous in dedicating the north parcel as park but the truth is, the north parcel cannot be developed because it is bad soil next to a wetland. They are not giving up anythine. They are simply giving up what they cannot use and gaining unprecedented density in the city. The developer actually had the `nerve' to say that a huge apartment building in front of our neighborhood will increase home values. He said that with a straight face. These people will be laughing at you behind closed doors, if you go along with their proposal. Webber Letter to Laufenburger Page 6 Section 4: How This Relates to Little Old Me - the Homeowner I feel this situation ties into my own home like this: • I purchased in May 2007 and had an unfinished basement at that time. In 2011, we finished our basement. • At that time, in 2011, it never dawned on my wife and me (in any serious way) to go to the City Council and say that we wanted to finish our home as a duplex and rent out the basement. • This idea did cross my mind for a brief moment (jokingly), but obviously is not appropriate for our neighborhood. • But being able to build out our basement as a duplex would clearly provide a financial benefit to me to have a tenant pay our mortgage and help us recover some of the amount we `overpaid' when we purchased in May 2007. • But obviously that is not how city zoning should work. The city should not be making variances to accommodate essentially `bad bets' on the market. But that is what this project is. This project is being proposed to accommodate a bank who made a bad investment and is trying to figure out how to recover its investment. Section 5: Please Consider These Things A. Why is this project being proposed for this parcel? What is the background on the deal? Why did the developer focus on this parcel only and no others? If you accept that there is market demand for 225 units, then shouldn't the developer be shopping around for various parcels? It doesn't make sense. Why not consider several other open spaces in the city? Many of the open spaces are ALREADY zoned for high-density residential and provide various amenities better suited like Highway 212 and public transportation and Park & Ride. The truth is — the possibility of cheap land came first and then the brainstorm to convert it to apartments came second. That is the only way to understand this deal. B. I don't blame a developer for being entrepreneurial. We need that. Clearly this developer has a history for that. Here is an excerpt from an October 2010 article in the Star Tribune: Even Oppidan Investment Co. in Minnetonka, which is developing the Eden Prairie strip center, acknowledges the project is a "bit of an anomaly." Oppidan builds nationally but is perhaps best known locally as a major developer of stores for Gander Mountain. Webber Letter to Laufenburger Page 7 The property, just under an acre at 8045 Flying Cloud Drive, was formerly owned by Holiday Cos. and was a Marathon gas station and convenience store, said Oppidan's president and CEO Joe Ryan. The property needed some environmental cleanup, he said, but when it crossed company offIcials' desks last April, they jumped. Property records show Oppidan paid $685,000 for it -- less than the $927,950 Holiday paid for it in 2004 http://www.startribunc.com/business/ 104387748. html?refer This is what happened here - the Galpin/Highway 5 land "crossed their desks" and they jumped at the chance. They did not/not say, `there is a need for apartments in Chan, we should find a place to build in Chan - let's study all the possible sites." NO - they just picked this site because that is where the deal is. They just need to persuade you folks on the City Council to do some backflips on the zoning and Comp Plan, and VOILA - a sweet deal. C. If you as a member of the City Council are going to abandon the Comprehensive Plan for the benefit of one landowner, why have a Comprehensive Plan at all? In all seriousness 4 You should welcome this developer to the city. I welcome this developer to the city. But why build right here? I hope you will admit to yourself that if you had 25 guesses, you would not have guessed that the largest apartment building in the city would go at Galpin and Highway S. It is just not a natural fit. And you have to ask yourself - why would a developer choose this relatively modest plot of land for his project? Why? There are so many other places. The reason is that this is a "sweet deal" for the developer and there is so much financial upside for him if he can get you as a member of the City Council to scrap the Comp Plan and do the density swap and all the other stuff they want to do. D. We have discussed this among our neighbors and while traffic would still be an issue with a commercial (office) development at that parcel, we would not be actively opposing it if the project were commercial (at least I would not be actively opposed and others have confirmed the same to me). We are not anti -development. We want that parcel developed. We are not even anti -apartment. We lust think apartments should be built in appropriate sites in the city. In fact, we would have very little to oppose if it were an office project, since an office project would be within the zoning and density guide already established. The developer will try to say some crazy stuff about how we might end up with a 65,000 square foot building there or we might end up with 2 gigantic buildings - one on the north parcel and one on the south parcel. He is just selling. Sell -sell -sell. You have an obligation and duty as our elected official to Webber Letter to Laufenburger Page 8 question why this particular parcel is the only one the developer is considering for this project, even though it requires a complex re -zoning and density swap. The answer is clear - it's a sweet deal for the developer and the bank. In this case, the City Council should not be making various significant changes to the City Comprehensive Plan on behalf of a bank, so that the bank can recover its bad investment. If the developer indeed has done a market study that shows demand for 225 market -rate apartments in Chanhassen, then there are plenty of sites already available in the city and we would encourage that development to occur in those places already zoned for such development. Just moving the project to another part of the city seems like a no-brainer. I guarantee the developer has no answer for the question - why not just build this in another place? The reason the developer cannot answer that question is that they only want this site; and the reason they only want this site is that it is a sweet deal. And so you will be bailing out the bank at the expense of us neighbors, to the enrichment of 1 developer. That is not right. Sincerely, Robert Webber StarTribune - Print Page StarTribune The retail exception Article by: JENNIFER BJORHUS Star Tribune October 5, 2010 - 9:11 PM It's just 7,000 square feet -- nearly a sneeze by retail standards. But a new strip center in Eden Prairie called West 78th Marketplace is actually under construction and has signed tenants: a Verizon, Smashburger and Sport Clips men's hair salon. These days, that's something of a coup. With vacancies high and existing storefronts going begging, new multitenant retail construction around the Twin Cities has slowed to a near crawl. The area is still trying to absorb all the big boxes vacated by bankrupt national retailers such as Circuit City and Linens'n Things and others just scaling back, such as Cost Plus World Market, which closed its Minnesota stores. Of the few retail projects that have broken ground and are underway, most are for a single tenant, such as the new supersized, two-level Menards under construction in Eden Prairie, the new Walgreens underway in St. Paul's Highland Park and the SuperTarget being built in Woodbury. "Five thousand -square -foot buildings and a Walgreens are making the paper. That's a telling sign right there;" said Howard Paster, president of St. Paul -based Paster Enterprises. Paster, a shopping center developer, is building a new Walgreens next to the Mendota Plaza Shopping Center in Mendota Heights. Even Oppidan Investment Co. in Minnetonka, which is developing the Eden Prairie strip center, acknowledges the project is a "bit of an anomaly." Oppidan builds nationally but is perhaps best known locally as a major developer of stores for Gander Mountain. The property, just under an acre at 8045 Flying Cloud Drive, was formedy owned by Holiday Cos. and was a Marathon gas station and convenience store, said Oppidan's president and CEO Joe Ryan. The property needed some environmental cleanup, he said, but when it crossed company officials' desks last April, they jumped. Property records show Oppidan paid $685,000 for it -- less than the $927,950 Holiday paid for it in 2004. Ryan said his company called some retail tenants and quickly filled the site. Irs a sign the market is turning, he said. Pate I of 2 A work crew from Frattalone Cos. installed utility pipes at West 78th Marketplace in Eden Prairie. a small strip shopping center developed by Oppidan Investment Co. The center will only contain 7,000 square feet, but it represents a move forward in this economy. Glen Stubbe, Star Tribune _ 1 P P l _ Builder of towns. Tenants have already signed on for the small center. They include Verizon, Smashburger and Sport Clips men's hair salon. Glen Stubbe, Star Tribune http://www.startribune.com/printarticle/?id=104387748 11/28/2012 StarTribune - Print Page "Once the word got out, we could have filled this thing three times over," Ryan said of the leasing. 'The market is clearly coming around." The center, being built by TCI Construction of La Crosse, Wis., is scheduled to open in March. Oppidan, a merchant builder, sells Page 2 of 2 Oppidan paid $685,000 for the site. less than the $927,950 that the previous owner paid, according to property records. The center, being built by TCI Construction, is scheduled to open in March. Glen Stubbe, Star Tribune most of its projects and has already put the center on the market for an undisclosed price. The location should make it an easy sell, said Deborah Vannelli, director of net -lease sales at Upland Real Estate Group in Minneapolis, who is handling the sale. Eden Prairie's high density of well-off households and all the traffic at the Eden Prairie Center, which has an additional outdoor "streetscape" of shops including a popular movie theater, make it a desirable spot. And it's a tighter market than most. The retail vacancy rate in the southwest suburbs was just 5.4 percent in the second quarter, compared with 7.7 percent for the metro area, according to NorthMarq. Vannelli said she expects a local buyer, perhaps one making the investment as a so-called 1031 exchange, named for the Internal Revenue Service code that allows people selling real estate to defer taxes on the gains as long as they purchase another similar property. Vannelli said she thinks exchange buyers have just started coming back into the market in the last year. For now, West 78th Marketplace is more the exception than the rule. Local retail professionals say it will be a slow recovery. Tricia Pitchford, vice president of retail at NorthMarq, said that with demand down, she doesn't expect the second half of the year to look much better than the first for new multitenant retail construction. There is more demand for services, such as health care or auto repair, than for retail, she said. Pitchford said she doesn't see a turnaround until 2012. Retail builder Steve Bachman agreed. It's "slow virtually all over," said Bachman, head of Retail Construction Services, a Lake Elmo contractor that builds stores nationally. Kelly Doran, head of Bloomington -based Doran Cos., is building the new two-story, $6 million Menards in Eden Prairie. Doran said that's where the retail construction action will be for the foreseeable future -- retailers self -developing and occupying their own space. "I have never seen the real estate industry in the state it's in, in my career," Doran said. "It's not a recession in real estate, its a depression." Jennifer Bjorhus • 612-673-4683 ® 2011 Star Tribune http://www.startribune.com/printarticle/?id=104387748 11/28/2012 Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012 Kate Aanenson: Right, we need to come back with Findings. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Yep. The Findings of Fact aren't going to be applicable to this so Mayor Furlong: So direct staff to prepare Findings of Fact? Roger Knutson: For the next meeting. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Direct staff to prepare Findings of Fact for the next meeting Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman McDonald: Second. Mayor Furlong: Motion's been made and seconded. Any further discussion? Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the City Council approves a variance to expand a 520 square feet of existing non -conforming accessory structure and directs staff to prepare Findings of Fact for the next council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Thank you very much. Thank you everyone. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Enjoy your chickens. CHANHASSEN APARTMENTS, LOCATED AT 7750 GALPIN BOULEVARD (NORTHWEST _CORNER OF HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD); REQUEST FOR CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) FOR A 224 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING ON 8.08 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURAL ESTATE (A2); APPLICANT: OPPIDAN, INC./OWNER: AMERICANA COMMUNITY BANK. Mayor Furlong: Let's start with a staff report and again just for format here. We'll start with the staff report. Any questions might come from that. The applicant will be invited to come up and provide his presentation. We will take public comments and then we'll, when that period is over we'll bring it back to council for questions and comments as well. So let's start with staff report, Ms. Aanenson. Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. Again the applicant is requesting a concept PUD for 224 apartments. Again the Planning Commission heard this on their December 4' meeting. Included in your updated cover memo to your staff report it's kind of a summary of their points as it came forward. Again the application under the PUD concept is to, if it was to go forward would have to have a land use amendment from office and residential low density to high density residential PUD. And from, rezoned from the A2 District and would also require site plan approval. So what I'd like to do then is go through the staff report. I'm going to try to weave in some of the questions that were answered and then while I'm on a slide I think, instead of me trying to go back and forth on slides, if you have questions while I'm on that slide that would be helpful. So again the subject site shown in black is, there's office land use designation that is 8 acres. Across the street on West 78"' is 6 acres that's guided for low density, and just to clarify, I've been asked this question, and I'm not sure that we can get it out definitively. When it's designated land use of low density there is several different zoning applications that can apply so when you look at the zoning right now it's A2. That's typical when there's no development on the site. It keeps it in a low tax area until it comes in for development. The zoning then, 21 i2 --Ig SCANNED Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012 the agricultural zoning, when it becomes a project or someone submits for a project must match the land use designation so in this case the applicant would have to change the land use designation. In this circumstance the City Council has much discretion in whether or not you choose to change that land use designation. Again under the low density there's several different, or a few different ways that property could be developed. It could be developed as single family homes. It could be developed as an RLM which we've done a few of those subdivisions lately. A little bit smaller lot size and to get that zoning application there's a preservation. Similar you could do a low density PUD. There's no minimum lot size so there could be some attached product in there. Again the zoning designation doesn't say whether or not a property is owner or rental. It just talks about units per acre so under this it's 4 units to an acre so there could be, if someone was to come in here and plat a PUD, single family, there could be units on there. There was an application that came forward and we'll talk about it in a minute but I just wanted to clarify how that would work. Any questions on that before I move forward? Mayor Furlong: On the land use? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: Any questions on land use? Kate Aanenson: I was just going to point out, this would be an example and maybe while we're on the zoning here, so if you look at what Vasserman Ridge is, that's actually an R-4 so that allows twin homes or single family so you can see there's twin homes in there and then I'll just point over here, when you go over to Walnut Grove, that's a medium density PUD so up on the northern part you can see there's actually single family that were a little bit smaller than on Windmill Run. Then you have the patio style homes and then you have townhouses so they're blended within there. So there's different applications within each zoning district. Mayor Furlong: What's on the south side there of 5? Those are townhomes? Kate Aanenson: Here? Mayor Furlong: No, I'm sorry, south of 5, west of Galpin. Kate Aanenson: Those are townhomes. Medium density. Mayor Furlong: Medium density. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Were PUD's used for any of those neighborhoods that you just described? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Which ones? Kate Aanenson: All of these. I've got some specific examples we'll go through. This was a PUD and so was this. With this PUD we actually got the extraction of that large open space to the west. Of that large wetland there. Mayor Furlong: What's the, on the land use map there's some red lines. 22 Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012 Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: One going through the property just north of West 781h Kate Aanenson: That's the Bluff Creek Overlay District, and I'll talk about that in a minute too. Thank you. That is one of the tools that we'll talk about too. Any other questions on that? Councilman Laufenburger: Kate, when did West 78th Street go in? Kate Aanenson: Well it was built right before the PGA. We did the environmental assessment document. That's what caused that property to split. We looked at the different environmental. Councilman Laufenburger: '02. Before'02? Kate Aanenson: I have it in my notes, I'm sorry. '02, okay. Thank you. Councilman Laufenburger: Thank you. Kate Aanenson: When we did Vasserman Ridge too, on that project up at the Longacres one, we changed a lot of uses. If you remember there was a group home out here that people didn't realize there was a group home so things have changed in this area. When we did Westwood Church and we actually put this project in, that's what opened up this whole area. When we put that sewer and water project in with the Highway 5 corridor. So the existing land use, so this is the subject site again. We have neighborhood commercial immediately to the east of this site. There's two neighborhood commercials on this, and then at the next intersection providing gas. Those convenience things for people in the neighborhood. There is a trail. If this project was to go forward or any project to go forward he would have a sidewalk. That sidewalk would be able to cross and then get onto the sidewalk here. Get on the trail to go underneath the frontage road and then go underneath Highway 5. There's also a park, Sugarbush Park also to the north on Galpin which also has a trail. Again I wanted to describe the PUD concept that is intended. As you recall we changed the PUD process after our last application of the PUD and really the intent is we always intended it to be a less formal process to really give the Planning Commission and the City Council, as well as the public an opportunity to comment that with a lot of expenses incurred. I did include in your packet the process for the PUD so the Planning Commission heard from the neighbors and the developer. The staff gave their opinions if this was to go forward and then those comments are again forwarded onto the City Council so ultimately the outcome of this is to give some indication to the developer what things would need to happen if this project were to go forward. Again we're not doing Findings of Fact and that sort of thing. It's less onerous on the City's obligation but to try in good faith to give the developer and the neighborhoods kind of some indications of what they would need to do if this project was to advance. Mayor Furlong: And to clarify that process. Different than the process has been in the past. We're going to go through, we're going to gather information again as a council but there won't be a formal vote. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. That's correct. Mayor Furlong: This evening. Kate Aanenson: And also we had Findings of Fact which seemed kind of counter intuitive to what we were trying to do is just gather information for the developer and from the residents. Mayor Furlong: Okay 23 Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012 Kate Aanenson: Obviously the public hearing's an important part of this too and you want to have some context to it. I know other cities might do 3 or 4 pages but we want a little bit of context to it so people can understand what the, and we tried to put all the rules that they would be bound to if they were to go forward so everybody understands the, what the standard that they would be held to. So again there's a school across the street, and we kind of talked about some of the projects in the area. So the history of the site. In your packet there's a timeline of all of the projects and things that have happened on this. It started off as, started back in 1983 with a conditional use for a golf driving range. That conditional use was revoked for non-compliance of conditions which is pretty rare to revoke a conditional use but it was and then it was reinstated with a miniature golf course and was used that way. We talked about the Comprehensive Plan study in 1995 and then we moved from that with a condor design study with moving forward with the, thinking about the new road, West 78'h Street to provide a corridor for the reconstruction of Highway 5. Then also Mr. Pryzmus who owned that property at the time also wanted to get a Rec Center. He did float an idea to the City Council to look at a recreation center and at that time another developer looked at the property and also considered, since you were looking at commercial, maybe I could get commercial on the site. The staff felt like that would take away from those neighborhood centers and our goal is to direct the commercial activity to the core of the downtown. We also adopted in that timeframe the Bluff Creek Overlay District. We'll spend a little bit more time on too. So once we had the commercial kind of in place, or the thought of commercial and the developer moving forward as we updated the next Comprehensive Plan in 2006, a developer moved forward trying to advance a commercial, kind of office project. There's been a lot of comment on the 12 units, 10 units on the north side of the street and I'll talk about that in a little bit but the plan was advanced and was given conceptual approval and that's this plan shown on the screen right now. So this plan had 5 buildings, two stories and had residential units. The developer on the north tried to advance those residential units. What the staff tried to do is to keep that area and try to maximize the commercial development on the other side and keep that north side open for preservation so that project went forward and the council said at that time, based on the Findings of Fact is it wasn't about, the number of units was selectively taken as one of the pieces that was important but the biggest issue on the Findings of Fact was really that they didn't want those two projects separated. They wanted them to come in as a PUD and be master planned. What the developer chose to do wasjust go forward with that and the staff said well, kind of raised some flags. We went back to, if I can just, if we can go back and look at the projects here. The Kwik Trip, if you recall we preserved this and I'll show some other preservation areas where we saved things so we didn't want to have that left out. So it wasn't just the 12 units was too many. As I said there's a lot of different things that has value. It has entitlements for, if it's low density. It has a right to proceed if it meets the requirements so we said within that there's a couple of different zoning options. On that one there's an extended long private driveway that the Planning Commission and the City Council had some concerns with. To say that there would never be some units on there if that piece was to move forward, there could be some units on there. Councilman Laufenburger: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Furlong: Yes. Councilman Laufenburger: Kate, so this picture that's presented here was presented back in 2006 by two different developers, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: This picture moved through a lot of different iterations as we moved through the Comprehensive Plan. While we were moving through the Comprehensive Plan there was several areas that were in flux. This was one of the areas that was, there was a big push to get commercial zoning on so when the Planning Commission held a lot of their hearings, this is finally what the plan kind of moved down towards. You recall even at your City Council meeting with the adoption that they wanted to 24 Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012 advance commercial one but they finally rolled back to this plan. It came back through in a separate project to get some entitlements for conceptual approval, which has no legal standing but gives them direction of what may want to proceed. Councilman Laufenburger: So had the developers chosen to proceed back in 2006 then today we could be looking at, in that triangle a picture of the office building and on the north side those 5 twin homes? Kate Aanenson: That's correct because the land use designation matches. We have office, which is the land use designation and you have residential, meeting that criteria so yes, that project could have advanced. But what happened is they came with the north piece only and that's where the staff said no. We want to see how the two parcels work together as part of a PUD. Councilman Laufenburger. So saying no to it was really saying no, it's not a master plan Kate Aanenson: That is correct. Councilman Laufenburger: You were looking for a master plan. Kate Aanenson: Right. So if you read through the minutes, you have to go through the Findings of Fact which we just said we're going to adopt on another project. That's what we adopt in the Findings of Fact direct to that issue specifically. Councilman Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Kate Aanenson: Any other questions on that? Okay. So back to your point on the office zoning district. I did include that in your packet. What's permitted in the office zoning district just to show you. 1 kind of summarized those. A community center, a church, a funeral home, health services, hospital, nursing home, offices and school would all be permitted on that southern 8 acres so we also included in there, just give you an idea of scale. What would be a scale that would fit on there so if you look at Park Nicollet. Right now it's at 2 stories. It can go to 3. That would fit on there at 56,000. We estimated based on our standard floor area ratio that you'd probably get approximately 70,000 square feet making the parking standards work. If you put underground parking, which we don't require for office, you may be able to get more. Office does permit only the two stories which is what they had on that site. And then also you know Family of Christ Church which has expansion capabilities, a church is permitted. And then similar size like a Ridgeview Clinic or something like that. Those are the ones that we've kind of had some inquiry of. A clinic type or an office or churches are the ones over the last few years that we've had inquiry on. So utilities in this area we talked about when we put in Highway 5. That was when we actually ran the sewer, fondly called BC7 and BCS. We actually ran that. We did all the master planning all the way out to include Westwood Church and so all that property that developed at that time, including Vasserman Ridge, Walnut Grove, the commercial there, the southern part of the Pulte Homes and ultimately Westwood Church were all built with these utility, with this utility project. So the utilities are available to the site, and I just wanted to comment, we did put in the staff report, and the developer will probably be speaking to this issue too, is that sewer and water connection fees would be paid with the development as standard with any commercial, whether it's residential or office, sewer and water connection fees are charged at the rate in force as it would be for stormwater fees. If they're subdivided property then they would do that. Mayor Furlong: Quick question there. I guess Mr. Oehme with regard to the utility services that are already stubbed through there. Are they sufficient to handle the uses that are in the Comprehensive Plan? The current guiding, and I assume they are and are they also sufficient for the proposal? 25 Chanhassen City Council —December 10, 2012 Paul Oehme: Mayor, City Council members. The existing utilities out here are adequately sized to handle the proposed size of this development. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Kate Aanenson: So then the site plan. Again the goal that we've always had from the beginning is not to have development on that north side. To transfer it across. Again having said that, there is developable rights over on that side whether it's at the 4 units an acre or as the applicant's requesting to upzone that at your discretion, so with that the applicant's requesting the 224 units. The multi -family residential district is the one, high density is one of the districts in the city that requires anything over 20 units has to have underground parking so with this project it has less surface parking than you would see with a traditional office park, unless they chose to do underground parking which is not per city ordinance. So there'd be studio, one, two and two bedroom apartments. There is a pool. Pool in the area and then also a community space. I did attach in the staff report all the standards that this application, if it was to proceed would have to go through, including this site plan review, a landscaping plans and those sort of things would come again with the next iteration. Again more detail on the parking standards. It does, as the plan proposed now it does meet the parking requirements per City Code. So the elevation. The underlying zoning district of this R-16 is, allows 35 feet or 3 stories. This is 3 stories and has a pitched roof. The pitched roof is one of the things that adds kind of the more residential feel but also adds to the height so it's over that 35 feet. Probably closer another 10 feet over. The staff, looking at the building itself, let me back up on that. The height standard, the way that you, if you chose to go this way you could put it into a PUD and allow that. We've got other examples of buildings in the city and I can talk about that in a minute. That would be over that height. So staff believes that this is a highly articulated building with the patio doors, the balconies, the pitched roof elements, the undulating fagade and also the fact that the cement board and brick. Again those all meet our city standards and that's what we would expect for the project. I'll let the city engineer talk a little bit about some of the traffic issues. I just wanted to comment on the background of the traffic study. Our goal, it's not a traffic study. We were just trying to compare the project as Councilman Laufenburger talked about there was a project advance, just to look at those numbers if the traffic was the issue and then kind of give a comparison of the apartments just as background data. Paul Oehme: Thanks Ms. Aanenson. Just wanted to show a little bit about the traffic currently in the area and some of the impacts potentially associated with the proposed developments. The proposed development is shown currently right here. It is at the corner of again 78,h Street and Galpin. Both Galpin and 781 Street are collector roadways which handle larger volumes of traffic or potentially can handle larger volumes of traffic. Like Ms. Aanenson had indicated we did look at current traffic generations that the proposed development at this time would generate and we did look back at the Galpin Crossing development as well. The numbers here are showing what the potential daily and peak volume trips, both a.m. peak trips are typically from a traffic standpoint you want to design your infrastructure for those peak hour a.m. and p.m. peak periods so just comparing the two developments. Basically the Chanhassen Apartment complex would generate a little bit less a.m. and p.m. peak period traffic volumes as compared to the Galpin Crossing but however the apartment complex would generate more trips daily on 781i Street specifically so just a little distinction there. This is just some current traffic volumes along 781h Street and Galpin Boulevard here just showing relatively the volumes of traffic that would, are currently out here. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Oehme, my microphone was off. If you could back up one slide. Capacity of roads. West 78h Street, Galpin, do you have, even Lake Lucy, do you have a sense of what, from a design standpoint, how many trips per day are West 78h, Galpin specifically, because that's what we're talking about, meant and designed to handle? 26 Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012 Paul Oehme: Sure. For example Mayor, 78`' Street it's 36 feet wide. It's a collector roadway. Larger shoulders. Few access points along the roadway. You know from a traffic standpoint these roadways in general can handle and support maybe 5,000-6,000 trips per day. Now that's just the roadway section of the street. It's something different when you talk about intersections and how that, the level of service kind of plays into how the overall system functions so right now you know it appears Galpin and the intersection of Galpin Road, Galpin Boulevard and 78'h Street function somewhat adequately but when we're talking about adding another 1,500 trips potentially to that intersection level of service can dramatically decrease. That's why you know staff is proposing that we definitely look hard at a traffic study in this area and potential impacts along this whole corridor if this proposal were to move forward. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Paul Oehme: So just for background information again, Lake Lucy Road currently carries about 2,100 trips per day along this condor roadway, and then Galpin north of say Lake Lucy Road it's about 2,400. And again 78`" Street and Galpin Boulevard were right around 1,700n trips per day up to 2,000 trips per day east of Galpin Boulevard. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. We talked about the Bluff Creek Overlay District. As you can see on the slide, this slide, this is the overlay district which we've transferred density out. I'll show some examples of that in a minute. We've identified that this all area is in the primary. We talked about a wetland. You can transfer density out of the primary district but if there's a wetland in place, this is one of the points that we did put in the report. A high quality wetland in here, that we would not allow the density or would not be recommending that the density be transferred out and that's something that they would have to give us the size of that portion there so, but we have transferred density out of the overlay district as all the other applications in this area. Let me just give a little bit more history. I'm not sure 1 gave this for the Planning Commission but when we did the Bluff Creek Overlay District it was pretty cutting edge way back when we did it and the council was debating whether or not, should we just acquire all the property in the district or how should we take apart that and I think the attorney's office advised us that we'd probably be at it for a long, long time to accomplish that because not all the land in the Overlay District was in the urban service area so we had different prices and not everybody knew what they would be doing for plans to give a fair value so what we've done is on a case by case basis look at each application and say, does this make sense. What are we getting for the trade off and we've used that on a number of projects to say, should we be transferring this out and, or just letting them build on it and how does that work so each project is a case by case so we've identified that area but if it's buildable area then, if you don't allow them to build on it or transfer it out, then you can say the other option would be to compensate which we haven't done too much of that yet. Most of the time we've been able to work through the transfer. Sothis area on the north side there is developable land. We just need to identify this area that we've identified on the wetland study that we probably, because of the high quality adjacent to the creek, that we wouldn't want that to be transferred out. Now I'll show a couple examples of high density, or higher density and then also how we've done density transfer. This is actually a case of both. This is the, that Centennial Hills right up here on Kerber Boulevard behind City Hall where we actually transferred density from the existing project. We transferred over to this corner and there's 65 units. This is a 3 story building and it's 30 units an acre. Arboretum Village was a density transfer so we took the property actually on the other side of the street, it's actually on the other side of 41. This section line went like this. It was one large parcel and that followed this square so we transferred the density in front of Westwood Church. Moved it across. This is a separate project from the Arboretum Village so I'm not including that. We preserved the property behind here. The property up here. This is part of the homeowners association on Arboretum Village as is this smaller piece, but there was development potential on this side of the street and we decided that to topographically separate the neighborhood by a busy street that we would be better to transfer it so that's how we worked it so we put the units and 27 Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012 compressed the units and preserved that open space. So that's an application of the Bluff Creek Overlay District and density transfer. Councilman Laufenburger: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Furlong: Yes, Mr. Laufenburger. Councilman Laufenburger: So what's the result of the density transfer? Those areas that you have shown on the screen that are circled, are they forever prohibited from any development? Kate Aanenson: Yes, they are on the name of the City of Chanhassen. Yes. They have a preservation easement on them, yes. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Lake Susan Apartments are located right here. This is one I've been trying to describe as similar to the setting that we have before us tonight. Three buildings. 54 units in each building. They're 3 stories tall for 162 units so a total of 16 units an acre. Again was trying to explain to the Planning Commission is that this site is similar to, different products have different amenities. This would be probably similar but doesn't have the same, the project that the developer is proposing tonight has a pool and a community room. This doesn't have that. This also doesn't have a neighborhood park. It's next to Highway 101. There's a tunnel underneath to get you to the other side where there is some of those amenities or to get to the trail around or you can go to the park. Walk along the trail to get to the park so similar type setting. Then you've got the Presbyterian Homes across the street which is a little bit taller I think for the number of units there. Councilman Laufenburger: And is Lake Susan Apartments, is that market rate Kate? Kate Aanenson: Yes it is. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay Kate Aanenson: Powers Ridge, only two of the phases are built. These two phases so we've got Phase I, 100 units and then Phase 11 is 80 units. There's two other phases. I was asked why doesn't somebody go somewhere else. We have other high density property guided. Not all of it has sewer and water to it right now and it may not for a number of years. It's just not as ripe for development. The one that's immediately in this area for high density, the owner has asked to be taken off the City's available land inventory and doesn't want to move forward but there is two parcels here. One of those is for senior housing project and that way it was entitled is that's with the senior housing you can have less parking so could it be reconfigured? It'd be a little bit difficult but that would be the only other place but this one does have 16 units an acre, like the same size that we're talking about and is also 3 stories. Mayor Furlong: And was that, Ms. Aanenson, was that developed with a PUD or? Kate Aanenson: Thank you, I meant to say that. Thank you for catching that. Yes. This is a larger PUD. This is the Lake Susan Hills PUD. The lots in there were a little bit smaller than the 15,000 square feet. We also along Powers Boulevard have twin homes. There's also townhouses within that and then the final phase of the apartments and these apartments are also adjacent then to the collector road. Other questions on that? So what the staff did is just to give you a sense of scale and where this is located, just shaded in the drawing and plopped that project kind of in where it would be. Obviously that doesn't show you height and some of the traffic impacts that the neighbors had concern about. The visual 28 Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012 impacts butjust to show you physically how it fits on the site compared to the other, again the goals that the staff had was to try to transfer some of the density over here or keep it green. Similar to what we did with Kwik Trip. We preserved this strip where they wanted to try to, try to put something across the way so this was the goal is just to kind of show you how that worked and again with the, using the density transfer or the open space. So even if it was office then, if you wanted to do a density transfer and not have anything on that side, in order to make that accomplished then you've got to give something so you may have to give more height or something like that if you didn't want any residential on this side and say we'd like to take something to move it across. When you've got two different land uses it's more difficult to try to do that. The only way you could accomplish that is to allow this commercial to have more intensity to benefit from so that would allow the green space to be across the street, which is what we were trying to accomplish. Then again we just tried to illustratively show kind of the two proposals and what we were looking at as the parking lot. This one had a road going through on that and so some of those you know right-in/right-out we know some of those are some of the problems that are down in that area right now. So with that we'd just ask that the City Council provide their feedback to the residents. I did have some other just density kind of things in the area but I won't go through those at this time unless there's specific questions, kind of some of the surrounding properties and the like. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Questions for staff. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I have a question. Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjomhom. Councilwoman Tjomhom: And I think this is for all staff. Not just Kate this time. There is a consistent problem with turning when it comes to the Kwik Trip. I know I'm very guilty myself. I will go in and go out. I don't want to get on 78b. I want to go back to 5 so I'll make a U turn and I think that's just probably my method of great traffic flow for myself. I know it's not for the neighborhood so are we looking into doing something about correcting that? Paul Oehme: Ms. Tjornhom, we are. Actually just last week we wrote a letter to both of the property owners, Kwik Trip and CV, the drug company and we'd like to schedule a meeting. CVS, I'm sorry. CVS. Councilwoman Tjomhom: l guess we have more problems than we thought Paul Oehme: Exactly. We'd like to sit down with them and discuss that issue and we've heard that from residents at the Planning Commission and that is a concern of our's, as well we do think that some of the accidents that have occurred out there are attributed to the U turning movements out there as well. We did, I did take an observation over lunchtime a few days ago. Just looked at where the traffic was going in and out and 1 would say 95% of the trips coming into the development were exiting at that location and doing a U turn on Galpin Boulevard so there is definitely a problem there. The problem is if you restrict that access you know everybody would have to go over to 78th which might be a disadvantage for some of those businesses too but 1 think with the comments that we've received and the concerns that we've observed as well, I think we need to move forward with relooking at that right-in/right-out onto Galpin with and without the development coming through so. So. Councilman McDonald: Let me follow up with that because I guess I've got a different relocation of what that's like. Isn't there a traffic island there that separates? Paul Oehme: Right 29 Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012 Councilman McDonald: So everybody coming north it has no effect if you were to change that into a right in, yeah just a right in only. They still have to use 78i' Street to get into those businesses. Paul Oehme: Correct. From 78th Street, right. Councilman McDonald: Right. And so the only impact is how you would leave the property. Paul Oehme: Correct. Councilman McDonald: You now have to go to 78'6 Street then go to the intersection. Paul Oehme: That is correct but from 1 think the observations that we've looked at, most of the people going to these businesses, at the time that I was out there were coming in off of Highway 5 so any local traffic would, would have to use 7816 Street. Councilman Laufenburger: You said that was at lunchtime that you did that observation? Paul Oehme: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Well just for the record, I've seen it happen at non lunchtime periods as well. Councilman Laufenburger: What are you doing over in that area in non -lunchtime Mr. Mayor? Councilman McDonald: I have too. Mayor Furlong: I travel that road quite often actually. Other questions, Mr. McDonald? Councilman McDonald: I've got a follow up on that intersection because yeah, I've been concerned about that for a while. One of the benefits out of doing this, are we going to learn a little bit more about how to maybe fix that intersection if it does need fixing at all because even as it currently is, it's not adequate you know even for what's there let alone adding you know a structure of some type. So is that kind of a benefit that now we can begin to plan on an improvement for that intersection? Paul Oehme: I would agree with that statement. I mean to quantitatively identify the problems that are out there we really should have some sort of basis, some analysis done to determine, you know quantify what the problem is. How many U turns we're seeing out there. What are the impacts? Look at some of the accident history out here as well too so yeah, one of the benefits with a development moving forward would be to piggyback on a traffic study for that issue as well. Councilman McDonald: Okay, and isn't it true that we typically do not pass on infrastructure costs to developers? On a major road such as this, if this is a collector. Paul Oehme: Oh, if it's a new development being proposed? Councilman McDonald: Well if it's a new development, okay to me that would be a residential development where we're creating roads. This is a case where this is a road that as you said is a collector road. We don't pass those costs onto developers do we? Paul Oehme: Well, if it's a development impact to the associated infrastructure the developer would be requested to participate in those costs, and they have in the past. 30 Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012 Councilman McDonald: Okay, so again then one of the benefits to come out of this is looking at that intersection, based upon what's there we could also be asking the developer for additional funds besides the sewer hook-up's and the other fees that the park and rec fees and everything, there could be an additional fee there for the intersection. Paul Oehme: Absolutely. You know once the, if we move forward with a traffic study, you know any of that infrastructure improvements, any changes to the roadway system would potentially be born by the developer. Councilman McDonald: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Can I just clarify that for a minute? When we do the study I think we've got a lot of vacant property to the west of this site so I think we. Mayor Furlong: And north. Kate Aanenson: And the north so we need to include all that so when we do a study like this we would include a more comprehensive area because we don't want to just look at this today. We have to plan for tomorrow so I think we look at all that and typically how we've done that in the past is we've, whatever this project, whatever this project is on the site, whatever they would add to it, they'd be responsible for what their portion is, and correct me if I'm wrong on that Paul. It just sounded like he was going to be responsible for whoever this is developing this property would be responsible for all of that. There's a lot of vacant property. Councilman McDonald: I guess I assumed that we would prorate it based upon what your impact is. That's why I didn't say anything because I know before but thank you for that clarification. Paul Oehme: Yeah I should have Councilman McDonald: Yeah it's not that we're looking to do an improvement that's needed there and then saddle the entire cost with one developer. Paul Oehme: Right but I mean there's levels of impacts too. I mean if it does warrant a signal, say at the intersection and it needs it from day one when the development's open, you know typically most of that cost would be born by the developer. Councilman McDonald: So then that leads to one other thing. I'm sorry, that leads to one other thing then. Until you've actually got this study you really have no idea what the impact could or could not be or what the future plans could or could not be for this intersection. Paul Oehme: Yeah. Councilman McDonald: Without that study to help you. Paul Oehme: Right, correct. We can speculate what the impacts would be, what potentially the solutions could be but until we have quantitative data supporting those recommendations we can't really move forward. Councilman McDonald: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Other questions for staff at this time 31 Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012 Councilman Laufenburger: I had a couple Mr. Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Laufenburger. Councilman Laufenburger: Kate, I think this is just a typo but in your staff report you identify 125 underground stalls. I think it's 200, or 127. Isn't it 227 underground stalls? One stall for each unit? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay, alright. Let's talk about Galpin. Who has jurisdiction over Galpin Boulevard? City or County? Paul Oehme: Mr. Laufenburger. Councilman Laufenburger: Oh excuse me. Paul Oehme: That is the County's roadway. They own and maintain. Councilman Laufenburger: And who has jurisdiction over West 78"? Paul Oehme: The City of Chanhassen. Councilman Laufenburger. So that means if there was anything done to that intersection of Galpin and 78'" then we'd have to cooperate with the County? Paul Oehme: Correct, and I'm going to add to that as well. Trunk Highway 5 is owned by MnDOT so they would, since the proximity of that intersection is such, MnDOT would also want to participate in any comments as well. Councilman Laufenburger: Comments and funding? Paul Oehme: Well I don't know about funding but definitely comments on it. Councilman Laufenburger. Well we charged them to make comments wouldn't we? Councilman McDonald: We would try. Councilman Laufenburger. Yeah, we would try. Alrighty. Okay. Thank you Mr. Oehme. Kate, let's assume that this project went forward and the PUD would allow market rate apartments. Can the developer then, if market conditions warranted, could they change it to an affordable housing or low income housing? Kate Aanenson: Well typically if you had a voucher, that's how some of these operate, you could take your voucher wherever you would go. I'm not sure, that'd be a pretty big stretch for, to take a voucher to a unit of this. Councilman Laufenburger: So do we not have jurisdiction about, once it's built do we not have jurisdiction about how they market those properties? Kate Aanenson: Well the, if you did an affordable project typically there's assistance on the front end. 32 Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012 Councilman Laufenburger: Yeah Kate Aanenson: So in this circumstance we're not doing that so the only way this could work is if someone had a voucher that was, you know to have to make up a gap of you know $800, $900. Typically that doesn't happen in this type of a project. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Okay. Lake Susan, what's the occupancy rate on Lake Susan, do you know? Kate Aanenson: I don't know. I just know antidotally that the City itself is you know slightly over 2%. Around 2% for vacancy. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Let's see if I had one other thing on here Mr. Mayor. Kate Aanenson: So to clarify because I think there was some comments regarding that, if 2 people or 3 people got together and went in and used a voucher, is that happening today in the city? It could be. Councilman Laufenburger: Probably. Kate Aanenson: Probably. Could someone rent their house, same kind of thing. That stuff we don't regulate that part of it so, to say there would never be someone with a voucher, no. I couldn't say that. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay, thank you Kate. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Mayor I just have one real quick question. I promise just one quick one. When we did our Comprehensive Plan and we turned it into the Met Council, would this give us credits for what we are allotted when it comes to apartments? For high density. Kate Aanenson: Well, for our density goals I think we're meeting those fine with or without this project. I just put inhere the Comprehensive Plan, what our goals are for diversity in housing. We are shorton rental. The one rental project we had went condo. We know now that there's an investment group that has bought a number of units in there so that project is being rented but we are meeting our density goals. The goal I think too is provide a variety of housing to our residents. Also provide that... housing. Also provide the opportunity for our businesses to benefit that are in the downtown core to benefit from that so I think we're in good shape with our density goals with or without this project. Councilwoman Tjomhom: So is there any direct benefit to the Met Council for us having this? Kate Aanenson: No, I think I would say it's more local. Again we put in the Comprehensive Plan that diversity that we get. That we get some of the younger people out there that may be working here but also want to provide that opportunity to move into the future which we again don't have a lot of. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions Councilwoman Ernst? Councilwoman Ernst: Kate, maybe this was in the report but can you tell me is this guided as industrial and, well for office and retail? Kate Aanenson: We specifically said office institutional. We don't have, our zoning then for this would actually be office and in that office zoning district again it's, we say institutional would be more like a church so we don't allow retail. The previous application did include a bank and wanted that 33 Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012 interpretation as more of an office but if you open to retail then you're kind of going down the route of fast food and that sort of things which we did have a lot of requests for on this property when we were looking at the commercial. The staff felt again at that time, we had vacant properties downtown that we'd rather see filled. We've got our need met for convenience commercial in that area so it's office guided on the south and low density north of West 78'h Street. Councilwoman Ernst: So is it retail as well? Kate Aanenson: No, because retail. Councilwoman Ernst: Not even as part of it? Kate Aanenson: No. Retail, the only retail kind of would be they did want, someone, the previous application did want to look at a bank and maybe a Starbucks or something like that but as you know if you're going to put that in there, then it can always sell and become something else once you allow that and we've had that experience before. Staff was opposed to the retail part at this time. Todd Gerhardt: Kate, can you put complimentary retail in an office industrial? Kate Aanenson: Yep we can, our ordinance, sorry. It does. It does allow for the 25% complimentary and that's how we got to the bank, the coffee shop. I'm sorry, and that was kind of incorporated in there and that's similar to what we saw at some of the gas stations you see complimentary coffee shops where they're combined together and that's how we came up with the bank and some of the complimentary, and that's what the other proposal had. Yeah, I'm sorry. Yeah. Councilwoman Ernst: Okay, thank you. Kate Aanenson: And that's under that PUD process. Councilwoman Ernst: Right. Mayor Furlong: Other questions? You're welcome. Ms. Aanenson, a couple questions here. A lot of them have been asked that I had on my list but with regard to the, some environmental concerns that I've heard about. The wetland on the northern parcel. The northern piece. The, well the northern piece has a wetland. It also has the Bluff Creek Overlay District so the, I guess what I'm observing here is, is there an advantage then to transfer the density to the south so you avoid the, from a stormwater standpoint, stormwater runoff, any hard surface or impervious surface on the northern piece, is that the reason to try to transfer? Kate Aanenson: Well I think a couple of things. One, it creates that corridor that goes down the entire length of the city. I think some of the other slides showed that more. Mayor Furlong: The corridor along the creek? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, along the creek. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Provides that, you know we went back to the goals of the wildlife, that preserve, that nature moving. That's why people see deer in their yard. Provides that opportunity. Get all the way. It's a corridor that goes all the way from Lake Minnewashta all the way down to the Minnesota River. 34 11 e Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012 Mayor Furlong: Okay Kate Aanenson: We've done those projects down in the 2005 MUSA which is the area between Lyman Boulevard and Pioneer Trail where we've got the nice corridor through there with the one river crossing on Bluff Creek Boulevard and the structure underneath there with the creek. That's the same thing we've tried to accomplish here, providing those trails. Those vistas. As we talk about those view sheds to look across a creek, that common open space that everybody can enjoy. If you go back the reason why we started this ordinance, we had development that went right up against the creek and we couldn't stop it and so we went back to the University of Minnesota and we looked at a way to try to incorporate, how can we preserve this so everybody in the community can walk and enjoy the trails and observe that so there is some developable land within the Overlay District but the wetland, the quality of that wetland would not be something that we would support transferring over so whatever that acreage is would be taken out, in our opinion. Mayor Furlong: Now the staff report made some comments too that if under an alternative development they proposed mitigating that wetland, that there should be some mitigation within the, somewhere else within the Overlay District as an alternative. Kate Aanenson: Yeah Mayor Furlong: For a transfer. Kate Aanenson: Whatever was to go on this property, on that south side, on that north side I think we'd want to evaluate some opportunities to maybe enhance the creek itself and maybe do some other plantings. I think that would be something no matter what happens that we would want to take a look at to improve the function and value of that area. Mayor Furlong: Okay. You mentioned for parking, again staying on stormwater management, environmental issues, mentioned for an apartment building such as this there is a requirement for underground parking. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: For the city but not for office. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: So is there less, on the southern piece is there less impervious surface coverage under this proposal than under the office? Or don't we know? Kate Aanenson: We don't know. I think it's probably pretty close. It's building versus parking and that's the trade-off to maximize your site to preserve that open space. Again it's that, the City has to evaluate the trade-off. Mayor Furlong: And I guess it's a question of how it's developed, the other alternative or the existing. Kate Aanenson: That's correct, and some of it's visual and as we, you know we've heard some of the height. Maybe the visual issue but some of it's visual looking at parking as opposed to the buffer of the buildings. 35 Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012 11 Mayor Furlong: Okay. In terms of, just from a planning standpoint, stepping back is the, based upon the neighboring properties, is a high density development, I'm not saying this one or this plan or that it's perfect but is a high density use, residential use, in your opinion seem reasonable at this location given the surrounding property? Kate Aanenson: Again I'll go back to, because I was involved in all the properties around here, in developing all those and every one of them had their conflicts. You know concerns with the neighboring property but in my opinion, following again, basing my recommendation on what our comp plan says that high density development should be along a major corridor with good access. You've got good access to downtown. It's a buffer between the commercial on the east and takes advantage of preserving that open space across the street. Provides, and I heard from the neighbors they didn't care about the noise attenuation but that was one of the things that we looked at but in my professional opinion it does provide that and I don't see it much different than what we talked about on the Lake Susan Apartments adjacent to 101. Again these buildings have to meet MnDOT standards for how they're designed so they provide interior, you know they're noise proof on the inside and that sort of thing so there's some other design issues obviously that would be of concern but we think it's a good transition use. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, thank you. Great. I may have some other questions as we hear from other people. Anything else at this time for staff? For staff? Okay. Councilwoman Ernst: Kate, one of the residents sent some locations that were very comparable to the location that we're talking about and I'm wondering these all seem, they're all very close to downtown. I mean we're talking like Waters Edge Drive, West 8e, Great Plains Boulevard. Can you, did you get that, I sent that to you earlier today. Can you expound on those? Are they guided the same way or? Kate Aanenson: Sure, I've got... This is the City's land use map. The only place that we have that's designated for high density is down on the Moon Valley site right now. We also could put in, if we did do a regional center, we talked about office in the area that's just south of Lyman at the 212 interchange. We talked about potentially high density within that, if it was developed as a regional commercial center but it still may just be an office park. And that was one of the comments I put in in my staff report. We've got plenty of office. We have less of the high density. The only other place that we have the high density is on the property immediately to the east. That owner of that property has requested a couple of years ago that we take his property off the development list. He's not interested in speaking to anybody regarding that so as far as property that has the correct land use designation, I don't have. You know there are some smaller pieces across from Southwest Station Park and Ride that has 40 units on it. Right next to Southwest Station at 212 and 101. That would be the only piece that has some entitlements on it today and that was 40, I think 44 units or something like that. The only other pieces that we had for high density was the condominium projects that we did next to Bearpath and again I want to point out, when we do look at high density, it doesn't mean it's going to be apartments. It could be condos. It could be owner occupied so the ordinance doesn't speak to the transfer, how that works. It just talks about units per acre. Within that the market force comes into play when someone looks at a piece of property and tries to match that with what they believe you know the market would bear. So there wasn't in my opinion another piece that, when this developer came and said I'd like to look at this piece, that we said have you looked at this and this? It didn't work. Councilwoman Ernst: According to what the developer wanted? Kate Aanenson: According to what the city ordinances were. The acreage that they needed or the available, either one would require a land use designation so then we'd just go to a different area. Neighborhood. There wasn't a parcel that met that. 36 Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012 Councilwoman Ernst: So like Waters Edge Drive, that is zoned single family residential? Kate Aanenson: Part of it's zoned single family. Some of it's zoned medium density. There's no density transfer over there. That would require an upzone too to get to that many units. We have a. Councilwoman Ernst: And when you say that many units you mean the 227, right? Kate Aanenson: Correct, yeah. Councilwoman Ernst: Okay. Kate Aanenson: So could we find a place for someone to put 40 apartments in? Yeah, we could find the 44 units I'm sure. Councilwoman Ernst: But no other place? Kate Aanenson: For that, for even 200? Councilwoman Ernst: Yeah. Kate Aanenson: No. Councilwoman Ernst: 200? Kate Aanenson: I'd still have to rezone something. Upzone something, yeah. I showed you the one piece that we have that's vacant, yeah. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilwoman Ernst: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff? If not, let's move on and invite the applicant representatives to come forward and address the council. Good evening. Paul Tucci: Mr. Mayor, members of the council. My name is Paul Tucci. I'm with Oppidan. We are the applicant. Before I forget I want to answer Councihnember Laufenburger's question about Lake Susan. In our report in August there's 162 units in there. 5 were vacant. 3% vacancy. Councilman Laufenburger: Thank you. Paul Tucci: I wrote that down real quick so I wouldn't forget it. I'm going to start, I just want to try and give you a little overview. Kind of talk through a couple of things. Address some of the comments we've been hearing and try to answer any questions. Kind of what Kate had here, we have the site as we're talking about here. We have 8 acres. 6 acres on the other side of the road. Councilman Laufenburger: Just for orientation. Thank you. Paul Tucci: Sorry. We are proposing to build 224 units using the high density designation of 16 units per acre. Again as Kate had talked about transferring the density from the north lot to the south lot. Three story design. These are going to be designated, you know we're terming it market rate. The rents are going to be in that $1,100 up to about $1,500 a month. That includes underground parking. The 37 Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012 amenities in the building, l think Kate touched on a few of them. We're going to have, we have kind of a patio pool area out here. Kind of a vista walkway through here. A community room in front. Exercise room in the community room, we're talking about, haven't quite decided but a little business center in there so you can work out of your spot down in the garage there'd be an underground car wash. I'm sure you've seen those in other developments of this type. Cement board masonry. Glass. Patios. Sliding doors. The articulation in the building as Kate had talked about. And we've tried to design the building as referenced to create a buffer from the adjoining retail to the east and the highway and I know we're going to hear some comments about whether that's needed or not but that was the intent here. One of the things this shows, I will point this out, this shows a full access point here. We already are telling people that we know that's probably going to be a right-in/right-out access subject to what the full traffic report comes through. I do want to clarify ownership. We've heard a lot of questions on that. We do not own the property today. We are under purchase agreement to buy the property. It's been referenced that we own it. I want to clear that up. We do not own it today. Americana Bank is the bank who foreclosed on the property. They are in charge of it at this time. We have a purchase agreement with them so I want to clarify that. On the zoning I think Kate covered that. I do want to say that the plan that was talked about, the 61,000 square feet of office, the 5,000 square foot bank and the 10 units in the back, that was just that. It was a plan. We've discussed it. You know the City's ordinances allow for 70 percent coverage, two story buildings and one story parking garages. Kate put up a slide that showed the Park Nicollet building on 3 1/2 acres at 56,000 feet. I just tell you to look at 8 acres and extrapolate that. We think you can get 100,000 feet plus. And that's important. I just want to make that statement for when we start talking about the traffic. I'll jump into the traffic, actually real quickly. Yes, we would-be asking for an upzone here to transfer from medium density to high but we do think it's a down zone on this site going from office to high density so we think that trade is an equal trade. Traffic. Whether it's our plan, the plan we had up or a future plan, there are going to be added trips because of that plan on here. Traffic, I don't want to put words in city staff s mouth but I think they realize that it will be addressed when something happens here. We realize that. They realize that. We provided a snapshot. We were asked to try and give a snapshot of what this would do. You saw the snapshot up there. We're generating about 200 trips a day, and I emphasize trips. Not cars a day more. We're spreading those out over the day as Mr. Oehme said and I would tell you that again I'll get back to that 66 now. If there were 100,000 square feet of office we'd actually generate less trips than that but we had to compare it to something. We wanted to compare it to the most recent plan that this body and the residents have seen so these are major arterials, or major collectors as was discussed. They're designed to handle 5,000-6,000 cars a day but we do realize and I think everybody sitting here realizes that that intersection will need to be looked at. How it will go, we're not sure. I will say I like where Councilmember McDonald was going about having the City pay for it. I like that start. I didn't like the finish but I did like the start. The wetlands and ponding, I think Kate covered that and talked about mitigation and we've been debating that issue on the area up in the corner here is, we have wetland delineation that's done. We're getting the area identified so we'll have that information and our proposal would be to mitigate that within the watershed and, but not touch it. Our goal is not to fill this in. Our goal is to just transfer the density. Fees and services. We are going to pay in park dedication, water quality and quantity management, city and Met Council SAC and WAC about $2.6 million dollars in fees and when I first did the math I got to tell you I thought I made a mistake and I called Kate and I think we had almost the same number and so I knew I didn't make a mistake because I knew she wouldn't make the mistake and we were challenged last time about everybody will pay those fees. That's true. 1 will tell you I did some math based on that plan that we looked at earlier. 66,000 feet of office. 10 units. There would be about $800,000 in fees. That's about a million 8 difference which about $1.35 million of that goes directly to the City for their share of park dedication, the water quality and their share of water and sewer access charges. Just want to kind of give you some perspective on that. We've been asked a number of times why here versus somewhere else. I think Kate hit it on a lot of fronts. One thing I will add, or a couple things I'll add is the proximity to services. Come right down West 78th you're into your downtown where you have a multitude of shopping opportunities. You have convenience retail. Fast food, restaurants. You have the amenities there that 38 Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012 people are looking for. Also we've provided a market study. The vacancy in the primary market area, and the primary market area is defined in our study as kind of just on the north side of 212 and it goes up into the southern part of Minnetonka, over into Shorewood on the eastern, excuse me. On the western side of Eden Prairie and the eastern side of Victoria. Kind of picture that box. In that area right now there's about 2.7% vacancy overall in market rate apartments. Chanhassen's running at about 2.2% so it's a very good market. Just to give you a perspective, the Twin Cities metro at the time our study was done was the third tightest metropolitan area in the country, behind New York City and New Haven, Connecticut. And if you look at the report, and we have provided that to staff, the lowest vacancy rates are in the efficiencies, one's and two bedrooms. The highest vacancy, which you'd expect, are in the three bedroom units. You don't see a lot of them in apartments and when they are there, they're the harder ones to lease out. We heard a lot about traveling, kids in the units traveling to and from the school and the parks. Our goal is not to create an opportunity for people to get hurt. You know we've done a lot of shopping centers. We are doing apartment buildings. For those of you who don't know Oppidan, we've been around for 22 years. We've developed, geez 1 forget even where we're at now, in the millions of square feet and billions of dollars of real estate but our goal is create a safe environment. Be it a retail office or residential environment for the residents and the visitors to that facility. As Kate pointed out earlier there is a connection underneath to get to and from the school. We've heard a lot about crossing down here. You know when West 78h was built there was an intersection built and an alternate route to get across the highway that was designed for residents, not only of this development but of all the stuff on the north side of the road to get to the south side, and vice versa. You know somebody in these apartments, maybe they want to cross here, maybe they don't but they can come across. Get on that same trail. Get across and get over to Kwik Trip or get over to CVS so you know we understand there's an issue. We're not trying to build something to create a problem. Talked a little bit about, we heard a little bit about housing valuations and had been asked well this, you know how do we know this isn't going to cause a decrease in our property valuations. I provided the City with a study from 2000. I grant you that's a little old, that was done by Maxfield for the Minneapolis Housing Fund. They were at that time doing assisted, subsidized housing project. We're not proposing that but thew report said that there would be no impact to values of surrounding homes, and I know people will or will not believe that but we don't believe that will be. We've heard that on the retail side for years, that you're coming into our back yard. It's going to affect us. You know we want to build a quality product because we want the value to be there today, tomorrow, well into the future. The other thing that we've heard a lot about is, you know the power lines that run through here and the visuals of, especially the people on this leg of the development looking at the power lines. And you know we have looked at that and we've looked around at other spots when we got into this and I'll just take a moment to point out a couple of things. Kate, if you could just pull that up just a little. This is the intersection of Highway 5 and Dell Road. I'm sure everybody's familiar with that. These are the new townhomes that went in. I live just right back here. You've got the power lines running right through the edge of that. Again, not necessarily, these are not, these are townhomes. These are not apartments but same impact. The bigger telling area for me is, again I give you a little bit. Mayor Furlong: Can you back up a little bit on the camera? Paul Tucci: Oh. Mayor Furlong: No, you're fine. I'm just, whoever's controlling the camera. Paul Tucci: I'll move that over to right about there. The parking lot you see right here is PAX Christi Church, Pioneer and Homeward Hills. If anyone's familiar with that area and kind of the center of, south center of Eden Prairie. These are the high voltage lines that run through the back yards. I have a friend who lives in this house right there and you know he's owned that house for a number of years. Power lines were there when he bought it. I guess my point is that we have a rental property. People have made 39 Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012 decisions around that kind of issue. We respect the comments being made but we've evaluated and we think that the program and the design that we have will not be affected by that look. Again we've studied the market. We've studied the financial impacts. We feel there's a market. We feel that there is the ability to make a viable project happen on this site. I think at the end of the day this boils down to a couple of questions. Traffic, which we've already talked about at length and density. We're proposing to transfer the density and we're looking for some direction from this body as to where you're at because we do think this is a viable project and one that's needed in the city so with that I'll try to answer any questions I can. Mayor Furlong: Thank you Mr. Tucci. Questions for the applicant. Councilman McDonald: Well I have one question and a comment for you. Mayor Furlong: Mr. McDonald. Councilman McDonald: Yeah, the purpose of my question was really to provide you with some information because I do want you to know that yeah, we do share costs so if it came across that we were going to do something for free, I'm sorry I misled you. Paul Tucci: No, you started down that road. We were hoping you'd continue down that road but we knew very well where we stood in that discussion. Councilman McDonald: There's always a method to madness. I guess, I too have questions about the traffic and about the density and I guess right now, you know you've said you're willing to go along with definitely a traffic study and you're looking for guidance as far as the density transfers. If any of this comes out to the point where you know it's no longer feasible that we've put too many limits on you and those types of things, you understand that and you realize that at some point you may have to pull the plug if the answers don't come out that are acceptable to either you or to the City. That is a basic assumption going into this. Paul Tucci: I guess I'm looking for some direction from this body as to where you see this parcel being developed. Councilman McDonald: Okay. Paul Tucci: Be it you know a 66,000 foot office development. 100,000 foot office development. 24 units in the back or the proposal we have. We have something on the table. We're looking for some direction and we can evaluate once we have some direction. Councilman McDonald: Okay, fair enough. That's all. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other questions for the applicant? Councilman Laufenburger: Please. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Laufenburger. Councilman Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Mayor. You put together a good pitch Paul, and 1 appreciate that and obviously you're experienced. What did you say, 25 years Oppidan has been in business? Paul Tucci: 22. 40 Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012 Councilman Laufenburger: 22. I know your organization. You've got quality people there and I respect that. Can you talk about some of the other apartment projects that you've built, please. Paul Tucci: Sure. We are, as we speak we are doing, I'm going to do the math in my head real quick. 160 units up in western North Dakota. We're in the oil boom. Councilman Laufenburger: Good decision. Paul Tucci: And that is, right now it's four separate projects and we're actually looking at 3 more up there. We have this one and I have a gentleman that I've done a number of fee development deals. He's actually the owner and we help him through the process and we're looking at almost a similar size one, 180 unit one up on Highway 65 and Clover Leaf in Blaine. Right next to the Northern Tool, if you know the area. Councilman Laufenburger: Oh yeah. Paul Tucci: Just on the west side of the Northern Tool Councilman Laufenburger: Yep. Yep. Can you talk a little bit about a construction schedule? In other words, how long from the time you put shovel in the ground until you have a model and then you're ready to occupy? Paul Tucci: Roughly a year and you know there's folks who are telling us they can speed it up and frankly we're not sure you want to speed it up because, depending on when you start. The last thing we want to have happen is, we have it happening up on one of our buildings in North Dakota. We're going to be done on February 1'. Thankfully up in North Dakota given what's happening there, people are willing to move in February 1'. Down here that wouldn't be the case so timing would be, you'd want to have your models open somewhere March and April. Give it some lead up time and start moving people in when school gets out. If they have kids, people want to move spring, summer, into the fall. They don't want to move in the winter so we'd try to time it where we could start sometime in the end of spring, early summer next year and then have residents moving in a year from then. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. And does Oppidan develop only or do they develop and operate? Paul Tucci: We have a partner who would be the operator of this, yes. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Okay. That's all I had at this time. Mayor Furlong: As a follow-up question on the schedule of the rental, over what time period do you see all the unit becoming fully occupied? Paul Tucci: The projection that we have says it will take somewhere between 16 and 24 months. Mayor Furlong: So once you open up in the, I think you said the spring of 2014? You'd be looking at Paul Tucci: End of 15 to be full. Mayor Furlong: Before it'd be full. 41 Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012 Paul Tucci: Yeah. Maybe early, even into early '16 and it's all going to depend on how the marketing and incentive programs work on the front end. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Paul Tucci: The goal would be to be done a lot sooner than that. Mayor Furlong: And traffic, I think we've already talked about that. In terns of the density, in terms of the number of units, was that just the gross acreage? Paul Tucci: Yes. Mayor Furlong: By the 16 per acre? Okay. Alright, very good. Thanks. Other questions for the applicant right now? There may be some as some of the public comments as well so. Paul Tucci: Sure. Thank you for your time. Mayor Furlong: Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Let's go ahead, we will accept some public comments. We're interested in hearing what people have to say. First of all I will say, I appreciate the volume and the detail with which the emails and phone calls and comments have been made. It is, there's been a lot of thought and effort put into those correspondence and I can tell while I haven't had, I don't know about my fellow council members, I haven't had a chance to reply to everyone. 1 can tell you that I have read them so thank you for that and for the time that people have put into, whether you're here in the council chambers or at home, making, bringing the issues to the forefront on this concept so with that I'd be happy to listen to any comments from the public. If you'd like to come forward and, to the podium and state your name and address for the record please. Julie Greely: Hi, my name is Julie Greely. 1 live at 2431 Bridle Creek on the other side of, right there near the Rec Center and 1 just, I wanted to bring one thing forward that I haven't heard yet. I'm not opposed to having an apartment complex in the area. What I'm seeing is my kids actually go to Minnetonka School District so beyond the traffic from just that 5 area, I've, I experience the traffic going all the way down from Bridle Creek to 7 to get my kids over to the Excelsior Elementary school there and if you've ever tried to get your kids to school in the morning, that is all backed up, both in the morning and the afternoon. Mayor Furlong: On which road? Julie Greely: Yeah so if you've got a map I can show you. Mayor Furlong: 5? Councilman Laufenburger: It must be Galpin. Mayor Furlong: Galpin? Julie Greely: Yeah, Galpin. So beyond that, just that intersection, if you go all the way down past Long, what is it? Councilman Laufenburger: Lake Lucy? Julie Greely: Yeah, Lake, past Lake Lucy Road. 42 Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012 Mayor Furlong: Up to Highway 7? Julie Greely: Yeah, out to Highway 7. You've got to cross 7 and merge over quickly to get to Excelsior Elementary. That's the only way to get to Excelsior Elementary and my kids used to go to Bluff Creek and the only reason we moved to Minnetonka is because my son is attending the gifted program, which they don't have at Bluff Creek, so we made a choice to open enroll in Minnetonka. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Julie Greely: So I'm seeing in that area there is, from what I understand, is zoned for both Minnetonka kids and Bluff Creek kids so they could go to either one because I have some friends who live in Vasserman Ridge and their kids, they choose, either they go to Minnetonka or Bluff. Mayor Furlong: Okay so. Julie Greely: So I guess my point is the, all that traffic is not just going to be in that area. It's going to funnel all the way down to 7 and that, those cars are going to be backed up there on 7 and it takes a good 15 minutes to get kind of through there too so you're not going to only have traffic in here. You're going to have traffic all the way down there. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Just for clarification, is there, and thank you. I mean what I'm hearing you say is that the issue is traffic all the way along Galpin Boulevard. Julie Greely: Yeah, so that's one issue and then the other issue is the CVS there. Just the services that are provided through the 24/7 care. The nurses there. That, and the sick season during the winter is jam packed. I mean you've got 15-20 people waiting there to get in to get your kids treated, if they've got strep throat or whatever. I mean you add the apartment complex onto that and that CVS, those services in there are going to be, I mean you're going to have a problem with capacity there I think. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Julie Greely: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Oh yes, Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I had one question. Mayor Furlong: Ma'am. Ms. Greely. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Julie. Just one informal question. Julie Greely: Yes. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Looking at this parcel of land and you live so close to it. Mayor Furlong: If you could come back up. Excuse me sir. Just in case she comments we can. Councilwoman Tjornhom: What kind of development would you want to see there? 43 Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012 Julie Greely: Yeah, so I think for me it's less about what's, I mean the people that live in that apartment, 1 mean they're going to be going, coming all the time versus an office. You know you've got people coming in there and not really using the CVS for the needs of the community so I'd like to see something that would benefit those, like me in the community so something like, for an example we go to the park all the time. There's no ice cream shop or anything like that. I know we talked about retail but, you know what do we use CVS for? We go there and we get candy for our kids and it's that small town community that we love. You know I mean go in there. Go into the gas station, walking down there. We live literally right behind those apartment complexes which are very low to the ground and we don't even notice them so I guess part of it is, the structure there and then all the busy activity around there, I mean we're not going to probably be biking or walking down in that area anymore because I mean if we're trying to cross 5 there to go around and go underneath and around with our you know 5 and 7 year old, it's just going to be a difficult area. We'll probably avoid it. And then if we go all the way down off to 7 where we do now, I mean that traffic, there's going to be so much traffic there that, I don't know. I just, I don't know what it's going to be like but personally I'd rather see something where we could benefit with our kids and our family like a bakery or you know ice cream shop or you know, an office building like a dentist or whatever. That's my personal. Feel free to comment. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Thank you. And Mr. Mayor if I could, this is a question 1'd like to ask of anybody that has an opinion about what they would like to see there or what they think a good use would be. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilwoman Tjornhom: If that's acceptable. Mayor Furlong: That's fine. I will say, as we do that, that as a City Council we can't pick and choose businesses. Councilwoman Tjornhom: No, absolutely not Mayor Furlong: And for the group along the parade route that still wants a Dairy Queen from the mayor, we don't pick and choose businesses so I'll leave it at that. Councilman Laufenburger: I think KFC rises about Dairy Queen. Mayor Furlong: Sir, thank you. Art Roberts: My name is Art Roberts, 7762 Vasserman Place in Vasserman Ridge. Right next to the development. I'd like you to shift gears for a second. We've been talking for things for about an hour, haven't we? Buildings, streets, land use, all that. Seems to me this ought to turn on not things but human beings and people in this sense. It seems to me it's a mistake to put high density residential in that location because of the three mantras of real estate. Location, location, location. Very simply this, the problem you face, the danger you face, the risk that presents itself when you put that high density right on the highest volume street in Chanhassen, Highway 5 and put it across from the school. The elementary school, the city park and the Rec Center is that you're going to have a tremendous amount of traffic, kids, teenagers going back and forth across that street all year long. I sent an email to the board today and did some conservative calculations which say, maybe 33,000 crossings per year, and I think that was low based on what family population we have in Vasserman Ridge but the point is, that's tens of thousands of crossings across a tremendously busy street which is going to become more and more so as Victoria and everything builds. It's high speed. The crossing times are very minimal because it's biased towards Arboretum and we didn't have a number. We said 5,000 cars on Galpin. What does that mean? 10,000 W Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012 on Arboretum or Highway 5? Must be huge number of cars there. And the point is you're just exposing all those kids with a huge number of crossings to all the risk and even though the developer says here, you know quote unquote, our goal is a safe environment. He's going to have no control over that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Art Roberts: And the fact is those kids aren't going to go 400, 500 yards down the road every time to go under the tunnel. It's visually right there. Everybody's going to fight their way across Galpin and fight their way, and it seems to me that if I were on the City Council or the Planning Commission I would not want to expose 225 families and their kids to that risk day after day after day. And for that reason I think you should never rezone that property from commercial to high density residential for this developer or anyone else. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Art Roberts: There's just too much risk involved you know. We're looking at too many accidents of you know kids getting killed or whatever to even consider it. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Do we have any. Art Roberts: And for the last hour we haven't talked about this issue but to me it's the fundamental issue on which this turns which says, sorry developers. That's never going to be high density residential. Mayor Furlong: I appreciate the comments. Do we have any sense Mr. Oehme on the amount of pedestrian traffic across Highway 5 at this time? Paul Oehme: I don't have any data for that. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Alright, thank you. Larry Martin: Good, my name is Larry Martin. I live at 7725 Vasserman Trail and I just have a few comments here. I'll be brief. One is the traffic. I would implore the City Council to do this traffic study before we start construction. Do that study. Get it paid for. Get the necessary things we have to do there and then go into construction. Concern I have is the height of the building too. I think Paul has said 47 feet on the peaks in that area. That's pretty close to that corner there and as you see it wraps around both Galpin and Highway 5. Along Highway 5 they're going to have balconies with glass doors in it. I'm a graduate acoustic engineer. I haven't got my license so I'm not speaking as that but I don't know that you want to go out on your balcony there. Another reason not to go on the balconies is those power lines. Power lines he showed over in Eden Prairie were above single family homes. The power lines here are going to be eye level with the apartments and as you all know that power line is going to be upgraded from 69,000 volts to 115,000 volts hopefully in the next year here so. The children thing is something we all worry about and the tunnel under 5, we had some comments the other night that it's usually filled with mud in the summer and in the winter it's filled with ice so the kids don't use it so thank you. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Do we have any sense Mr. Oehme at the height of the power lines? That's come up a couple times, or Mr. Tucci. Paul Oehme: I don't recall Larry Martin: They'll be eye level with the third floor 45 Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012 Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Others. Good evening Dan Bock: Good evening. Thank you council members, mayor, staff, Mr. Tucci. My name is Dan Bock, 7677 Vasserman Trail. Live in the neighborhood just northwest of there. Great ideas. Great plan. Like the idea Ms. Aanenson of the beautiful space, the green space. Mr. Tucci, very reputable firm. I think they'll build high quality apartments. However just not this plan. We are used to medium density over to the west of where we live. Obviously there's a lot of apartments, or actually townhomes. However the density here is just too much. The density transfer from the north side I do not believe is valid and I think the study will show that. However using the 16 units per acre on the south side may be valid so for me the density's just too high. And the argument that our property values will be, stay the same or increase, I can't afford to take that risk. Most the houses in my neighborhood have reduced value by about $200,000 in the past 7 years that we've lived there so for me it's all about density. Possibly reduce the density quite a bit and maybe you've got a solution but putting 30 units per acre, one it's not valid. And if you consider some of the other examples, 30 units per acre that were used, that is by commercial so just on the north side of Byerly's where you kind of expect going from retail or commercial to very high density to medium density on. Here we're far enough away from the city center to go from extreme high density and then to medium density, it just doesn't make a lot of sense so thank you for your time. Appreciate it. Mayor Furlong: Okay. John Crow: Mr. Mayor, council members, my name is John Crow. 1 live on 7663 Ridgeview Way in Vasserman Ridge. You know I'm a capitalist like a lot of folks and I can appreciate what Mr. Tucci and his group are trying to do here and I think, I want to take it down a little bit of a different course though in and around the inappropriate size of this development and I think part of that has to do with the economic drivers of Mr. Tucci and his group and if possible Mr. Mayor, I'm not sure can I ask him a question or is that not? Mayor Furlong: Well why don't you address the council with your comments John Crow: Okay, my comments are this. That they're going to make a lot of money, a lot of money and you just do the basic math. A $30 million dollar building. Sony, $30 million dollar building at an average of $1,200 per month per unit is $3.2 million dollars a year. That's an 11% rate of return. How many of you want that kind of gross rate of return in this environment right now? A lot of you do so the question is this, I'd welcome. Mayor Furlong: Just wait just wait, no. No. Finish your comments and address them to the council. John Crow: That's my comments. My comments are this. They are taking a distressed property at a heck of a great value and then they're going to maximize it to the greatest potential possible with this transfer deal and they're going to be laughing all the way to the bank and it's fantastic. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Anything else? John Crow: And you know what, no. I think that's exactly what it is. And you know what, how do I get to invest in that deal? Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Sir, thank you. Paul Tucci: Mr. Mayor, members of the council. Paul Tucci with Oppidan. 46 Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012 Mayor Furlong: Please respond to that. Thank you Paul Tucci: Yes, our monthly rentals are going to be between $1,000 and $1,500 and that's gross. We have to pay property taxes out of that. We have to pay maintenance. We have to pay water. We have to pay for our staff people so we are not making an 11% return. If we were I would be investing $30 million dollars myself. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, thank you for the comments. John Crow: Well no I just think that the point is this, when you have that size of a project, all I'm saying is they're still going to make a lot of money even if it's a reduced amount so I'd like you to consider that because the optics don't fit. It's huge. It's misplaced. It doesn't make any sense. So that's another thing to consider as you're looking at it. Thank you very much. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. David Windschitl: Good evening. David Windschitl. 7620 Ridgeview Way. Vasserman Ridge neighborhood. I want to go back to, I know that a lot of you didn't have a chance to get the verbatim from the Planning Commission so I'm just going to recap a couple things that I had mentioned during that time. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. David Windschitl: I know back at the Galpin Crossing during the concept plan for that where we had a 12 unit proposal, at that time the Planning Commission apparently, I'm not going to quote that but I will quote Ms. Tjornhom who had said that the 12 units at that time, she said I think there's too many. I think that they're kind of crammed in there. I have to agree with the Planning Commission on that so if 12 units is too much for that parcel of land, the economics of moving 96 units off of that parcel of land to the southern piece doesn't add up to me. 96 units is a very generous, generous application of the land density transfer. 1 appreciate the slide that's up there right now because when I look at it I see the enormity of the building. The other thing I appreciate out of tonight was the opportunity to watch the previous applicant up here for a variance because I got to see some of the questions that were asked so with that there is one thing in particular that Councilor McDonald had asked of that and that was has anybody from the neighborhood complained. I know that we're making our intentions known at least tonight in regards to that and the other question that you had asked was, does the out building fit the neighborhood. I don't think this fits the neighborhood right now. I don't think that this plan or this concept fits the neighborhood. Now, I am starting to hear that you know some people are saying the scope of this is too large and I know there's many people that just say apartment building is not for me at that location so to answer the question what would I like to see, the Stone Creek development of office condos I think is a wonderful development that would fit in something you know something similar to here. If the demand warrants it. I do believe a reduced, a greatly reduced number of apartment units could be something that would be viable here. Just the number of the 225, the land density swap, it just does not work. When the biggest apartment building in the city, I feel that going back to Councilor Laufenburger's comments, is this market rate and can it change? What direction do we have of that? Well being the biggest one in the city it's going to be the driver. 1 know when we all bought our houses the market was completely different than what it is today. We've all impacted. If you would have asked me 10 years ago would I ever sell my house for what 1'd sell it for today, we'd say heck no. And that's the same, there's no difference in rent from 10 years from now so to address the alternative side where we don't think, or we haven't seen those things happen, well we didn't see that before with housing either so with that I would urge you to, we will respectfully wait for your direction as far as what we see out of here. Thank you. 47 Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012 Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you Mike Muffenbier: Hi, my name is Mike Muffenbier and I'm at 7675 Ridgeview Way and I'm also in the Vasserman neighborhood and my family and I we strongly oppose this project and you know one of the great things about Chanhassen for us is something that we use on a real consistent basis is the trail system, which you know goes right along 78h Street. It's just beautiful, right? We can get out there. We can run. We can play. We can do all those things but one of the problems with the trail system is that when you get to Galpin you have to cross traffic. Right, there's no way around it. You have to cross traffic so there's 100, a little over 100 kids in the Vasserman neighborhood, right. They have to get past that area. If you go 224 apartments at this location, you know just safely estimating I don't know, 50 to 100 more kids right that are going to be located at that property, they too have to get on that trail system plus all the adults that are going to use it for running or biking or whatever, and for the kids you know they want to get over to Kwik Trip. They want to get over to CVS. They want to get out to Lake Ann. If they want to go north to the park up along the ways of Longacres or to see their friends, they still have to cross Galpin to get on the trail to go back up north again so it's a huge issue as far as the trail traffic is concerned. Another issue that hasn't been discussed so far is, I'm lucky enough to have an elementary school kid over at Bluff Creek right. I have two daughters. One that's at Chaska Middle School West and one's at Chanhassen High School. Is the impact of 50 to 100 kids on the schools, right. Can Bluff Creek handle you know whatever percentage of that would be elementary school kids? And can Chaska Middle School West handle it? I would assume that they probably have a better ability to handle that than Bluff Creek could handle it and Chanhassen High School but to put that density in, especially the elementary school district where it's at and how that impacts things and the bordering for that school hasn't been discussed but something I think that needs to be considered in the consideration of this project. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Have we received any comments from the school district? From School District 112 at all on this? I mean it's a concept plan so. Kate Aanenson: We've done this in every, pretty much every project that we've done and the. Mayor Furlong: Done what? Kate Aanenson: Looked at how many school children, that's a common question that comes up in any project. Mayor Furlong: Sure, okay. Kate Aanenson: The most amount of school children is created in a single family and if we move down the hierarchy, townhouses and the like, then an apartment would create the least and that's just because typically you have that demographic that's either the younger people or the older end of the spectrum. Typically a single family would have the most. Now we know School District 112 looked at some because people were moving towards townhouses that couldn't get into that single family home, that they found that some of that was ticking up but we haven't looked at that data since then but that's certainly something that we could look at. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Brad Hodgins: Hi, my name's Brad Hodgins. I live at 7633 Ridgeview Way in Vasserman Ridge and I've got to thank the council for taking our comments. I have one point, I want to make it brief but people have talked about a lot of crossing Galpin and even Highway 5 to a degree but if you look at that structure, there's no way to get off that property without crossing a pretty busy road. Even West 78"' 48 Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012 Street, you'll notice it's right there on a curve and cars come whipping around both directions of that curve and for kids and families to even get over West 78th Street to the trail, I could see being pretty dangerous, especially with all the extra traffic and I'm resuming this right-in/right-out turn that's going to be there, there's going to be a lot of cars on West 78 Street as well making it even more dangerous than Galpin and Highway 5. But my main point was, and I sent an email to the council earlier was you know it was mentioned earlier that there aren't any other spaces in Chanhassen for high density residential. I would argue this is not a space for it either. It's not zoned for it. What I mentioned in my email earlier is it seems as though we're trying to put a square peg into a round hole here. In order for this project to work everything has to change. We have to change the zoning. We have to change the density. We have to swap density. We have to get a variance for the height. This building and this property is not zoned for this project either and everything has to change in order for this to work so that was my main comment and thank you for your time. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Kim Daughton: Hi, Kim Daughton, 7688 Vasserman Trail. It's late and I hope my kids ave in bed and thank you for sitting here Greg and Tammy. I hope you get your horse. Tammy Falconer: Thank you. Kim Daughton: I want a horse. I'm just listening to all the opposition here. There's how many signs on the petition? Like 600 signatures on a petition opposing this project. No one wants it. I know Kate you're for it. Mr. Tucci, I know you're a businessman. You didn't get to be Vice President because you do want the people want but I'm just saying, can we all work together and maybe build something that we would be proud of Work together. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Kate Aanenson: Mayor can 1 just make one comment because there were some comments after the last Planning Commission. My role is just to provide you with a recommendation. I've had some, a lot of comments that I'm working for the developer. My job is to work for you and to give you my professional recommendation as I have for the last 20 years for the City. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Steve Ledbetter: Mr. Mayor and councilmen, my name is Steve Ledbetter. My wife and I moved from Austin, Texas to 7756 Vasserman Place in August of this year so I think we have a different perspective. We chose this community. We chose it for a reason. We came in and we looked at Edina. We looked at Minnetonka. We looked at Eden Prairie and we chose Chanhassen. We chose Chanhassen because of the kind of community that's being built here and the reputation of the community. I will say we checked with our realtor about zoning around the area. We've gone through this before in a past home. If I had known this was going to be here, if this project would be built, we would have never moved, at least, we probably, might have moved to Chanhassen. We certainly wouldn't have moved to this neighborhood. This does not fit. It's like a sore thumb sticking out the way it is. I'm not against the development. I think that it can even be an apartment development and will look great there but three stories, if you look at the very comer of where the apartments are next to one of our neighbors around the corner, you know you've got a couple hundred feet there and you go from a rambler style townhome looking up into a three story apartment complex and tell me that won't affect value. It's, somebody mentioned earlier I think I'll mess your name up but we'll go with your first name. Bethany earlier said common sense. I just ask you to apply some common sense to this as you view it. I think Mr. Tucci asked for some direction on this. 1 think we should give him some direction and I think the direction is we welcome his development. I 49 Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012 think we should welcome something that fits in this area. This is not it. It's not even close. Thank you for your time. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. No, thank you. Roger Remaley: Hello council, Roger Remaley. President of Walnut Grove Villa Townhouse Association. 2128 Baneberry Way West. I think a lot of the stuff has been covered already as far as the traffic and I think that some of these roads already have issues, whether this development goes forward or not and they really need to be looked at from a safety perspective. I think what you're hearing is from everybody that lives here, Vasserman Ridge, Walnut Grove Villas, Longacres, so on and so forth, is that this is just too big of a structure. It's too high density. It innately doesn't fit the neighborhood aesthetically because of the height and the size of it, doesn't fit the neighborhood. And it's just not the right site for this kind of a complex. Maybe a smaller apartment complex. Maybe an office zoned complex as it is currently zoned. I could see a church. A nursery. A lot of things but this is just, it's way too big. It doesn't fit the neighborhood. It will change the neighborhood and not for the better in my opinion. Also I would like to say earlier when council asked about some other sites closer to the downtown area, the response from city planning was that no, these sites are all zoned office. Well this site is zoned office also so to say that those weren't viable because they're zoned office isn't logical when this one is also currently zoned for office. So with that being said you know I just, I think you really should hear us and we just really feel this isn't right for our neighborhoods. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you Mark Magnuson: Hi, I'm Mark Magnuson, 7715 Vasserman Trail and 1 kind of join with everybody behind me and in the next room. The overflow room in opposing this. And it's you know, you've heard it all pretty much but let me just say again it seems to me that this project is, you know as you can see there, is kind of being shoehorned into a space that's just not big enough for it. It was talked about the buffers that exist for the CVS and Kwik Trip. Well there's no buffer for the neighborhood and I think that's a problem. There's no buffer between the single family homes and this project. At the last Planning Commission meeting Mr. Tucci said that the, it's almost 5 stories high when you take into the account of the building and he said it's 48 feet. Across the street, 200 feet which was mentioned from single family homes so I think it is true that it kind of reminds me when I bought this really big screen TV and brought it home and put it in there and it kind of tipped the whole room. It was just too big so I brought it back, which made my wife happy by the way. On the traffic, we have 1,700 trips a day I guess on Galpin and we're going to virtually double that number. I just know that people, I mean people blast down Galpin and around 78"' Street right now and they're trying to beat the light frankly and I don't think what you're going, what's going to happen is people are going to look for, okay. How are we going to redirect? We're going to go up to Century Boulevard. I mean you know going to try to spread it out some way and I think that the issue with pedestrian safety, especially children's safety is a valid one. Kids aren't going to take the underpass. They're going to take the shortcut. They're going to try and beat the, you know beat the light and we don't want to lose another child like we did on 101 that was approximate to another apartment building and that was what, last year? Got run over and now we're making some change. I don't know what it is but supposedly we're making a change so I think all those are valid units. Valid points to me at least. The Lake Susan Apartments, it seems to me that that was a bigger footprint and again there was some, the traffic flow is different than this because there's, you're approximate to the single family development so everybody's going to be smooshed in there trying to get to Galpin and it's going to be difficult. I also wonder about the, in the traffic study it was mentioned about 10% of the units, about 1,500 a day would happen in the morning and somewhat less than that in the evening. I'm just wondering, are these people, will these residents not work? 1 mean where, and who do we think are going to rent these units? Is it really planned more for senior housing? And then what if it doesn't work, how do we then address the, you know filling this building, how are we going to do that? M Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012 And finally the question of what I would prefer. I mean I think the idea of an office thing. Something where it's used during the day and it's quiet at night would be preferable to something that's, you know it's the biggest, it's just going to tip the neighborhood and have a lot of people so, thank you very much. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Mr. Oehme, in terms of the traffic estimate numbers, what were some of your assumptions there? What was the basis for your assumptions in terms of trips from an office development or from an apartment? Paul Oehme: Well for the apartment complex I think we're just using in order of 6 trips per day per unit. Mayor Furlong: And what's the basis for 6 trips per day? Paul Oehme: It's ITE. The Institute of Transportation Engineering. They put out editions every so often and they do studies for typical apartments and office complexes and they gather these types of trips and based upon size and densities and areas of the country too, they base their estimates on those studies. Mark Magnuson: Okay, thank you very much. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Laufenburger: Mr. Mayor, I have a question for Mr. Oehme. Mayor Furlong: Yes. Councilman Laufenburger: Mr. Oehme, what's the speed limit on 78°i Street? Paul Oehme: 78h Street, I think it's. Audience: 40. Paul Oehme: 40. Councilman Laufenburger. 40? PaulOehme: Right. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. How about Galpin? Audience: 45. Paul Oehme: It changes in some areas but mainly 45. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay, thank you. Dave Callister: Mayor and council members, Dave Callister, 7541 Windmill Drive. Got a few comments. I'll try to make my comments brief. I know I sent an email out earlier today but I think what it all boils down to is simply following the Comprehensive Plan. Nobody is building retail these days. Nobody's building office. The only thing people are building are multi family units and there's been a lot of articles about when is the multi family bubble going to burst? They're building lots of units. When the credit crunch eases a little bit people are going to be buying homes so not only for this but other future projects I think you need to be a little careful with that and not to change the standards just because of the 51 Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012 hot commodity right now that everybody wants to get involved with. It seems like this project is driving the zoning rather than the zoning driving the project so I think that's a major concern. There were some comments about housing and providing a diverse housing stock. I think we've got that and this map clearly shows we have an adequate and diverse housing stock. I looked on, today there were townhomes selling for $85,000 to $120,000. Rental townhomes in this general area renting from $950 to $1,100 so there's a lot of, there already are rentals in this area, both single family homes and townhomes and so I think we've got that and if you look at this map you've got 650 multi family units right in here and to the west over towards 41. There's 650 units and I understand the comment about the Gorra property which is over 100 acres to the east that's zoned for medium and high density. I realize today it's off the table but a year from now or 5 years or 10 years we don't know when that's going to develop but there's over 1,000 multi family units in that development. That could happen. May not happen tomorrow but I think if you're making a decision for the short term, then you'd be looking at this because this is a hard piece to develop and it's gone through a lot but if you're looking for long term there is a lot of land. There's over 100 acres half a mile to the east on the frontage road that's available, will be available. Not now but it will be available and again this is a 20 year plan. Not something we have to do now just because the market is saying this is the thing to build so I think those are some important considerations. I know this has been a difficult piece of property. Done the research back in '87, '88, '93, 90, well '93, 2003, 2006. There's a lot of things going on. Nuisance complaints. Wetland fillings. Multiple requests for changing zoning and comp plans and that sort of thing so I understand that there's a lot of frustration on this piece of property but 1 also know that the market will correct itself. I don't know when that will be but there will be a demand for office at some point. This is a good site. It's visible. It's close to the metro area. It's got good transportation routes and so forth so I would encourage just some patience when looking at this particular site and let the market dictate and I would say let's stick to the Comprehensive Plan. Thank you. Jane Meyer: My name's Jane Meyer and I don't live anywhere near this complex proposal. Mayor Furlong: What is your address ma'am? Jane Meyer: 6911 Lorelei Lane in Eden Prairie Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Welcome. Jane Meyer: Okay, thanks. I am a realtor. My Remax office is in downtown Chanhassen and I sell over 20 some years of selling real estate all over the Twin Cities and as any good realtor will tell their client, buyer or seller, location, location, location but it's what's around that location. When you come into an area you look at that and I'm going to be honest to people and tell them, good resale. Bad resale. And you talked about the power lines over in Dell or off on Pioneer Trail, I have had opportunities to sell in that area and if my clients ask my truthful opinion I have turned them down and said nope. Uh-uh. You talk about, what is it 224 units. One car per unit. Probably two. Two trips a day. Is that 1,000 cars on that little area? And he is right, the market is on it's way back. Pretty soon, in the future, the rentals will be down, houses will be up. They can build their complex in a little better area. Listen to your residents. What they want in that area. Yep, the rental will eventually be on the lower end again. I just think the value of these houses around will definitely go down. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Julie Sibley: Hi, my name is Julie Sibley and I'm from 7683 Vasserman Trail and I just have nothing new to add as far as points. We've heard such good, articulately spoken, legal valid reasons for this project not to go through as planned but what I guess we're all wondering is how many names that it takes for you to hear our voice and it seems like we've had you know 500 plus names put on petitions to 52 Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012 prevent this from progressing further. We've come to several different meetings to tell you how we feel as a community. I haven't seen you know a rivalry of opinions as we stand up here. It's pretty unanimous in what you hear so I think that in itself should show you that as people living in that area there's something self evident that we see about this project and why it doesn't fit in the area so I just wanted to register my opinion and once again that I do not believe this should go through and I just hope that you would come up with a number. How many names does it take until you feel like you should represent the feelings of the community? The people of Chanhassen who are trying to speak to you. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Cathy Meyer: Hi, my name is Cathy Meyer. I live at 7662 Ridgeview Way. Also in Vasserman community. Thank you Mr. Mayor and council members for letting us speak today. I know I was one of the people that specifically requested the open forum and appreciate your patience and willingness to listen to, it's actually 616 signatures as of this evening on the petition and I know you hear almost every one of those as long as, as well as with numerous phone calls and emails. So I just have a eouple things to add in listening today and sitting through the meeting hosted by Mr. Tucci and the Planning Commission last week. You know we talked about today something new for me was that we're meeting our density goals on housing and also that it's going to take 2 years to fill this apartment complex. A year to build it and two years to fill it so as one of the gentleman prior to me said, you know essentially what's the rush to build it today? And as another gentleman said, to put the square peg in a round hole. The other thing I would ask, and I had shared this before is that 1 find this a challenging or challenging location to live in. Councilman Laufenburger you asked about Lake Susan. I actually rented there last year during a remodel. The apartments are larger and they're less expensive and they're still market rate. They have a pool. They have access to the lake and they have easy access to under the street. I think there are other lots that in the future will potentially be available that are equally distant or closer to downtown. Closer to 212 which is becoming more of a main artery as well as possibly a future public transportation. They're either already designated as PUD's or could more suitably be transferred from office to PUD and offer more green space and suitable living for those who are going to reside in those apartments in the future. And those are my comments. May I just voice somebody who's home with a sick child, can I record her for the record? Is that possible? Mayor Furlong: Just read a statement? Cathy Meyer: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Sure. Cathy Meyer: Okay. So on behalf of Mayor Furlong: Was it, let me ask you, was it an email that was sent out already? Cathy Meyer: She already got an email sent out, yeah so should I just leave it? Mayor Furlong: Okay, because we've seen the emails so. Cathy Meyer: Then she's on record. Mayor Furlong: Yes. She's on record already Cathy Meyer: Thank you. 53 Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012 Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anyone else? Keith Deans: Hi, my name is Keith Deans. I live in Vasserman Ridge. I live at 7651 Ridgeview Way. One of the things that attracted my wife and our family was the family dynamic of Chanhassen. I think there's a reason why there is 2% vacancy in this particular area and that's because the people like it that way and one of the things that caught me, or one of the comments that was made by Mr. Tucci was that our vacancy rates at 2% were very similar to New Haven, Connecticut and Manhattan. I didn't move to Chanhassen for it become New Haven, Connecticut or Manhattan. I want to continue to have the same family values. The same family neighborhood and the same type of dynamic that Chanhassen has offered since we moved here. And if you haven't guessed by my comment I'm in agreement with the rest of the room that lives in this community that we want to retain the same type of environment that we have here. I'm opposed to having this development built here. Again from a structural standpoint it doesn't fit. Doesn't fit with anything in our neighborhood so again I want to continue to maintain the same type of comp plan that the city has moved forward with. Again I want to continue to live in this type of environment that Chanhassen has offered since we moved here. That's my comment. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. If I could ask you a question, just so I understand. You were talking about family values. How do you differentiate the family values from a Comprehensive Plan land use standpoint between different types of residences? Single family home or medium density, apartment. Keith Deans: Well I don't know that you can equate the two of those in all honesty. I think the family values I can only speak for the dynamic that we have within Vasserman Ridge. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Keith Deans: And it is a single family community with both townhomes that surround us. One of the things that I guess I enjoy is that we have both families with young children, families with older children, and also those that don't have children in our neighborhood which adds to the diversity of the neighborhood and I just, I think the overall sense of community that has built the Chanhassen, or I should say the Vasserman Ridge neighborhood that we came to love and why we moved there. Mayor Furlong: And so do you not see those with those who live in an apartment or do you see that that would change? Keith Deans: Well in the immediate, and again you can correct me if I'm wrong but in the immediate area there are townhomes. Not necessarily apartments that are surrounding us so I can only equate what we currently have with the townhomes and the single family community, that was what I want, that's what I'd like to see us maintain. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, thank you. Lance Erickson: Good evening. Thank you for letting us speak tonight. We appreciate it very much Mayor Furlong: You're welcome. Lance Erickson: My name is Lance Erickson and I live at 7735 Vasserman Trail so I'm just about you know 50 yards from the project that's proposed and of course in addition, I mean all of the items that you've heard tonight, density and traffic, traffic probably I think may be more serious not because of just the additional trips per day that this project is going to create but because of the location right at the stop sign at Galpin and West 78ih. These people are coming out of the building, they're going to go 30 yards 54 Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012 and they're going to be at a stop sign. If they go the other way to Burger King, there's going to be a line up from that project all the way up there but it's going to be a popular road to be traveling with all that additional traffic. So everybody's kind of covered all of the comments tonight so we don't need to go there but I just, I had a question and it relates to the Comprehensive Plan which is in place that where you know you've all put a lot of effort into this and Chanhassen gosh, ranked one of the best cities in America and number one just a couple years ago and it's because of the effort of all of you on the council and the Planning Commission and everybody here in Chanhassen that's worked so hard to make this a desirable place and I really think you need to look long and hard about making a zoning change against that Comprehensive Plan that changes what you thought not too long ago was your perfect vision. And in respect to that, do you actually have to go to the Metropolitan, this is a question. Do you have to go to the Met Council to get this approved if you decided to move forward? Mayor Furlong: Ms. Aanenson, could you describe the process? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, that's correct. Land use amendments have to be approved by the Met Council. We also send out comments, jurisdictional comments to the surrounding communities also to let them know of any changes in the Comprehensive Plan. Lance Erickson: So if it did move forward in some manner, people would be notified of that? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. I mean this is just concept. If I may Mayorjust explain the process. Mayor Furlong: Please. Kate Aanenson: So if whatever would come forward would have to go through another process. A traffic study. More detailed analysis. We'd provide some of the questions regarding schools and we'd send out comments. It's called jurisdictional review so we'd hear again from MnDOT and the County, the surrounding communities. In addition we'd send all that up to the Metropolitan Council for a Land Use Amendment. We actually had an amendment on the Comprehensive Plan tonight on consent agenda regarding a classification of a roadway. We get those frequently from our surrounding communities. Shakopee, if they do a land use amendment so it happens. Lance Erickson: So we would get notified of it. Kate Aanenson: You would be notified because if a project was to come forward, you wouldn't get notified of the land use amendment but as a part of the application when it went to the Planning Commission so there would be another public hearing. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, Ms. Aanenson, maybe explain the process now after, regardless of, the outcome of tonight will be more comments and observations from the council. Kate Aanenson: Correct, correct. Mayor Furlong: So what happens after that? Kate Aanenson: Then the developer would decide based on those comments whether or not they chose to proceed. Lance Erickson: Okay, okay. 55 Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012 Kate Aanenson: And they could choose to proceed whether or not they you know, whatever those comments are. Then we would come back through. Then we would have another public hearing. As a part of that public hearing. Mayor Furlong: If they were to proceed, they'd put together a lot of these. Kate Aanenson: Correct, all these things. A traffic study. Mayor Furlong: Address a lot of these questions. Kate Aanenson: Yep, and then we'd have another public hearing. Review all that in even more detail. Lance Erickson: Alright. Kate Aanenson: And then the amendment would take place then. And the project couldn't go forward until that amendment took place. Lance Erickson: Okay. Just wanted to ask that question. And one final point to the young lady's question about what would you like to see on the property? Gosh, the reputation of the developer here is just outstanding on all the work they do, if they were to put their building on that property it'd probably make a nice office environment. Mayor Furlong: Anyone else that would like to comment? Please. Jeff Weyandt: Thank you. My name's Jeff Weyandt. I live at 7626 Ridgeview Way over in Vasserman and I appreciate the opportunity to talk. I guess looking through the whole stack of paper related to this project, in reading the analysis of what we've got for this project, we're looking at all sorts of different estimates. Estimates of traffic. Estimates of this. Estimates of that and the only thing we know about estimates is they're always wrong, okay. And so you're looking at it and you're saying oh, this isn't going to effect your traffic and if it does you know we'll take care of it. Well you know, that's not what we're looking for. We're a community and when Keith came, you know came up here and talked about what we moved here for, and most of us moved here from other cities. We had experience. We moved here for a reason and we picked this community and it was because of the set up and because of the plan that you as the City have put in place. We were impressed with it. We liked it and everything we ever heard about it, we said this is what we're looking for. This is where we want to live. Okay and so now we're saying what will we trade? What's our trade off? What are we willing to trade? We're willing to trade some green space for a 53 foot building. Okay. I don't care if you plant a bunch of 20 foot trees in front of it, it's still a 53 foot building and it's behind my house. Okay. It just changed my whole neighborhood. Adding 224 units of people, cars and everything that comes with them just changed my whole neighborhood. Okay. And maybe certain people think that's not a big deal but it is to me, okay. And it is to all the other people in this room who came here to voice our opinion tonight and sent you all those emails. Okay. We are the people of Chanhassen. Alright and we believe that the City should represent what we want, not just you know help someone make some money, alright. And I'm not accusing you of that. The City needs to make money. We need taxes. We've got to pay for things. Okay, and your view of how to do that is why we elected you. Okay and my only point is, represent what the city wants and what the people who moved to that city want. That's a view that should count. I know it's been said but that's the most important thing here. What are you willing to trade off in order to get this? That's it. Mayor Furlong: Thank you 56 Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012 Stacy Beno: Hi, I'm Stacy Beno and I live at 7563 Ridgeview Point in Vasserman Ridge and what nobody's pointing out either, and everybody has the traffic thing but there's also, if I can point. There's also a blind spot to the left. Right where that arrow is. There's also a blind spot if you're coming out of the neighborhood and taking a right. You cannot see at all and what's not shown is the other exit to the neighborhood of Vasserman Ridge. If you're taking a left, you can't see around that. It's a big hill. People do come flying around those comers and so that part of the traffic isn't being addressed either an I just wanted to say that and I completely oppose the monstrosity of an apartment complex that's going in there. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? And we'll probably need to finish this up with one or two more comments. Gerry Wolfe: Hi, I'm Gerry Wolfe. I live at 7755 Vasserman Trail. I probably more than anyone else will be affected by this because I am in the building that is on immediately inside the entrance. Not on that side. I'm on the other side. No, on that building you first pointed to but I'm on the north side of that building. So my next door neighbor will probably hit it even more but I sit and look out at that property all the time. It's gorgeous today but just, it's going to be really close. I'm going to, right now at night when cars come around the corner off of Galpin, we get headlights into our house all the time. Into our bedroom. I can't imagine what it's going to be like with cars coming home at 11:00, 12:00, 1:00 in the morning on Friday's and Saturday nights from parties and what have you and when we're trying to sleep with all these lights coming into our bedroom. There's nothing been said about the right-intright-out turn on the east side of the parking lot there. That is going to be another entrance, just like the U turn that takes place on Galpin when you come out of Kwik Trip. They can put a pork chop in there, whatever they call it, and people are going to make a U turn around to get into that entrance when they come off of Galpin, and the vast majority of people are going to come off of Galpin. I wouldn't go all the way down to the other entrance, which is going to be right across from my property to park in the east parking garage of that building. There was talk about the electric lines. When I sit on my deck and look out, the power lines are about at the height of those air vents off the back of my property and about 50 feet away from my deck so I know if I'm sitting on my deck and I have a walkout but I'm on the same level as the ground level of the property we're talking about. People on the second and third floor are going to be looking right at those power lines, right out their windows. The other thing I wanted to mention is the crosswalks at Galpin and 78th. They are on the north side of Galpin, or of 78`h Street. There is no crosswalk from the south side across Galpin to the Kwik Trip site so if anybody in that apartment complex is going to have to cross 78h Street to the north side and then cross Galpin to the east side and then cross 78`h again to get to the Kwik Trip and to CVS. And the school or whatever, yep. So that's all 1 have to say. You've got the rest of my epistle in here. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? No, alright. Thank you. 1 guess at this point, Mr. Tucci any follow up comments or Ms. Aanenson with regard to the comments made. No? Okay. Alright, thank you everybody. We appreciate your comments and as I said earlier the comments that people provided to us. Let's at this point then bring it back to council for any follow up questions or first of all. Councilman Laufenburger: I havejust a question if I can? Mayor Furlong: Yes. Councilman Laufenburger: Kate, what's the current city's population? Kate Aanenson: 24,000 approximately. 57 Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012 Councilman Laufenburger: And according to the Comprehensive Plan, what is the anticipated population of the city in say 2030? Kate Aanenson: 2030, I guess I can give you the ultimate population. Councilman Laufenburger: Yeah, what's the capacity? Kate Aanenson: We'll work with capacity, we felt we'd be at 2030 but we've pushed that out further because development slowed down. 35,00040,000. Councilman Laufenburger: 35,000 to 40,000. Okay. So there's going to be some growth in Chanhassen. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilman Laufenburger: How about directly to our east, to Eden Prairie? Are they going to see any growth? Kate Aanenson: They do have some residential going on right now but as far as what's happening in Minnetonka and Eden Prairie, most of their residential is pretty much built out. Councilman Laufenburger: How about Victoria and Chaska, are they going to see any development? Kate Aanenson: Yes, they have quite a bit of development available, yes. Councilman Laufenburger. Alright, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? If not, comments. Thoughts. Observations. Mr. Laufenburger. Councilman Laufenburger: I have some comments if I can. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Laufenburger: I just would ask that the council members as well as the audience here, and also at home just please hear my full comments because there may be some reaction to some of the things that I say but I just would ask that you would just listen to everything that I say. First of all to those people who are here tonight and approached the lectern and spoke, my compliments to you. I know that it takes a lot to stand up in front of that microphone and speak so to those of you that did I admire your energy, your passion and also your willingness to do that. Also I want to acknowledge and recognize the organizational efforts to mobilize the passion of the citizens concerned about the implications of this development and I would say the vast majority of these were as earlier described, well founded, well written, well crafted. In some cases the pleas were sounding like don't move my cheese, and I get that. It's happened to me and my wife at least 3 times in our various neighborhoods that we've lived in. I will say this though, I am not concerned about the apartments attracting an undesirable element, as some have suggested. On the contrary, having lived in an apartment myself I think the apartments can help meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. They bring value to the community. They bring patrons to our local businesses. They bring future leaders to our civic organizations. They're another valuable thread in the tapestry that we call Chanhassen and they are also future homeowners in this city. I just would ask rhetorically how many have ever lived in an apartment and now live in a single family home. I'm one of those. Mr. Erickson commented about perfect vision. I don't think there's such a thing as perfect vision. I think that one of the things that I was stirred to do as a result of the tremendous input I got from the city, 58 Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012 or the citizens and I listened to every one of them. Responded to many of them. I reviewed the Comprehensive Plan again and I was drawn to the context of the plan and the goals that the plan is designed to meet, and I just want to share some of these. Our community development department and economic development director work with businesses and community officials to streamline the development review process to ensure smooth and well planned developments that both the City and businesses will be proud of now and into the future. So to the question why are we even looking at this? Because we are obligated to look at and review developments just like this. A Comprehensive Plan is designed to serve as a guide for the local decision making process. This is absolutely true. And in addition the Comprehensive Plan is designed, and I'm quoting from the plan document, it's designed to be a flexible tool which can be adapted to new policies to attain stated goals. Another goal. The City provides a residential environment which accommodates diverse income levels and housing styles and preferences, single family detached housing and related neighborhoods will however continue to be the dominate land use and housing type, and I think the permits that have been drawn in the last 2 years clearly reinforce that, correct Kate? Okay. Land Use Plan. The Plan should seek to establish sufficient land to provide for a full range of housing opportunities. Again I'm quoting from the Comprehensive Plan. Housing goals, and some of these are in the planning document that Ms. Aanenson prepared. Provide housing opportunities for all residents consistent with the identified community goals. Balanced housing supply with housing available for people of all income levels. Accommodation of all racial and ethnic groups in the purchase, sale, rental and location of housing within the community. A variety of housing types for all people in all stages of life cycle. A community of well maintained housing and neighborhoods, including ownership and rental housing. Housing development methods such as PUD's, cluster developments and innovative site plans and building types should be encouraged to help conserve energy and resources for housing. In fact this is one of the 9 criteria that is applied to a concept PUD as stipulated in our ordinances, is that right Kate? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Councilman Laufenburger: The City should continue to ensure non-discrimination in the sale and rental of housing units. Hear me clearly. While density is given by a range in the Comprehensive Plan the City shall encourage development at the upper end of the density range. The City will promote the integration of life cycle housing opportunities throughout the community. Affordable and subsidized housing should not be overly concentrated in one area of the city. Now, as to my responsibility as your council member, yes. I do have to listen to the citizens. In fact I made a commitment when I joined the council that I would have an attentive ear, a responsive voice, and a decisive leadership as a servant leader. I received over 450 emails, some of those that Cathy Meyer referred to. The petition. I received every one of those so thank you. And I was able to respond to about 90 of those and I thank you all for those comments, but I have an obligation to all citizens, even those that may not be directly impacted by this project. Of this I can guarantee you, and I've just finishing my second year on the council, I can guarantee you that virtually every decision that we make at this council, any decision, any vote will satisfy some and disappoint others. So regarding this project Mr. Mayor, this concept PUD, I'm inclined to not approve it as presented. However, I believe there is a way that it could move forward to the next step. First of all I like preserving the north parcel and even improving it would be worthwhile. I absolutely endorse a more complete traffic study. There must be a chance, there must be a change to the U turn from which going from northbound on Galpin to southbound on Galpin. That has got to change regardless of what we do here. So Mr. Mayor, I could support the development with less than a full density transfer. I'm thinking if the, if no density transfer results in 128 units, am 1 correct on that Kate? Kate Aanenson: Yes, again that's taking the gross, 8 times 16. 6E Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012 Councilman Laufenburger. 8 times 16, 128. 1 could support even a little bit more than that, taking a portion of the density from the north parcel but I could not support 224 units. I think that's too many. Thank you Mr. Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other comments. Councilwoman Ernst. Councilwoman Ernst: 1 really appreciate everyone coming tonight and articulating your concerns. I know all of you put a lot of time and effort into this project and into the development of this project and I really appreciate all that you've put forth. I personally have concerns with the density. 224 units is a significant number and I'm not sure this is a good fit. I have nothing against apartment living because I too have lived in apartments. If we use the property as guided for office and retail, particularly for retail, I feel it would serve more of an advantage in terms of increasing our tax base. I also have some concerns about the power lines that everyone has mentioned here this evening. I'm not sure this is the right location. We do need to encourage development, as Councilman Laufenburger alluded to but I do not believe that this project is a good fit as it's been presented here this evening. That's all I have. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilwoman Tjomhom, thoughts. Councilwoman Tjomhom: I have to say I've been on the council for 8 years and I think this is probably one of the biggest issues that I've deal with. On the Planning Commission there were a lot of issues where the rooms were packed but I think this is probably one of the spirited community involved movements and so 1 think these kind of conversations usually end up with a good impact or a good results so I think we're on the right track. You know just being here tonight and discussing this. I just recently won my election and I was at one of my debates and a question from the audience was, what makes a good council person and not having time to really think about that I had to kind of you know think well wow, what does make a good council person. And you know to me it came with, I had 3 answers which I had to provide which was communication, being a good listener, and then being able to make tough choices and I think I'm going to have to exercise all three of those concepts tonight because there was a lot of communication. Over 600 emails and I appreciated all of them. That really is a red flag to me that there is a real passion. There's a real love for your neighborhood and for what happens to Chanhassen. Being a good listener, I think tonight it was a wonderful opportunity to be a good listener. I enjoyed listening to all, I think it was almost 25 people that spoke. All with good points and passionate views. And then you know the third element is making tough choices and I have to say that I think that this parcel of land has been troubled for a long time. It would have been nice if we could have had the development, someone quoted me on when I was I think on the Planning Commission but that didn't happen. There's been, it seems like every development that comes through, every opportunity falls through and it's unfortunate and you know so I'd love to see this piece of land being successful and I think tonight's perhapsjust the first step because I believe that, I hope that we could probably work with the developer and come up with something on a smaller scale that looks more residential and feels more residential and at the same time work with residents on traffic concerns, and especially when it comes to the offender that I am when it comes to making U turns at CVS. Getting back on Highway 5 you know. That's even a good positive outcome that will come from this tonight so I would encourage the developer, I would welcome them but I think it needs to be something that every, that fits with this parcel of land and compliments not only the neighborhood but our town. So thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Mr. McDonald. Councilman McDonald: Thank you. I guess first of all what I'll say is I was on the Planning Commission when this original piece came through so I've already been through all of this and one of the things when I was on the Planning Commission I did get a lot of emails concerning staff. I got a lot of emails and comments that have been made today and I have to say the same thing I said when I was on 60 Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012 the Planning Commission and I was the Chairman of that commission. The staff does an excellent job. They work for you. Their job is not to necessarily line up for developer or for the residents. Their -job is to provide information to the Planning Commission and to the City Council. From there it is up to those individuals to make decisions so I received a lot of emails and I did receive a lot of emails and I did answer some. In fact I was late tonight because I was answering someone who had called in. I was more than willing to talk to a number of you. In fact I even tried to make some direct arrangements to meet with people one on one. What I found is that there are a lot of misconceptions about what's going on here. This goes back to the days of when Walmart came through. I had a lot of concerns about the way that that was handled and that was voiced by the council itself. That was rushed through and what had happened was we were not given an opportunity to I think make a decision based upon facts. We never received anything about traffic studies. We did all kinds of things about what they needed to do as far as change. They never had the opportunity to come back because of the way things were structured at that time so we have changed the process. I got a lot of comments about the Planning Commission did not do theirjob. Yes, they did their job. They did an excellent job. Yes they did. Their position was to send information up to this council. Was to send all of your comments up to this council. Was to tell us, the council, what everyone felt. I watched that meeting on TV so I saw everybody come up to the podium. I've listened to everyone. This is not an easy decision. I go back to before, it's been about 4 years ago. Kate and I were on a study committee that was set up by the Carver County Development Agency and at that point there were a number of businesses, schools, governmental agencies, a lot of people were involved in that and what we were looking at were housing studies, not just within Chanhassen but within Carver County and what was coming out of all this from businesses, from the schools, from everybody was that the housing stock that is within this county is not sufficient to staff the entry level positions that this county has to offer and that is a big disadvantage to this county when you do not have workers that live close by. You all are not the target candidates for becoming school teachers. You're not the target candidates for becoming policemen. Those are the people that we need within this infrastructure to support this city and to make it work the way you all believe it works. Without those things we don't have a city. We have chaos so those were things that came out of that study. Why it never advanced was because that's when the housing bubble hit and suddenly everything changed. The world got turned upside down but the results of that and the results of what was discussed at those committee meetings has not changed. We do need housing and this housing, it's not for some strangers. It's for your children. It's for your parents. It's for people that want to come back into this neighborhood and live and work here and they don't have that opportunity because right now we are geared more toward high end residential houses and that's not what entry level people need and entry level is defined as people making anywhere between $40,000 to $60,000 a year so part of our obligation, and Councilman Laufenburger read it quite well that one of the things that we have to do as council members is to look at what can we do to help development within this city to meet the long range goals and plans. I've heard what everybody has said. I share your concerns about traffic. About the density. About what's going to happen to the trails and about the amenities. I mean all of those are things that are impacted. What I'm trying to get at and what I've explained to a lot of people on the phone and they seem to understand that after we have a conversation about it is that there is a larger picture here and one of the things that we need as council people is, does this fit within the larger picture? And today I can't tell you if it does or doesn't because I need that traffic study. I need to know what is the impact of putting that kind of development on that corner. You know can those roads support that? One of the ladies brought up Galpin going north to 7. That was the first time I had heard that but yeah, she's got a viable point that that is a shortcut to 7 and that is a possibility but how many people are going to do it? 1 mean today we don't know so hopefully that's something that the study would be able to tell us is, you know what can that intersection and that infrastructure support? We need those answers because even if this doesn't go forward something else is and we need to know from a city's perspective what do we have to pay for to fix up that corner so we need answers to that. I agree with density also that eh, it seems a little high but I need some more information there and I think we can work with the developer because I'm sure you know he's got some density to give up on there. The trails, I did talk to Todd Hoffman who is in charge 61 Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012 of park and trails and I asked about that underpass because that was brought up last week and yes, when it first snows or when it first floods it's not available but he said for the most part that is a priority to clean that out and make sure that it's usable. I'm concerned about people crossing Galpin at West 78'. I think somebody described it, you go north. You go east. You go south. That doesn't make any sense at all so something's got to come up with there to address that issue. I would be in support of this project but it's got too many questions and at this point the only way I'm going to get answers to that is it needs to move forward so I'm more or less in favor of it moving forward. That doesn't mean I'm in favor of the project. All it means is I'm trying to do our due diligence and I think that you know before we can actually turn something down you need to have some answers. I can bring back one more thing from the days when I was on the Planning Commission. Down at Galpin Avenue and Lyman there was a development that was put in there. We heard the same kind of arguments about it was going to be dangerous for children. It was going to increase traffic and at that point it was semi's. What everybody was saying was we're going to have all these trucks down there. We're going to just, it's going to be, you won't be able to get in and out of there because of all the truck traffic. Well we worked through all that. We got it working. There is no truck traffic. No one's been killed down there. The traffic does not get backed up. Everything has worked the way that the developer said it would because they were willing to work with us. As long as the developer is willing to work with the City we can generally work through anything but I think everybody needs to be given an opportunity to work with people before we turn something down. There was a lot of things, as was pointed out, this city's going to grow. I heard a lot of comments about, we like it the way it is. Let's just leave it that way. Can't do that folks. What we have is some very attractive land that people want to get at and they're going to come in and they're going to build on it. Whether it's apartments, businesses, whatever it's going to happen. Land will be developed and the question, and you're right to ask the question of us, what's going to go on that land and that's a question that we need to look at and make a determination of what goes on that land and right now we have a project that's been presented to us. We need some more answers before we can actually do something to say whether it's viable or not so that's the only reason why I would be in favor of this going forward is, I think it needs more work but you know that's why we changed this process is so we can get answers and we can make good decisions. At some point, as Kate and everybody said, this is going to come back before the council and we're going to have to justify whatever decision we make at that time so what I would ask is that you hold your fire until that point and if we can't answer the questions that you posed tonight then yeah, I'll take whatever hits you want to you know send my way but I think that what you elected me for, and I got a lot of things and I thank everybody who supported me but I have to tell you, as I said during the campaign, no one is going to buy my vote which is why I ran the way I did. As an independent. I would not take any party support. I will not be accountable to anyone. I will do what's best for everyone and if I can't explain that, then you know I probably shouldn't have been elected but that's what I promised to do to everyone and like I say, I appreciate the votes but please don't tell me you voted for me and expect me to now vote the way you want me to because you're only one person out of 23,000 within this city and I have to answer to everybody else so with that I'm done. Mayor Furlong: Alright, okay. Thank you everyone tonight and my first comment will be to thank all of you for putting up with my rough voice and the occasional sucking on a cough drop my, but I want to extend my thanks as well to all the residents that spoke here tonight. As Councilman Laufenburger said, it's not easy to stand up at a microphone in front of people with a television cameras on and sometimes I think we get used to it because we do it but I know it's not easy. I've been in that place before and, but you all did very well. For those who spoke at the Planning Commission as well, we thank you for that and I also want to thank Mr. Tucci and the Planning Commissioners and the staff. One of the aspects of this process, this concept PUD, as I understand it, is when somebody has an idea that they want to get people's thoughts on. If there was a, we heard comments tonight about the Comprehensive Plan and I agree, there is no perfect vision especially when government's creating a big document like the Comprehensive Plan. Sorry Kate but there is no perfect vision in that. It's the collective thought of many people, property owners, business owners, others. In terms of what's a plan, what do we see as the likely, 62 Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012 as a possible outcome, and yes we try to stick to that as much as we can but the whole idea here is, we also want to, as that plan, as that Comprehensive Plan is developed with the input and the thoughts and comments and the goals and objectives of the property owners, especially for those undeveloped properties, what do they want to do with it? That plays significant weight in developing the plan and the things that this council does. This property has had a long list of, which was in the report, a long list of times in front of a city council. I participated in a few of those and whether it's this property or other properties or even the Comprehensive Plan, l think one of the goals and objectives of the council is to try to accommodate where we can a property owner's desire to use or develop their property. I appreciate that with my home and I know everybody else appreciates that with their property as well so when a property owner wants to do something with their property that isn't absolutely allowed by all the Comprehensive Plan and the ordinances, I mean if somebody was following the Comprehensive Plan they wouldn't have to go through this process. They could just submit a proposal and it would come through. It would still go through the Planning Commission and the council but it wouldn't go through this concept idea so really the whole purpose here is to lay something out. Lay an alternative out for the council and for the residents and the businesses to take a look at and see what are the good points of it, what are the bad points of it and for people to weigh in. Kate, with this new process I really think it gave an opportunity for people to weigh in. We received plenty of comments. Many with passion throughout in terms of what they thought, and in that, every email, every phone call, every document, even with the single line comments that came off of the electronic petition, I tried to read the reasons why. I was always looking for the why. What were the reasons? And in many cases there were some very valid reasons that had to be considered. Some I disagreed with but the ones that kept coming up over and over again were traffic concerns. Safety concerns. Environmental issues. Concern about the environment. And then just planning. Again working with things like the density transfer and the alternative developments and such like that so I think as we as a council are trying to give comments and direction to the developer, these are the things that seem to be with most of the concerns raised, even tonight, probably fall into one of those categories as well and so I think you know as I look at, from a land use standpoint, and a couple people mentioned it tonight, they said this development doesn't work but apartments might be an alternative. Or the office might be an alternative or such like that and so I think there is, I find wisdom in those types of comments in that they are, they're not just say no. Yes or no but they're also looking at what are the attributes. What are the good parts of the proposal? And what are the problems? And with the problems let's see, maybe they're addressable. Maybe they're not. One of the biggest issues that I've heard time and again, and I would agree is the number of units are too many for this development. I think that's, that is a statement clearly that I can agree with and, or other issues involved, I think in terms of defining how many units might work for the apartment, and I don't know if this, what level this would work for the city. Whether it would work for the developer or not and people talked about money and economic return, that's really not our concern. Our concern is are we developing or approving developments that are good developments that will enhance our overall community but I think issues of traffic and density are clearly some of the main issues so before my voice completely gives out, I guess I'll suggest some aspects here. I think when we consider the alternatives, there are some nice attributes of this concept in front of us. Keeping the northern parcel undeveloped I think has a very positive aspect, especially for those who were concerned about environment and Bluff Creek and the stormwater runoff. That's a benefit. Now is there a reasonable alternative that would allow 96 units to be built on the northern parcel? I don't know. I'd have to see that. It sounds to me like that's too much. Given the wetland there and the other aspect but having, transferring units from the northern piece to the southern piece 1 think makes sense. I think with the, from a density standpoint, and I think that's one thing that probably needs to be looked at is that when we try to figure out an appropriate amount of density transfer, we have to look at a reasonable development alternative on the northern piece. In terms of what might be an alternative there. There is a wetland. Mr. Tucci mentioned they would plan to mitigate that. That's their choice from an economic standpoint but 1 think the staff report addresses that and there may be some additional benefits to that. I think the other aspect that 1 heard is traffic. We heard that time and again. 1 think the traffic study makes sense and I think in terms of looking at not just A Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012 the current traffic but projected traffic and movements as well and we do have significant undeveloped properties to the east on West 78th, to the north on Galpin and this development as well and there may be others as well. But I think taking a look at objectively what are the capacity of the roads? What are the capacity of the intersection? Are there some design changes that might need to be made? And then if there are, based upon the results of that, what are some alternative funding options that might be available to make some improvements as necessary. I think the thing we have to remember is that whenever we're looking at the roads, one of our goals and objectives, and if you follow a lot of the activities we've been doing is working with major roads and looking at expanding capacity. Adding lanes. Widening roads. We talked tonight about the project to expand and to raise the 101 river crossing. Expand it to 4 lanes from the current 2 lanes that floods out too frequently. Highway 101 south from Lyman down to Pioneer Trail next summer is going to be widened from the 2 lane rural to the 4 lane urban so we're constantly looking at our streets and roads and looking for ways to make sure that they meet today's needs as well as tomorrow's and I think as we grow those are issues that we need to look at but I think we have to just step back. Take an objective look at that and then depending on the results of those, move forward. 1 mean when traffic. When we look at alternative plans, if the Comprehensive Plan is currently guided for a particular use, I think one of the things to look at would be for traffic for example, what is the traffic being generated based upon the current guiding and looking at the number of units that would match that type of traffic if that's the type of use that could come in currently. That would be another way to take a look at some units so, overall I don't, I don't throw an apartment development on this site out. Out of hand. I think for it to work it would have to be sized appropriately and, but I think there's some more information. I appreciate the other comments the council members made in terms of direction of what we're trying to do here. It's not, it's not that I'm disagreeing with people. I think what I'm trying to do is identify what are some of the key issues that people are raising and then are those issues addressable and to find out if they're addressable we need more information. So with that, hopefully that is helpful to the applicant and staff as well and 1 would just ask if there are any further comments. No? If not then I will thank everybody for their involvement in this. Given the hour here, we're going to take just a really quick recess and then we will reconvene subject to the call of the Chair. Yep, subject to the call of the Chair so council, if we could be back in just a couple minutes I'd appreciate it. Thank you. The City Council took a short recess at this point in the meeting. Mayor Furlong: I'd like to call the council meeting back to order and let's move on with the next item on our agenda. I'm sorry, is there a question Mr. Laufenburger? Councilman Laufenburger: Laurie. Mayor Furlong: Let's go onto the next item on our agenda, item number 5 which is consider an amendment to Chapter 4 relating to fees. CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 4 OF CITY CODE CONCERNING FEES. Greg Sticha: Good evening Mayor, council. At our last meeting of the year, on an annual basis we review Chapter 4 of the City Code which deals with fees for the city. That could include licenses, permits or other administrative fees. In this particular case we are looking at amending fees for 2013 and the fees that we'll be discussing this evening are utility fees. There are no other fees that are proposed for change for 2013 aside from utility related fees. The City Council's gone through an extensive process in terms of a utility rate study. This past year we actually go through our utility rate study on an annual basis in the fall of each year with our financial advisors, Ehlers and Associates. The reasons for the utility rate study are numerous. They help direct the City and city staff and City Council to setting utility rates based on the infrastructure needs of the city as well as the operating needs of the city and the cash balances within the utility funds that they operate and serve. Based on that utility rate study, done by Ehlers and 64 Building Inspections On Wednesd >� er 12 the applicant hosted a neighborhood meeting. Phone: 952.2271160 Fax: 952.2271190 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager CIIANNSENFROM: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Community Development Director 7700 Market Boulevard DATE: December 10, 2012 469 PO Box 147 In addition to the comments provided in the staff report, the Planning Commission MN 55317 SUBJ: Concept Planned Unit Development — Chanhassen Apartments Finance Planning Case 2012-18 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 • The residents presented valid concerns which the developer will have to address if Fax:952.227.1110 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Building Inspections On Wednesd >� er 12 the applicant hosted a neighborhood meeting. Phone: 952.2271160 Fax: 952.2271190 On Tuesda Decembe the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the request whic was well attended by residents, who voiced their concerns Engineering regarding the proposal. Summary minutes are attached. Phone: 9522271160 Fax: 952227.1170 In addition to the comments provided in the staff report, the Planning Commission provided the following additional comments: Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax:952.227.1110 • The residents presented valid concerns which the developer will have to address if the project moves forward. Park & Recreation . The project location is desirable in its proximity to the downtown. Phone: 952.227.1120 . There is a demand for market rate apartments in Chanhassen. Fax: 952.2271110 . Traffic concerns need to be addressed rh at the intersection of West 78 Recreation Center ,specifically Street and Galpin Boulevard. 2310 Coulter Boulevard • The northern parcel should remain undeveloped if the project moves forward. Phone: 952227.1400 • Consider reducing the density of the project. Fax: 952.227.1404 . Nationally, there has been a decrease in the size of housing and an increase in the Planning & age of the population. We need to balance that by providing a broader range of Natural Resources housing. Phone: 952.227.1130 • The applicant has presented a quality project. Fax:952.2271110 . Obtain additional information on the impact this project would have to public safety, schools, parks and traffic. Public Works 7901 Park Place Phone -.952.227.1300 Fax 952227.1310 ATTACHMENTS Senior Center 1. Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated December 4, 2012. Phone: 952.227.1125 2. Letter and Petition from Deborah Zorn dated December 4, 2012. Fax:952.227.1110 3. Planning Commission Staff Report dated December 4, 2012. Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us 9.\plant2012 planning casest2012-18 chanhassen apaNnentskc staff mport.doc Chanhassen is a Community for Life -Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMNIISSION REGULAR MEETING �R SUMMARY MINUTES DECEMBER 4, 2012 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Kathleen Thomas, Lisa Hokkanen, and Kim Tennyson MEMBERS ABSENT: Bill Colopoulos STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Public Works Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Alyson Fauske; Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: Diane & Lance Erickson Larry & Michaele Martin Bob Webber Cathy Meyer Ron Schuster Gerald Wolfe Steve Sheldon Michael Wagner Paul & Vera Brady Charles Engh Deborah Zorn Roger VanHaaften David Windschitl Dan Beno Brad & Tamara Hodgins Andy Maus Charles Peterson Ron & Linda Solheim James Denton Bob Schwartz Jim Boettcher Mary Olson Norma May Roger Remaley, President Walnut Grove Villas Del & Barb Vanderploeg Kathryn Peterson Carrie Webber Melissa Crow Don Dahlquist Kathie Price Chuck & Loretta Goetzinger Kevin Kemptgen Tim Pass 7735 Vasserman Trail 7725 Vasserman Trail 7608 Ridgeview Way 7662 Ridgeview Way 8001 Acorn Lane 7755 Vasserman Trail 7711 Ridgeview Way 17749 George Moran Drive, Eden Prairie 2028 Clover Court 7642 Prairie Flower 7574 Ridgeview Point 2102 Clover Court 7620 Ridgeview Way 7563 Ridgeview Point 7633 Ridgeview Way 7656 Ridgeview Way 7496 Crocus Court 7717 Vasserman Place 2305 Lukewood Drive 2507 Bridle Creek Trail 7476 Crocus Court 7461 Windmill Drive 2050 Clover Court 2198 Baneberry Way West 7706 Vasserman 7713 Vasserman Place 7608 Ridgeview Way 7663 Ridgeview Way 7634 Prairie Flower Blvd 7569 Ridgeview Point 7521 Windmill Drive 7662 Vasserman Trail 7650 Ridgeview Way Planning Commission Summary — December 4, 2012 Mary K. & Art Roberts 7762 Vasserman Place Chris Hentges 7500 Windmill Drive Mike Benkovich 2352 Fawn Hill Court Mike Shields 7759 Vasserman Trail Larry Donlin 8038 Autumn Ridge Sarah Thomas 2555 Longacres Drive Chris & Julie Sibley 7683 Vasserman Trail Mike & Molly Aker 2131 Brinker Street Julie McGaughey 7175 Gunflint Trail Mary & Stan Valensky 7752 Vasserman Place Debby Tysdad 7661 Arboretum Village Lane Bill Guggemos 2165 Majestic Way Nora Stacey 7699 Ridgeview Way Josh Kimber 2060 Majestic Way Suzannah Armentrout 2420 Bridle Creek Trail Blake Gottschalk 2197 Majestic Way Mike Muffenbier 7675 Ridgeview Way Allen Bergren 7680 Ridgeview Way Dan Bock 7677 Vasserman Trail Joe & Eileen Kieffer 7602 Ridgeview Way Khai Train Chanhassen Lisa & Kreg Levine 1850 Lake Lucy Road Mike Hodges 8101 Pinewood Circle Mike Ryan 6835 Lake Hanson Circle Mark & Maureen Magnuson 7715 Vasserman Trail Brian & Patty Hugh 7441 Windmill Drive Sue & Jim Cantlin 7674 Ridgeview Way Abby Ellis 7284 Bent Bow Trail Steve & Debbie Ledbetter 7756 Vasserman Place Regina & E. Keith Deanes 7651 Ridgeview Way Scott Yager 2351 Hunter Drive Michael Hjermstad 2056 Waterleaf Lane West Elizabeth Kressler 1750 Valley Ridge Trail North Kate McGuire 7973 Autumn Ridge Lane Robert Ahrens 2351 Lukewood Drive PUBLIC HEARING: CHANHASSEN APARTMENTS: REOUEST FOR CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) FOR A 224 -UNIT APARTMENT BUH.DING ON 8.08 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURAL ESTATE (A2) AND LOCATED AT 7750 GALPIN BOULEVARD (NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 4 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD) APPLICANT: OPPIDAN INC OWNER: AMERICANA COMMUNITY BANK- CHANHASSEN, PLANNING CASE 2012-18 Kate Aanenson and Paul Oehme presented the staff report on this item. Paul Tucci, with Oppidan, Inc. outlined details of their plan regarding facilities, access, zoning, traffic analysis, Bluff Creek Overlay District, home values, and the fact that this apartment building will be market rate housing. After listening to 15 residents address concerns with transition from low to high density, noise, traffic, pedestrian safety, density transfer, building size, location, the need to stay with the land use in the comprehensive plan, and devaluation of homes, Planning Commission members had the following remarks and motion. Planning Commission Summary — December 4, 2012 Aller. Thank you. Any other individuals wishing to come forward? Anyone from the other room wishing to come forward? Seeing no one come forward I'm going to close the public portion of the hearing and at this point we'll have some discussion and comments. Anyone? Undestad: I'll start off with my two cents here. Everything that was brought up by the residents here, I mean these are all great, valid points. Everything that the developer needs to consider in his own mind to know if he even wants to try to push this thing or do anything with it. All those would have to be resolved and dealt with. The traffic. The safety. The kids. The school. You know locations. Other locations was brought up south and I think part of what we're looking at here, and again I won't say that I don't agree with the high density. The number of units. I think there's a blend. There's something we can do in there but to take a project like that and move it south to the 212 corridor or something, two reasons. Number one, I don't think we have infrastructure down there in place to handle something like that but more than that is, again what we've created for families. For kids. For everybody around here. You put the apartment down there on 212, the kids still want to be able to get to town. And again this works for that but I don't think that the densities, I don't think the number of units on there is something that, you know that's something that has to be looked at hard. I think the land to the north, if anything I'd like to see that stay just the way it is. The neighbors can take their dogs over there and take care of the grass. But again you know there is, there's a lot of concerns. A lot of things that have to be worked out on there to even, even at you know in my mind as a less dense apartment complex in there. The location, it's close to town. I think that's a good thing. 225 units right there, that's what f kind of struggle with there too so, but again you know the comments, the list and what's going to be on the public record, it's a lot of work. A lot of thought to go through that process so, that's my two cents. Tennyson: I agree with a lot of what the commissioner just said. Conceptually I don't really have a problem with it knowing that the developer is going to have a whole lot of obstacles and other hoops to go through in order to even get to 221 units. They're going to have to address all of these concerns which were, as was said, everybody did a really good explaining their concerns. Everyone was really articulate with it. I didn't know I was going to hear anything new and I did but to me it didn't really lead me away from thinking that the concept in general is okay as long as we know that there are so many other things that the developer needs to go through. Thomas: I'll go. I'm also in agreement with the other commissioners as well. I believe that the concept of the idea of what would go on this parcel of land is a benefit to being able to be close to downtown and have an apartment complex for people to be able to live at which is something that we definitely need in Chanhassen. We don't have this capacity any place else within Chanhassen. I mean you heard from other people that counts we're at like 2% which is considerably quite low for apartment complexes within Chanhassen and livable spaces for other people besides single family or twin homes and things like that. I also, I mean I like to kind of see the back part of the property stay the way it is and just focus on the front. I understand, I live close to the property as well. I understand that there are U turns there at the CVS. I'd like to see that intersection changed regardless of what happens. Regardless of what happens with this project I'd like to see that intersection worked upon. Whether, stop light. Maybe a round about. I don't know, something needs to be done there so we can create a better, safer turning pattern because I'm not a fan of it by any means and I go by there enough and long enough and often so I'd like to see it updated regardless of what happens and moves forward but general of the process if we can work through some of the issues and we can move forward I would be alright with it. Hokkanen: Okay, I'm going to give my ten cents worth because full disclosure I live in Longacres. I work at Edina Realty so I go that comer. I travel there. I understand everybody's concerns. Everybody did articulate all their concerns. I think the project in general, we do have a need in Chanhassen for market rate apartments. We just, the occupancy, I mean there's just a demand for it. Whether this Planning Commission Summary — December 4, 2012 uAA�t Particular project is the right fit, I have great concern about the density of this project at this location. You know what we can do something with it, and I agree about the intersection. Even if this project does not go through we need to work on that project. I drive there. I'm one of those people that has many trips a day back and forth on all those roads. Concerned with the kids. The tunnel. I just, the overall density of the project. I think it will be a nice project. I don't know if at this, I want that land to develop. I don't know that I would be in favor of rezoning it for the higher density so that's my ten cents worth. Any questions? Aller: I got the packet and I started thinking about the things that we need to look for and the issues that are facing Chanhassen and us as we move forward as a commission and there are two. One, how do we provide economic development to Chanhassen and how do we balance that with providing a broader range of housing. There are two things that are coming about nationally. They're news all over and they're impacting us as well and that's that there typically has been a decreasing in the size of housing and the aging population. We're starting to look at more seniors here in Chanhassen. We're looking at less single family residences and more mobility in the youth and in young couples and people that are just changing lifestyles, changing jobs and the economy so I tried to balance that when I looked at the project and I feel a real need for this type of project here in Chanhassen to give us the broadest range of housing and to make it available to our residents and to our neighbors. I have.a problem with the density as well based on just the numbers and the size because it's tough to wrap your head around a building of that size when it sits on a comer but I do know, and I've experienced here on the commission where we have the same zoning for two different projects and you have so many houses per acre and one project feels like it's bigger, better and more closely related to the neighborhood than the other and it all comes down to the quality of the construction. It comes down to the landscaping and it comes down to the neighborhood and the facilities themselves so I'm hearing that there's not a problem with the quality of the developer. The quality of the construction that's been proposed and so that's a good thing. I still worry about the traffic. The traffic patterns because it's going to be something that again we have to face regardless. And the safety, the public safety issues so it will be interesting to see whether or not, if this is undertaken that maybe public safety agencies provide a report indicating what their view on this would be and the impact of that on our schools and on our parks and on our traffic. General crime rates statistics perhaps. And I would thank the members of the public that appeared today as well as those who made phone calls, left messages, emails, signed petitions because what we're doing is we're looking at the conscience power of our neighbors and the wisdom of the crowd so to speak and so we've heard from different neighbors with different backgrounds. Different ages. Different areas and I think we need to listen to them as we move forward and 1 think the developer so far has done a good job of that and I see no reason why that would stop in the future. So I would say I don't have a problem with the matter moving forward, looking at the conditions that were in the report. That were requested to be reviewed in the report. Knowing that the watershed, water, state other agencies are going to come down and take a look at this and they're going to have to jump through all those hurdles, and they're well aware of that as the developer stated so I think if they follow through with this and they heed, and it sounds like they will, that that wisdom of our flash mob of planning neighbors, that it would be a good project to move forward with the concern, the primary concern being the density. Any other comments to go forward? Undestad: No. Yeah, 1'd like just one more. I mean there was comments made about you know we just arbitrarily change zoning and things on here and over the years that we've all been involved around here, I mean it's just a matter of projects that are presented. Back then. Now. In the future and it's not a matter of you know okay we're just going to change because he came in and wants apartments. Oh that must be what it needs. We do look at these overall in the entire city and I think again that's what everybody's been doing for quite a few years out here so we're not just jumping ship saying oh well, it's the only thing going on. Let's give it to him. Again he's got some decisions to make. If the densities aren't there, then he's got the economics to think about. I think that's kind of the biggest ticket right there is how many units realistically would go on there. Planning Commission Summary —December 4, 2012 Aller. I agree and in looking at our plan I think there's a difference between having a strong neighborhood and a strong community and in order to have that strong community there has to be something that keeps us from being isolated so as much as we would like to be the single family home on a 3,000 acre parcel where everybody leaves us alone and there's no cell phone, we're not in that kind of world and so I think it builds community and builds neighbors if we allow for, and again the density is I think the primary issue that I'm thinking of with, call it a buffer but call it a change of housing so that you have single family. You have multi use facilities next to each other and the question is how much and how close. Aanenson: Mr. Chair if I may. If you wanted to, I was taking notes of your comments. They're also, like I said, there will be verbatim minutes but if you would make a recommendation to pass your comments onto the City Council with the ones that were in the staff report and the ones you just enumerated, then we would make that recommendation to the City Council. If that's your desire. Aller: So I'll ask for a motion. It's not an up or down motion. It's a motion to pass these comments along. Aanenson: Correct. Undestad: I'll make a motion. Aller. Okay. Undestad: We pass along the comments. Aller: I have a motion. Do 1 have a second? Thomas: Second. Aller: I have a motion and a second. Any further conversation regarding that discussion? Thomas: No. Undestad moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommend their comments be forwarded to the City Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of5to0. Aller: Motion carries. Comments will be passed along to the City Council for their review and action. Thank you again to the members of the public who contacted us with their opinions. We're going to take a 2 minute recess while the rooms clear and then we have another item to come before the committee. Thank you. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Thomas noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 20, 2012 as presented. Undestad moved, Thomas seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 9:05 P.M. Submitted by Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 4 December 2012 Dear Planning Commission members, My name is Deborah Zorn. I live at 7574 Ridgeview Point, Chanhassen, within one mile of the proposed project. Together with surrounding neighborhood developments and residents, we have collected over 570 petition signatures against the proposal: http://www change org/petitions/city-of-chanhassen-preserve-chanhassen-stop-galpin- ap»>t-proposal-a-225-unit-development#share While nearly 600 residents may be a small number, the context to consider is collecting this number in less than one month (11/13-12/4) and during the holiday season. After the recent election last month, we all know the importance of nearly 600 residents casting their opinion. As you learn more about the Galpin Apartment proposal this evening and hear from community members, I would like to share with you the following: 1. Chanhassen Best Place to Live— let's keep it that way! I encourage City Council to welcome thoughtful development, according to the 2030 Comp Plan that enhances our community. 2. Zoning — why consider a zoning change when there is land already guided in the 2030 Comp Plan for high-density residential? Even without this project, there are or will be 1,706 multi -family units in the Highway 5 corridor from Audubon to Highway 41 *....and including this project, over 1900 units. There is no glaring need to add more high density residential units into this area which has no public transportation or retail services. Just to the east on 78'" Street there is already 103+ acres zoned medium and high density residential. This area has already been planned with medium and high density residential in mind and does not need additional areas such as the Galpin Apartment proposal. `Note: attachments below. 3. Density transfer — how can a density transfer be applied to two distinct legal parcels that are separated by a public street? Internal is defined as "existing or situated within the limits". In most cases and most cities, density transfers are utilized within a single property. Furthermore, on May 22, 2006, City Council denied the Galpin Crossing proposal on the north parcel with one finding being that the 12 units were too many. /f 12 units were not approved in 2006, why should 96 units be considered for transfer? In closing, let's welcome the developer to Chanhassen and build 225 units of market - rate apartments. This is the wrong site for many reasons. Let's encourage them to come to Chanhassen and build in spaces guided for this type of use and in areas of with retail and transportation services. Sincerely, borah Zorn SCANNED MAP OF MULTI -FAMILY UNITS IN CORRIDOR y 3 Cr S_lwnnGl f-� rY t_W'Cwy L tw %S ctLt'[e l,r0 a "C4c9 _ c p` Property Multi -Family Units Gorra Property (103 acres) 1,048 est. Walnut Grove Villas 206 Arboretum Village 312 Autumn Ridge 140 Total 1,706 Galpin Apartments 224 Total w/Galpin Apts. 1,930 C i:L:ta: Krp E JcoL.i: L A B D F 1 Name Kelly Koemptgen Carrie Webber Stacy Beno Jackie Duea Tamara Hodgins Richard Birhanzel Amy Hamann Lisa Birhanzel Chris Sibley Danielle Schenk Schenk Brenda Wenner Jeff Weyandt Robyn Bartels Sriram Viswanathan Greer Hussey Kim Daughton Christy Bauman Kyle Duea Scott Hussey Brian Schoenberger Ben Bartels Leah Plath Kathy Wosje Melissa Crow Craig Stacey Trisha Rinzel Lori Moser Pete Rinzel Cathy meyer Melissa Pelzel Ila Wheeler Chad Meyer Arlene Schreifels Angela Zay Mary Valentine Tiffany Weyandt Susan Fagan Susan Quinn AnnMarie Gerczak Robert Webber Kathleen VanKrevelen Laura Larson Brad Hodgins Ronald Solheim lCarrie O'Keefe Mark Larson Allison Powers City Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Ramsey Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Zip Code 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55303 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 Signed On 11/13/12 11/14/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 2 3 4 T 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 A B D F 49 Nicole Muschewske Gerald Wolfe Linda Solheim Natalie Johnson Nicole Jesse Mary B Silbemagel Eric Best Matt Pattee Jayne Meyer Allison Wideman Kathleen Price Patty Gilk Lisa Bastian Valerie Pass David McKinley Liz Beckley Jacqueline tyson)acquelineTyson Sheila Erickson Rebecca Brick Susanne Cantlin Diane Perry Andrea Mach Kristy Ruelle todd allard Sue Statsick Daniel Bock Dennis DuBois Molly Johnson Carrey Schottler Theresa Vesledahl Deborah Zorn David Moser Shelley Berken Jim Boettcher Mark Gilk Bret Shanahan Alisa Lacomy Rachel Berhow Anne Jutting Yousria Ibrahim KarlHentges Todd Jutting Mary Sando Wren Feyereisen Patty Hugh John Gans Dagmar Diethelm Michelle Tre tau Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Excelsior Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Carver Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Victoria Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Excelsior Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Edina Chanhassen Chanhassen Excelsior Chanhassen Chanhassen 55317 55317 55317 55331 55317 55317 55317 55317 55346 55315 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55386 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55331 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55424 55317 55317 55331 55317 55317 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 Z A B D F 97 Angela Vukovich Patrick Rutledge Tashana Dalen jeff spear Thomas Kraus Karen sandefur Andrew Eilertson Carol Pitz Larry Martin Cara Kail Christina Salek Sam Snyder Emily Snyder Chery Stanton Michelle Luterbach Janet Rzonca Teri Kocourek Sandra Wells Paine Ted Lundberg Marissa Schulz Jeff Tritch Matthew Berhow Kim Wellman Deborah Medeiros Cindy Brodigan Paul Boddicker Sharon Cerjance lack Cerjance Tim Cerjance Margaret Wise Mary Oppegaard Lisa Tritch Brad Lacomy Karen Ryan Kristin Terrell Kyle O'Keefe Laura Liedtke David Erickson Leah Swartzbaugh Greg Kassebaum diana kirchoff Patty Palmby Michael Cerjance Karen Bimberg Louis Diethelm Julie McGaughey Pete Swartzbaugh Olson Chanhassen Chanhassen Carver Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Excelsior Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen 55317 55317 55315 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55331 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 -i 2-5 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 [Mary Z 4 A B D r F 145 Michael Flake Elizabeth Sween K S Jon Crow Robyn Chargo Josh Kimber Lori Doyle Mike Benkovich Mike Benkovich Denise Westerhaus MARY JO LUKAS Kristina Schwendinger Ashley Browning Barbara Cobb Gary Rzona Lori Thorne Jill Hake Kristine Checheris Mike Mattson Nadia Janson Renee Pawlyshyn Andrew Maus Carolyn Thomson Christine Stark Rechelle Hollowaty Nichole Kauls Cameron Olsen Scott Yager shelly christy Zach Bacon Jennifer Fritz Colin Moser Chris Hentges Julie Lizak Tim Pass James Chmura Natalie Christenson Shyla Allard Ken Saddler Kimberly Rolfes Molly Lagerback Mary Beth Hebeisen Jacqueline Mrosko Mike Wellner Jim Haider Susan Lombardo Pam Schwarz Andrea Sebenaler Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Mound Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen CHANHASSEN Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen 55317 55317 55317 55317 55364 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/16/12 146 147 148 149 150 151 -i 5-2 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 -i 9-1 192 4 C A B 1 D F 193 Gail Gelino Sue Chapman Susan Noble Kris Mattson Holli Glendenning Andy Merrill Rod Bubke Sonya Benkstein Dawn Erdman Nancy Bubke Pamela Callister Shelley Haider Ted Ellefson Sandra VanDerveer Alison Lang Ann Healey -Allen sengtavanh meas Laura Trantham Brian IaramyBrianLaramy Elizabeth Kressler Serena Rosen Tim Bastian eric maher Lisa Egenes Suzanne Milacnik Lisa Thompson Warren Meyer Sarah Pinamonti John Wicka Sarah Pletts Eileen kieffer Joe Kieffer Beckie Laengle Randy Strobel Alicia Schimke Kyle Green Beth Reding Debra Lochner Judi Selinger Don Schulz Jon Trantham Barry La Bounty Danielle Antonovich Steve and Joni Hansen Holly Tchida Karen Walker Michelle Janson Jacqueline Schmidt Chanhassen Victoria Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Excelsior Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen CHANHASSEN chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Eden Prairie Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen CHanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen 55317 55386 55317-8329 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55331 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55346 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317-7400 55317 55317 55317 55317 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/121 11/16/12, 11/16/121 11/16/12'. 11/16/121 11/16/121 11/16/121 11/16/12 11/16/121 11/16/12' 11/16/12, 11/16/12' 11/16/12', 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12, 11/16/12'. 11/16/12 11/16/121 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12' 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12' 11/16/12' 11/16/12 11/16/12'', 11/16/12. 11/16/121 11/16/12, 11/16/121 11/16/12', 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/121 11/16/12' 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12'. 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 C A B D F 241 James Heyman Matthew Hanson John Bartoloni Audret Dorholt teralyn siller Del & Barb Vanderploeg Susan cohoon Renee Pederson Dave Callister Stephanie Larson Eric Zorn Carly Blackowiak Regina Deanes Ann Eilertson Steve Emerson James Ruelle Jeff Armentrout Diane Julson Anne Wicka Katie Novogratz suzannah armentrout Lynn Wilder Patricia Bremer Lisa Levine Dorothy Croskey Jennifer Burg David Pederson Allan Olson Kirstin Heyman Bhuvana Nandakumar Debbie Ippolito Joe Ippolito Judie Mattson Ann Allen Blake Gottschalk Anne Taus Steven Cohoon Rachel Scott Ted Kendall Loretta Goetzinger Julie Littfin Patty Vannucci chris novogratz James Schmidt Mindi Dahl bonnie and charies peterson Steve Vreeman Janice Vreeman Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Minnetonka arlington Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Minneapolis Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Excelsior Excelsior Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Marine on St C Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Whitewater Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen 55317 55317 55317 55345 76018 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55408 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55331 55331 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55047 55317 55317 55317 55317 53190 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 I A B D F 289 Tami Gottschalk Carla Ferrell Mary Pemula Robin Warden Matt Schillerstrom John Murphy Kelly Bock ]an Hall Natalia Sander Jennifer Weiner Nancy Patterson Michael Smith Jason Martagon Mark Miller Michael Shields Georgia Eck Kristi Nyberg Rochelle Owens Matthew Steele Elle Swenson Brian Smith Kathryn Corgiat Kelly Pedersen Scott Jesse Paul Nyberg Richard Lindquist Shannon Smith Len Johnson Cherree Theisen Susan Coult Peter O'Gorman Elizabeth Smith Susan Busch Kevin Koemptgen Kristine Beer Debra Bauler Melissa Windschitl Michaele Martin Ashley Smith Jocelyn O'Brien Steve Anderson Elizabeth Ekstrand ralph pamper -in Mark Magnuson Maureen Magnuson Bruce Eaton ]on McLain Mary McLain Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen CHANHASSEN chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Victoria Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Minneapolis Chanhassen Chanhassen 55317 55317 55317 55317 55316 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55386 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55401 55317 55317 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/20/12 11/20/12 11/20/12 11/20/12 11/20/12 11/20/12 11/20/12 11/20/12 11/20/12 11/20/12 11/20/12 11/20/12 11/21/12 11/21/12 11/21/12 11/21/12 11/21/12 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 I 0 A B D F 337 David Royer Christine Fischer Scott Cater Art Roberts Tonya Sadura Donna Strauss Seweryn Sadura Bill Olson Lance Erickson Keith Abrahamson Lindsey Brady Tammy Brady Julie Maanum Teresa Luterbach Joan Cowan Dan Geier Brenda Geier Laura Carlson Scott Elleraas David McAlpin Roger Rema ley James Callaghan Holly Loberg Lynn Li Dana Johnson Todd Simning Barbara Miller Mike Aker Christina Crowther James Farrell Ingrid Steele Jody Hanson Kevin Carlson Clint Egenes Mike Muffenbier Michelle Muffenbier Laura Kimber Molly Aker lori abblett Sonja Leines Ron Schuster Lynne Etling Christine Allen David Windschitl Jaime Martin Mark Hemann don mcdonald Daniel Cloutier Chanhassen Chanhassen CHANHASSEN Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhasssen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55331 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 11/21/12 11/21/12 11/21/12 11/21/12 11/21/12 11/21/12 11/22/12 11/22/12 11/22/12 11/23/12 11/24/12 11/24/12 11/24/12 11/24/12 11/25/12 11/26/12 11/26/12 11/26/12 11/26/12 11/26/12 11/26/12 11/26/12 11/26/12 11/26/12 11/26/12 11/26/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 0 IP , A B D f 385 Holly Huber Jessica Tait Karin Moore Jill Hauwiller Jennifer Davis Sarah Fischer jell heinemann Nancy Wright Erin Buss Tara Graff Alana Montgomery Tim Opitz David Buss Elizabeth Johnson Amy Wesley James Denton Heidi Pagano Allison Fredlund LuAnne Wright Jessica Lundgren Hailan Huang Peter Polingo Stephanie Tollefson Dan Beno Lynn Polingo Kara Peterson Trent Mahr Karry Scheirer Dan Waldron Pat Zettel Tyler Scholten Erin Denton Michael Burrows Nedal Nassar Durwood Birdsall Kyla Spencer Colleen O'Hare Miller Paulette Tomaschko Jean Nitchals Hilarie Gibson Stephen Withrow Kristin Kingbay David Wisniewski G. Ritchot MARILYN MATZKE Jean Negaard Ben Mondeel Katie Jorgenson Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Maple Grove Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Eden Prairie Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen CHANHASSEN chanhassen Broomfield Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Rosemount Chanhassen Lindstrom CHANHASSEN Chanhassen Chaska Chanhassen 55317 55317 55317 55369 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55344 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 80021 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55068 55423 55045 55317 55317 55318 55317 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 -4 0-2 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 IP , N t�O If 4 A B I D F 433 Allen Hauwiller Jillian Steinke Al Crowther Jenny Erickson Amy Boehm G Sorci Heles Candance Carlson Stephanie Mondeel Pamela Olson Sue Selland Jennifer Perrill Jon Noller Ilyne Sandas Julie Sorensen Greg Maanu m Cecilia Fredlund Kim Farniok Steve Janson Jackie Neva Edward Schultz Jeanette Janski Glenn Steffen Craig OConnor Laura Neva Hany Gross Peter Neva Jaime Wallis Ellen Rowe Vera Brady Melissa Young Melissa Young Del Young Kristen Eisinger Brenda Brown Dale R. Blomquist Gloria Patty Bornhoft Katie Hodges Chris Conroy Doris French Pat McGaughey kathrynjeffery Cindy Cowles Rachelle Uberecken Terry Carlson Susan Blair Norma May Mark Johnson Mike Schachterle Maple Grove Minneapolis Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chahassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chaska Waconia Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen A. Blomquischanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chaska Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen 55369-3474 55405 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 I do NOT want 553147 55317 55318 55387 55317 5317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 85251 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55318 55317 55317 55317 55317 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/79/17 11/29/12 11/29/12 434 435 436 _T3 7 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 -;f6 3 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 t�O If 4 A B D F 481 Todd Michels Shane Waskey Diana Nolier Nancy Benson Amy Dykoski Lori Lavelle Matthew Taylor Eric Deanes Michelle Jopling Laura Papas Brian Kline Jeanette Taylor Thomas Papas Chad Hamann Judith Werner Michael Hjermstad Ronald Neitzel Wendy OConnor Karen Neitzel JEFFREY OLSON Nicole Carlson Amy Waters Amy Beer Mark David Mary Ervasti Holly Erickson Pam Schelling Kathren Klaesges Rena Miller Debby Tysdal Nancy Glades Patricia Hansen LaVon Johnson michelle wrase Ta mi Beehner Chris Rumble DAvid Hurrell Erica Huls Mei-Kuei Hjermstad Carol Buesgens Jessica Cimmerer George Borchardt Chris Hartwigsen JUNE CASEY John St Andrew Douglas Backstrom Cynthia Olson marlie 'ohnson Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Minnetonka Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen CHANHASSEN Victoria Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Excelsior Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen CHANHASSEN Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen excelsior 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55345 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55439 55386 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55318 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55331 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55331 11/29/12 11/29/12 11/29/12 11/29/12 11/29/12 11/29/12 11/29/12 11/29/12 11/29/12 11/29/12 11/29/12 11/29/12 11/29/12 11/30/12 11/30/12 11/30/12 11/30/12 11/30/12 11/30/12 11/30/12 11/30/12 11/30/12 11/30/12 11/30/12 11/30/12 11/30/12 11/30/12 11/30/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 -;T9 0 491 492 493 494 495 -2F9 6 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 r J A B D f 529 Heather Nelson Lori Zuehlke Mark Mullen Steve Smith Christina Krienke Steve Carroll Dianna Cowles Laura Richardson Mike Ryan Nancy Bielski Kristi Bush kim petroska Julie Jorgenson Michael Meyer Mike Ladd Omar Taha Marwa Ibrahim Eric Christenson Christine Correa Robert Lokhorst Jennifer Yankovec Renee Kirkeby Karen Brown Wendy Luse Don and Jan Dahlquist Thomas Witek John Lalim John & Elizabeth Cullen Steven Ranz Mary WItek Jacob Hill Patricia Ranz Cathy Larson Julie Peterson Sharon Punt Molly Scholle Kyle Zirbes courtney kramer Shawn Zeliman Ed Robbins Christina Hill David Haggbloom Elwood Johnson Julie Gallagher Thomas Kraker Jennifer Jorgenson david thompson Allan Ber ren Andover Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chaska Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhasen Excelsior Chanhassen Chanhassen VICTORIA Chanhassen Waconia Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen 1810 55317 55317 55317 Chanhassen 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317-8357 55317 55317 55318 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 553177 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55331 55317 55317 55386 55317 55387 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/2/12 12/2/12 12/2/12 12/2/12 12/2/12 12/2/12 12/2/12 12/2/12 12/2/12 12/2/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 -5 5-7 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 5 44 575 576 A B C D F I G 1 Name city State Zip SlgnedOn Comment I feel this 225+ unit <a href="http://apt.com" rel-"nofollow">apt.com</a>plex will MAJORLY the neighborhood In a negative wayl The Intersection Is already congested and dangerous. Now you will be adding an additional 300+cars to It with NO controlled Intersection[ Many children travel this frontage road to local businesses and to schooll Also, there are certainly blind spots at both 2 Stacy Beno chanhasse MN 55317 11/15/12 entrances of Vasserman Ridge. Crazy] Rldiculousl NOIII Traffic and something so monstrous and so close to Hwy 5 and 78th St. will look ridiculous for our community. That corner Is not very big to support such a tall structure. Also, there Is a dangerous corner coming out Vasserman Ridge and adding all that traffic right at the neighborhood entrance Tamara Hodglns Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 will be even more dangerous. I agree with the points In the overview and am especially worried about traffic related to the density 4 Chris Sibley Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 of the proposed development. To replace a beautiful wetland with a huge conglomerate of an apartment complex would be an eye- sore to our green environment, a traffic nightmare, complete noise pollution and an environmental hazzard (water run-off sewer and electrical, etc). Zone It for a restaurant or coffee shop. A 225 Kim Daughton Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 unit apartment complex??? That's pure crazyll I don't believe this will be a positive Impact on preserving the overall city of Chanhassen with traffic, Ben Bartels Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 safety and home values. We have witnessed numerous accidents around the area of the proposed apartments. Adding the 7 Leah Plath Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 additional traffic to this area will be dangerous. traffic and safety Issues. Property not zoned for this. Too dense for size of property. 8 Craig Stacey Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Environmental Impact. Chad Meyer Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Live In neighboring area. Mary Valentine Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Increased traffic and public safety This large 225 unit apartment building would create a significant traffic hazard In an already 10 11 Tiffany Weyandt Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 dangerous Intersection. I believe the parcel of land in question should be developed; however, the proposed development Is not consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan and we homeowners nearby relied on the Comprehensive Plan when we purchased. During this terrible economy most of us have seen our home prices greatly Impacted with many people now having negative equity. The proposed development will not add value to the homes (and townhomes) nearby. A variance In this situation should only be Issued where there Is a meaningful public benefit, not Just because there Is a limited economic benefit to the property owner. Here, the size and scope of the project only benefits the property owner. The streets of Galp[n and 78th Street cannot sustain 300+ more cars dally, particularly during peak rush hour. The U-turns out of Kwlk Trip and the b[Indspot exiting Vasserman Ridge community to 78th Street are already dangerous. Also, the Bluff Creek watershed district Is currently under active Investigation by the state for water quality problems. The proposed development Is a major change In the City Comprehensive Plan which could easily do damage to Bluff Creek which would Increase costs to all city taxpayers In mitigation. If the market does support such a major apartment complex In Chanhassen, there are more appropriate sites In the city, closer to Highway 212 where there are large tracts already zoned for this kind of development, near Park & Ride. We ask the Planning Commission and City Council to resist the temptation apparent In Increased tax revenue. We ask that they fulfill their oaths to serve the residents of Chanhassen for the public benefit. Please deny the variances and other changes that are needed to 12 Robert Webber Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 proceed on this development. J A B C D F I G Property values, Too much traffic at corner, too big for the 13 kathleen vankrevelen Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 property. I use that Intersection dally. 78th and Galpin Is a very dangerous Intersection and needs NO MORE 14 Laura Larson Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 TRAFFIC] Ronald Solhelm Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Density not appropriate for site and area This Is not the appropriate location for an apartment complex. It would add tremendous stress to 5 16 Nicole Muschewske Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 an already delicate road way. The Increase In car and foot traffic would be very dangerous. This complex will be right out the back of my home. Lights from cars on 78th currently shine right Into my bedroom. I hate to think what It would be like with 100's of additional cars per nlghtl And, 7 Gerald Wolfe Chanhassen MN 55317-4 11/15/12 the lights from the parking lot will light up our house all night long. I believe this proposed complex would bring traffic Issues, pedestrian safety Issues and It would be 18 Kathleen Price Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 unsightly and excessively large for such a small site. I live near this proposed development and I do riot want an appartment complex built there. It will 19 Valerie Pass Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 have a negative Impact on the surrounding wetlands as stated In this Petition. I live on Galpin and already hear too much traffic behind my house. This would greatly depreciate the value of my home, as well as reduce the quality of life In Chanhassen. There are no foreseeable 0 David McKinley Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 benefits to allowing this variance In the zoning of this property. I travel Galpin multiple times every day and am very concerned that the Increased volume of cars from a facility - that Is proposed to be over the maximum density use for the plot - will bring an 21 told allard chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Increased likelihood of accidents and Injury. David Moser Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Traffic hazard, not consistent with surronding development Traffic at the Intersection, a elementary school already at capacity, other type of businesses needed 22 3 Allsa Lacomy Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 In that area The traffic at Intersection with Kwlk trip and CVS already there Is very bad In morning and evening. This would add to the problem. Does not fit neighborhood buildings. Would cause school 4 Todd Jutting Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 rezoneing. Stephen Sando Edina MN 55424 11/15/12 Have family In area. Already too much traffic and congestion. Traffic at Hwy 5 and Galpin would become to great and a danger to our residents, Changes the 25 zoning. It Is a bad location for high density housing, I am concerned about water quality and the 26 Patty Hugh Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 burden on police and utilities services. Increased concern with traffic and safety of children and adults using the trail system around the 27 John Gans Excelsior MN 55331 11/15/12 proposed development. A project of this size will be a burden to the neighborhood and strain our city budget. Our Infrastructure Is not prepared to handle the Influx of this many people. This would affect schooling, 28 Dagmar Diethelm Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 street and utilities In a manner that the city Is not prepared to upgrade at this point. Angela Vukovlch Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 I'm concerned about the traffic hazards this would create. Sharon Kraus Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Increased traffic, potential safety hazards Cara Ka]] Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 I live directly down the street] Michelle Luterbach chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 It completely demolishes the aesthetics of the streets around my home. Janet Rzonca Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Too big for that corner - too much congestion, This will add enormous traffic to an Intersection that Is already dangerous. There are so many = 30 31 32 33 children who ride their bikes to Kwlk Trip and CVS. I've already seen several accidents and adding 34 Teri Kocourek chanhassen MN 5 317 11/15112 that much more traffic would Increase that risk of more accidents ex onentel . A B C D F I G Would like to preserve the took, feel and function of our area. Keep It single family home 35 Marlssa Schulz Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 orientated. Kim Wellman Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 We do not need Increased traffic In this area. It Is already dangerous enough. A development of this size on this location would negatively Impact traffic and safety, the 6 environment and would not fit Into healthy planning for the city of Chanhassen's growth and 37 Mary Oppegaard Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 development. Brad Lacomy Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Detriment to my neighborhood Karen Blmberg Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 bad Idea to build an apartment complex at this location. Preserve the way of living that we expected when moving to Chanhassen. The current Infrastructure 8 39 Is not prepared to absorb such an Influx of residents In this area. Additionally, the location Is perched between a fontage road and Highway 5 - what Is the positve outlook on such a 40 Louis Dlethelm Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 development with plenty of other sites avallable 7 I am very concerned with traffic/safety Issues and do not believe something of this magnitude can 41 Julle McGaughey Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 be accommodated In this location. Mary Olson Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Traffic, zoning, watershed, noise & safety concerns. K S Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 traffic and crime Lived In Longacres subdivision for 12 years. Love the neighborhood and love that It's all Inhabited 42 43 by private homeowners. Apartments promote the feel of "temporary" dwellers. Great for young people, and young couples with no children, but doesn't really fit In to the Family neighborhood feel of this area. 1 believe would bring home values down either further than they already are, NOT the 44 Robyn Chargo Mound MN 55364 11/15/12 right timing for this, at all. As a home owner of Majestic Way (located off Galpin) I feel this Is a horrible Idea and am happy to pass this petition on. The Intersection of Galpin & 78th Street Is already a difficult Intersection to cross (In car or on foot) with the number of cars who make u -turns coming out of CVS and/or Kwik Trip. Plus, I feel there has been an Increase In traffic on Galpin after the Hwy 41 construction. Galpin Is quickly becoming unsafe for children to cross. Not to mention, adding short term housing In the area will only remove home buyers from the market thus lower values even further. Townhomes are very affordable right now and the city should be encouraging people to buy homes and not rent them. There are 7 town homes under $120K and have been on the market for months) I am slgning this because I feel the need for apartments In my neighborhood Is NOT wanted. Please 45 Josh Kimber Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 support. The home values within the blocks near this complex will go down. It Is also not aesthectic to the 6 Kristine Chechens Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 environment In the area. The Intersection of 5 and Galpin Is already very busy and accident prone. That much additional 47 JIII Hake Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 traffic at that Intersection will create significantly more risk of accident. Due to heavier traffic along that way If this complex goes up, I am more worried about car accidents 48 Nadia Janson Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 on Highway 5 because of this proposed development. Particularly concerned about Impact on property values and safety due to Increased density and 49 Andrew Maus Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15112 traffic (especially due to blinds of on 78th West of Vasserman Trail). I A B C D F I G Safety, there Is always an accident at that stop light as well as safety of the kids at Bluff Creek Elementary. Generally apts do not raise the property value of the city and I feel like Chanhassen when given the opportunity to devlelop we choose options that de-value the City and the property 50 carolyn thomson chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 of the residents. Christine Stark Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Too much traffic congestion near a quiet neighborhood and school. Scott Yager Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 I live In Longacres and don't want the traffic of an apartment complex. Too many units. Way too large of a developement with high volume traffic In an already dangerously over crowded 51 52 53 Jennifer Fritz Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Interectlon at both frontage road and State Highwayl The additional traffic Is certainly a concern. 225 units would also drastically Increase the population of the fairly small area. This could negatively Impact the community In many ways,Atsafety, home 54 Chris Hentges Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 values, schools. Shyia Allard Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 I am concerned about the traffic this will create. This Is a big safety concern. Traffic and the reason I live out here Is to get away from this kind of density. In addition, property 55 values are already a challenge In this economy and this will only make the situation worse. Also feel 56 Ken Saddler Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 bad for my neighbors who live even closer to It than I do. There Is better uses for the land, never Imagine high density development would have been one of 57 Jim Halder Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 them when I purchased my Home. This Is a giant complex that not only doesn't fit with It's surroundings. Increased traffic Issues. Why 58 Pam Schwarz Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Is this complex not being built closer to Hwy 2127 Ted Ellefson Chanhassen MN 55317 11/16/12 Child safety between Bluff Creek and our neighborhood. Unit density Is too high for this space. Sandra VanDerveer Excelsior MN 55331 11/16/12 It effects my grandchildren and their safetyl I I have seen many car accidents on gaipin highway 5 Intersection area lately. If there Is going to be 59 60 an Increase In traffic In this area, I can't imagine what else I will see especially when there Is a 61 sengtavanh meas chanhassen MN 55317 11/16/12 school and park nearby. Proposal would creat traffic congestion, safety concerns and doesn't follow the Integrity of 2 Abby Ellis Chanhassen MN 55317 11/16/12 Chanhassen and the city's comprehensive plan. Lisa Egenes Chanhassen MN 55317 11/16/12 Preserve the nature of that area with small business and residential family-owned homes The traffic congestion Is already terrible. Cant Imagine adding more rush hour traffic along with 63 64 Sarah Pletts Chanhassen MN 55317 11/16/12 children on foot or bikes to that area. Eileen kleffer Chanhassen MN 55317 11/16/12 Too much traffic for this area. Primarily due to traffic and safety concerns at the corner of 78th street and Galpin. It's not an 5 66 Alicia Schlmke Chanhassen MN 55317 11/16/12 Intersection that can or should sustain an Increased flow of traffic. This Is not the original zoning of the area and It would Increase the traffic significantly In the area. 67 Jacqueline Schmidt Chanhassen MN 55317 11/16/12 Galpin Is already having a huge Increase In It's traffic 41 was closed this summer. Do we really need an apt complex at every Intersection on the hwy 5 corridor. This Is going to bring the value of my house down; density Is way too much for our Infrastructure. This was NOT what I 8 Susan cohoon Chanhassen MN 55317 11/17/12 want to look at from my backyard and I will If this goes through. MASSIVE complex totally out of character with the 1-2 story townhomes and 1 story retail for about 69 Lynn Wilder Chanhassen MN 55317 11/17/12 the surrounding square mile. Major unsafe traffic Issues on W 78th St and at Galpin Intersection. Traffic Increase to Galpin and lake Lucy road. 5& Galpin Intersection Is too close to major 41&5 70 Lisa Levine Excelsior MN 55331 11/17/12 Intersection. WIII drastically slow traffic on 5 Concern over Increased traffic and safety. Hard to cross Galpin to get to the park as It Is. Since 41 71 Allan Olson Chanhassen MN 55317 11/18/12 has been under construction traffic has already doubled. Blake Gottschalk Chanhassen MN 55317 11/18/12 Safety concerns, traffic concerns, Infrastructure concerns. I believe It will be In opposition to the zoning of this land and also create too much traffic and safety 72 73 Ted Kendall Chanhassen MN 55317 11/18/12 to west 78th and Galpin. A B C D F I G 74 chris novogratz Chanhassen MN 55317 11/18/12 congestion and safety near this Intersection not proper use of land to high density for location Increased traffic 75 bonnie and charles peterson chanhassen MN Steve Vreeman Chanhassen MN 55317 55317 11/18/12 probable Increased juvenile crime centered around nearby stores 11/18/12 Traffic Increase on the corner of Galpin and W 78th St. will Increase to unsafe levels. I don't want to see more development In that area, and I don't believe It's necessary to build more 76 77 Carla Ferrell Chanhassen MN 55317 11/19/12 apartments In the area. Current zoning does not support this type of project and a change would not be appropriate for this 78 Michael Shields CHANHASSEN MN 55317 11/19/12 property. Traffic and Increased nolse are major concerns. The Intersection an Galpin and Highway 5 Is already too busy. AWhy are the plans being changed, 79 Georgia Eck chanhassen MN Krlstl Nyberg Chanhassen MN Rochelle Owens Chanhassen MN Matthew Steele Chanhassen MN 55317 55317 55317 55317 11/19/12 Protect the wetland preserve area. 11/19/12 I do not want added traffic to the Intersection of 78th Street and Galpin Blvd. 11/19/12 Traffic and Public Safety hazard It will create 11/19/12 Preserving the community This Intersecton Is already busy enough. This will just Increase conjestlon In the area. Furthermore 80 81 82 3 Paul Nyberg Chanhassen MN Melissa Wlndschltl Chanhassen MN Ralph Pamperin Chanhassen MN 55317 55317 55317 11/19/12 there are sufficient high density housing opportunities already close enough to this location. 11/20/12 I live In the neighboring development. 11/20/12 wetland protection, Intersection safetly This Issue Is Important to me because I live a stones throw from this project and It's size would 84 85 dwarf anything else In the area have very high density and make our traffic congestion even worse. 86 Mark Magnuson Chanhassen MN 55317 11/21/12 I oppose this project. The Intersection of Galpin and 78th Is already a safety hazard - I can't Imagine adding this many 7 Maureen Magnuson Chanhassen MN Art Roberts Chanhassen MN 55317 55317 11/21/12 more vehicles. 11/21/12 Zoning violation, Huge people traffic versus fast auto traffic Adding that much traffic to that area will make It even more dangerous than It Is. Plus having a 88 69 Dill Olson Chanhassen MN 55317 11/22/12 building of that size, with hat many residents seems A bit out of place for that location. We live across the street from this 90 Lance Erickson Chanhassen MN Dan Geier Chanhassen MN Brenda Geier Chanhassen MN Roger Remaley Chanhassen MN 55317 55317 55317 55317 11/22/12 project, traffice would be a major problem 11/26/12 Another decrease In our property value. 11/26/12 C 11/26/12 This Is a horrid Ideal The Intersection has too much congestion now and adding many cars Is a concern. There Is no safe 91 92 93 way for our kids to cross that road except the walk sign. Density Housing should be focused around 4 Dana Johnson Chanhassen MN 55317 11/26/12 the 212 highway. I do not believe this size of an apartment complex Is appropriate for this area. The Increased traffic down Galpin Blvd to Highway 7 Is not appropriate given the size of road way access of Galpin Blvd and W. 78th Street. The additional trips would make an already highly traveled stop light area tough to navigate. There Is a lot of traffic from Kwik Trip and CVS already that Imposes difficulties In getting around this area. It had never been planned for the Increase of 162 units which would equate to approx 250 additional cars which Is 1.5 cars per apartment. Similar to Walmart and the 95 Todd Slmning Chanhassen MN Barbara Miller Chanhassen MN 55317 55317 11/26/12 traffic congestion, this project Is not conducive to this area. 11/27/12 Too much traffic conciestlon & construction 96 A B C D F I G We moved to Chanhassen 2 years ago because of the beauty of the neighborhoods and how untouched they were by development. PLEASE do not build In this areal Please keep Chanhassen 97 Christina Crowther Chanhassen MN 55317 11/27/12 with the open spaces It has, Kevin Carlson Chanhassen MN 55317 11/27/12 Family safety Ordell & Sonja Lelnes Chanhassen MN 55317 11/27/12 Too high density for this neighborhood. I live nearly and do not want more traffic, nor more dlfficuity crossing 78th at Galpin In my car or 47 99 100 Karin Moore Chanhassen MN 55317 11/27/12 bicycle Erin Buss Chanhassen MN 55317 11/27/12 We live very close to this area and a project of this size Is just too much for the area. 101 02 David Buss Chanhassen MN 55317 11/27/12 This Is too large of a development for the area. My family walks past this corner every day walking the children to school. The traffic In and out 103 lames Denton Chanhassen MN 55317 11/27/12 would destroy this experience. I live a mile away from this intersection. My teenage son and I walk/run/blke around this area often and the extra traffic density would make this hazardous. I also think this Is not the logical area for an apartment building of this size. Rush hour traffic Is already difficult down Hwy S. It would 104 Allison Fredlund Chanhassen MN 55317 11/27/12 make more sense to add an apartment building of this size closer to Hwy 212. If I wanted to live In Eden Prairie I would not have spent 850,00 on my house In Chanhassen. And, our property values are down, and this apartment complex would do nothing to Improve Peter Polingo Chanhassen MN 55317 11/27/12 chanhassen, property values or the neighbors and neighborhood. 6 Lynn Polingo Chanhassen MN 55317 11/27/12 We want to preserve our neighborhood values and value... West 78th Is a peaceful slow traffic area for families to walk dogs and ride bikes. A lot of kids are able to ride to KwlkTrlp during the summer, but with the huge amount of we traffic In that area It would become Increasingly more dangerous for families and kids to cross the street. This will also 107 Colleen O'Hare Miller Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 cause even more traffic Issues In Chanassen with rush hour traffic due to the Increase In traffic. 108 Paulette Tomaschko Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 1 am concerned about traffic In that corner --It's already BUSYI 109 MARILYN MATZKE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 11/28/12 CONGESTION, PROTECTION OF MARSHLAND My main concerns are the Increased traffic density In the area as a result of this. Also I am 110 Allen Hauwlller Maple Grove MN 55369-3 11/28/12 concerned about the wetland and zoning concerns with the proposed site. My niece's school Is across from where this building Is proposed. With the Increase in traffic this III Jllilan Steinke Minneapolis MN 55405 11/28/12 complex would bring, I worry about the safety of the children. Please do not allow the building of this large apartment complex. It will add much more traffic to an area that Isn't set up to accomodate It and take away from the beauty of the area. In addition It will Al Crowther Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 tax our natural resouces Including nearby wetlands. Jennifer Perrlll Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 We live off of Galpin and do not want to see addlitonal traffic and safety concerns. 14 Julie Sorensen Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 It Is too large and does not fit with the type of residential area. This project Is not In line with long term development plans of the city as I understand them. Major 115 Greg Maanum Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 concern about added traffic at Intersection so near an elementary school. 116 Cecilia Fredlund Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 2 3ackle Neva Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 Protect home value 117 I will be moving to Chanhassen In the next year and I do not want the are "over -developed". I do 118 Edward Schultz Chaska MN 55318 11/28/12 not want the city's resources strained and traffic congested. Do not believe the Increase In traffic this development would bring to our neighborhood can be 119 Amy Steffen Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 handled In a safe and effective way. It Is a poor environment to have people live In such a high density setting, surrounded by nolse and traffic pollultlon. The higher density In our neighborhood willl Impact traffic, parks, schools, and 120 Vera Brady Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 biking trails to the detriment of everyone. 121 Nancy Gomez Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 It would be too much traffic so close to a school. 122 1 Dale & Gloria Blom uist chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 too much traffic con estlon A B C D F I G The scale of this development contradicts the environmental and lifestyle goals that Chanhassen 123 Chris Conroy Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 stands for. Forcing that density and traffic Into that parcel will negatively Impact the area Primary concern Is for the safety of the citizens this vicinity related to traffic Incidents, A close 124 Rachelle Uberecken Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 second is against the zoning changes that decrease property values In this area. STOP the proposed development of this high density apartment complex with parking for 350 autos; high density traffic Issues & safety risks; Intersection not currently designed to handle traffic flow through the Intersections at Galpin, West 78th and Hwy 5; according to the site drawing there Is only one entrance to the apartment complex which Is 78th Street for a minimum of 225 residents; negative Impact on property values for current homeowners In the area; environmental Impact/pollutlon; Increased costs to City of Chanhassen for city services. This property Is not currently zoned for this high density apartment complex; parcel Is currently designated for office use with less density per acre. You cannot justify the value of this proposed 225 unit apartment 25 Susan Blair Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 development when conslderng the risks and negative Impact to the citizens of Chanhassen. Galpin Rd cuts right through all of our neighborhoods and In my opinion some of the nicest areas of the city. The Increased traffic that this will bring would diminish some of the reasons I just moved 126 Shane Waskey Chanhassen MN 55317 11/29/12 here. This project should be downsized In halt or moved to commercial areas around Powers blvd. We live off Galpin. The traffic Is already too busy due to the recent addition of the high school. 127 Diana Noller Chanhassen MN 55317 11/29/12 Adding this building will dramatically Increase traffic and change the appeal of the area. Environmental Issues - Green space, wetlands; Safety - too congested In that area; Increased 128 Jeanette Taylor Minnetonka MN 55345 11/29/12 Crime Judith Werner Chanhassen MN 55317 11/30/12 I am most concerned about the Increase In cars, traffic and safety In the neighborhood. This development Is not In line with the Comprehensive plan and would deteriorate the quality of life 129 for area residents. In addition, having such a large unit development In such a small area will greatly Increase the safety risk for everyone living or travelling through this area. Besides the Increased traffic at an already dangerous Intersection, there will now be a reason for children living In the development to want to cross this major Intersection to go to CVS, Kwlk Trip, or tc go to Bluff Creek Elementary/Chanhassen Recreation Center. Without an underpass or overpass, you will be putting chlldrens lives In jeopardy. To sum up, this Is not an appropriate development for this area 130 Michael H ermstad Chanhassen MN 55317 11/30/12 and should stay A2 for Office use. PROPOSED MOTION: "The Chanhassen Planning Commission provide the City Council with comments and feedback, along with staffs proposed comments listed in the staff report." PROPOSAL: Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) on approximately 14 acres of land located at the northwest corner 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@goidan.com ZONING: A2 Agricultural Estate District Americana Community Bank 600 Market Street, Suite 100 B Chanhassen, MN 55317 Jim Swiontek 952-937-9596 jimsCa.americanfinancial.com 2030 LAND USE PLAN: Office on the southern parcel; Residential Low Density (1.24 units/acre) on the northern parcel ACREAGE: Approximately 14 acres SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval for a general concept plan for a PUD for 224 apartments. If the project is to proceed for preliminary or development plan approval, the application would include a land use amendment from office and residential low density to residential high density, a rezoning to Planned Unit Development — Residential from Agricultural Estate District, A2, and a site plan review. 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. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a general concept plan for a Planned Unit Development (PUD). 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 concept 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. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 2 of 20 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. The property would need a land use amendment to High Density, rezoning to PUD -R (allowing 16 units an acre) and site plan approval to proceed.' BACKGROUND f (AON I 1 \ Ae 2008 Comprehensive Plan changed the land use guiding to Office on the southern eight acres of property. In May of 2006 the Chanhassen City Council approved the concept planned unit development for al 0 -unit twinhome development on the north side of West 78th Street, two-story office building development including a bank with drive-thru facilities with approximately 66,000 square feet of floor area. *See attachment #3 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 78th Street. The land north of West 78th Street, which was proposed for townhouse development, was not approved as part of the concept planned unit development. In 2000 and 2001, West 78th 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. December 12, 1998, the Chanhassen City Council adopts the Bluff Creek Overlay District. December 1996, Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan is completed. 1996, City Council adopts the Land Uses for the North 1995 Study Area, guiding this property for residential — low density use. In August 1995, the Highway 5 Corridor Land Use Design Study was completed. The bulk of the area was recommended for single-family residential. A portion of the Mills property (Arboretum Village site) was recommended for neighborhood convenience retail center, but only ancillary to office, institutional or multi -family residential. Highway 5 Corridor Design Standards adopted July 11, 1994. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 3 of 20 As part of the 1991 Comprehensive Plan, this property was included as part of the 1995 study area for determination of the land use of the property. On February12, 1990, the C Council approved a zoning ordinance amendment making golf driving range ' terim es in A2 district. On November 16, 1987, the assen City Council approved a zoning ordinance amendment to permit golf driving ranges as a conditional use in the A2 zoning district and a conditional use permit for John Przymus for a golf driving range and miniature golf course at the subject property - On November 4, 1985, the Chanhassen City Council revoked the conditional use permit for a golf driving range at the northwest comer of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard due to non- compliance with the conditions of the conditional use permit. On December 19, 1983, the Chanhassen City Council approved a conditional use permit for a golf driving range at the northwest comer of Highway 5 and Galpin Blvd. APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Chapter 20: Article VIII, Planned Unit Development District, Article VI, Wetland Protection, Article VII, Shoreland Management district, Article XXXI, Bluff Creek Overlay District Concept PUD - What is required? The intent of the concept plan is to get direction from the Planning Commission and City Council without incurring a lot of expense. There will be a greater level of detail required through the city code and the recommendations and direction in this report. Following are the requirements for conceptual PUD approval. Chanhassen City Code. Section 20-517 General conceit plan. (a) The general concept plan for a PUD provides an opportunity for the applicant to submit a plan to the city showing the basic intent and the general nature of the entire development without incurring substantial cost. The plan shall include the following: (1) Overall gross and net density. (2) Identification of each lot size and lot width. (3) General location of major streets and pedestrian ways. (4) General location and extent of public and common open space. (5) General location and type of land uses and intensities of development. (6) Staging and time schedule for development. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 4 of 20 (b) The tentative written consent of all property owners within the proposed PUD shall be filed with the city before the staff commences review. Approval of the concept statement shall not obligate the city to approve the final plan or any part thereof or to rezone the property to a planned unit development district. (c) The final acceptance of land uses is subject to the following procedures: (1) The developer meets with the city staff to discuss the proposed developments. (2) The applicant shall file the concept stage application and concept plan, together with all supporting data. (3) The planning commission shall conduct a hearing and make recommendations to the city council. Notice of the hearing shall consist of a legal property description, description of request, and be published in the official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing, written notification of the hearing shall be mailed at least ten (10) days prior thereto to owners of land within five hundred (500) feet of the boundary of the property and an on-site notification sign erected. (4) Following the receipt of the report and recommendations from the planning commission, the city council shall consider the proposal. The council may comment on the concept plan. 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 7e 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 Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 5 of 20 guided Residential Low Density. It includes a farm and could be subdivided or developed in the fixture. The property to the west is zoned R4 Mixed Low Density Residential District and includes 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 224 units including studio, one and two-bedroom apartments. Building materials are cement board and brick. The building would be three stories with underground parking. There is an additional 119 surface parking stalls provided with 127 underground stalls. Amenities for the apartments include a swimming pool and clubhouse. 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 (see attached zoning district). The following elements of the comprehensive plan discuss land use policies that should be evaluated in changing the land use. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 6 of 20 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 Medium 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. 2.10 Office band Use This 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 I% 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, corporate headquarters site would be appropriate. The zoning district for the land is OI (Office Institutional District). 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 ionsMitation 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. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 7 of 20 The following roadways are classified as Major Collectors in Chanhassen: West 78th Street: This east/west mute connects TH 41 to TH 101. It parallels TH 5 and provides local access to the properties adjacent to TH 5. 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 Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 8 of 20 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: 1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. 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. 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 proposed 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 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. A land use amendment to High Density Residential would be required to be consistent the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 9 of 20 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 subject site. The development proposes a pool and clubhouse. 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 be increase in overall trips. A more detailed traffic study would need to be completed to study the function of the intersection of Galpin and West 78's 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. Finding: If the project moves beyond conceptual approval, preliminary PUD design standards will be created that will control the development of the project. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 10 of 20 Sec. 20-503. - District size and location. 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 S, 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 staff report. The development must receive a land use amendment, rezoning and site plan review approvals. Chapter 20 Article XXIII 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. Finding. 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. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 11 of 20 (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 and buffering for adjoining properties that represent improvements over normal ordinance standards. Finding. 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 must calculate the net developable acres of the site and wetland acreage. The project proposes using all of the area of the northern six -acre parcel including wetlands to develop this site, thus maximizing the density. (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. Finding. Not applicable with this request. The project will be market rate. (e) Hard surface coverage shall be limited as follows: Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 12 of 20 Comprehensive Plan Designation Hard Surface Coverage (%) Low or medium density residential 30 High density residential 50 Office 70 Commercial (neighborhood or community) 70 Commercial (regional) 70 Industrial 70 Mixed use 70 Individual lots within PUD may exceed these standards as long as the average meets these standards. Finding: The development appears to be under 50 percent hardcover The developer shall provide the hard surface coverage calculation to confirm. (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 has a 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. One small portion of the building encroaches into the required setback The building shall be adjusted to meet the setback (g) More than one building may be placed on one platted or recorded lot in a PUD. Finding: The project proposes two apartment buildings and a clubhouse on one lot. The property will not be subdivided. Storm water and park and trail fees are collected with a subdivision. Because there is no platting, the city is requesting 50 percent of these fees in force at the time ofproject approval be paid if the project advances. (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 Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 13 of 20 other parties without restriction; however, all parcels will remain subject to the PUD development contract that will be recorded in each chain -of -title. Finding. 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. Finding: Signage will be consistent with the city's sign ordinance for residential development (Area identi� f cation/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 five 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 property owner or a homeowners association shall be responsible for maintenance of the identifrcation/entrance sign and surrounding grounds and landscaped areas. Such sign shall be located so as not to conflict with trait visibility or street maintenance operation, and shall be securely anchored to the ground) (j) The requirements contained in articles =11 and XXV of this chapter may be applied by the city as it deems appropriate. Finding: The project will follow the city's design standards and landscaping, tree removal and buffering requirements (see m)_ (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: A traffic study will be required to determine ifany improvements need to be made to the existing roadway system. Access to the site is via a collector street. The internal streets are private and shall meet the city's driveways standards. A traffic analysis was done comparing the current proposal with the Galpin Crossings proposal. The study found that the am and pm peak tips would be less, but there would be a minor increase in overall trips. A more detailed traffic study would need to be completed to study the function of the intersections of Galpin at West 78* Street and Highway 5. (Q 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. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 14 of 20 Finding. Not applicable at this time. (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. Finding. The area guided for low density land use designation 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 environmemal protection will be enhanced. In these instances, a minimum front yard setback of 20feet shall be maintained (3) Other setbacks: Established by PUD agreement. Finding. With a land use amendment to high density residential and the rezoning of the property, the standard would be met. Additional design standards will be generated as a part ofthe PUD review. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 15 of 20 (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. Finding. 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. (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 following landscaping requirements make the proposal consistent with the requirements: Parking lot requirements: • An island or peninsula for every 6000 square feet of vehicular use area. May need one more island in parking lot. • All islands must have minimum interior width of 10 feet. Building requirements: • Foundation plantings. • Headlight/traffic screening. Additional: • City boulevard trees must be protected during construction and replaced if damaged. Trees must be shown on plans. Plantings along the roads must comply with the bufferyard B standards of the city code. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 16 of 20 • Canopy coverage for site should be around 25% (78 trees or so) (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 Findings: The building will be reviewed under the city's design standards for multifamily development, Chapter 20, Article MH Division 9, including archictural style, materials, lighting etc. as well at the R16 Zoning District. MnDOT requires that the building be designed for noise attenuation. The R16 zoning district permits a height of three stories or 35 feet. The pitch of the building's roof adds additional height making the building approximately 50 feet tall. The midpoint of the roof is used is used for calculated height. The PUD ordinance can address the height bypermitting taller buildings. The building is highly articulated with pitched roofs and balconies, windows and patio doors. The materials are cement boards and brick STREETS AND ACCESS Access to the site is proposed via two access points on West 78"' Street. The westerly access is a full access and the easterly access is a right-in/right-out only. Staff recommends that a traffic study be completed for the proposed development should the Planning Commission and City Council support the concept PUD. The study must address intersection of Galpin Boulevard at West 78"' Street and Highway 5. UTILITIES City sewer and water is available to the site. A preliminary utility plan would be required as part of any future development review. GRADING. DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL A grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be required as part of the preliminary Planned Unit Development review for the project should it move beyond the concept stage. The concept plans prepared by Alliant Engineering; Incorporated on behalf of Oppidan dated 10/11/12 and were received by Chanhassen on November 2, 2012. The delineation preformed by Kjolhaug Environmental on November 2, 2012 was field reviewed. A final delineation report was submitted the afternoon of 11/19/2012. This report will need to be noticed to Technical Evaluation Panel members for review and comment prior to approval. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 17 of 20 The property is divided by West 78th Street into two parcels. 'these parcels have been identified as Parcel A north of West 7e Street and Parcel B to the south. BLUFF CREEK MANAGEMENT Parcel A includes a large wetland complex which is also the origination of Bluff Creek. Bluff Creek was listed as impaired for aquatic fife due to high turbidity in 2002 and for low fish biota scores in 2004. Bluff Creek drains to the Lower Minnesota River which is also impaired due to elevated turbidity. Wetlands The area was first delineated in 2003 by Schoell and Madson, Inc. It was delineated again this fall by Kjolhaug Environmental. Both delineation reports found extensive wetlands on Parcel A. In addition, one wetland was found on Parcel B in both cases. However, in 2003 it was determined that this area was created incidental to the construction of West 78th Street. Because Minnesota Rules 8420.0255, Subpart 4 states that an LGU decision is only valid for three (3) years, the applicant must request a No Loss decision. However, the determination from 2004 that the wetland was incidental to the construction of West 780' Street can be used as evidence that a decision of No Loss should be granted for the wetland on Parcel B. Any impacts to wetlands would have to meet the sequencing requirements of Minnesota Rules, Chapter 8420. Avoidance is always preferred and economics cannot be the sole justification for wetland impacts. But these same rules do allow for the impact and replacement of wetlands provided that sufficient argument is made for why avoidance is not possible. Bluff Creek Overlay District A significant portion of Parcel A is within the Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD). It is required that the primary zone of the BCOD be preserved as open space and that any natural habitat areas, including wetlands, remain undisturbed. The intent of the Bluff Creek Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 18 of 20 Natural resources Management Plan was to protect the water quality of Bluff Creek and provide for a continuous greenway along Bluff Creek to the Minnesota River. Minnesota Shoreland Rules Parcel B is outside of the shoreland management district and would not be subject to the same lot and building requirements as Parcel A. Floodplain A substantial portion of Parcel A is within a flood hazard area Zone A. This flood hazard area is approximately coincidental with the BCOD. There is no established base flood elevation. No portion of Parcel B is within a flood zone. Soils Approximately 60 percent of Parcel A is mapped as Houghton and Muskego soils. Houghton soils have a profile which consists of muck to a depth of at least 80 inches. Muskego soils have a profile of muck overlying coprogeneous earth at a depth of 3 feet and extending to five feet or greater. Muck is defined as being dark, finely divided, well decomposed organic soil material. Muck soils and coprogenous soils are very poorly drained and make for extremely poor building sites. These soil types were confirmed during the construction of West 78h Street. Conclusion While some development of Parcel A is possible, the presence of wetlands, Bluff Creek, a shallow water table and poor soils make this parcel a difficult site for development. The Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act does not preclude wetland impacts provided adequate justification is given for why a project could not occur without wetland impacts. As such, while the wetland located on Parcel A within the BCOD would be protected from any and all impact, it is not possible to conclude that some development would not allow for some impacts to the wetland on Parcel A outside of the BCOD. Because of the constraints found on Parcel A and the desire to protect and improve the water quality of Bluff Creek, it would be my recommendation that Parcel A is preserved and that density is transferred to Parcel B. More specifically: 1. Parcel A is provided to the City for management consistent with the Bluff Creek Management Plan, the Bluff Creek TMDL and the 2nd Generation Surface Water Management Plan. 2. The applicant and the City should work together to develop an appropriate mitigation scenario. 3. That 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. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 19 of 20 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 Hwy 5. No additional parkland dedication is recommended as a condition of approval for this proposal. Trails The city trail along West 78th Street provides access from this site to the four public parks in the area and the city's larger trail network. No additional trail construction is recommended as a condition of approval for this proposal. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Chanhassen Planning Commission provide the City Council with comments and feedback to along with the following comments: 1. A detailed traffic study would need to be completed to study the function of the intersection of Galpin Boulevard at West 78' Street and Highway 5. 2. Payment of 50% of the required park and trail dedication fee and stormwater fee at the rate in force upon final development approval. 3. Parcel A is provided to the City for management consistent with the Bluff Creek Management Plan, the Bluff Creek TMDL and the 2"d Generation Surface Water Management Plan. 4. The applicant and the City should work together to develop an appropriate mitigation scenario. 5. That 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. 6. Wetland delineation report shall be finalized. 7. A PUD Ordinance shall be created to govern the site and design standards. 8. The developer shall calculate hard surface coverage. 9. Buildings must meet the 50 -foot perimeter setback requirements. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 20 of 20 10. The development shall meet multi -family design standards in Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 9. ATTACHMENTS 1. Development Review Application. 2. Site Plan. 3. Existing Conditions. 4. Garage Level Plan. 5. First Level Plan. 6. Typical Floor Plan. 7. Elevations. 8. Galpin Crossing Concept Plan. 9. City Code Chapter 20, Article )M. —"Or' Office and Institutional District. 10. Traffic Analysis from Alliant Engineering, Inc. dated November 20, 2012. 11. Letter from MnDOT dated November 20, 2012. 12. Letter from CenterPoint Energy dated November 6, 2012. 13. Affidavit of Mailing of Public Hearing Notice. 14. Letter from Mr. and Mrs. D.B. Dahlquist dated November 26, 2012. 15. Email from Erin Buss dated November 27, 2012. 16. Email from Alice English dated November 28, 2012. 17. "Preserve Chanhassen" Online Neighborhood Petition. gAp1m\2012 planning enes12012-I8 chanhassen apaMients\stan'report pc.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Q P" DA.n ZN C 5t s PO &S 10 1 Su I ) Mt rrn!?ian G m A) SS 3t/S Contact: PA.0 L u cc i Phone: 95�•2Fu-)"3 Fax:,isa-agN-0jS7 Email: Oauler�0oran. r Property Owner Planning Case No, —/'9 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED U 0 2 2012 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT and Address: Phone:95_?-,93 1-9596 NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior. -to su`bmittaJ, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) (Additional recording fees may apply) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Variance (VAR) Nonconforming Use Permit /-7�� Planned Unit Development* y�- P14 A Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)* Subdivision* Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment I_ Notification Sign$200 (City to install and re X Escrow foI g Fees/Attomey Cost** _$5 CUP/ RNACNARMAP/Metes & Bounds -$4 Mi r UB TOTAL FEE$ 9SQ'l �d LK'--3'lor 6 An additional fee of $3.00 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 8'/i' X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 (*.tio 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 PROJECT NAME: I.-1nlCjLnh6-SWn 1-iV)QY LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: TOTAL ACREAGE: WETLANDS PRESENT: _AYES NO PRESENT ZONING: A - -3� REQUESTED ZONING: 1 U -O PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: REQUESTED LAND USE C REASON FOR REQUEST: 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 Signature of Fee Owner gAplan4a msWevelopment review applieation.doc Date Date SCA14NED OPPI®AN Builder of tow Creator OfAVU& - 5125 CouNTr ROAD 101 • #100 • MINNETONKA, MN 55345 PHONE: 952/294-0353 • FAX: 952/294-0151 • Wee! www.oppidan.com November 1, 2012 Kathryn Aanenson, AICP, Community Development Director City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard _ -- Chanhassen, MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED RE: Proposed Apartment Development NWC Highway 5 & Galpin Blvd NOV 02 2012 Chanhassen, MN CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Dear Kate-- This ate_This letter is designed to serve as a brief narrative for proposed apartment development at Galpin Boulevard and Highway 5. The highlights of the plans are as follow: • A new, market rate apartment building, containing 224 total units. • The target mix of unit is currently being finalized. Goal is to have 5-10% Studio Units, 55% One Bedroom Units and the balance 2 Bedroom Units. This will move a bit as design continues. • Parking will meet 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 washer and dryer and some units will be designed to have the potential for a fireplace. • The building exterior will be a combination of brick/block and cement board siding for the predominance of the building elevation. • 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 area and outdoor pool are planned on the southeast comer of the site. This will be appropriately fences and landscaped. • Outside sittingtpark areas and trails will be provided to connect to the existing walkway system. A Market Study has been completed and the indication is that this product type and size is supportable in this location. The design and amenities are that of a Class A market rate facility. 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. Sincerel Paul i tH,»n�.era i L MEx` ®uE7 eunuxo r�MR�xr x 000Jus/ x / / 1. �..J RUFAixc � J _------------ ' , uxoERCRwxo \ aA«mc \ FNMµCE L MEx` ®uE7 eunuxo r�MR�xr x 000Jus/ x / / 1. �..J RUFAixc � J , f17J1 euwwc voo C.� // co,eco us 3 HIGHWAY 5 MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (225 UNITS ±) GALPIN BLVD, CHANHASSEN 10-11-12 CITU OF CHANHASM' REMVEC NOV 0 2 2012 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT SC 4NNED z| A; __, ^4-1 '`- 2� � k� 22§|•© �•� �US.LN3WIUVdV N3SSVHNVHD « � ƒ -LLI` kE m 7 x� 2 \§ t\\ wm f k \\ >f� —. J 1 4�ii3 FI Will Se li L W :1 LL ^ (A C Q L N d 2 Z T LL C_ a L) LL W z oa-C V U e t �yy � a s is _ Q a N _ J F i N _ W W J C7 V Q W �q 0. U0. Ell V � Z Z W TLL \' UU LL UJ Y c W >0cc Y � Z :J I +a. 1 � I 1 •z I 1 %.. I I 1 1 \ II 1 1 \ i I \ a \ \ \ \ \ Z utN \\ J Zz \ \ \ 9 d J W 00 00 \ J m0 \\ (n Or U- �� HN:: :. HIM., In C- - um ii:=I 1=11M nom e-p - 1 - -• NAN _. HIM: F- R- E. R -C m: ::n:: c { ya yy 0 'k1Bd 03 I fill! fill! � 7 Q Q U ' (7 U yii { ya yy U 'k1Bd Nit yii { 1 Nit (IR � 7 U ' 4 a } e4lilt IH14,11 � F ,J�a� ttll � l 1it1 2K I i \ { 1 (IR U ' 4 a } Y 1 I { JI ,J�a� ttll � l 1it1 2K I i \ Municode Page 1 of 3 Chanhassen, Minnesota, Code of Ordinances >> - CITY CODE >> Chapter 20 - ZONING >> ARTICLE XXI. - "OP' OFFICE AND INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT >> ARTICLE XXI. - "OI" OFFICE AND INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT Sec. 20-791. - Intent. Sec. 20-792. - Permitted uses. Sec. 20-793. - Permitted accessory uses. Sec. 20-794. - Conditional uses. Sec. 20-795. - Lot requirements and setbacks. Sec. 20-796. - Interim uses. Secs. 20-797-20-810. - Reserved. Sec. 20-791. - Intent. The intent of the "OI" district is to provide for public or quasi -public nonprofit uses and professional business and administrative offices. (Ord. No. 80: Art. V. § 15(5-15-1). 12-15-86) Sec. 20-792. - Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in an "OP' district: (1) Antennas as regulated by article XXX of this chapter. (2) Community center. (3) Churches. (4) Fire station. (5) Funeral homes. (6) Health services/hospitals. (7) Library. (8) Museum. (9) Nursing homes. (10) Offices. (11) Post office. (12) Public parks/open space. (13) Public recreational facilities. (14) Schools. (15) Utility services. (Ord. No. 80. AR. V, § 15(5-15-2). 12-15-86: Ord. No 259. § 25,11-12-96,- Ord. No. 377. § 107. 5-24-04) Sec. 20-793. - Permitted accessory uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in the "OI" district: http://library.municode.com/pfnt.aspx?h=&clientID=14048&HTMRequest=http°/u3a°/u2f... 11/28/2012 Municode Page 2 of 3 . (1) Parking lots. (2) Signs. (3) Temporary outdoor sales (subject to the requirements of section 20-312). (Ord. No. 80, Art. V. § 15(5-15-3), 12-15-86: Ord. No. 243. § 13, 2-13-95; Ord. No. 377, § 108, 5-24-04) Sec. 20-794. - Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in the "OI" district: (1) Adaptive reuse of vacant public or private school buildings for private business uses. (2) Commercial towers as regulated by article XXX of this chapter. (Ord. No. 80, Art- V § 15(5-15-4)7 12-15-86: Ord. No. 259. § 26, 11-12-96) State law reference— Conditional uses. M. S, § 462.3595. Sec. 20-795. - Lot requirements and setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "OI" district subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter: (1) The minimum lot area is 15,000 square feet. (2) The minimum lot frontage is 75 feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac shall have a minimum lot frontage of 60 feet. (3) The minimum lot depth is 150 feet. (4) The maximum lot coverage is 65 percent. (5) Off-street parking shall comply with district setback requirements except: a. There is no minimum setback when it abuts a railroad right-of-way, except as provided in chapter 20, article XXV, division 3, pertaining to landscaping requirements. b. There is no minimum setback when it abuts, without being separated by a street, another off-street parking area. C The minimum setback is 50 feet when it abuts a residential district without being separated from the residential district by a street or railroad right-of-way. d. The minimum setback is 25 feet for side street side yards. (6) The maximum height is as follows: a. For the principal structure, two stories. b. For accessory structures, one story. (7) Minimum setback requirements: a. For front yards, 35 feet. b. For rear yards, 30 feet. C For side yards, 15 feet. d. The minimum setback is 50 feet when it abuts a residential district without being separated from the residential district by a street or railroad right-of-way. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V. § 15(5-15-5). 12-15-86; Ord. No. 94. §§ 1, 6. 7-25-88, Ord. No. 451; § 7, 5-29-07) Sec. 20-796. - Interim uses. The following are interim uses in the "OI" district: http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientlD=14048&HTMRequest=http%3a°/`2E.. 11/28/2012 Municode Page 3 of 3 (1) Temporary classroom structures for use by public or private schools needed for temporary use. (Ord. No. 282. § 1: 6-22-98) Secs. 20-797-20-810. - Reserved. http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientlD=14048&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f... 11/28/2012 Alliant Engineering, Inc. ALLIANT PROJ. NO. 12-0103 MEMORANDUM DATE: November 20ih,2012 TO: Paul Tucci - Oppidan FROM: Katie Schmidt, PE SUBJECT: Chanhassen Multi -Family Development- Trip Generation Comparison This memorandum has been prepared to document the trip generation potential of the Chanhassen Multi - Family Development in Chanhassen, MN. The trip generation of the Multi -Family Development has been compared to the trip generation potential of the previously approved office/residential land uses for the Galpin Crossing Development. The trip generation rates for the proposed and previously approved land uses were obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 96 Edition. This manual is a compilation of daily and peak hour trip generation rates based on data collected from similar development sites. The estimated volume of site -generated trips for the weekday AM and PM Peak hours and on a daily basis for the proposed development is summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Proposed Multi -Family Development Trip Generation i Trip Rate Vehicle Trips Land Use/ITE Code ITE Unit No./Size Trip Rate PM AM PM Daily AM PM Daily Apartments/220 DU 1 224 0.51 0.62 6.65 114 139 1490 Total Trips 114 139 1490 Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers. ' Trip rate for AM and PM peak hour ofadjacent streettra(ric. Table 2 details the estimated volume of site -generated trips for the previously approved Galpin Crossing Development. Table 2. Previously Approved Galpin Crossings Trip Generation Land Use/ITE Code' ITE Unit No./Size AM Trip Rate PM Daily AM Vehicle Trips PM Daily Bank(Drive-Thru)/912 Drive-Thru Lanes 4 9.29 33.24 139.25 37 133 557 General Office'/710 SF 61,000 1.56 1.49 11.03 95 91 673 Townhouse/230 DU 30 0.44 0.52 5.81 4 5 58 Total Trips 137 229 1286 r Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip rate for the AM and PM peak hour ofadjacent street traffic. ' The 5,000 5F 2nd story ofthe bank is assumed to be office space. The trip rate is per 1,000 SF. The difference in trips between the proposed Chanhassen Multi -Family Development and the previously approved Galpin Crossing Development is shown in Table 3. 233 Park Avenue South, Suite 300, Minneapolis Minnesota 55415-1108 Phone 612.767.9300, Fax 612.758.3099 Chanhassen Multi -Family Development—Trip Generation November 2&, 2012 Table 3. Difference in Trip Generation ScenarioVehicle Trips AM PM Daily Proposed Chanhassen Multi -Family Development 114 139 1490 Previously Approved Galpin Crossing 137 229 1288 Trip Difference -22 -90 202 -16% -39% 16% During the weekday AM and PM peak hours it is anticipated that there will be a lower number of trips for the proposed Multi -Family Development when compared to the previously approved Galpin Crossing Development. In particular 22 less trips or a reduction of 16% during the AM peak hour is estimated and 90 less trips or a reduction of 39% in the PM peak hour is estimated. There is a slight increase of 202 daily trips (16%). This increase will be insignificant as the residential trips are spread out during a 24- hour period with many occurring during off-peak traffic times. In summary, the trip generation for the proposed Chanhassen Multi -Family Development is estimated to generate a lower number of trips during the critical weekday AM and PM peak traffic hours than the previously approved Galpin Crossing Development. Qn a daily basis the proposed Chanhassen Multi - Family Development is estimated to generate slightly more trips than the previously approved Galpin Crossing Development. This will be an insignificant increase as residential trips occur during a 24-hour period with many trips occurring during off-peak traffic times. It is noted that that the office land uses in the Galpin Crossing Development have usual weekday business hours with a very lower number of trips occurring outside regular business hours. Allianr Engineering, Inc. 412-0103 Page 2 +y4 Minnesota Department of Transportation Pry Metropolitan District ("( �,' Waters Edge Building °"" 1500 County Road B2 West Roseville, MN 55113 November 20, 2012 Ms. Kate Aanenson, AICP Community Development Director 7700 Market Blvd. PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 SUBJECT: Chanhassen Apartments MnDOT Review # S12-052 NW Comer of TH 5 and CR 117 (Galpin Blvd.) Chanhassen, Carver County Control Section 1002 Dear Ms. Aanenson: --; I40V 2 F 2012 CI I f OF CHAT , iRSSEr Thank you for the opportunity to review the Chanhassen Apartments Site Plan. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has reviewed the site plans and has the following comments: Water Resources: A MnDOT drainage permit will be required. The drainage permit application form can be found at httu•//www.dot.state.mr).ustutilitWb)nns/index.html. The following information is required with the drainage permit application: • Final drainage plan showing storm sewer plan, storm sewer and culvert profiles and pond contours • Existing and proposed drainage area maps with flow arrows • Existing and proposed drainage/pond computations for the 2, 10, and 100 year rainfall events Addition information may be required once a drainage permit is submitted and after a detailed review. MnDOT will not allow an increase in discharge to MnDOT right-of-way. Please direct any questions regarding these issues to Hailu Shekur (651-234-7521 or hailu.shekuE@state.mn.us ) of MnDOT's Water Resources Engineering section. 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. MnDOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway fimds 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 MnDOTS noise policy please contact Peter Wasko in our Design section at (651) 234- 7681. Review Submittal Options: MnDOT'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. MnDOT can accept the plans via e-mail at metrodevreviews.dot@gate.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: MnDOT — Metro District Planning Section Development Reviews Coordinator 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 3. One (1) compact disc. 4. Plans can also be submitted to MnDOT's External FTP Site. Please send files to: ftp://ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/nub/mcoming/MetroWatersEdge/Plannine 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.dot@state.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) 234-7793. Sincerely, Michael J. Corbett, PE Senior Planner Copy sent via E -Mail: Hailu Shekur, Water Resources Diane Langenbach, Area Engineer Peter Wasko, Design Nancy Jacobson, Design Dale Gade, Design Buck Craig, Permits Dale Matti, Right -of -Way Steve Charmer, Right -of -Way David Sheen, Traffic Engineering Clare Lackey, Traffic Engineering Ann Braden, Metropolitan Council Ah enterPoint® Energy November 6, 2012 Kate Aanenson AICP, Community Development Dir. 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Proposed request for Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) Located at: 7750 Galpin Boulevard, Chanhassen MN, 55317. Dear Ms. Aanenson: 700 West Linden Avenue PO Box 1165 Minneapolis, MN 55440-1165 With reference to your request, CenterPoint Energy has no natural gas facilities within the property PID area of 250101800, but has mains in the Right of Way of the surrounding roads of Galpin Blvd and 78t° Street West. For gas service to your proposed development please contact Cherie Monson at 612-321-5435 or email her at Cherie.monson@centerpointenergy.com If you have any questions, please contact me at 612-321-5381. Respectfully, CENTERPOINT ENERGY Ne cam° /4a1,i-� Chuck Mayers 0 Right -of -Way Administrator 612-321-5381 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 November 21, 2012, 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 2012-18 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Karen,i Enge t! r" Deputy° Jerk Subscribed and sworn to before me thisAll-hdayof 14oVtm,be-, .2012. W ory jajV----)mN�t:ry:P=c-MinDne c� Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time•' Tuesday, December 4, 2012 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of theagenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a Proposal: 224 -unit Apartment Building on 8.08 acres of property zoned Agricultural Estate A2 — Chanhassen Apartments Applicant: Cippidan, 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 Happens public hearing through the following steps: at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. at 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 Droiect. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2012-18. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate Aanenson by Questions & email at kaanensonCo)ci.chanhassen mn.us or by phone at Comments: 952-227-1129. 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, Wetland 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 are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning - Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires ail applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is 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. Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of theagenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a Proposal: 224 -unit Apartment Building on 8.08 acres of property zoned Agricultural Estate A2 — Chanhassen Apartments Applicant: Cippidan, 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 public hearing through the following steps: What Happens 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. at 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/2012-18. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate Aanenson by Questions & email at kaanenson(aci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at Comments: 952-227-1129. 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 Planninq 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 writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. • Minnesota State Statute 5 19. 99 requires all applications to be processed within e0 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, lease 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 553174536 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 WI 54602-2107 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 553173506 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 553174506 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8444 CHANHASSEN MN 553174506 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 PLYMOUTH CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8451 16305 36TH AVE N SUITE 00 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8444 PLYMOUTH MN 55446-42770 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 WI 54602-2107 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 55317A506 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 VASSERMAN RIDGE MASTER VICKIE S KLINE MARTIN LONNIE G & JAN M JOHNSON LORI J WIRTZ 7725 VASSERMAN TRL 6706 PROMONTORY DR 2392 HARVEST WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317506 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 55317A506 TIMOTHY DESAULNIERS VASSERMAN RIDGE MASTER VICKIE S KLINE 7845 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE ASSOC 2384 HARVEST WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8451 36TH AVE N SUITE 600 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8444 PLYMOUTH PLYMOUTH MN 55446270 WESTON VOGDS PAUL TUCCI-OPPIDAN INC 7842 HARVEST LN 5125 COUNTY ROAD 101 STE 100 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8453 MINNETONKA MN 55345 11/26/12 TO: Mayor Tom Furlong tfurlona@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Council Member, Bethany Tjornhom btiornhomC@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Jerry McDonald imcdonaldCalci.chanhassen.mn.us RE: Proposed 244 Unit Apartment Building at Highway #5, Galpin, and 78`h Street; CASE 2012-18 First, to our two re-elected Council Members, congratulations. Next, to our good mayor Tom Furlong, thank you for your leadership and especially in managing our property taxes yet providing the solid services we enjoy. Next, concerning the proposed Apartment Building for the triangle shaped property at 7750 Galpin and 78th Street, adjacent and north of Highway of Highway #5. We ask that you Mr. Mayor and our City of Chanhassen council members PLEASE do not approve this apartment "case 2012-18" proposal The original proposal for this property for a one story professional building caused concerns but seemed more suited for the property and acceptable than this apartment proposal. The current, existing zoning seems thought out and correct. A zoning change to accommodate the increased population of 244 unit renters and 350 auto's does not seem acceptable. The increased daily traffic at the corners of 78th Street and Galpin and 78th Street and Century would cause tremendous congestion and dangers. Actually any apartment building structure should not be a consideration for this property. May we suggest alternative solutions and locations. The location previously considered for a Walmart has the necessary city traffic controls already installed. The site at Powers Blvd. intersection, south of Highway #5. seems apropos. This site is closer to (1) the city commerce and (2) the new Southwest bus ramp, and (3) will be closer to the future light-rail extension depot, (4) no re -zoning would be necessary, (5) the water run off would not require re-classifying property across 78th Street. The height of the proposed apartment can be higher considering the adjacent properties, unlike the Galpin site. Finally, the city of Chanhassen already has similar apartment buildings only blocks from this recommended site. Another apartment building location suggestion is on the north side of Highway #5 on Powers Blvd. and 78th Street. This property shape is similar to the Galpin property also being triangular. Water parking lot run off could be achieved into the pond on the EKCANCAR property. The listed above advantages pertain to this site too, plus the advantage of a top light at the corner of Power Blvd. and 78th Street. We hope this is helpful. We again ask that this apartment proposal at 7750 Galpin, and 78th Street, north of Highway #5, NOT be approved. Regards, Mr. and Mrs. D.B. Dahlquist 7634 Prairie Flower Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Aanenson, Kate From: Erin Buss [ekbusser@msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 8:03 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: FW: Aparment Building Proposal Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed It was suggested you be copied on all emails regarding this topic. Have a great day. From: ekbussen?i)msn.com To: btiornhom(alci.chanhassen.mn.us Subject: Aparment Building Proposal Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 16:45:03 -0600 Dear Ms. Tjornhom: Congratulations on your recent reelection! I'm proud to say I voted for you. I have recently discovered the proposed development of the property on the corner of 78th/Galpin/Hwy 5. I feel strongly that this development is wrong for the City and very wrong for this area of Chanhassen. I also feel that the council should conduct a town hall style forum with the neighborhood prior to voting on this development. Below are some of my concerns about this development. 1. School Area/Traffic - My daughter attends Bluff Creek Elementary. I have very real and strong worries about adding as many as 500 additional cars to the area near the school. There is already a fair amount of bus traffic before and after school in this area. If the concerns are true that a stop light could not be placed at the corner of 78th and Galpin, that corner will become extremely difficult to cross, especially with the addition of so many vehicles. I fear a situation of someone who really wants to cross that intersection and hits a school bus full of our children. Further, many people walk to CVS or Kwik Trip to get a perscription or grab a newspaper. The addition of all of these vehicles could create a very dangerous situation for pedestrians. 2. This development is just too too large - The zoning for the area is currently for office use - not for High Density Occupancy. The Proposed Development requires a change to PUDR or High Density Residential. The density of units would be in excess of 27 units per acre. Per the 2030 land use map the net density for residential high density is actually 8-16 units per acre. A development like this may be more suited to an area near hwy 212 which has easier access to the highway. 3. Affects to the Bluff Creek Wetlands - While this site is not directly adjacent to any wetlands, the proximity to it as well as the proposed underground garage suggest runoff and raises environmental concerns. 4. Police/Safety - A development of this size is very likely to strain resources and cost the city to upgrade existing utilities (water, police, fire) leaving very little realized tax income to the city. As noted in the recent citizen action against the proposed Chanhassen Walmart, the net realized tax income was greatly offset and amounted to just over $1,000 a month due to increased investment to utilities. Additionally, renters just don't have the same sense of community and responsibility that an owner does. By it's nature, apartment complexes are renting establishments that require significantly more attention by police and saftey personnel. This situation is not ideal for an area already raising many young families. I hope that the Council and Planning Commission will say NO to this development. It's not right for Chanhassen. wI am happy to discuss this with you further. Thank you so much for your time. Sincerely, Erin Buss 7638 Arboretum Village Place Chanhassen, MN 55317 Aanenson, Kate From: Alice English [dnaenglish2@att.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 6:56 AM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Re: Apartment Proposal at Galpin Blvd. Dear Kate Aanenson - My name is Alice English and 1 live in the Walnut Grove Homeowners Assn. on Galpin Blvd. I would appreciate your consideration with the following concerns of a possible apartment complex on Galpin. My serious concerns are: :Apartment complex could affect the value of our property. :Galpin Blvd. would have greater traffic congestion. :Apartment complex could have a potential for increased crime. 1 highly recommend DENYING this apartment project and 1 thank you for your consideration. Alice English CAMERICANA COMMUNITY BANK Date: December 3, 2012 To: Kate Aanenson Community Develo` Director, City of Chanhassen From: James J. Swiontek Sr. Credit Officer, f#?ierana Community Bank RE: Galpin Boulevard Property This memo is to present facts regarding the role Americana Community Bank has had in the sale of the land at the corner of Galpin Boulevard and Highway 5 in Chanhassen. Americana Community Bank (ACB), along with two other community banks, became the owner of the Galpin Boulevard property through a default by a borrower in March, 2009. Community banks are prohibited from developing real estate or speculating on real estate development. They are also prohibited from owning land that was acquired through a default for an indefinite period of time. The Galpin Boulevard property has been listed with a realtor since the default of the borrower and was recently sold to Oppidan, Inc. Oppidan, Inc. and the three banks are buyer and sellers, respectively, and have no other ties in this transaction. The buyer and the City of Chanhassen have been working on concept plans for the property, which are now before the City of Chanhassen Planning Commission. Administrative Office 600 Market Street, Suite 230, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone 952.230.9720, Fax 952.230.9727 RE: Conceptual Planned Unit Development at 7750 Galpin Boulevard Case #: 2012-18 Date: December 4, 2012 My name is Gerald Wolfe and I live at 7755 Vasserman Trail. I am in the first twinhome on the east side of Vasserman Trail. The north parcel (Parcel A) of the proposed development abuts the back of my property and the south parcel (Parcel B) is directly across 78th street. Along with our "roof -mates" we are the closest residential property to the proposed development and will be looking directly at it day in and day out. I have studied the entire 20 page Planning Department Staff Summary on the proposed development and have looked over the remaining 30 pages of attachments giving some of the attachments more scrutiny than others and I have spent hours (literally) writing and rewriting this document attempting, without success, to shorten its length. So, rather than use an inordinate amount of time at the Planning Commission meeting reading it into the minutes I decided to send this to Kate Aanenson and have her include it in your packets. I first want to say, for the record, that I'm not against development on Parcel B of this proposal and I'm not against an apartment building being that development if everyone agrees that is the best use for the property. However, I am against an apartment building of 3 stories and 224 units. It is simply too large for the site and proximity to the R4 Mixed Low Density Residential District of Vasserman Ridge. My first choice for development would be for office buildings similar to those in the 2006 Galpin Crossings proposal and secondly for an apartment building. Since the proposal before us is for the apartment building let's discuss it. I want to start with the proposed transfer of density from Parcel A to Parcel B. The developer is using 100% of the size of Parcel A to come up with a density transfer of 96 units to Parcel B. You all know what Parcel A's property looks like and the difficulties it presents for anyone desiring to develop it. The staff report conclusion on page 18 states that "while some development of Parcel A is possible, the presence of wetlands, Bluff Creek, a shallow water table and poor soils make this parcel a difficult site for development". Because of this any development of Parcel A will most likely make the preparation of the site for building extremely expensive and those increased costs would probably mean there would be little or no profit in developing the property. And, it is no secret that the residents along the east side of Vasserman Trail would prefer to see Parcel A remain in its current state as would many others in the Vasserman Ridge neighborhood. So, transfer of density makes sense in order to keep Parcel A as is. Having said that, I also believe that even without this transfer'of density Parcel A will remain undeveloped simply because of the difficulty and cost of developing the property. And, without the transfer of density the apartment complex will be much smaller in size and more palatable to everyone. On page 11 of the Staff report under letter (c) Density, in the Findings paragraph at the bottom staff states that the "developer must calculate the net developable acres of the site" and under number 1 of letter (c) it says that this number is to be used in determining the density per acre. As an aside, I believe this causes a conflict of interest to allow the developer to do this calculation because it is in their best interest to make that number as large as possible. For the proposal before us the developer has used 100% of the acreage of both parcels to come up with a maximum of 224 units. If the transfer of density from Parcel A to Parcel B is denied then the apartment could only be a maximum of 128 units. Since we know there are wetlands on Parcel A not all the land is developable which means that the building cannot be 224 units unless the Planning Commission and City Council waives the 16 unit maximum on net developable acres. Please don't do that. It is my understanding that there is estimated to be up to 1.5 acres of wetland on Parcel A. Since net developable acres eliminates wetland acreage from total acres that means that only about 4.5 acres are developable on Parcel A. A sewer line bisects across the north end of Parcel A and I know nothing can be built on top of this sewer line so I'm not sure if that land can be considered developable or not. And, I suppose there could be other factors which could reduce this even more. For sure we know that 1.5 acres is not developable so assuming a transfer of density, the development can have a maximum of 200 units or 72 units more than if the transfer of density were denied. A drop from 224 to 200 is not a huge difference but enough that it will throw off the sizing of the current proposal and require some redesign of the buildings. But, it is still too large. I would suggest that transferring the density from Parcel A and then limiting the maximum size of the apartment to 2 stories and a maximum of 140 units comprised of 1, 1+den, 2 and 2+den bedroom units would make much more sense. On page 9 under point number 8 in the Analysis staff says the building will provide noise and light attenuation to the neighboring residential low density lands to the north and northwest. With all due respect to the staff I have to say this is a moot point. We already have light attenuation because of the mature trees along part of the east side and the entire south side of Parcel B. These mature trees provide almost 100% blocking of lights along Galpin Blvd and Hwy 5. 1 hope, if this proposal goes forward, the city will not allow the developer to cut down those beautiful mature trees. To be clear, I have absolutely no problem with light from vehicles, stop lights, Hwy lighting or the lights on the CVS Pharmacy. I do see light from the Kwik Trip but it does not cause any kind of inconvenience to me due to the way it is installed. The only thing an apartment building will do is completely block my view of Hwy 5 even when I want to be able to see it and force all residents of the apartment along Galpin Blvd. to look directly at the lighting from the CVS Pharmacy and Kwik Trip. As for noise reduction, in my opinion, there would be no attenuation of that from the apartment building at all. There is a 100% open view of Hwy 5 immediately to the west of the proposed 3 development and noise from Hwy 5 will not be lessened because a building is present. The people that will have to deal with noise, dirt and light are the people in the approximately 75 units of the proposed development that will look directly on Hwy 5 from about 100 feet away with nothing to attenuate that noise and lighting. I'm not sure who would want to pay $1100 or more per month to have that view and to deal with that noise. I suggest that the developer do something to block that view for those apartments on the south side of the development or I believe those units will be very difficult to rent. On page 16 under the Streets and Access heading it says the easterly access will be a right-in/right-out access. The developer said at our neighborhood meeting that this would be enforced with a "pork chop" island. With all due respect to the developer and anyone else who believes a pork chop island will stop vehicles coming from the east from entering the development at that entrance, I say you are naive, it simply will not work. 78th street is wide enough for a driver to easily make a U-turn to use that entrance to access the development and I believe many, if not most, of the residents of the east building will make that U-turn even, I suspect, if a no U-turn sign is present. I see many people making U-turns now and there is no development to access. And, those U-turns will increase the possibility of accidents. Even extending the median, unless it is extended almost all the way to the west entrance, will not stop U-turns to use the east entrance. It only makes sense that drivers will make the U-turn because why would you want to enter the property at the west entrance if you park your car in the underground parking of the east building whose entrance is just inside the east entrance to the development? I would do it if I lived in that complex. And, face it, most people will be coming off Galpin to enter the complex simply due to the fact that downtown Chanhassen and almost all business and shopping areas are to the east. I don't really know what a solution to this problem would be except for the extension of the median all the way to the west entrance. 4 On page 8 of the staff report under number 1 it says that Parcel A will never be developed because its density will have been transferred to Parcel B. I think I remember the developer mentioning at the neighborhood meeting that they might be required to put a storm water pond on Parcel A to handle the run off from the parking lot. I would suggest that it would greatly improve the visual palette of Parcel A to have that pond be quite large and geometrically aesthetic with a fountain in it to keep the water from stagnating and becoming a mosquito breeding spot, a walking path around it (preferably paved), trees, shrubs, grasses and possibly flowers in season for landscaping and a few sitting areas with benches. It might be reasonable to determine if it would be feasible or desirable to connect this pond to the existing storm water pond of the Vasserman Ridge neighborhood. This would improve Parcel A aesthetically and give the renters and others a pleasant place to view, relax at and watch the wildlife. The apartment management company would be responsible to maintain the fountain and keep the grass and landscaping watered and mowed. Also, on page 8 under number 3 it says the building will be cement board and brick. This is proposed as an upscale development therefore, I would like to see the building be all brick and other decorative stone work and masonry rather than a lot of cement board which will have to be painted every 5-8 years. On Page 15 under letter (d) Protection and preservation of natural features staff says that the "applicant must demonstrate that the flexibility provided by the PUD is used to protect and preserve natural features such as tree stands". Under letter (e) Landscaping plan and number (4) Tree preservation staff states that "tree preservation is a primary goal of the PUD". And, at the top of page 16 staff says "Canopy coverage for the site should be around 25% (78 trees or so)". There are at least 20 mature deciduous trees (I counted them) and a couple of mature pine trees on Parcel B. I think those trees appear to be where the building footprint shown on the proposal plans will fall which means those trees will end up being cut down. In order to meet the 5 requirements stated please require the developer to change the location of the building enough to spare the demise of as many of those mature trees as possible? Again, on Page 15 under letter (e)'s Findings and under the Building requirements heading staff says that the developer will need to provide headlight/traffic screening. I'm assuming that means for the 1st floor residents of the building. However, I would like to see something done along the north side of 78th street to screen headlights from our twinhome building. Currently, vehicle headlights shine right into our sunporch and bedroom windows as they come around the curve from Galpin Blvd. With the additional vehicles driving into the apartment complex at all hours of the night that will significantly increase that intrusion into our homes. So, the addition of some tall pine trees on the north side of 78th street to mitigate vehicle headlights shining into our homes would be desirable. In order to accomplish this trees would have to be placed on Parcel A from approximately half the distance between the yellow diamond shaped sign and the fire hydrant to an equal distance west of the fire hydrant. Since the developer is proposing this as a "market rate" development I would like something put in the covenants of the property to preclude a future investor from changing that designation to low -rent or Section -8 use. And, finally, I do not know how good the soil is on Parcel B. But if the contractor has to drive pilings to provide solid footings for the complex can the developer and/or contractor be required to carry insurance to cover any damage to our foundations and/or interior walls and ceilings? I know this isn't something the city normally requires but, if pilings need to be installed, could it be done for this project so we don't have to sue the developer/contractor to fix any damage that may occur? At the very least there should be something in writing as part of the formal documentation on this project that obligates the developer and/or contractor to repair any and all damage incurred to residential or commercial property due to the driving of pilings. M I hope that if you approve this concept PUD that it will be for no more than 2 stories and no more than 140 units with the building(s) being all brick, stone and masonry with the units being 1, 1+den, 2 and 2+den sizes. There should be no studio apartments unless those studios are furnished and permanently reserved for use by resident guests. Underground parking should provide 1 parking spot for each apartment with some additional spots available for rent to residents with 2 vehicles. If you have read this entire document, I thank you for your interest and concern to do your job well. IAanenson, Kate From: Norma May [cornercotg@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 3:49 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Cc: Chuck Engh; William and Barbara Brown Subject: Proposed Apartment Complex at 7750 Galpin Blvd. Dear Ms. Aanenson-- I am a homeowner near the the site of the the proposed apartment complex at 7750 Galpin Blvd. I have reviewed the relevant documents on the Planning Commission section of the City website. I am against changing the current zoning, and I request that the Planning Commission deny approval to change the zoning. This site is appropriately zoned for office/professional use. But even if the zoning were changed to High Density Residential, using the City's density criteria, the site is too small to accommodate the proposed number of units. And reclassifying property on the north side of W. 78th and transferring the density to the other plot is a dishonest remedy, in my view. This site is too small for the proposed use as a 224 -unit apartment building. Surely there must be land elsewhere within Chanhassen where such a project can be built without compromising the City's comprehensive plan standards. Ms. Aanenson, as a Chanhassen resident, homeowner, and voter, I oppose this development and I urge you and the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council that the zoning changes needed for this project not be approved and no apartments be built at this location. Sincerely, Norma J. May 2050 Clover Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 Aanenson, Kate From: Karen Suedmeyer [bogeykas@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:47 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Galpin Blvd/proposed Chanhassen Apartments. Please pass this message on to the appropriate individuals within the City Planning Commission. I am very surprised and concerned that the City of Chanhassen would consider this large of a complex in the middle of what is already a very busy and congested area of the City, along with the fact that it would be in very close proximity to a school with children trying to cross already congested streets via both bicycles as well as by foot. This just doesn't sound like something that has been very well thought through. Chanhassen has historically spent significant time and money to give clear thought and foresight toward zoning issues taking into consideration what is in the best interest of the City, community, and it's residents. I think the current zoning should stand, which was well thought through and with clear rationale behind the thought process. The proposed plan sounds more like a short term access to additional dollars for the City, without thinking this through thoroughly and assessing the long term impacts. I clearly do NOT support this proposal. A very concerned citizen, K.A. Suedmeyer. Sent from my iPad 1 i4anenson, Kate From: Andrew Aller [aaller@mchsi.com] Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 8:04 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Community Contact - Proposed Apartment Complex @ Galpin & 78TH Kate - received a VM message from Dan Beno (952)-474-1104 Thursday 11/29/12 at @ 3:15 pm requesting a call back regarding the proposed project. You might do a quick call back to him, or I can if you prefer. I still like written submissions, attendance and open discussion at the hearing, or both for a cleaner record. Tonight, I spoke with Ms. Mary K Roberts of 7762 Vasserman Place, and intends to be at the hearing: She stated that she attended the neighborhood meeting and thought very well done. Has primary concerns regarding Density and Public Safety: Thinks the Buildings too large for the lot and too many people in small area. Believes Crossings will be hazardous for children and pedestrians. (she is a walker and doesn't like the lack of X -walks and lights even now). Higher density will most likely bring more children using school and rec center and walking across 78`", Galpin, & 5 Also concerned with the maintenance for the buildings once developer sells. I requested that she make these points and any others at the meeting, and thanked her for her interest and participation. Andrew Aller Aanenson, Kate From: Les & Carol Anderson [lesancar@me.comj Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 9:19 PM To: Aanenson, Kate; City Council; Furlong, Tom; Hokkanen, Lisa Subject: Galpin Apartment Project I live in the Walnut Grove Community on Clover Court. I attended the neighborhood meeting last night on this project by Oppidan Inc. The presentation was very complete and there was a lot of good discussion. However I came away from the meeting like most of the community members, very concerned that this project should not proceed. Building this large apartment project on that small parcel of land seems to make a mockery of the zoning ordinance. This is VERY HIGH DENSITY project and does not belong in that location and our neighborhood. In addition the intersection of Galpin and Highway 5 is already a major problem. The short distance to W 78th Street and traffic from this project would make that intersection even more hazardous. This project is NOT a good fit for our community. Please reject this project. 1 W112 * My FWAisites - My Applications - Chanhassen, W - Official Website - Apartment Guide (f A 1V p n Amy SSJ�l1``t -VAIA , �..3J�Jf IJP JJ'.I :1:IfYL;JTr i C,' if1J11 . t Fi e7Lrllx5J '±i!r!'/�f t�! \' jt) r. tfJ-' Search Chanhassen Apartment Guide Pet licensing Publit Utilities Resident Guide Water Use / Sprinkling Restrictions Winter Parking Chanhassen: Home I About Us I New Residents I Apartment Gwde Apartment Guide Apartment Address Units Sizes Name Centennial Hill One &Two Bedroom Senior 820 Santa Vera Drive 65 One Bedroom w/Den Residence Chan View 420, 440 & 489 Chan View 35 Efficiency One & Two Bedroom Chanhassen 7601,7621,7701,7721,&7741 Village Chanhassen Road 120 One &Two Bedroom Gateway Place Income 721 lake Susan Drive 48 One,Two & Three Bedroom guidelines apply Heritage Park 425 Chan View Lake Susan 8260 Market Blvd. Powers Ridge 1321 Lake Drive West One Bedroom 60 (some w/ dens, some are handicapped accessible) Two Bedroom 162 One,Two & Three Bedroom -1,�re 1 Orre,Twowo & Three Bedroom Cohd6'S Santa Vera 601,611, & 621 Santa Vera 18 One & Two Bedroom • Elevator Drive Two Bedroom w/o garage Summerwood (952) 474-4060 Senior 525 Lake Drive Residence Chanhassen, MN 55317 Tam Amenities Contact Infbrmet • Elevator Anne Mane Strip (952) 474-4060 • Garage Website Dean Atkins Premier properties LLC (952) 941-2400 Website • Garage Darren Rime (952) 934-7086 • Elevator • underground Rental Office heated parking 401-3442 We25ite • Exterior parking Rebecca Durbin • Elevator Flesness • Washer/Dryer in Leasing(952) 949 - every unit 0288 Website • Elevators • Heated garage with storage locker (952) 294-8384 • Outdoor pool Website • Cats allowed • Elevators • Heated garage with storage locker • Indoor pool with sundeck • Community Room Kyte Grote with full kitchen (952) 361-9400 • Indoor wailing pool Website for children • Indoor Spa • Tot Lot • Picnic Area • Exercise Room • One garage/unit Marlyn Luthy (952) 934-7019 Jennifer Blest (952) 294-5500 Website 611/ CIFYOF City of Chanhassen: 77M Market Blvd. I P.O. Box 147 1 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 (952) 2231100 Cl]A l! CEN Home Contact us Site Map Copyright Notices Accessibility Agendas & Minutes Apps Download Powered by OVIcPIus mn-chanhassen2.civicplus.cmr,rKlex.aspx?nid=767 1/1 res u� 'ems -,- I 8 4041 4r eY = lR un ,h JC � - O a ree :=6RIWEJ[ S'R w � - _� 52. C4. ?,w t4 �C �.�:V WA LPUT Gty 4 4 tt7 .eqt O� 22� 9Pn 221 "-___ 4RIORETUYSLVO Bio.' 'S, Gorra Property (103 acres) Walnut Grove Villas Arboretum Village Autumn Ridge Total Galpin Apartments Multi -Family Housing Units 1,048 est 206 312 140 1,706 224 Total w/Galpin 1,930 a CCRPCRLTE PL _ J � j ~R'G v- COULMRSWO COULTM SLYO -Fa 70WER PL t, C 4�2 to ls 4 xeeexroopo4 Gorra Property (103 acres) Walnut Grove Villas Arboretum Village Autumn Ridge Total Galpin Apartments Multi -Family Housing Units 1,048 est 206 312 140 1,706 224 Total w/Galpin 1,930 DIVISION 1. - GENERALLY Page 1 of 1 Sec. 20.508. - Standards and guidelines for single-family attached or cluster -home PUDs. --i` (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. (t) PUD exterior. 50 feet. (2) Interior public right-of-way: 30 feet' 'The 30 -toot front yard setback may be waivad by the city ceuncil when it is dem inshated that enHronmentaipmtection roll be enhanced In these instances, a me mar, hont yard setback of 20 feet shall be maintained (3) Other setbacks: Established by PUD agreement. (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. (a) Landscaping plan. An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall contain the following. (t) 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. (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. (fJ 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: (t) Standards for exterior architectural treatments. (2) Prohibition against freestanding garages may be required by the city when it is felt that unattached garages will be difficult to accommodate due to small lot sizes. If an attached garage is to be converted to living space at some time in the future, the applicant will have to demonstrate that there is sufficient room to accommodate a two -car garage without variances to obtain a permit (3) Guidelines regulating the placement of air conditioners, dog kennels, storage buildings and other accessory uses that could potentially impact adjoining parcels due to small lot sizes. (Ord No. 1%9. § 2, ti -2392: Ord N. 2aQ § 15. 7-2495, OrJ No 315. § 3. 3-26-01; Ord No 377. §5 70 71 52404) http://Iibrary.municode,com/HTML/ 14048/level4/CICO_CH2OZO—ARTV IIIPLLJNDEDI... 12/10/2012 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA I N 1 171iyWrf7 a ZT6Il ll3 Application of Epic Development XVI, LLC request for rezoning from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Planned Unit Development — Residential, PUD -R; Preliminary plat approval creating 13 lots and one Outlot with a Variance for a private street and more than four homes accessing a private street; and Conditional Use Permit for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. On May 2, 2006, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Epic Development XVI, LLC for a Planned Unit Development to permit a 12 -unit twin home project. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed Planned Unit Development preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and made a recommendation of denial for the development proposal. On May 22, 2006, the Chanhassen City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Epic Development XVI, LLC for a Planned Unit Development to permit a 12 -unit twin home project. The City Council conducted a public hearing on the proposed Planned Unit Development. The City Council voted to deny the proposed development based on the following findings: FINDINGS OF FACT The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential — Low Density. The legal description of the property is: See Exhibit A. 4. Rezoning a. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be inconsistent with the following City Comprehensive Plan policies: Land Use Policy: "Encourage low density residential development in appropriate areas of the community in a manner that reinforces the character and integrity of existing single-family neighborhoods while promoting the establishment of new neighborhoods of similar quality." The proposed development does not reinforce the character of the adjacent development since it does not maintain the lot sizes, housing orientation, rhythm and spacing of that development. Housing policy: "New development shall be discouraged from encroaching on vital natural resources or physical features that perform essential protection functions in their natural state, The proposed development encroaches in to the Bluff Creek corridor. b. The proposed use does not conform with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance for Planned Unit Developments since it does lead to a significantly higher quality development nor a more sensitive development than would have been the case with the use of other more standard zoning districts. The environmental sensitivity is provided through the enforcement of the Bluff Creek Overlay and Wetland Protection standards. The proposed development did not propose significantly higher architectural standards or provide architectural details. c. The proposed concept Planned Unit Development included both the north and south sides of West 78th Street and should be reviewed concurrently with each other. Subdivision. a. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the zoning ordinance, since it does not comply with the minimum standards of the Agricultural Estate District, A2, standards which the property is zoned, nor does it comply with the Planned Unit Development standards as specified in Rezoning finding 4. b. above. b. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan as specified in Rezoning finding 4. a. above; c. The proposed subdivision does not make adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by the subdivision ordinance since it does not adequately accommodate storm drainage and flood protection measures; 6. Variance (Private Street and more than four units on a private street). a. The requirement for a public street is not a hardship. A reasonable use of the property can be achieved with a public street. Economic consideration alone are driving the request for a private street. The purpose of the private street is to increase the number of lots. A public street could be developed as part of the proposed development. 7. Conditional Use Permit. When approving a conditional use permit, the City must determine the compatibilty of a proposed development with existing and proposed uses. a. The proposed development will be inconsistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance as specified in findings 4 a. and b. above. b. The proposed development is not designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area since it does not maintain the spacing and rhythm of that development.. c. The proposed development will not be aesthetically compatible with the area since it does not maintain the spacing and rhythm of that development and appears overly dense. d. The proposed development will not meet standards prescribed for Planned Unit Developments as provided in finding 4.b. above. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 22"d day of May, 2006. 1:0:4;11.31W41 PARCEL 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 scction 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. 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. 4 Chanhassen Apartments The applicant is requesting approval fora general concept plan for a PUD for 224 apartments. If the prory, ject is to proceed for preliminaor development plan approval, the application "old include a land use amendment from office and residential low density to residential high density, a resuming to Plumed Unit Development— Residential from Agricultural Fstate District, As, and a site plan review. Planning Case #2012-18 Planning Commission December q, 2012 City council December 10, 2012 Location and Blasting Conditions n 12/10/2012 �� Sc 8 a�cr�eS o is �� acre (ow cf�ns��y 2oh�� n dulo6w6Mush bf consis��f ,J�r� ICf LLIaW dVK,?K � d,e cr,(ble Mab Apr"ese(w not (k 6 O(ws History of the Site �lup♦,A I ___ f 1Fe w Current land Use Galpin Crossing Concept Office Zoning District The intent afrt5201' district is to provide for public or quasi -public nonprofit uses and profeanowl businessand administrstiveofiices Examples of uses that am permitted: Community Center,Chumhes, Fundal homes, Health Services/Hospitals, Nursing Homes, offices, Schools � se..' y� SrIW SPPm Swwe.a. o5annes.,a v v)n Sss pbnrcy_m ep.na Xwller tllnk 3A) 5G5p) 36) pbiliry�o npanG _ _ Runts eunE X anSM )<Ip P14Maw rHMe L M535 I30 45555)v'pi[X 3'J p+iW 12/10/2012 j III / FA • �, Underground Parking P t: iz/10/2012 II ' �i..lI� YAVWA 0 i i 0 �Mi Elevations • r ,. W. �T TripGenerationComparison 12/10/2012 4 12/10/2012 L2011 MSA Traffic Counts 0 t � �c��f�� s • f� wo' Average Daily Trips Lake Lucy Road at Galpin Average Daily Trips West 78th Street at Galpin (1 Bluff Creek Overlay District Centennial Hills - Density Transfer n 30 units an acre, 65 units _I iz/10/2012 11 Iake Susan Apartments n � sa ��rtsmreea t 1 9e [acres@ib 9 o.ftB.R Powers Ridge Apartments 12/10/2012 7 PROPOSED MOTION IThe Chanhassen Planning Commission 'Provide the City Council with comments and feedback, along with staffs proposed comments listed in the staff report." Surrounding Developments (PUP'S) 12/10/2012 P Ub 8mae De ' Mtpommem[ 38� m.98 �d3 6y &WfCmY way: euidN b. god mNium dma YId6e �M y8-�3 }98 bs/ BIUHCm#p�uy wei; guided md'mdmm W�ot Grape 207 1g.8 }86 $�/ BM1dfank Geridor, suWd Mid milium NIBWemdan r6 85 388 }LS iIiw kQ y 12/10/2012 P Building Heights 0. Stones Height R., Units Centemtial HillsS� 3 35 65 Lake Sasan A ent Homes 3 40 162 Powers Ridge 3 48 100 Presbyterian Homes (2 m, na Living - M.d l.m 4 49 90 Presbytenm Homes(K.W Ln -ms- ram tome 3 40 73 Gateway 3 35 48 12/10/2012 4 Carver County's Traffic Data 0, Foiunerts Ak" TOMcstap namr/Mix mrr o©aa©o hrsar l:woq don hw! ury mwd of ioJury accidents fo r Nu intersectio n Baa©ao o©aa©o iz/10/2012 10 CHANHASSEN PLANNING REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES NOVEMBER 20, 2012 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Kathleen Thomas, Lisa Hokkanen, Kim Tennyson, and Bill Colopoulos STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner PUBLIC PRESENT: Wes Dunsmore Gary Bendzick 730 West 960' Street 731 West 96h Street OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN TAMMY FALCONER, PLANNING CASE 2012-12. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. The applicants, Greg and Tammy Falconer reviewed and explained changes to their proposal. Chairman Aller asked about the letter from HavTek, the reasons behind the previous building collapsing, and snow removal. Commissioner Undestad asked for clarification of water flow on the site and the options proposed by the city staff. Chairman Aller opened the public hearing. Wes Dunsmore explained how installation of the city's drain field affected the water situation along West 90 Street before stating he was in favor of the variance. Gary Bendzick voiced his support for helping to solve the water/snow problems by eliminating the problem and his disagreement with the comprehensive plan guiding this area for medium density in the future. Chairman Aller closed the public hearing. After comments and discussion between commission members and the applicants, the following motion was made. Undestad moved, Tennyson seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the 4,940 square foot variance to the 1,000 square foot accessory structure limitation and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. All voted in favor, except Colopoulos and Hokkanen who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Thomas noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 16, 2012. COMMISSION PRSENTATIONS. Chairman Aller informed the commission that Kelsey Nelson had submitted her resignation because of a move from Chanhassen to Chaska. Thomas moved, Colopoulos seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PLANNING REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 2012 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Kathleen Thomas, Lisa Hokkanen, Kim Tennyson, and Bill Colopoulos STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner PUBLIC PRESENT: Wes Dunsmore Gary Bendzick 730 West 96'" Street 731 West 96'" Street OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN TAMMY FALCONER. PLANNING CASE 2012-12. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. As you stated this is a variance request. It's Planning Case #2012-12. It's actually a re -submittal. They came in previously for a variance request. Greg and Tammy Falconer at 720 West 96"' Street are the applicant. The property is located in the central portion of the city. It's the northwest comer of Pioneer Trail and Highway 101. 96'" Street is a local city street. These are larger lots. Areas approximately 5 acres in size. There's a big wetland complex that covers everything on Pioneer Trail but stuff off of 96i' Street is upland. The property owners currently have, the applicant is requesting a variance from the 1,000 square foot accessory structure area limitation to reconstruct and expand by 520 square feet the original 1,280 square foot non -conforming shed. We're calculating the total area of the proposed shed at 1,800 square feet. They were previously denied a variance on September 18, 2012 and rather than appeal that decision to City Council they revised their building by reducing the structure width to 37 feet with an 8 foot overhang area and are resubmitting this for your review. That 8 foot overhang area became important because the city attorney directed that we look at that as part of the building area under our previous review of a barn which had a large overhang that they could use for storage and for horse shelter and so to be consistent that's why we've included it as part of their request. City ordinance Section 20-74 states that non -conforming uses and structures allows for the non -conformity be continued through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance or improvement but not through expansion and therefore that's why they are, they would be able to build the same square footage building on site. They just requesting that it be allowed to be expanded. Section 20- 904 of the ordinance limits accessory structures in this zoning category and several others to 1,000 square feet so. Again they're proposing to reconstruct the shed, which is shown here in yellow but expand it all the way over so basically they're squaring up the building roof area if you will. Expansion is 520 square feet. Again 200 square feet of that would be for building and 320 square feet of that is for that overhang area which is 8 by 40 feet long. In 2000 the southerly accessory building was built and that was 4,140 square feet. Both structures would total 5,940 square feet if approved and again that's in excess of what city ordinance requirements are. And this is an aerial view of what they propose. The dashed line would represents the expansion of the building envelope on the site. It should be noted that this is the second, these two accessory structures together are the second largest on West 96th Street immediately for accessory structures. Here's a picture. This outlines the roof area of what they're proposing to do. Again Chanhassen Planning Commission — November 20, 2012 they want to sort of square up the roof area and Greg will explain further what they're problems and concerns were. And it was mostly regarding snow storage and the shadowing that's created on there. The subject property is guided in our comprehensive plan for residential low density uses. This permits future densities of 1.2 to 4 units per acre which is our suburban style density that we have. Agricultural uses are not anticipated or proposed to be preserved in the community. We don't want to, we're not going to force anyone out through our development process but it's something that will, we see continuing in western Carver County which is in the Carver County plan and so eventually we see our whole community developing. And the goal for residential low density is the standard RSF zoning permits 15,000 square foot lots and these larger accessory structures aren't conducive to that type of use. We did look at providing some alternatives that would meet some of the criteria that the applicant advised us that they're looking. On the left is the applicant's proposal. What we looked at is if we did a building that was that wide that could be 28 and 5 and a third feet deep and then it's 45 feet wide and they get the same, at least roof effect of it. Their concern is that it's not as long as they'd like it and I'll let him get into it. The other option would be to go with a 40 by 32 foot wide building and that would be basically taking the existing building and turning it 90 degrees and then add 2 1/2 foot overhangs which are permitted under our ordinance and not count it against the obstruction ordinance and then they would have a 40 foot wide roof area and again they would be able to get the snow to come off outside of the sheltered area on the southerly building. We believe that the, during the 2007 ordinance amendment discussion as indicated that requests for structures in excess of 1,000 square feet would be reasonable if based on agricultural uses and council also seemed to agree that that was the best way, mechanism for us to allow those increasing in intensity and doing it through a variance process. The property owners currently have a reasonable use of the property and are allowed to replace the 1,280 square foot non -conforming accessory structure without coming through the variance process. This area is guided for residential low density uses and we believe eventually it will redevelop and it is again consistent with the land use in that this area is guided for residential low density uses. Staff is recommending denial of the variance application and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and with that I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Aller: Thanks Bob. Colopoulos: Bob is, you mentioned two alternative plans there. Were those the City's recommendations? Or alternatives. Generous: Yes. Those are things that we came up with. Colopoulos: That you would consider to be acceptable. Generous: Right. Colopoulos: Okay. Aller: I don't have any questions. Okay. Applicant, Mr. Falconer and Mrs. Falconer. If you could state your name and address for the record that would be great. Greg Falconer: Greg and Tammy Falconer, 720 West 96ih Street, Chanhassen, Minnesota. Aller: Welcome. Greg Falconer: Welcome. I won't take as much time as I did last time. I appreciate you all being here tonight. I'm sure we can all get through this much quicker than last time. The one thing I did want to point out and I did talk to Kate Aanenson about this is at the top of this sheet, and you did change that on Chanhassen Planning Commission — November 20, 2012 there but at the top of this sheet it does say 4,940 square foot variance. She did change that. She said she was going to change it on here so I don't know, that doesn't coincide with what you have but you have it right on there Bob. In the beginning so you know as far as we were concerned the variance was for like 520 square foot is what I was saying. Yeah, right. But it was kind of misleading. Last time we were here somebody mentioned you're asking for a 4,940 square foot and. Tammy Falconer. Variance. Greg Falconer: Variance and it just raised some questions so I did bring that up with Kate Aanenson. So basically what we're asking for is an extended shed roof onto our plan. I did change the plan. I brought the interior wall into another 3 feet so basically we're looking at an 8 foot overhang which is on one of the sheets there. You can see in the plan right here. So anyhow this is 8 foot right now so basically from my old existing building to here is 13 feet so there's 200 square feet of additional interior space in here and the reason being was the plan right here, this is the old previous submittal. This is the new one I believe right here. This footing right here which also is a column in the building is right in front of the entrance door. There is a small garage door right here and then there's an entrance door right here. The only reason why I moved the wall out a little bit was so that the door would impede for people walking in right here. If it's in the old place this wall would be right here. You'd open up the door and run right into the one supporting column so that was my reason for just bringing it out a little bit further than the old building. So basically what we're asking for is 200 square feet of interior space, which is a very small portion all things considered. The rest of this would all be open air. You would see this from the outside. This would just be along shed roof right here as depicted in that last picture right here. So you would literally see all this so it's open air. The reason why we're trying to do this is because obviously in the original picture that you saw up there the roof had collapsed, which is this picture right here. This is the area where it collapsed. The snow builds up heavily in this area. This faces north right here so this never sees any sun as you can see the amount of snow that collects you know here and here so on a regular basis I have to try to get the snow off of here. Now in the new plan we would be doing a metal roof which is just like this one and the metal roof would shed snow off in front of the buildings which collects similar to what you see here but also in front of my other building and it can be a real, real serious problem with metal roofs. That being said I did have an engineer look at these plans. Last time we didn't have any supporting documentation to what we were talking about and I know some of you had expressed concerns in your discussion after I had sat down and said you know that we really don't have anything to base this on so I did hire an engineer Finn and I would be glad, Tammy will hand you a copy for each of you to look at. It's fairly simple. I told him not to write anything lengthy on there because I know that this, this is pretty self explanatory and what he had to say in there was that my building, the way that I proposed it is in a favorable, it's favorable for shedding off the snow and the water to an area that is manageable and I have another picture here and the reason why I took this picture today was to show you, without being on our property it's very hard for you all to tell where our water goes and where it drains to so I took this picture today. As you can see this is our retaining wall right here that I built in 1996. Half my water goes down this side inbetween my neighbor's building and mine. The other portion comes down here and flows out through my parking lot back this direction so what I am trying to do is get my water and snow over into this area right here so that it can properly drain away from my building. We have had issues with this water collecting in here and soaking the ground which is clay soil. The clay soil is not conducive for footings. This original building was going up and down by 4 or 5 inches and in the winter time this door basically doesn't work because my frost footings aren't even deep enough in the existing building which were built to code and the building is going up and down. So if I can get my water and my snow away from this area I'm not going to have those issues. One other thing. Tammy Falconer: It's a safety issue. Chanhassen Planning Commission — November 20, 2012 Greg Falconer: One other thing I need to mention and Greg Havlik put that in there, is there is an egress issue with the snow runoff of the existing building. It does impede the entrance into this door and can be a safety issue and he brought that up when he was out at my property. So, let me see where I'm at here. The City did come out, Bob was out with a, was that a city engineer? Generous: It was Alyson Fauske. Greg Falconer. Okay, and Alyson came out. I met her and Bob had presented his proposal for maybe some options for me. Tammy Falconer. You want to talk about each option and how it won't work? Greg Falconer: Yeah. The option, and I took pictures of this too. This would be the front of the building right here where we, my old building used to come right to here. As you can see this was filled up with drainage rock and a pretty extensive drainage system that I had in the front and I put draintile that came around and dumped out over on this side over here. The interesting thing about it is, if we pull the building back to here, which this is about where the building would be 13 feet back, and we went with one of the options. This entire area is open to filling up with water and has no place to go and once again I say we're in clay soil. It does not drain properly. This fills up with enough water. It's actually 988 cubic feet of area that could fill up with 7,410 gallons of water and Ijust did that math you know by the area of this right here. The option of removing the retaining wall and pulling it back to here would cost me about $6,000. There are footings underneath here. The entire area of this retaining wall at any one area could be as much as 3 feet deep down into the soil. Another view of that as well from the other angle. This is where the proposed building, the option was. You can see this area here is completely contained and water could not drain out and I'd have a bigger issue here than I had before with standing water and building basically an ice rink or whatever else that little deal. Another view of that. Put the camera on the ground. This is where the building floor would be. This is how high my retaining wall is. I'm not sure how this can be a viable option when it obviously has, the water has no place to go. One other issue, my electrical line which is dead right now is in this comer right here. I'd have to relocate my underground electrical lines again which are in the comer of the building right there. So I guess you know that's the evidence that I have for our water issue and our snow problems and Greg Havlik is, has also verified that in his letter there. One other thing I want to say about the comprehensive plan, and I know that you know we need to work off of some basis but you know the comprehensive plan is an open ended document that needs to be revisited on a regular basis and I understand that we have to have a motivation to go someplace and I respect that and I do. In our situation this street has been here a long time. Three doors down from me they have over 20,000 square feet of building. Pole bams which is never mentioned on here because they do have 10 acres but there's over 20,000 square feet of building 3 doors down from me. There's 3 homes with steel structures like mine on there and I would like to somehow, some way build this building again which I am going to build it one way or another I'm going to build the structure. I would like to do it correctly if I could and I would like to do that with the overhang on there and get my water and snow to shed to the proper area and not have a safety egress issue which the engineer has defined. So that being said I would like to take some questions if you have some so that I can answer anything that you might have. Aller: Mr. Falconer, did HavTek get an opportunity to, I mean you presented your option to HavTek, did you present the other options to HavTek or did he, why didn't he send us something saying that they wouldn't work? Greg Falconer: It was, when Greg was at the house I told him the option of this and that and he looked at me and he says you've got to be kidding me. Those were his exact words. You've got to be kidding me. And the reason why he said that was, where does this water go? It's self explanatory. He literally looked Chanhassen Planning Commission — November 20, 2012 at me and said you've got to be kidding me. I'm just telling you what he said. I'm not trying to you know ... I'm just saying that he just said you've got to be kidding. It's not an option. It just simply isn't an option. I mean anybody can see, if I have a, if I have a wall right here which is in front of my structure, where is this water going? It's undeniable. Aller: And this structure was there originally, correct? The one that has collapsed and come down. Greg Falconer: Yes. Aller: And that was the result of the snow piling up on top? Greg Falconer. Correct. Aller: Did your building, the second building cause a lot of that snow to pile up? That was built afterwards by you. Greg Falconer: Yeah, correct but that building also, this building also before I put this retaining wall had water flowing through this door and out the other side and that obviously was an issue so it was taking a beating as it was and so I put up this retaining wall and the, you know the structure itself has been going up and down regardless of whether this building was here or not. The structure's been going up and down because this area over here is very, very, very wet. Aller: And you put in the retaining wall? Greg Falconer: Yes, in 1996. Undestad: Can you put that picture of that? Greg Falconer: Yeah, which one do you want? Undestad: There. So where did all the water go that went between the building and the retaining wall? Greg Falconer: This, you can see this is drainage rock right there. Before this, I've got a drainage trough in here. Well it was made out of rubber and it went up the side walls and then I had a piece of draintile that started off at a high point over here, came around and as it got over to this side over here it exited out the side between this wall and the existing and so I collected all of that water and exited out this side, which is the reason why you see it's free standing right now. Once I took my building down we took all the drainage rock out of here and put it on the parking lot. Undestad: So wouldn't it actually help if you eliminated some of that slab and add more rock in there to move that water around? Greg Falconer: Well where's. Undestad: Instead of having it all into just a little 3 or 4 foot area. If you had that slab out of there and put one of the city options on here you'd have more area in there that you put your rock in there and get your water to draintile around the other sides and things. It's what comes off your roof on that building, off the rain, you know it'd be the same. Yeah. Greg Falconer: Well here's the height of my retaining wall and the building would be back here Chanhassen Planning Commission —November 20, 2012 Undestad: Right. And if you took that slab out of there, now you've just got more dirt in there and you can do more in the landscaping. Greg Falconer: This is 13 feet from here to here. This is this high and has to be because you can see this, yeah I don't know if you're seeing the elevations here. Undestad: Sure. Greg Falconer: This is my elevation right here in the yard. Undestad: Could you do something on the foundation on that north side and just bring the masonry walls up higher to create another retaining wall in there? Greg Falconer: Like I said you know, this retaining wall here, you know if like I said in a perfect world yeah it'd be great. Remove the whole thing and put it all over back in here and get rid of it all together. You're talking about many, many tons of dirt or rock or whatever else and rebuilding it. Like I say you're looking at about $6,000. Undestad: I'm not saying get rid of it. I'm just saying your north wall of your new barn, your new shed, if that was masonry up to an elevation the same height as your retaining wall, you could fill that whole thing in with dirt. Landscaping. Greg Falconer: I don't want to fill this in with dirt. I'm just saying. I don't see, I don't see why I would have this 13 feet from here to here all dirt. I mean people are going to look at it and say what is that? Undestad: Landscaping. Greg Falconer: I've been a landscaper 16 years, I've never seen anything like that. Ever. Undestad: I'm just talking out loud see what some options are. Greg Falconer: I know. Undestad: And then that 13 feet, is that just looking at this first option. Greg Falconer: Yeah well basically both of them pull it back. Undestad: Well it looks like the 40 by 32 with the 2 1/2 foot overhang doesn't come back that far. Greg Falconer: Yeah, can you put that other one up Bob? Undestad: So the 40 by 32 doesn't come back the 13 feet like the other one. Generous: There's an 8 foot difference between that 32 foot option and their 40 foot option. So that's the first part of it and then it's a separation to the north of that. Undestad: Right, I'm just assuming that the picture he showed me was the middle option of how much of your old slab would disappear. Am I right? Chanhassen Planning Commission — November 20, 2012 Greg Falconer: Yeah. Well this is just, this is. This is the 13 foot mark right here. On the other option, Bob on the other one if you could show that on there. The 40 by 32. The right one. What is the setback on that one? Generous: That would be 8 feet short of the existing building. Greg Falconer: 8 feet short, yeah so 13 and 8 foot. Undestad: Then one more question on your door. If that 200 square feet, you said you kind of pulled it out because of that door. Greg Falconer: Yeah. Undestad: Could you just shift that door over a little bit? Greg Falconer: Yes. That certainly is an option. Undestad: Okay, I have no more questions. Aller: Okay, anything further? Hokkanen: Well I have a question back to moving the door over. If you move the door over 3 feet, is that an option? 3 feet to the left on this diagram. Greg Falconer: Yes. Hokkanen: And you could still be within the number, I'm confused with which one we're looking at now. Back to the proposed city's, would that work on the 40 by 32? Undestad: Well I think you're, moving the door is. Hokkanen: On their's, okay. Undestad: Their applicant's proposal but I was adding 200 square feet to the interior space. Hokkanen: ...okay. Undestad: If they move the door then maybe they can go back to the regular square footage... Hokkanen: Regular square footage, right. Okay. That's what I wanted to clarify. Okay. Colopoulos: Mr. Falconer, Mrs. Falconer, would you characterize your engineer's recommendation as one that was designed to optimize water mitigation? Greg Falconer: Yes. Colopoulos: Which is really what you hired them for? To try to come up with a plan. Greg Falconer: That is correct. That is what I'm hiring ... my water problems. I'm not here to build a bigger pole barn. I want to be done with the water and snow issues and obviously 1, you know by pulling my wall back even further I'm demonstrating that I really don't care about 200 square feet. 200 square Chanhassen Planning Commission—November 20, 2012 feet is, isn't even what you see inside of here. You know I can rebuild this building but I don't want to build it with the same issues, especially with the metal roof that I have. The metal roof is going to cause an incredible amount of problems if I rebuild it just the way it is. And you know like he says in there, there's an egress issue with the snow dumping off into the door that is right here. Tammy Falconer. Well you can already see, when this gets icy it's not a lot of fun. We're out there everyday and falling on your tailbone and what not, it's not for just oh we didn't get out there and shovel. This is happening on a consistent basis. Greg Falconer. But this is relatively relaxed. I'm talking about snow from here to here after a major snowstorm and up to here to the peak of this roof. It's not just a little bit of snow and my neighbors deal with the same, with the same issues. You know like I say, all I'm trying to do is get the snow and water over to the manageable area over here so it can evacuate properly. Keep this drier and stop my frost footings from going up and down. Like I say this building would go up and down by 5 inches. This would go up enough to cause this door not to work again. Aller: Do you expect to use the same footings for the new structure? Greg Falconer: No. Aller: So you'll be putting in new footings? Greg Falconer: Yeah, got to put in deeper footings. Aller: And what have you been told with regard to the metal roof and a regular roof, why you would have a different amount of water or moisture at the end of the day? I mean whether it slides off early or whether it melts off, you're going to have the same amount of snowfall. Greg Falconer: Yeah. As my neighbor is probably going to attest to, does anybody here own a steel building? I just want to ask that, okay. So you know what I'm talking about. Once it dumps off, if you don't get onto that right away this is already snow that is probably half melted or whatever else and that's the reason why it's coming off but once it hits the ground and you don't get to it right away, it freezes to complete ice snow. You can't take a regular shovel into it. You don't remove it like that. That's why once it starts piling up here and keeps coming off the roof, half of it will go this direction. Half of it will go that direction and it's almost impossible to get rid of at that point. Aller: And you built the larger structure, which is to my understanding is the second largest in the area, with a metal roof too? Greg Falconer: Yes. Aller: And what are you doing now with that snow? That's been happening all along Greg Falconer. That is correct and I get on that as far as we can and I have a skid steer that I put on a tooth bucket and on many, many occasions you sit there and bang on it and bang on it until you can get back into your building. Aller: And you'd have to do that regardless of what structure you've got coming in. You're going to have to continue to do that. Chanhassen Planning Commission —November 20, 2012 Greg Falconer: I'm going to have to continue to do that over here so I don't have the ice build up that we've been having over here on this side. Aller: Well what would change with the other, the green roof? Greg Falconer: Get everything over here to a manageable area where I can, in one of these pictures, I don't know if, I don't know if I have it but in one of these pictures my sidewalk right now ends right here and it's a paver sidewalk going from the house all the way down to this area right here. Once I get my pavers down to this area here where all the snow and water dumps off I can scoop it up and push it right on down and get rid of it. That's basically what 1 do here. I run along side of the building and chisel and chisel and chisel until I can get back in my building doors. Aller: Is there a reason you can't do that now? Say the building wasn't there, what's stopping you from putting your pavers in and running down there to clean up whatever snow falls there? Greg Falconer: Well this is grass down into here right now and there's edging right over to here and I stopped the pavers right here because I just did this in the last 3 weeks. Because I don't want to put my pavers down here if I'm going to be building this building and ripping out the footings and stuff. I'll just damage all my pavers right now but yeah, if I can get it to dump out on my sidewalk over here, manageable. Aller: Anything else? Any questions? Alright. Undestad: Just one more. So back to your, how you've got that laid out. If you move that door, you'd be okay with pushing the wall back in so you're back to the same square footage? Greg Falconer. Same square footage, as long as I can get my overhang on there. Undestad: And that would put the overhang. Greg Falconer: At 13 feet. Undestad: If you eliminate the 200 square feet. Greg Falconer: That's correct. Aller: How large would the overhang be? Undestad: 13. Greg Falconer: 13 feet overhang. Right now I have it at 8 foot. Aller: And the purpose of the overhang is to still square off the building, correct? The roof. Greg Falconer: No. It's to mitigate the water and ice and snow. Aller: By taking away that angle perception... Greg Falconer: Yes, that is correct. Aller. So we're on the same page. I'm just. Chanhassen Planning Commission — November 20, 2012 Greg Falconer: Yep. Aller: You want the same roof line. Greg Falconer: Yes. Yep. Aller. And it doesn't matter for roofline purposes whether or not it's open or closed. Greg Falconer: No it doesn't and the reason why you know I pulled this wall, you know in my original plan I had this wall out over here. I pulled this back closer and talked with the City about that and they said well unfortunately your roof overhang constitutes square footage of a building so a carport in other words would constitute square footage of a building. So thus the problem we're having. It's unfortunate that this, I mean constitutes square footage because really. Aller: Well when you look at, when you're looking at water though I can certainly understand it because it's not a tree canopy which is going to absorb water. Whether it's, whether it's a carport or a closed in section you're still block. Greg Falconer: Shedding water. Aller: And shedding water and collecting water so. Greg Falconer: Yeah and you know, and you know the hard surface of this piece of property, well I have, there's basically 5 acres here so it's not like we have a hard surface issue going on. Undestad: Can I ask one more question here while we're looking at that plan and this plan. We're kind of just always stayed away from the east side of the building over there but. Greg Falconer: The east side? Yes because that area here on that side over here, I take all her water. I take all her water from this side and my water runs right next to the building right here. Undestad: So you know if you moved the building to the west then you've got more grass. More... Greg Falconer: Yeah it's not possible over there to do it because the building blocks that off and just, if I pull the building over here I don't have any way of pushing the water away from this building right here. It runs right along side that edge which is along here. Undestad: Only on the other side of the retaining wall. Greg Falconer: Yeah, well no. Well yeah, on the other side of the retaining wall, yes. Undestad: Yeah. Greg Falconer. Yeah it's not feasible to move the building over because that's a drainage, it's a, it's already almost too low over there. Undestad: That retaining wall goes all the way back to the bigger building? Greg Falconer: No, this retaining wall actually stops, there's a picture of it right here. Stops right here so it comes around and wraps back into the building right here. So right now the water comes down here 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission — November 20, 2012 and hits this retaining wall just a tiny bit and then it drains in a drainage trough all the way back by the existing building. That can be an issue over there already. I've had water infiltrate into the large building in heavy, heavy, heavy, heavy rains. No matter what you do it comes in. On the large side. It only happens probably once every 2 years but I have had water inside of that building. Aller: Okay. Okay, great. Thank you. Greg Falconer. Alright, thank you. Tammy Falconer: Thank you. Aller: Okay, we're going to open up the public portion of the hearing. Anyone wishing to come forward and speak for or behalf please do so at this time. State your name and address for the record sir. Wes Dunmore: Wes Dunmore, 730 West 96'" Street. I live just to the west of Greg and Tammy. Aller. Welcome. Wes Dunmore: And thank you for having n here. One thing I don't know if Greg pointed out, if you guys saw where his old building was, that's in the northwest comer. There is absolutely no sunlight in there so nothing gets a chance to melt but if he got to extend that roolline that snow would all be out further and water seems to be the main issue here. Some years ago the City of Chanhassen applied and received a grantt and they put in city drain field on that street because the soils are so bad. Every single house we have a city drain field for liquids only. That's the kind of soil we're in that clay. It goes nowhere's. Winter before last with all that snow, I have a 40 by 63 pole bam. The north side of my building raised by 4 inches and as I stand here it's still 4 inches taller and the trees aren't growing on it. It's just one of those things that happen. It is just all clay. You have to get rid of that water. I have snow coming off of my buildings but they come off on the side just like on Greg's big one. It melts a little bit but in that comer that he's talking about, the reason he wants to cover that, again you can't get that and that stuff gets hard. During the day you might be able to move some of the other but I too use a skidster to get rid of all of that snow. It's a lot of work. Couple years ago I made a mistake of leaving my truck alongside the pole bam. I was out of town for a day or two. The snow came down. 2 days hand digging that out. Just between the building and my truck 3 feet away so I think what they're looking for would make that place look a lot better. It would make a lot of sense. You've got to get that water out of there. It's just heavy ground on there so I'm in favor of him with a variance. I have no problems with that. I think it would be better. I think what he's trying to do is to build it right the fust time rather than go back again. It's a lot cheaper to do it right the first time then to go back and try and put a band aid on it and that's just kind of a waste I think of everybody's time on there but I understand where you're coming from but I just want to voice my opinion on that. I think what he's trying to do is get that water out of there and just improve the neighborhood so I think that's all I need to say. Thank you. Aller. Great, thank you. Okay, please state your name and address for the record sir Gary Bendzick: Gary Bendzick, 731 West 96'". I just would like to reiterate a couple of things. Obviously the water is a huge issue. The last meeting a comment was made after the public was closed that said we'll just up a gutter. Unfortunately we don't live in Arizona. Unless a gutter faces straight south in Minnesota it does not work in the winter. I think the water issue in the summer is minor in their situation. It's not a fun thing to deal with but the ice build-up in there, to be able to remove the snow in the winter, once there's a base of ice there his equipment isn't going to remove that without any problems. I've been in the building business for 40 years. There's one sure fire method of solving a problem and that's eliminate the problem. If that roof is extended so that everything dumps outside his big building I Chanhassen Planning Commission —November 20, 2012 and he can push it straight to the south, it's going to be much easier situation to clean up. It's going to be safer and just an all around better situation. I have a little bit of a hard, you know disagreement with the hard surface issue. My lot, I could have a roof over my entire lot, it wouldn't make one bit of difference with my ground water. When I did my addition, first addition 20 years ago I believe when we moved in, or 18 years ago, whatever, we were in a normal or above normal wet year. The top of my footings was level with water. Inside the structure. I had to hold the plumbing pipes down with 2 by 4's for inspection and until I put in two additional sump pumps I couldn't even control it. I love droughts. My grass is green as can be this year and I don't water it. Maybe once, we watered it twice this year because of fertilizing and it was supposed to rain but we have such a high water problem in our area, as Wes stated with our city drain field, it's just a tough situation to handle water. If we were in a soil that allowed that easier, there'd be other solutions but like I said before the sure fire way to eliminate the problem, or to get rid of the problem is to eliminate it. By extending this roof out and getting everything to dump out where he has some positive flow for drainage is only going to make it a lot better situation. And the other thing I just want to comment on, on the comprehensive plan. When I did my remodel 5 years ago when I did my final renovation I was told that we're in an area, you know this was by planning and I don't remember which, whether it was Sharmeen or Alyson or who told me that but we're an area that will always be large lots. There's really nothing else that can be done with it. The last meeting Kate had said that you know the plan calls for medium density housing in there. I'd like to know where it would ever be. The only way you could ever increase the number of houses in there would be to bulldoze the entire street down and possibly put a U in there. We're bordered on both sides by wetlands which you know they say you can remove them but I don't know how you would. Again the water issue with where I'm in, not in wetlands is I could consider wetland so the idea that this is going to be medium density housing someday, I just don't buy that. I can't see that ever happening. I don't know what developer would want to come in and buy the whole street, all you know 15 or 18 properties and then bulldoze them all down and try to maybe get 3 or 4 more houses in there because I just don't, I just don't see economically that that would make any sense so to me the 1,000 square foot thing in a city lot in town, it's wonderful. It should have always been that way. Where you're in a large acreage lots, R2, A2, 1,000 square foot structure to me is ridiculous because it just doesn't make any sense for the area. So I am in favor of their being granted a variance to build their structure correctly and I feel that if they do that it only blends in with the rest of the neighborhood. Thank you. Aller: Thanks. Any further comments any individual wishes to come forward. Okay, I'm going to close the public hearing at this time seeing no one come forward. Comments. Questions. Colopoulos: Well the last time the Falconer's came before the Planning Commission I made a motion to grant their variance on the assumption that they knew better than we did at that time the measures that needed to be taken to mitigate their water issue and the reconstruction of this building. And since that time they've come back and modified the plan and an engineer certification that also agrees with their plan to optimize their water problem. Situation. So if anything I'm more encouraged than I was before that this, that my original decision to support a motion to grant them the variance was a correct one. Now since that time I've also gone to read the, read the comprehensive plan and you know I have to say, I haven't read all 489 pages of it but I have, but there was one quote, one section that leaped out at me in the introduction. It says encourage low density, low density residential development in appropriate areas of the community in a matter that reinforces the character and integrity of existing single family neighborhoods while promoting the establishment of new neighborhoods with similar quality. That's a pretty wide, broad statement. You know so the interpretation that we're all moving in the direction of medium density housing, you know smaller unit parcels, etc, I don't think the comprehensive plan is quite that set in that direction. I mean it seems to have, it seems to bounce around from you know different definitions depending upon whether you're talking about the need for, that the community has for high density housing, medium density housing and low density housing. I mean the comprehensive plan tries to make a go of addressing all 3 of those needs in it's own manner so I don't see the comprehensive plan 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission — November 20, 2012 being an immoveable force that's trying to eventually bulldoze your neighborhood and crush into smaller sections. I don't think that's an issue here. And so what is? You know what is the purpose going forward here? I've also taken a closer look at 2058 which, section of the code with conditions variances are granted and gee that language is, is well subjective shall we say in several areas to say the least. I mean it can be interpreted a number of ways. You could read that to say that for example it says, yeah I'll have to put on my glasses for this one. A variance may be granted if all of the following criteria are met and then it lists 6 things. Now if you read that one way you'd think well, then you've got to meet all of those requirements before your variance could be granted. But if it meant that wouldn't it say a variance may be granted only if all of the following conditions or criteria are met. So I take that to read something different. That if you meet any one of those you might have grounds for the variance being granted and in your case, in the case of the Falconer's rather I think that you've probably met 3 of the 6. The only reason why I'm not granting more, or seeing more of that is because I'm not sure reading 1 and 2, you know such wide, subjective statements as in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter in one variance, well. You know that could mean a lot of different things. And then the same thing, practical difficulties. Again that could be subject to interpretations. But the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Boy if that isn't a water problem situation I don't know what is so from my humble opinion, I don't know how the rest of the commission, I'm sure I'll find in a minute how some of them think I'm dead wrong, but from my perspective number 4 is good enough for me to grant the variance. Subject to this plan. Before I make a motion I want to make sure that it has a fair chance of being seconded anyway so I'll let the others speak their minds first. Undestad: I think the only comment I have to your, to what you've just said there was, you know the water problem not caused by the landowner. I think in this instance that larger building plopped up behind everything else is the water problem right there. I mean before that was there I'm sure the water all just took off and kept on going. Greg Falconer: It didn't though. Undestad: I'm not, and I'm not saying that that's a reason. The other thing that I think I'm looking at here is that, you know it looks like the City provided a couple of you know what I think good options in there that neither one of those were really talked about in there so I'm kind of leaning the other way. I think there were a couple of good options and even if the City came in and did the 1,280 square feet with the 200, or 2 1/2 foot overhangs, that gets all the water and snow away from the building and gives them the same square footage they have in there. And looking at any of these designs it looks like a bunch of the retaining wall's going to come out anyway so, I don't know. I'm guessing there'll be a lot of grading done around that new structure when it's put in. Aller: Comments. Questions. Tennyson: Yeah, the problem I have with the proposal is that in general a variance isn't used when there are alternatives. That's where I'm stuck. That there are other things that can be done and it seems like the applicant is chasing a variance in order to get exactly what they were trying to do. They want their building with the retaining wall, with the other building, with no change to the landscaping, the grading. It's just, it's not changing anything. It's a replacement. I don't know if it fires the problem. I don't think it's to me it's not exactly about the water. It's about the Findings of Fact and what a variance is for and when there are alternatives we don't usually use a variance. Thomas: Yep, I guess I appreciate the findings from Greg over, your engineer and what not. I guess I would say I wish that I appreciate that you said that he said that you know the proposals, the actions from the City are you know a joke or not going to be what could help your property out. It just sort of would have been nice to have seen it as opposed to just, you know hearsay is harder to interpret than an actual 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission — November 20, 2012 like here's the proposal that we have that you guys proposed. Here's what the City has proposed. Here is why each of these options aren't going to work for your property. It would have been just a little bit you know, especially when the city engineer went out there and I know Alyson does a good job of finding out where water moves and the engineering process so you know I'm surprised that the other options that we have aren't going to work. Greg Falconer. Well let it be noted that Alyson had no comment. Thomas: No comment. Greg Falconer: No comment when she was there. Thomas: On? Greg Falconer: The city engineer. Thomas: No I know Alyson. Yeah, I'm well aware. Bob, what does that mean? Greg Falconer: If you don't have a comment, why don't you have a comment? Tammy Falconer: You have no opinion either way. Greg Falconer: No opinion. You can't offer an opinion. Why? Thomas: I don't think the City's trying to hide something but I mean you know I mean, I'm just trying to understand. I mean you're saying like she just didn't have an. Greg Falconer: She didn't have an opinion for the option. Tammy Falconer: Right. Greg Falconer: Because when she looked at the property she realized the option wasn't a viable option. Aller: Well I'm not sure that that's the case but I'm also not sure that it's the City's job to go out and do your engineering work. Greg Falconer: That is correct. That's why I never invited them out in the first place. Aller: So my problem with the engineering work is that you were given options and HavTek I'm sure is familiar with going through options and taking a look at them and it looks to me in reading this that he's using your re -build and saying it will work. It's not that he created this to fix a water problem. Greg Falconer: Can I say one thing to that? HavTek never had these options because I didn't have those options. Tammy Falconer. Right, we're just seeing this for the first time. Greg Falconer: We're just seeing this for the first time. Tammy Falconer. These options right here. 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission — November 20, 2012 Greg Falconer. These options weren't given to me. Bob just came up and said what do you think about pulling the building back. That's all he said. I never had these drawings. Tammy Falconer: We never had these drawings. Hokkanen: Well if it gets to me. Thomas: Go ahead Lisa_ Hokkanen: I'm on the fence on this one. I could go either way because one I don't, I haven't seen enough about these alternatives that that will solve their problem. It's staff I'm sure did that but I haven't seen anything saying that they're not going to solve your problem. I'm also, there was one other thing. Now I've got, I didn't know you just didn't see these. That you just got these options. Oh, the HavTek I would have liked to have seen them say these won't work. I mean we don't really. Tammy Falconer: We didn't have these. Hokkanen: I know. Greg Falconer: Like I say we didn't have them so I couldn't give them to Greg. HavTek Hokkanen: Because I understand, coming from my, from a real estate point of view with your home and your land and all that and with the comprehensive plan, I agree with Bill on that part of it but I also want to make sure if there's another option versus the variance that is viable, and also you've said you're a landscaper by business for, and Mark kept saying you know fill that in with dirt. I mean you could landscape. I mean I know what Mark was meaning from a, but look you could fill it in. I mean we do it with houses. Grading so the water comes off and goes down, you know with draintile, with whatever, I think that's what he was getting at and if there was a way I'm sure you would try and do it that way but I haven't seen a proposal to see if that's possible from a landscaping point of view if that is, you know if we did one of the alternatives and some landscaping and some draintile, I guess I feel like we're still missing parts of this in order to get me off the fence. Oops, sorry. But do you see what I'm saying? So I just feel like we need a little bit more, either from the City or the no comment, I don't understand that if that's, I don't understand Alyson on that but. Colopoulos: I think your explanation may have, Mr. Chair may have indicated that it's not the City's purview to offer engineering plan which in that case defers to the only expert testimony that's been provided which is my position. I mean what is the harm in granting this variance on the basis of that report? It wouldn't compromise the variance rules if we yielded to that recommendation being the optimization plan for water mitigation. Look at 20-58, Subsection 4, there you go. You know that would be the clean interpretation and it would let us move on to other things. Aller: Well I don't read this the same way. I don't read this as saying it's going to cure anything. It's got load requirements for snow so the roof won't collapse again. Hokkanen: Right, Aller. I also see it as a professional landscaper who's built a retaining wall which channels water as well as a building which is the second largest building in the area and obviously the water was there when he built it so how can we say in looking at this that it wasn't caused by the homeowner. We're allowing. Colopoulos: The other building? 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission — November 20, 2012 Aller. We're allowing under the code for a rebuild so he's actually ending up with more than he would have had if we didn't have that in the code. And now he's asking for a variance from that, which is an addition so I would strictly construe things when we're saying we want more, and I think that's what a variance is for. It's to say do we not have a reasonable use of our property and here he's got more use of his property than others so it's more than reasonable and the question is why should we give him extra? Especially when there are other options. Tennyson: And I think as far as those other options it doesn't necessarily mean it's exactly what was proposed by the City. The two that were in the packet. It's just that there may be other alternatives in general. Greg Falconer: But then I have to go through a variance again because of that? I mean how many times am I going to have to do this? See what I'm saying? Aller. Sir, this was before us once and there could have been an appeal to the City Council already. Greg Falconer: I can still appeal to the City Council and the reason why I didn't was because I would prefer your, I would prefer your signature on this than the City Council because I really think that we could get this right in this area here. You know and I have, I have done everything I possibly can do. I've hired an engineer who said, you can read it, Greg's rootline is favorable to obviously what he's trying to do here. I mean. Aller: But what I'm not hearing is I've looked at every option and this is the option. Greg Falconer. Right. Aller: Which is what I would expect an engineer to do. To say this is the best option. Here's my, here are your options. 1, 2. What this says to me is I've looked at Mr. Falconer's option and it will, it will work but it doesn't mean that it's not one of many which will work. Greg Falconer: Okay, so he comes up with another option and then I have to come back for a variance again? Hokkanen: Maybe if you come up with one that's within. Aller. If it's within that square footage. Greg Falconer: When does common sense take over with the situation here? What other option is there? I mean let's just look at this for what it is. There is no option. I mean I saw this option here from somebody who doesn't even know anything about it and he says here's an option for you. Why is Bob a person to give options? What's his background? Is he a landscape{? A hydrologist? You see what I'm saying? You guys just throw stuff out but you won't listen tome. I'm just trying to do what's right for my building. You keep saying well geez we can't do this. Can't do that. There's got to be some more options. What is wrong with the option that I gave you? What's wrong with it? Aller. It doesn't in my opinion fit the requirements for a variance. Undestad: What Bob has done, with all his years of experience out here is to try to help you get some more ideas and go for other options that would come through here and have a better chance of saying okay, that fits. That works. We're not here just to say no Greg, Tammy. 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission —November 20, 2012 Aller: And that's only if you're asking for a variance. You have the absolute right to rebuild what was there. Greg Falconer: Yeah but I rebuild the building and I've have the same problems that I had with the building. Aller: Well and then we'll differ because my opinion is, and I'm not a hydrologist either but my common sense look at it is that that second building and the retaining wall and a lot of the other things that were done to the property created that problem. Greg Falconer: So the fact that our buildings are going up and down from our moisture problems that we're having, that doesn't say anything? Aller: It says that you have a water problem. Greg Falconer: Yeah. Isn't that what I'm trying to avoid? Water problems. Aller: Maybe you want to jack it up and put hydraulic vehicles in there and they won't go up and down. I don't know. Greg Falconer: Well I do know. I've got a certification from an engineer that says this is favorable. This will work. Aller: It says your roof collapsed due to, probably due to excessive snow load. Your proposed rebuild will alter the roof, favorable alter the roof slopes and snow loadings. So that to me means your roof is not going to collapse. Thomas: But it doesn't talk about water, does it? It just talks about snow load. Aller: Then it shows that the configuration will provide safety egress function of the pedestrian door but there's no requirement that you have a door there. Greg Falconer: Wait a minute, they're talking about my existing door into my existing building. It's an egress issue. It's a safety violation as far as I'm concerned. I build it so it ends up in front of the door? It's an egress issue. Aller: But that could be corrected with snow removal. Greg Falconer: Pardon me? Aller: That's correctable with snow removal. It's not an issue if you shovel. Greg Falconer: Can I hire you to come out and make sure that the snow is gone? Aller: I didn't build the building. Greg Falconer: I'm saying that, it doesn't even make sense what you're saying. He just testified that we have major snow problems on steel roofs. I'm telling you the same thing. I have the snow come off the roof and it ends up in front of that door. Ices up. I can't get in the door. I can't get out the door. 17 Chanhassen Planning Commission — November 20, 2012 Undestad: We're not here to, you know we're not telling you that it's right or wrong, your snow slides off a metal roof. Greg Falconer. So you're going to tell me to build it and I'm going to have an egress problem. Undestad: No. Greg Falconer. I'm going to build the building just the way it is right now and I'll have an egress problem. A safety issue. Originally you know before the variance I never had any options for the first variance hearing. They never offered me any options back then. Never even came out to my property to take a look at what I was getting. Just kind of said well I'll see you there. I guess that was it. Aller: Anything further? Undestad: No. Aller: Anybody want to make a motion? Undestad: I'll make the motion. Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the 4,940 square foot variance to the 1,000 square foot accessory structure limitation and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Tennyson: I'll second. Aller: Any further discussion? Undestad moved, Tennyson seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the 4,940 square foot variance to the 1,000 square foot accessory structure limitation and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. All voted in favor, except Colopoulos and Hokkanen who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. Aller: Again any person who is aggrieved of a decision may appeal a variance decision in writing within 4 days of the decision. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Thomas noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 16, 2012. COMMISSION PRSENTATIONS. Chairman Aller: Commission Kelsey Nelson has moved from Chanhassen to Chaska. Is no longer a resident of Chanhassen and she therefore will be unable to complete her term and has submitted her resignation to this commission. Her contributions will be missed and we wish her well. Those individuals out there who wish to apply for a position with the Planning Commission should look to do so in the spring when those positions become available and notice will be provided in the Chan Villager and elsewhere. Anything further? Any motions to adjourn? Thomas moved, Colopoulos seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. 18 Chanhassen Planning Commission — November 20, 2012 Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director 19 Prepared by Nann Opheim City Council Action Update MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2012 CITY COUNCIL MEETING: There were no Planning items on this agenda. The minutes for this meeting can be viewed from the City's website. Go to www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us, and click on "Agendas and Minutes" from the left -side links. gAplanWo m kity council action update.doc Future Planning Commission Agenda Items Schedule DATE rrEMS Work Session Items • Kortgard subdivision Possible Future • 6300 Chaska Road Subdivision Request Items (Date • West Fire Station Communication Antenna CUP & Site Plan Unknown) • Jeurissen Property Subdivision —1500 Pioneer Trail January 1 NO MEETING DUE TO HOLIDAY January 15 • WAPIWCA Mitigation Approval, TH 101 Improvement Project from Pioneer February 11 CC Trail to Lyman Boulevard. • Chanhassen Gateway PUD Amendment and Crossroads of Chanhassen Site Plan Amendment • Sinclair site redevelopment • Concept PUD — Riley Creek — Knoblauch Builders February 5 February 25 CC February 19 March 11 CC March 5 March 25 CC March 19 Aril 8 CC April 2 WORK SESSION April 16 May 13 CC May 7 May 28 CC (Tuesday) May 21 June 10 CC June 4 June 24 CC June 18 July 8 CC July 2 1 NO MEETING DUE TO HOLIDAY gaagendastpffutum planning commission agenda items.doc 12/4/2012 TH 101 Minnesota River Crossing and CSAH 61 Improvements December 4, 2012 Planning Commission Meeting 3,OOGIrW BrWgy 1 12/4/2012 e 01 Recommendation \ail rrwn•wa� eww ar a.rr� r.w� www. _ uaa�nlr• war —M_ a to rlawacrrare. ur w � wrl�rrrnr oar w a MVP••am aur M - s oatrra.nraaw aur w a rrrra•.arwror aawr w r „a.arr.•y guar ?• nr aur Carver County CSAH 61 Improvements Alternative 1 a 2 12/4/2012 Trail Realignment ARemar eT \.\ with UnvaTem, Ci. 1 10 ti --- 12/4/2012 Hennepin County CSAH 61 Improvements Reconstruct Flying Cloud Drive from County line east to Charlson Road. Roadway planned for a 3 lane Design. Will be reconstructed so roadway is above 100 year flood elevation. Pedestrian Trail is planned. Tentative Schedule Cultural Resources Investigation December, 2012 Selection of Preferred Alternative for "WYE" area December, 2012 MnDot bid for girder bridge fabrication June, 2014 MnDot bid for Minnesota River Crossing project Fall, 2014 Start Minnesota River Crossing construction Fall/Winter, 2014 Carver County bids out for CSAH 61 project Fall, 2014 MnDot and Carver County project complete Fall, 2015 Hennepin County project construction start Summer, 2015 r. n r. 2 Aw PROPOSED MOTION: "The Chanhassen Planning Commission provide the City Council with comments and feedback, along with stafrs proposed comments listed in the staff report." PROPOSAL: Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) on approximately 14 acres of land located at the northwest comer of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard — Chanhassen Apartments. LOCATION: Northwest comer of Highway 5 and Galpm 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 d , Chanhassen, MN 55317 Jim Swiontek 952-937-9596 iims@,gmericanfinancial.com 2030 LAND USE PLAN: Office on the southern parcel; Residential Low Density (1.2-4 unitstacre) on the northern parcel ACREAGE: A ro imately 14 acres SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval for a general concept plan for a PUD for 224 apartments. If the project is to proceed for preliminary or development plan approval, the application would include a land use amendment from office and residential low density to residential high density, a rezoning to Planned Unit Development — Residential from Agricultural Estate District, A2, and a site plan review. 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. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a general concept plan for a Planned Unit Development (PUD). 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 concept 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. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 2 of 20 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. The property would need a land use amendment to High Density, rezoning to PUD -R (allowing 16 units an acre) and site plan approval to proceed. BACKGROUND 2008Comprehensive an changed the land use guiding to Office on the southern eight acres of property. 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 78'h Street, two-story office building development including a bank with drive-thru facilities with approximately 66,000 square feet of floor area. *See attachment #3 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 78`h Street. The land north of West 7e Street, which was proposed for townhouse development, was not approved as part of the concept planned unit development. n 2000 and 2001, West 78th 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/sever,subdistricts across the northern portion of the property. 12, 1991k the Chanhassen City Council adopts the Bluff Creek Overlay District. December 1996, Blulff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan is completed. Uses for the North 1995 Study Area, guiding this property for In August 95, the ' y 5 Corridor Land Use Design Study was completed. The bulk of the area was recommended for single-family residential. A portion of the Mills property (Arboretum Village site) was recommended for neighborhood convenience retail center, but only ancillary to office, institutional or multi -family residential. Highway 5 Corridor Design Standards adopted July 11, 1994. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 3 of 20 As part of the 1991 Comprehensive Plan, this property was included as part of the 1995 study area for determination of the land use of the property. On February 12, 1990, the Chanhassen City Council approved a zoning ordinance amendment making golf driving ranges interim uses in the A2 district. 9n November 16, 1987, the Chanhassen City Council approved a zoning ordinance amendment to permit golf driving ranges as a conditional use in the A2 zoning district and a conditional use permit for John Przymus for a golf driving range and miniature golf course at the subject property. On November 4, 1985, the Chanhassen City Council revoked the conditional use permit for a golf driving range at the northwest comer of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard due to non- compliance with the conditions of the conditional use permit. �. pn December 19, 1983, the Chanhassen City Council approved a conditional use permit for a /golf driving range at the northwest comer of Highway 5 and Galpin Blvd. APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Chapter 20: Article VIII, Planned Unit Development District, Article VI, Wetland Protection, Article VII, Shoreland Management district, Article XXXI, Bluff Creek Overlay District Concept PUD - What is required? The intent of the concept plan is to get direction from the Planning Commission and City Council without incurring a lot of expense. There will be a greater level of detail required through the city code and the recommendations and direction in this report. Following are the requirements for conceptual PUD approval. Chanhassen City Code, Section 20-517 General concent plan (a) The general concept plan for a PUD provides an opportunity for the applicant to submit a plan to the city showing the basic intent and the general nature of the entire development without incurring substantial cost. The plan shall include the following: (1) Overall gross and net density. (2) Identification of each lot size and lot width. (3) General location of major streets and pedestrian ways. (4) General location and extent of public and common open space. (5) General location and type of land uses and intensities of development. (6) Staging and time schedule for development Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 4 of 20 (b) The tentative written consent of all property owners within the proposed PUD shall be filed with the city before the staff commences review. Approval of the concept statement shall not obligate the city to approve the final plan or any part thereof or to rezone the property to a planned unit development district. (c) The final acceptance of land uses is subject to the following procedures: (1) The developer meets with the city staff to discuss the proposed developments. (2) The applicant shall file the concept stage application and concept plan, to ether with all supporting data. ��M (3) The planning commission shall conduct a hearing and make ommendatto to the city council. Notice of the hearing shall consist o a legal property description, description of request, and be published in the official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing, written notification of the hearing shall be mailed at least ten (10) days prior thereto to owners of land within five hundred (500) feet of the boundary of the property and an on-site notification sign erected. (4) Following the receipt of the report and recommendations from the planning commission, the city council shall consider the proposal. The council may comment on the concept plan. 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 78th 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 Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 5 of 20 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 and includes 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 224 units including studio, one and two-bedroom apartments. Bui]stalls- Amenities materials are cement board and brick. The building would be three stories with underg parking. There is an additional 119 surface parking stalls provided with 127 undergroufor the apartments include a swimming pool and clubhouse. 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 (see attached zoning district). The following elements of the comprehensive plan discuss land use policies that should be evaluated in changing the land use. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 6 of 20 Chanter 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 Medium 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. 2.10 Office Land Use This 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, corporate headquarters site would be appropriate. The zoning district for the land is OI (Office Institutional District). 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 7.6.5 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. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 7 of 20 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. 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 Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 8 of 20 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. 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 proposed 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 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. A land use amendment to High Density Residential would be required to be consistent the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 9 of 20 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 subject site. The development proposes a pool and clubhouse. 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 be increase in overall trips. A more detailed traffic study would need to be completed to study the function of the intersection of Galpin and West 78's 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. Finding: !f the project moves beyond conceptual approval, preliminary PUD design standards will be created that will control the development of the project. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 10 of 20 Sec. 20-503. - District size and location. 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. 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 staff report. The development must receive a land use amendment, rezoning and site plan review approvals. Chapter 20 Article XXIII 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. Finding. 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. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 11 of 20 (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 and buffering for adjoining properties that represent improvements over normal ordinance standards. Finding. 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 must calculate the net developable acres of the site and wetland acreage. The project proposes using all of the area of the northern six -acre parcel including wetlands to develop this site, thus maximizing the density. (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. Finding. Not applicable with this request. The project will be market rate. (e) Hard surface coverage shall be limited as follows: Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 12 of 20 Comprehensive Plan Designation Hard Surface Coverage (%) Low or medium density residential 30 High density residential 50 Office 70 Commercial (neighborhood or community) 70 Commercial (regional) 70 Industrial 70 Mixed use 70 Individual lots within PUD may exceed these standards as long as the average meets these standards. Finding. The development appears to be under 50 percent hardcover. The developer shall provide the hard surface coverage calculation to confirm. (� 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 has a 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. One small portion of the building encroaches into the required setback The building shall be adjusted to meet the setback (g) More than one building may be placed on one platted or recorded lot in a PUD. Finding: The project proposes two apartment buildings and a clubhouse on one lot. The Property will not be subdivided. Storm water and park and trail fees are collected with a subdivision. Because there is no platting, the city is requesting 50 percent of these fees in force at the time of project approval be paid if the project advances. (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 Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 13 of 20 Other parties without restriction; however, all parcels will remain subject to the PUD development contract that will be recorded in each chain -of -title. Finding: 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. Finding. 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 areq nor be more than five 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 property owner or a homeowners association shall be responsible for maintenance of the identifmcation/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 =11 and XXV of this chapter may be applied by the city as it deems appropriate. Finding: The project will follow the city's design standards and landscaping, tree removal and buffering requirements (see m). (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 requited 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: A traffic study will be required to determine if any improvements need to be made to the existing roadway system. Access to the site is via a collector street. The internal streets are private and shall meet the city's driveways standards. A traffic analysis was done comparing the current proposal with the Galpin Crossings proposal. The study found that the am and pm peak tips would be less, but there would be a minor increase in overall trips. Amore detailed traffic study would need to be completed to study the function of the intersections of Galpin at West 78`" Street and Highway 5. (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. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 14 of 20 Finding. Not applicable at this time. (m) suffer 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 fid! 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. Finding: The area guided for low density land use designation 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 PVDs. (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.* *Yhe 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, minimum front yard setback of20 feet shall be maintained (3) Other setbacks: Established by PUD agreement. Finding: With a land use amendment to high density residential and the rezoning of the property, the standard would be met. Additional design standards will be generated as a part of the PUD review. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 15 of 20 (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. Finding: 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. (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 following landscaping requirements make the proposal consistent with the requirements: Parking lot requirements: • An island or peninsula for every 6000 square feet of vehicular use area. May need one more island in parking lot. • All islands must have minimum interior width of 10 feet. Building requirements: • Foundation plantings. • Headlighthraffic screening. Additional: • City boulevard trees must be protected during construction and replaced if damaged. Trees must be shown on plans. Plantings along the roads must comply with the bufferyard B standards of the city code. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 16 of 20 • Canopy coverage for site should be around 25% (78 trees or so) (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 minimidesign 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... Findings: The building will be reviewed under the city's design standards for multifamily development, Chapter 20, Article MR, Division 9, including archictural style, materials, lighting, etc. as well at the R16 Zoning District. MnDOT requires that the building be designed for noise attenuation. The R16 zoning district permits a height of three stories or 35 feet. The pitch of the building's roof adds additional height making the building approximately 50 feet tall. The midpoint of the roof is used is used for calculated height. The PUD ordinance can address the height by permitting taller buildings. The building is highly articulated with pitched roofs and balconies, windows and patio doors. The materials are cement boards and brick. STREETS AND ACCESS Access to the site is proposed via two access points on West 786' Street. The westerly access is a full access and the easterly access is a right-in/right-out only. Staff recommends that a traffic study be completed for the proposed development should the Planning Commission and City Council support the concept PUD. The study must address intersection of Galpin Boulevard at West 78"' Street and Highway 5. UTILITIES City sewer and water is available to the site. A preliminary utility plan would be required as part of any future development review. GRADING. DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL A grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be required as part of the preliminary Planned Unit Development review for the project should it move beyond the concept stage. The concept Plans prepared by Alliant Engineering; Incorporated on behalf of Oppidan dated 10/11/12 and were received by Chanhassen on November 2, 2012. The delineation preformed by Kjolhaug Environmental on November 2, 2012 was field reviewed. A final delineation report was submitted the afternoon of 11/19/2012. This report will need to be noticed to Technical Evaluation Panel members for review and comment prior to approval. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 17 of 20 The property is divided by West 78'" Street into two parcels. These parcels have been identified as Parcel A north of West 78`h Street and Parcel B to the south. BLUFF CREEK MANAGEMENT Parcel A includes a large wetland complex which is also the origination of Bluff Creek. Bluff Creek was listed as impaired for aquatic life due to high turbidity in 2002 and for low fish biota scores in 2004. Bluff Creek drains to the Lower Minnesota River which is also impaired due to elevated turbidity. Wetlands The area was first delineated in 2003 by Schoell and Madson, Inc. It was delineated again this fall by Kjolhaug Environmental. Both delineation reports found extensive wetlands on Parcel A. In addition, one wetland was found on Parcel B in both cases. However, in 2003 it was determined that this area was created incidental to the construction of West 78th Street. Because Minnesota Rules 8420.0255, Subpart 4 states that an LGU decision is only valid for three (3) years, the applicant must request a No Loss decision. However, the determination from 2004 that the wetland was incidental to the construction of West 78th Street can be used as evidence that a decision of No Loss should be granted for the wetland on Parcel B. Any impacts to wetlands would have to meet the sequencing requirements of Minnesota Rules, Chapter 8420. Avoidance is always preferred and economics cannot be the sole justification for wetland impacts. But these same rules do allow for the impact and replacement of wetlands provided that sufficient argument is made for why avoidance is not possible. Bluff Creek Overlay District A significant portion of Parcel A is within the Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD). It is required that the primary zone of the BCOD be preserved as open space and that any natural habitat areas, including wetlands, remain undisturbed. The intent of the Bluff Creek Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 18 of 20 Natural resources Management Plan was to protect the water quality of Bluff Creek and provide for a continuous greenway along Bluff Creek to the Minnesota River. Minnesota Shoreland Rules Parcel B is outside of the shoreland management district and would not be subject to the same lot and building 'requirements as Parcel A. Floodplain A substantial portion of Parcel A is within a flood hazard area Zone A. This flood hazard area is approximately coincidental with the BCOD. There is no established base flood elevation. No portion of Parcel B is within a flood zone. Soils Approximately 60 percent of Parcel A is mapped as Houghton and Muskego soils. Houghton soils have a profile which consists of muck to a depth of at least 80 inches. Muskego soils have a profile of muck overlying coprogeneous earth at a depth of 3 feet and extending to five feet or greater. Muck is defined as being dark, finely divided, well decomposed organic soil material. Muck soils and coprogenous soils are very poorly drained and make for extremely poor building sites. These soil types were confirmed during the construction of West 78h Street. Conclusion While some development of Parcel A is possible, the presence of wetlands, Bluff Creek, a shallow water table and poor soils make this parcel a difficult site for development. The Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act does not preclude wetland impacts provided adequate justification is given for why a project could not occur without wetland impacts. As such, while the wetland located on Parcel A within the BCOD would be protected from any and all impact, it is not possible to conclude that some development would not allow for some impacts to the wetland on Parcel A outside of the BCOD. Because of the constraints found on Parcel A and the desire to protect and improve the water quality of Bluff Creek, it would be my recommendation that Parcel A is preserved and that density is transferred to Parcel B. More specifically: 1. Parcel A is provided to the City for management consistent with the Bluff Creek Management Plan, the Bluff Creek TMDL and the 2nd Generation Surface Water Management Plan. 2. The applicant and the City should work together to develop an appropriate mitigation scenario. 3. That 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. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 19 of 20 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 Hwy 5. No additional parkland dedication is recommended as a condition of approval for this proposal. Trails The city trail along West 78d' Street provides access from this site to the four public parks in the area and the city's larger trail network. No additional trail construction is recommended as a condition of approval for this proposal. � d ' / n 4S RECOMMENDATION jon 4lAdm k7S r #As i4 y Staff recommends that the Chanhassen Planning Commission provide the City Council with comments and feedback to along with the following comments: 1. A detailed traffic study would need to be completed to study the function of the intersection of Galpin Boulevard at West 780' Street and Highway 5. 2. Payment of 50% of the required park and trail dedication fee and stormwater fee at the rate in force upon final development approval. 3. Parcel A is provided to the City for management consistent with the Bluff Creek Management Plan, the Bluff Creek TMDL and the 2nd Generation Surface Water Management Plan. 4. The applicant and the City should work together to develop an appropriate mitigation scenario. 5. That 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. 6. Wetland delineation report shall be finalized. 7. A PUD Ordinance shall be created to govern the site and design standards. 8. The developer shall calculate hard surface coverage. 9. Buildings must meet the 50 -foot perimeter setback requirements. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 20 of 20 10. The development shall meet multi -family design standards in Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 9. ATTACHMENTS 1. Development Review Application. 2. Site Plan. 3. Existing Conditions. 4. Garage Level Plan. 5. First Level Plan. 6. Typical Floor Plan. 7. Elevations. 8. Galpin Crossing Concept Plan. 9. City Code Chapter 20, Article XXI. — "OI" Office and Institutional District. 10. Traffic Analysis from Alliant Engineering, Inc. dated November 20, 2012. 11. Letter from MnDOT dated November 20, 2012. 12. Letter from CenterPoint Energy dated November 6, 2012. 13. Affidavit of Mailing of Public Hearing Notice. 14. Letter from Mr. and Mrs. D.B. Dahlquist dated November 26, 2012. 15. Email from Erin Buss dated November 27, 2012. 16. Email from Alice English dated November 28, 2012. 17. "Preserve Chanhassen" Online Neighborhood Petition. g:lp1an12012 planning casesl2012-18 charilumen apartatentA\stafrreport pc.doc rqpS-In �r i CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Applicant Name and Address: Q PP17DAn -NG 51.2s ae cy I o I Su lit lDry Mt-nnpion �cf iy SS 31/S Contact: PA.0 L ii CC i Phone: 9sa•2.gN-tzy3 Fax: 56,;t-aciy-GIS/ Email: Oc L)lo_ Dnpl,4c, r). f6w-, plans Consultation with City staff is required Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development' CVS Cep+ P144 n Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)* Subdivision* Planning Case No,�ZIA-71? CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED NOV 02 2012 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Property Owner Name and Address: A nne)e I ory1 A 41111_�9" k Ghamhcf55pnf M41 Contact: n, Sw, ro,n+-e K Phone:g5_2-g3-7-159G Fax: c7Sa- i3-7- C7S'1` . XLU of development Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) (Additional recording fees may apply) Variance (VAR) Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment I Notification Sign $200 (City to install and re X Escrow foi g Fees/Attorney Cost" -$5 CUP/ RNACNARNVAP/Metes & Bounds -$4 MQi r UB TOTAL FEE $ / �� FSG) c "akt0(.6 An additional fee of $3.00 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 8%" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 (*.till) 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 PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: Nof4kw?-,- Lni-rer n -C LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: o25-0 10 f I WP TOTALACREAGE: 144. WETLANDS PRESENT: AYES NO PRESENT ZONING: A - � REQUESTED ZONING: PU-0 P -- PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: REQUESTED LAND USE C REASON FOR REQUEST: '4 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 Signature of Fee Owner gAplan\fo \developm nl review appfimtim.dw Date Date SCANNED OPPIDAN ad*rof 0aw ofV&e 5125 Comm RoAb 101 #100 NNNEroNEA, MN 55345 • PHONE: 952/294-0353 FAx: 952/294-0151 • WEB: www.oppidan.com November 1, 2012 Kathryn Aanenson, AICP, Community Development Director City of Chanhassen - Chanhassen, MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED ' RE: Proposed Apartment Development NWC highway 5 & Galpin Blvd NOV 0 2 2012 Chanhassen, MN CHANHASSEN PLANNIN13 DEPT Dear Kate: This letter is designed to serve as a brief narrative for proposed apartment development at Galpin Boulevard and highway 5. The highlights of the plans are as follow: • A new, market rate apartment building, containing 224 total units. • The target mix of unit is currently being finalized. Goal is to have 5-10% Studio Units, 55% One Bedroom Units and the balance 2 Bedroom Units. This will move a bit as design continues. • Parking will meet 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 washer and dryer and some units will be designed to have the potential for a fireplace. • The building exterior will be a combination of brick(block and cement board siding for the predominance of the building elevation. • 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 area and outdoor pool are planned on the southeast comer of the site. This will be appropriately fences and landscaped: • Outside sitting(park areas and trails will be provided to connect to the existing walkway system A Market Study has been completed and the indication is that this product type and size is supportable in this location. The design and amenities are that of a Class A market rate facility. 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. Sincerel Paul J. oci 6Cw.r" D r z m r 0 0 x z z n m m z W 3 K Z i�6 z i o e \�z O 2 a n z n Z < m mo 2 S o m= z N <z N OD C=) z Z 3R SNOMONOO•JNLLSDG 55 a 2 = Hi_ 1 a3 �'i�£ IIOS3..,'NISSVH~ ant6j 4 •i Q/�'';•s. e .,e q{ r wja O 4 IR a ? S.LNeVaV N3SSVNNVN� 0 w z z 8 U =W N ? z Z> C\j 5 xw OW z o o¢ o h ` Z cis V is O Q � F S `1 s•.� OQ »��` Til �/ i �.; gl � •� i F - j X11 J Q16Y s -'F r _ L •sos - zaz .w �+cmaznv..a. s,....w .+¢ . GARAGE LEVEL PLAN 227 ENCLOSED STALLS CIT`! OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED NOV 0 2 2012 _CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT GAME LEVEL PLAN m8TiL0oRPLW A-101 SCANNED 1 Hai i i� 11 him, i f! - O 2 $ 00 IL W W N }0}tr Z F S / U Q U Yl YA I YA. YO. A. YR YA 1 � I I 1 1 I 1 � I 1 i I 1 \ i Y i \ \ \ . \ i \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ z \ a \ J z2 \ J 00 \ J mm \ V) O C- C G :_tll'• 11:_1 :It M C 1M 'ii Tll 11:•.1 C- C G --.-I RIM :It M C 1M 'ii Tll - a SCI i 11:=1I:: : C C n::i CCC Mi -.11:9 ::Ili::Imm � ME II: C- C G :It M C 1M 'ii Tll - a SCI i �_D_ : C C n::i Mi -.11:9 ::Ili::Imm � ME II: L. ��-• 17 ? C C- a z �g�J¢03 i = W� f E .� All UUlm!E rpt, 8U OCL P a sf33 tt i 66�4� ��q 999a ggg Y5§75z ag 31 44Rp91 Municode Page 1 of 3 Chanhassen, Minnesota, Code of Ordinances >> - CITY CODE >> Chapter 20 - ZONING >> ARTICLE XXI. - "OI" OFFICE AND INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT >> ARTICLE XXI. - "OI" OFFICE AND INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT Sec. 20-791. - Intent. Sec. 20-792. - Permitted uses. Sec. 20-793. - Permitted accessory uses. Sec. 20-794. - Conditional uses. Sec. 20-795. - Lot requirements and setbacks. Sec. 20 -796. -Interim uses. Secs. 20-797-20-810. - Reserved. Sec. 20-791. - Intent. The intent of the "OI" district is to provide for public or quasi -public nonprofit uses and professional business and administrative offices. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V. § 15(5-15-1), 12-1586) Sec. 20-792. - Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in an "OI" district: (1) Antennas as regulated by article XXX of this chapter. (2) Community center. (3) Churches. (4) Fire station. (5) Funeral homes. (6) Health services/hospitals. (7) Library. (8) Museum. (9) Nursing homes. (10) Offices. (11) Post office. (12) Public parks/open space. (13) Public recreational facilities. (14) Schools. (15) Utility services. (Ord. No. 80. Art. V, § 15(5-15-2),12-15-86, Ord. No. 259. § 25, 11-12-96: Ord No. 377, § 107, 5-24-04) Sec. 20-793. - Permitted accessory uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in the "OI" district: http://library.municode.comlprint.aspx?h=&clientl D=14048&HTMRequest=http%3 a%2f... 11/28/2012 Municode Page 2 of 3 (1) Parking lots. (2) Signs. (3) Temporary outdoor sales (subject to the requirements of section 20-312). (Ord. No. 80, Ad. V, § 15(5-15-3), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 243, § 13, 2-13-95; Ord. No. 377, § 108, 5-24-04) Sec. 20-794. - Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in the "OI" district: (1) Adaptive reuse of vacant public or private school buildings for private business uses. (2) Commercial towers as regulated by article XXX of this chapter. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 15(5-15-4): 12-15-86: Ord. No. 259, § 26. 11-12-96) State law reference— Conditional uses. M.S. § 462.3595. Sec. 20-795. - Lot requirements and setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "OI" district subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter: (1) The minimum lot area is 15,000 square feet. (2) The minimum lot frontage is 75 feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de=sac shall have a minimum lot frontage of 60 feet. (3) The minimum lot depth is 150 feet. (4) The maximum lot coverage is 65 percent. (5) Off-street parking shall comply with district setback requirements except: a- There is no minimum setback when it abuts a railroad right-of-way, except as provided in chapter 20, article XXV, division 3, pertaining to landscaping requirements. b. There is no minimum setback when it abuts, without being separated by a street, another off-street parking area. C. The minimum setback is 50 feet when it abuts a residential district without being separated from the residential district by a street or railroad right-of-way. d. The minimum setback is 25 feet for side street side yards. (6) The maximum height is as follows: a. For the principal structure, two stories. b- For accessory structures, one story. (7) Minimum setback requirements: a. For front yards, 35 feet. b. For rear yards, 30 feet. C. For side yards, 15 feet. d. The minimum setback is 50 feet when it abuts a residential district without being separated from the residential district by a street or railroad right-of-way. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 15(5-15-5). 12-15-86; Ord. No. 94. §§ 1, 6. 7-25-88; Ord. No. 451, § 7, 5-29-07) Sec. 20-796. - Interim uses. The following are interim uses in the "OI" district: http:Mibrary-municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID-14048&HTMRequest=http°/`3a°/u2f... 11/28/2012 Municode Page 3 of 3 (1) Temporary classroom structures for use by public or private schools needed for temporary use. (Ord. No. 282, § 1, 6-22-98) Secs. 20-797-20-810. - Reserved. http://library.municode.comlprint.aspx?h=&clientlD=14048&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f.. 11/28/2012 6 Alliant Engineering, Inc. ALL(ANT PROJ. NO. 12-0103 MEMORANDUM DATE: November2dh,2012 TO: Paul Tucci - Oppidan FROM: Katie Schmidt, PE SUBJECT: Chanhassen Mufti -Family Development- Trip Generation Comparison This memorandum has been prepared to document the trip generation potential of the Chanhassen Multi - Family Development in Chanhassen, MN. The trip generation of the Multi -Family Development has been compared to the trip generation potential of the previously approved office/residential land uses for the Galpin Crossing Development. The trip generation rates for the proposed and previously approved land uses were obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9* Edition. This manual is a compilation of daily and peak hour trip generation rates based on data collected from similar development sites. The estimated volume of site -generated trips for the weekday AM and PM Peak hours and on a daily basis for the proposed development is summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Proposed Multi -Family Development Trip Generation 1 Trip Rate Land Use/ITE Code ITE Unit No./Size AM PM Daily Vehicle Trips AM PM Daily Apartments/ 220 DU 1 224 0.51 0.62 6.65 114 1 139 1490 Total Trips 114 1 139 • 1 1490 ' Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip rate for the AM and PM peak hour of adjacent street traffic. Table 2 details the estimated volume of site -generated trips for the previously approved Galpin Crossing Development. Table 2. Previously Approved Galpin Crossings Trip Generation Land Use/ITE Code' ITE Unit No./Size AM Trip Rates PM Daily AM.. Vehicle Trips PM I Daily Bank (Drive-Thru) / 912 1 Drive-Thru Lanes 4 9.29 1 33.24 139.25 37 133 557 General Office 3/710 SF 61,000 1.56 1.49 13-03 95 91 673 Townhouse/230 DU 10 0.44 0.52 5.81 4 5 58 Total Trips 137 229 1288 ' Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers. ' Trip rate for the Wand PM peak hour of adjacent street traffic. ' The 5,000 SF 2nd story ofthe bank is assumed to be office space. The trip rate is per 1,000 SF. The difference in trips between the proposed Chanhassen Multi -Family Development and the previously approved Galpin Crossing Development is shown in Table 3. 233 Park Avenue South, Suite 300, Minneapolis Minnesota 55415-1108 Phone 612.767.9300, Fas 612.758.3099 Chanhassen Multi -Family Development — Trip Generation November 2&, 2012 Table 3. Difference in TripGeneration Scenario Vehicle Trips AM PM Proposed Chanhassen Multi -Family Development 114 139 Previously Approved Galpin Crossing 137 229 mi��_j Trip Difference 22 90 -16% -39% During the weekday AM and PM peak hours it is anticipated that there will be a lower number of trips for the proposed Multi -Family Development when compared to the previously approved Galpin Crossing Development. In particular 22 less trips or a reduction of 16% during the AM peak hour is estimated and 90 less trips or a reduction of 39% in the PM peak hour is estimated. There is a slight increase of 202 daily trips (16%). This increase will be insignificant as the residential trips are spread out during a 24- hour period with many occurring during off-peak traffic times. In summary, the trip generation for the proposed Chanhassen Multi -Family Development is estimated to generate a lower number of trips during the critical weekday AM and PM peak traffic hours than the previously approved Galpin Crossing Development. Qn a daily basis the proposed Chanhassen Multi - Family Development is estimated to generate slightly more trips than the previously approved Galpin Crossing Development. This will be an insignificant increase as residential trips occur during a 24-hour period with many trips occurring during off-peak traffic times. It is noted that that the office land uses in the Galpin Crossing Development have usual weekday business hours with a very lower number of trips occurring outside regular business hours. Alliant Engineering, Inc. #12-0103 Page 2 Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan District �g Waters Edge Building °`" 1500 County Road B2 West Roseville, MN 55113 November 20, 2012 Ms. Kate Aanenson, A1CP Community Development Director 7700 Market Blvd. PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 SUBJECT: Chanhassen Apartments MnDOT Review # S12-052 NW Corner of TH 5 and CR 117 (Galpin Blvd.) Chanhassen, Carver.County Control Section 1002 Dear Ms. Aanenson: R E C D I-`� E. NOV 2 F 2012 CI IY () CHANHASSEN Thank you for the opportunity to review the Chanhassen Apartments Site Plan. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has reviewed the site plans and has the following comments: Water Resources: A MnDOT drainage permit will be required. The drainage permit application form can be found at bo://www.dotstate.mn.us/utility/forms/index.hunl. The following information is required with the drainage permit application: • Final drainage plan showing storm sewer plan, storm sewer and culvert profiles and pond contours • Existing and proposed drainage area maps with flow arrows • Existing and proposed drainage/pond computations for the 2, 10, and 100 year rainfall events Addition information may be required once a drainage permit is submitted and after a detailed review. MnDOT will not allow an increase in discharge to MnDOT right-of-way. Please direct any questions regarding these issues to Hailu Shekur (651-234-7521 or hailu.shekur@state.mn.us ) of MnDOT's Water Resources Engineering section. Noise. MnDOTs 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. MnDOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway fiords 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 MnDOTs noise policy please contact Peter Wasko in our Design section at (651) 234- 7681. Review Submind Options: MnDOT'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. MnDOT can accept the plans via e-mail at metmdevreviews.doI@,9ate.mn us provided that each separate e- mail is under 20 megabytes. 2. Three (3) sets of fall size plans. Although submitting seven sets of full size plans will expedite the review process. Plans can be sent to: MnDOT — Metro District Planning Section Development Reviews Coordinator 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 3. One (1) compact disc. 4. Plans can also be submitted to MnDOT's External FTP Site. Please send files to: ftp://Rp2.dot.state.mn us/pub/mcominWMetroWatersEdge/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) 234-7793. Sincerely, Michael I Corbett, PE Senior Planner Copy sent via E -Mail: Hailu Shekur, Water Resources Diane Langenbach, Area Engineer Peter Wasko, Design Nancy Jacobson, Design Dale Gade, Design Buck Craig, Pennits Dale Matti, Right -of -Way Steve Channer, Right -of -Way David Sheen, Traffic Engineering Clare Lackey, Traffic Engineering Ann Braden, Metropolitan Council CenterPoint, Energy November 6, 2012 Kate Aanenson AICP, Community Development Dir. 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Proposed request for Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) Located at: 7750 Galpin Boulevard, Chanhassen MN, 55317. Dear Ms. Aanenson: 700 West Linden Avenue PO Box 1165 Minneapolis, MN 55440-1165 With reference to your request, CenterPoint Energy has no natural gas facilities within the property PID area of 250101800, but has mains in the Right of Way of the surrounding roads of Galpin Blvd and 78h Street West. For gas service to your proposed development please contact Cherie Monson at 612-321-5435 or email her at Cherie.monson@centerpointenergy.com If you have any questions, please contact me at 612-321-5381. Respectfully, CENTERPOINT ENERGY Chuck Mayers Right -of -Way Administrator 612-321-5381 F,. -j1 r rC Nov b - 2012 CITY OF uri;..;`�k d SSEN 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 November 21, 2012, 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 2012-18 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Karen,/ Enge ar , Depu Jerk Subscribed and sworn to before me this2C10x day of t4oVem.i;ler , 2012. r KIM T. MEUWISSEN Notary Public -Minnesota NotaryP blit 7�9j%"My commisFJa�37. 2015 Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date &Time Tuesday, December 4, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not ' start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: Cit Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a =11cant: 224 -unit Apartment Building on 8.08 acres of property zoned Agricultural Estate A2 — Chanhassen Apartments Applicant Oppidan, Inc. 7750 Galpin Boulevard (northwest corner of Highway 5 and Property Galpin Boulevard) Location: 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 public hearing through the following steps: What Happens W Wthe 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. at 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/2012-18. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate Aanenson by Questions & email at kaanenson(a)ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at 952-227-1129. 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 Plannina Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alteradons, 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 Information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerclal1industrial. • 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, lease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time.. Tuesday, December 4, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until later In the evening, depending on the order of thea ends. Location: City Hall Council Chambers 7700 Market Blvd. Request for Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a Proposal: 224 -unit Apartment Building on 8.08 acres of property zoned Agricultural Estate A2 — Chanhassen Apartments Applicant Cippidan, Inc. 7750 Galpin Boulevard (northwest corner of Highway 5 and Property 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 public hearing through the following steps: What Happens 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. at 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/2012-18. 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 952-227-1129. 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 writing. Any Interested party is Invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that Includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majonty vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercialfindustdal. • Minnesota State Statute 5 19. 99 requires all applications to be processed within 50 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an Item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative Is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to 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 somethingto be included in the report, lease contact the PlanningStag 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 WI 54602-2107 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 553174506 LAWRENCE M & MICHAELE A LONNIE G & JAN M JOHNSON LORI J WIRTZ MARTIN 6706 PROMONTORY DR 2392 HARVEST WAY 7725 VASSERMAN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 553174506 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 553174506 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 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 WI 54602-2107 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 PLYMOUTH MN 55446-4270 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8444 WESTON VOGDS PAUL TUCCI-OPPIDAN INC 7842 HARVEST LN 5125 COUNTY ROAD 101 STE 100 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8453 MINNETONKA MN 55345 11/26/12 TO: Mayor Tom Furlong tfurlone(aci.chanhassen.mn.us Council Member; Bethany Tjornhom btiornhomt@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Jerry McDonald 0mcdonald@ci.chanhassen.mmus RE: Proposed 244 Unit Apartment Building at Highway #5, Galpin, and 78th Street; CASE 2012-18 First, to our two re-elected Council Members, congratulations. Next, to our good mayor Tom Furlong, thank you for your leadership and especially in managing our property taxes yet providing the solid services we enjoy. Next, concerning the proposed Apartment Building for the triangle shaped property at 7750 Galpin and 78th Street, adjacent and north of Highway of Highway #5. We ask that you Mr. Mayor and our City of Chanhassen council members PLEASE do not approve this apartment "case 2012-18" proposal. The original proposal for this property for a one story professional building caused concerns but seemed more suited for the property and acceptable than this apartment proposal. The current, existing zoning seems thought out and correct. A zoning change to accommodate the increased population of 244 unit renters and 350 auto's does not seem acceptable. The increased daily traffic at the corners of 78th Street and Galpin and 78th Street and Century would cause tremendous congestion and dangers. Actually any apartment building structure should not be a consideration for this property. May we suggest alternative solutions and locations. The location previously considered for a Walmart has the necessary city traffic controls already installed. The site at Powers Blvd. intersection, south of Highway #5. seems apropos. This site is closer to (1) the city commerce and (2) the new Southwest bus ramp, and (3) will be closer to the future light-rail extension depot, (4) no re -zoning would be necessary, (5) the water run off would not require re-classifying property across 78th Street. The height of the proposed apartment can be higher considering the adjacent properties, unlike the Galpin site. Finally, the city of Chanhassen already has similar apartment buildings only blocks from this recommended site. Another apartment building location suggestion is on the north side of Highway #5 on Powers Blvd. and 78th Street. This property shape is similar to the Galpin property also being triangular. Water parking lot run off could be achieved into the pond on the EKCANCAR property. The listed above advantages pertain to this site too, plus the advantage of a top light at the corner of Power Blvd. and 78th Street. We hope this is helpful. We again ask that this apartment proposal at 7750 Galpin, and 78th Street, north of Highway #5, NOT be approved. Regards, Mr. and Mrs. D.B. Dahlquist 7634 Prairie Flower Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Aanenson, Kate From: Erin Buss [ekbusser@msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 8:03 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: FW: Aparment Building Proposal Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed It was suggested you be copied on all emails regarding this topic. Have a great day. From: ekbusserCalmsn.com To: btjornhomCalci.chanhassen.mn us Subject: Aparment Building Proposal Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 16:45:03 -0600 Dear Ms. Tjornhom: Congratulations on your recent reelection! I'm proud to say I voted for you. I have recently discovered the proposed development of the property on the corner of 78th/Galpin/Hwy 5. I feel strongly that this development is wrong for the City and very wrong for this area of Chanhassen. I also feel that the council should conduct a town hall style forum with the neighborhood prior to voting on this development. Below are some of my concerns about this development. 1. School Area/Traffic - My daughter attends Bluff Creek Elementary. I have very real and strong worries about adding as many as 500 additional cars to the area near the school. There is already a fair amount of bus traffic before and after school in this area. If the concerns are true that a stop light could not be placed at the corner of 78th and Galpin, that corner will become extremely difficult to cross, especially with the addition of so many vehicles. I fear a situation of someone who really wants to cross that intersection and hits a school bus full of our children. Further, many people walk to CVS or Kwik Trip to get a perscription or grab a newspaper. The addition of all of these vehicles could create a very dangerous situation for pedestrians. 2. This development is just too too large - The zoning for the area is currently for office use - not for High Density Occupancy. The Proposed Development requires a change to PUDR or High Density Residential. The density of units would be in excess of 27 units per acre. Per the 2030 land use map the net density for residential high density is actually 8-16 units per acre. A development like this may be more suited to an area near hwy 212 which has easier access to the highway. 3. Affects to the Bluff Creek Wetlands - While this site is not directly adjacent to any wetlands, the proximity to it as well as the proposed underground garage suggest runoff and raises environmental concerns. 4. Police/Safety - A development of this size is very likely to strain resources and cost the city to upgrade existing utilities (water, police, fire) leaving very little realized tax income to the city. As noted in the recent citizen action against the proposed Chanhassen Walmart, the net realized tax income was greatly offset and amounted to just over $1,000 a month due to increased investment to utilities. Additionally, renters just don't have the same sense of community and responsibility that an owner does. By it's nature, apartment complexes are renting establishments that require significantly more attention by police and saftey personnel. This situation is not ideal for an area already raising many young families. I hope that the Council and Planning Commission will say NO to this development. ICs not right for Chanhassen. I am happy to discuss this with you further. Thank you so much for your time. Sincerely, Erin Buss 7638 Arboretum Village Place Chanhassen, MN 55317 Aanenson, Kate From: Alice English [dnaenglish2@attnet] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 6:56 AM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Re: Apartment Proposal at Galpin Blvd. Dear Kate Aanenson - My name is Alice English and I live in the Walnut Grove Homeowners Assn. on Galpin Blvd. I would appreciate your consideration with the following concerns of a possible apartment complex on Galpin. My serious concerns are: :Apartment complex could affect the value of our property. :Galpin Blvd. would have greater traffic congestion. :Apartment complex could have a potential for increased crime. I highly recommend DENYING this apartment project and I thank you for your consideration. Alice English u� 1 2�z�r �11 Chanhassen Apartments llreapplieant is requesting approtal for a general onampt plan for a PUD for 2z apartments. If the pmjnct is to pros ed for preliminary m dee,lopnren[ plan apprmnl, the applinafio. would indude a land use amendment from office and residential low deesity to residential high density, a tenoning to Planned Unit Development— Residential from Agrienitural Fvtate District, An, and a site plan review. Planning Case #2012-18 Planning Commission December 4, 2012 City Council December 1o, 2012 Land Use Zoning ... 1191 t�ipt. coal is -la ivy a Location and ExistingConditiona r�� x itA - Yom! `i�r� 'rrtil Tr f at 1 /2012 �N-�rc�SuC�ch on t (Ik V, 61- 11 (�rj USS SUrrOu� ru�� lowdens��-u wbuta (u 6f Ipa A �uD 64WL 3 1 9 ----- rrent _ CuLand live Galpin Crossing Concept Ali - E _ ea.er Office Zoning District The intent of the "OI" district is to proside for public or quasi -public nooPnefit uses and professional business and administrative offices Examples of uses that are permitted: Communite. Center, Churches, Funeral Soma, Ho.1th Sar iect/Hrapitak; Nursing Homa, Offices, Schools 12/4/2012 %Lf „1 MIN/tr I� 1 a( -1-04 - Or -}w,(\ horn -c1 2 aa�ra—. szp .siM,o.w.m 12/4/2012 %Lf „1 MIN/tr I� 1 a( -1-04 - Or -}w,(\ horn -c1 2 Site Plan FlidwrTound Parking C/. 12/4/2012 3 c-.-•ssao��ri�s� see n R van :A �OmO 12/4/2012 11J11ffil�lyr` l� Pnj 4 2oll MSA Traffic Counts FREE a' 'mac Average Daily Trips Lake Luee Road at Galpir. 1-1 4aerage Daily Trips West 78'h Street at Calpi❑ 12/4/2012 5 —.12 i ) 3 34 — - --- -- '. TaM{ it 1 61 ll G Caner Counlydces Lamaay reroN of injuryaccidents for this note tion Centennial Hills - Density Transfer Net acres 2.2 rtr r K: 30 waits all acre 65 units c. 12/4/2012 Ll Arboretum Village Density Transfer - ---0 ------- 12/4/2012 7 "The Chanhassen Planning Commission provide the City Council with comments and feedback, along with staffs proposed comments listed in the staff report." tkW Y COO,p Ifaw i+ P'L 12/4/2012 H 06MAACr((q ZO b0Q (a�i EPAf � �hw i h ha s��S Iia q fm �xao�l +r�L �T er-5i r'c` �f e sl rf no da 2y�a4 d�eig i a Ole �4(A( FaS4- eAl N n crVaS-e( w, h wd l nub of V -t . A' cc, t, Co �(� ru&-(,r� _ c(� t uorf t� change 4 �T )44 Kfp`(e � � ow a ( I cc -6 CA vtG3 e Ili— �hd acs - of e5c 4 December 2012 Dear Planning Commission members, My name is Deborah Zorn. I live at 7574 Ridgeview Point, Chanhassen, within one mile of the proposed project. Together with surrounding neighborhood developments and residents, we have collected over 570 petition signatures against the proposal: httlp://www.change.orci/petitions/c4-of -chanhassen-preserve-chanhassen-stopgalpin- apt-proposal-a-225-un it-development#share While nearly 600 residents may be a small number, the context to consider is collecting this number in less than one month (11/13-12/4) and during the holiday season. After the recent election last month, we all know the importance of nearly 600 residents casting their opinion. As you learn more about the Galpin Apartment proposal this evening and hear from community members, I would like to share with you the following: 1. Chanhassen Best Place to Live — let's keep it that way! I encourage City Council to welcome thoughtful development, according to the 2030 Comp Plan that enhances our community. 2. Zoning — why consider a zoning change when there is land already guided in the 2030 Comp Plan for high-density residential? Even without this project, there are or will be 1,706 multi -family units in the Highway 5 corridor from Audubon to Highway 41' .... and including this project, over 1900 units. There is no glaring need to add more high density residential units into this area which has no public transportation or retail services. Just to the east on 78'" Street there is already 103+ acres zoned medium and high density residential. This area has already been planned with medium and high density residential in mind and does not need additional areas such as the Galpin Apartment proposal. 'Note: attachments below. 3. Density transfer — how can a density transfer be applied to two distinct legal parcels that are separated by a public street? Internal is defined as "existing or situated within the limits". In most cases and most cities, density transfers are utilized within a single property. Furthermore, on May 22, 2006, City Council denied the Galpin Crossing proposal on the north parcel with one finding being that the 12 units were too many. If 12 units were not approved in 2006, why should 96 units be considered for transfer? In closing, let's welcome the developer to Chanhassen and build 225 units of market - rate apartments. This is the wrong site for many reasons. Let's encourage them to come to Chanhassen and build in spaces guided for this type of use and in areas of with retail and transportation services. Sincerely, Deborah Zorn kt,,74 MAP OF MULTI -FAMILY UNITS IN CORRIDOR a� r C p:oar 9 t a+ � Property Multi -Family Units Gorra Property (103 acres) 1,048 est. Walnut Grove Villas 206 Arboretum Village 312 Autumn Ridge 140 Total 1.706 Galpin Apartments 224 Total w/Galpin Apts. 1.930 s * ww L ,Is `toe v rf 1 r•ae.wppp0. 00 O� e w•4�_. i C;,'. Q. c ac r i�j All ` r i 0 h � r m `\ • \� 1f \1 I. D 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 35 36 37 38 39 40 A Name Kelly Koemptgen Carrie Webber Stacy Beno Jackie Duea Tamara Hodgins Richard Birhanzel Amy Hamann Lisa Birhanzel Chris Sibley Danielle Schenk Schenk Brenda Wellner Jeff Weyandt Robyn Bartels Sriram Viswanathan Greer Hussey Kim Daughton Christy Bauman Kyle Duea Scott Hussey Brian Schoenberger Ben Bartels Leah Plath Kathy Wosje Melissa Crow Craig Stacey Trisha Rinzel Lori Moser Pete Rinzel Cathy meyer Melissa Pelzel Ila Wheeler Chad Meyer Arlene Schreifels Angela Zay Mary Valentine Tiffany Weyandt Susan Fagan Susan Quinn AnnMarie Gerczak Robert Webber Kathleen VanKrevelen Laura Larson Brad Hodgins Ronald Solheim Carrie O'Keefe Mark Larson Allison Powers B City Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Ramsey Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen D Zip Code 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55303 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 F Signed On 11/13/12 11/14/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 Ic--i-t� A B D F 49 Nicole Muschewske Gerald Wolfe Linda Solheim Natalie Johnson Nicole Jesse Mary B Silbernagel Eric Best Matt Pattee Jayne Meyer Allison Wideman Kathleen Price Patty Gilk Lisa Bastian Valerie Pass David McKinley Liz Beckley Jacqueline tyson]acquelineTyson Sheila Erickson Rebecca Brick Susanne Cantlin Diane Perry Andrea Mach Kristy Ruelle todd allard Sue Statsick Daniel Bock Dennis DuBois Molly Johnson Carrey Schottler Theresa Vesledahl Deborah Zorn David Moser Shelley Berken Jim Boettcher Mark Gilk Bret Shanahan Alisa Lacomy Rachel Berhow Anne Jutting Yousha Ibrahim Kari Hentges Todd Jutting Mary Sando Wren Feyereisen Patty Hugh John Gans Dagmar Diethelm Michelle Treptau Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Excelsior Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Carver Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Victoria Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Excelsior Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Edina Chanhassen Chanhassen Excelsior Chanhassen Chanhassen 55317 55317 55317 55331 55317 55317 55317 55317 55346 55315 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55386 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55331 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55424 55317 55317 55331 55317 55317 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 A B D I F 97 Angela Vukovich Patrick Rutledge Tashana Dalen jell spear Thomas Kraus Karen sandefur Andrew Eilertson Carol Pitz Larry Martin Cara Kail Christina Salek Sam Snyder Emily Snyder Chery Stanton Michelle Luterbach Janet Rzonca TeriKocourek Sandra Wells Paine Ted Lundberg Marissa Schulz Jeff Tritch Matthew Berhow Kim Wellman Deborah Medeiros Cindy Brodigan Paul Boddicker Sharon Cerjance Jack Cerjance Tim Cerjance Margaret Wise Mary Oppegaard Lisa Tritch Brad Lacomy Karen Ryan Kristin Terrell Kyle O'Keefe Laura Liedtke David Erickson Leah Swartzbaugh Greg Kassebau m diana kirchoff Patty Palm by Michael Cerjance Karen Bimberg Louis Diethelm Julie McGaughey Pete Swartzbaugh Olson Chanhassen Chanhassen Carver Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Excelsior Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen 55317 55317 55315 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55331 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 ,144,Mary A B D F 145 Michael Flake Elizabeth Sween K S Jon Crow Robyn Chargo Josh Kimber Lori Doyle Mike Benkovich Mike Benkovich Denise Westerhaus MARY JO LUKAS Kristina Schwendinger Ashley Browning Barbara Cobb Gary Rzona Lori Thorne Jill Hake Kristine Checheris Mike Mattson Nadia Janson Renee Pawlyshyn Andrew Maus Carolyn Thomson Christine Stark Rechelle Hollowaty Nichole Kauls Cameron Olsen Scott Yager shelly christy tach Bacon Jennifer Fritz Colin Moser Chris Hentges Julie Lizak Tim Pass James Chmura Natalie Christenson Shyla Allard Ken Saddler Kimberly Rolfes Molly Lagerback Mary Beth Hebeisen Jacqueline Mrosko Mike Wellner Jim Haider Susan Lombardo Pam Schwarz Andrea Sebenaler Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Mound Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen CHANHASSEN Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen 55317 55317 55317 55317 55364 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/16/12 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 5 A B D F 193 Gail Gelino Sue Chapman Susan Noble Kris Mattson Holli Glendenning Andy Merrill Rod Bubke Sonya Benkstein Dawn Erdman Nancy Bubke Pamela Callister Shelley Haider Ted Ellefson Sandra VanDerveer Alison Lang Ann Healey-Allen sengtavanh meas Laura Trantham Brian IaramyBrianLaramy Elizabeth Kressler Serena Rosen Tim Bastian eric maher Lisa Egenes Suzanne Milacnik Lisa Thompson Warren Meyer Sarah Pinamonti John Wicka Sarah Pletts Eileen kieffer Joe Kieffer Beckie Laengle Randy Strobel Alicia Schimke Kyle Green Beth Reding Debra Lochner Judi Selinger Don Schulz Jon Trantham Barry La Bounty Danielle Antonovich Steve and Joni Hansen Holly Tchida Karen Walker Michelle Janson Jacqueline Schmidt Chanhassen Victoria Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Excelsior Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen CHANHASSEN chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Eden Prairie Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen CHanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen 55317 55386 55317-8329 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55331 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55346 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317-7400 55317 55317 55317 55317 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 5 A B D F 241 James Heyman Matthew Hanson John Bartoloni AudretDorholt teralyn siller Del & Barb Vanderploeg susan cohoon Renee Pederson Dave Callister Stephanie Larson Eric Zorn Carly Blackowiak Regina Deanes Ann Eilertson Steve Emerson James Ruelle Jeff Armentrout DianeJulson Anne Wicka Katie Novogratz suzannah armentrout Lynn Wilder Patricia Bremer Lisa Levine Dorothy Croskey Jennifer Burg David Pederson Allan Olson Kirstin Heyman Bhuvana Nandaku mar Debbie Ippolito Joe Ippolito Judie Mattson Ann Allen Blake Gottschalk Anne Taus Steven Cohoon Rachel Scott Ted Kendall Loretta Goetzinger Julie Littfin Patty Vannucci chris novogratz James Schmidt Mindi Dahl bonnie and charles peterson Steve Vreeman Janice Vreeman Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Minnetonka arlington Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Minneapolis Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Excelsior Excelsior Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Marine on St C Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Whitewater Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen 55317 55317 55317 55345 76018 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55408 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55331 55331 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55047 55317 55317 55317 55317 53190 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 ?- A B D F 289 Tami Gottschalk Carla Ferrell Mary Pernula Robin Warden Matt Schillerstrom John Murphy Kelly Bock Jan Hall Natalia Sander Jennifer Weiner Nancy Patterson Michael Smith Jason Martagon Mark Miller Michael Shields Georgia Eck Kristi Nyberg Rochelle Owens Matthew Steele Elle Swenson Brian Smith Kathryn Corgiat Kelly Pedersen Scott Jesse Paul Nyberg Richard Lindquist Shannon Smith Len Johnson Cherree Theisen Susan Coult Peter O'Gorman Elizabeth Smith Susan Busch Kevin Koemptgen Kristine Beer Debra Bauler Melissa Windschitl Michaele Martin Ashley Smith Jocelyn O'Brien Steve Anderson Elizabeth Ekstrand ralph pamperin Mark Magnuson Maureen Magnuson Bruce Eaton ]on McLain MaryMcLain Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen CHANHASSEN chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Victoria Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Minneapolis Chanhassen Chanhassen 55317 55317 55317 55317 55316 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55386 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55401 55317 55317 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/20/12 11/20/12 11/20/12 11/20/12 11/20/12 11/20/12 11/20/12 11/20/12 11/20/12 11/20/12 11/20/12 11/20/12 11/21/12 11/21/12 11/21/12 11/21/121 11/21/12. 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 ?- 0 A B D F 337 David Royer Christine Fischer Scott Cater Art Roberts Tonya Sadura Donna Strauss Seweryn Sadura Bill Olson Lance Erickson Keith Abrahamson Lindsey Brady Tammy Brady Julie Maanum Teresa Luterbach Joan Cowan Dan Geier Brenda Geier Laura Carlson Scott Elleraas David McAlpin Roger Remaley James Callaghan Holly Loberg Lynn Li Dana Johnson Todd Sim ning Barbara Miller Mike Aker Christina Crowther James Farrell Ingrid Steele Jody Hanson Kevin Carlson Clint Egenes Mike Muffenbier Michelle Muffenbier Laura Kimber Molly Aker lori abblett Sonja Leines Ron Schuster Lynne Etling Christine Allen David Windschitl Jaime Martin Mark Hemann don mcdonald Daniel Cloutier Chanhassen Chanhassen CHANHASSEN Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhasssen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55331 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 11/21/12 11/21/12 11/21/12 11/21/12 11/21/12 11/21/12 11/22/12 11/22/12 11/22/12 11/23/12 11/24/12 11/24/12 11/24/12 11/24/12 11/25/12 11/26/12 11/26/12 11/26/12 11/26/12 11/26/12 11/26/12 11/26/12 11/26/12 11/26/12 11/26/12 11/26/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 0 Fop A B D F 385 Holly Huber Chanhassen 55317 11/27/12 386 Jessica Tait Chanhassen 55317 11/27/12 387 Karin Moore Chanhassen 55317 11/27/12 388 Jill Hauwiller Maple Grove 55369 11/27/12 389 Jennifer Davis Chanhassen 55317 11/27/12 390 Sarah Fischer Chanhassen 55317 11/27/12 391 jeff heinemann Chanhassen 55317 11/27/12 392 Nancy Wright Chanhassen 55317 11/27/12 393 Erin Buss Chanhassen 55317 11/27/12 394 Tara Graff Chanhassen 55317 11/27/12 395 Alana Montgomery Chanhassen 55317 11/27/12 396 Tim Opitz Chanhassen 55317 11/27/12 397 David Buss Chanhassen 55317 11/27/12 398 Elizabeth Johnson Eden Prairie 55344 11/27/12 399 Amy Wesley Chanhassen 55317 11/27/12 400 James Denton Chanhassen 55317 11/27/12 401 Heidi Pagano Chanhassen 55317 11/27/12 402 Allison Fredlund Chanhassen 55317 11/27/12 403 LuAnne Wright Chanhassen 55317 11/27/12 404 Jessica Lundgren Chanhassen 55317 11/27/12 405 Hailan Huang chanhassen 55317 11/27/12 406 Peter Polingo Chanhassen 55317 11/27/12 407 Stephanie Tollefson Chanhassen 55317 11/27/12 408 Dan Beno Chanhassen 55317 11/27/12 409 Lynn Polingo Chanhassen 55317 11/27/12 410 Kara Peterson Chanhassen 55317 11/27/12 411 Trent Mahr Chanhassen 55317 11/27/12 412 Karry Scheirer Chanhassen 55317 11/27/12 413 Dan Waldron Chanhassen 55317 11/27/12 414 Pat Zettel Chanhassen 55317 11/27/12 415 Tyler Scholten CHANHASSEN 55317 11/27/12 416 Erin Denton chanhassen 55317 11/27/12 417 Michael Burrows Broomfield 80021 11/27/12 418 Nedal Nassar Chanhassen 55317 11/27/12 419 Durwood Birdsall Chanhassen 55317 11/28/12 420 Kyla Spencer Chanhassen 55317 11/28/12 421 Colleen O'Hare Miller Chanhassen 55317 11/28/12 422 Paulette Tomaschko Chanhassen 55317 11/28/12 423 Jean Nitchals Chanhassen 55317 11/28/12 424 Hilarie Gibson Chanhassen 55317 11/28/12 425 Stephen Withrow Chanhassen 55317 11/28/12 426 Kristin Kingbay Rosemount 55068 11/28/12 427 David Wisniewski Chanhassen 55423 11/28/12 428 G. Ritchot Lindstrom 55045 11/28/12 429 MARILYN MATZKE CHANHASSEN 55317 11/28/12 430 Jean Negaard Chanhassen 55317 11/28/12 431 Ben Mondeel Chaska 55318 11/28/12 432 Katie Jorgenson Chanhassen 55317 11/28/12 Fop /0. A B D F 433 Allen Hauwiller Jillian Steinke Al Crowther Jenny Erickson Amy Boehm G Sorci Heles Candance Carlson Stephanie Mondeel Pamela Olson Sue Selland Jennifer Perrill Jon Noller Ilyne Sandas Julie Sorensen Greg Maanu m Cecilia Fredlund Kim Farniok Steve Janson Jackie Neva Edward Schultz Jeanette Janski Glenn Steffen Craig OConnor Laura Neva Hany Gross Peter Neva Jaime Wallis Ellen Rowe Vera Brady Melissa Young Melissa Young Del Young Kristen Eisinger Brenda Brown Dale R. Blomquist Gloria Patty Bornhoft Katie Hodges Chris Conroy Doris French Pat McGaughey kathrynjeffery Cindy Cowles Rachelle Uberecken Terry Carlson Susan Blair Norma May Mark Johnson Maple Grove Minneapolis Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chahassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chaska Waconia Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen A. Blomqui�chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chaska Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen 55369-3474 55405 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 I do NOT want 553147 55317 55318 55387 55317 5317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 85251 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55318 55317 55317 55317 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/121 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/79/17 11/29/12 434 '4 3-5 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 fl77 /0. A B D F 481 Todd Michels Shane Waskey Diana Noller Nancy Benson Amy Dykoski Lori Lavelle Matthew Taylor Eric Deanes Michelle Jopling Laura Papas Brian Kline Jeanette Taylor Thomas Papas Chad Hamann Judith Werner Michael Hjermstad Ronald Neitzel Wendy OConnor Karen Neitzel JEFFREY OLSON Nicole Carlson Amy Waters Amy Beer Mark David Mary Ervasti Holly Erickson Pam Schelling Kathren Klaesges Rena Miller Debby Tysdal Nancy Glades Patricia Hansen LaVon Johnson michelle wrase Tami Beehner Chris Rumble DAvid Hurrell Erica Huls Mei-Kuei Hjermstad Carol Buesgens Jessica Cimmerer George Borchardt Chris Hartwigsen JUNE CASEY John St Andrew Douglas BackstromChanhassen Olson Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Minnetonka Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen CHANHASSEN Victoria Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Excelsior Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen CHANHASSEN Chanhassen Chanhassen 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55345 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55439 55386 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55318 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55331 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 11/29/12 11/29/12 11/29/12 11/29/12 11/29/12 11/29/12 11/29/12 11/29/12 11/29/12 11/29/12 11/29/12 11/29/12 11/29/12 11/30/12 11/30/12 11/30/12 11/30/12 11/30/12 11/30/12 11/30/12 11/30/12 11/30/12 11/30/12 11/30/12 11/30/12 11/30/12 11/30/12 11/30/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 ICynthia A B D F 529 Heather Nelson Lori Zuehlke Mark Mullen Steve Smith Christina Krienke Steve Carroll Dianna Cowles Laura Richardson Mike Ryan Nancy Bielski Kristi Bush kim petroska Julie Jorgenson Michael Meyer Mike Ladd Omar Taha Marwa Ibrahim Eric Christenson Christine Correa Robert Lokhorst Jennifer Yankovec Renee Kirkeby Karen Brown Wendy Luse Don and Jan Dahlquist Thomas Witek John Lalim John & Elizabeth Cullen Steven Ranz Mary WItek Jacob Hill Patricia Ranz Cathy Larson Julie Peterson Sharon Punt Molly Scholle Kyle Zirbes courtney kramer Shawn Zellman Ed Robbins Christina Hill David Haggbloom Elwood Johnson Julie Gallagher Thomas Kraker Jennifer Jorgenson david thompson Allan Ber ren Andover Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chaska Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhasen Excelsior Chanhassen Chanhassen VICTORIA Chanhassen Waconia Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen 1810 55317 55317 55317 Chanhassen 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317-8357 55317 55317 55318 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 553177 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55331 55317 55317 55386 55317 55387 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/2/12 12/2/12 12/2/12 12/2/12 12/2/12 12/2/12 12/2/12 12/2/12 12/2/12 12/2/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12. 12/4/12' 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 A B C D F I G 1 Name City State Zip SlgnedOn Comment I feel this 225+ unit <a href="http://apt.com" rel="nofollow">apt.com</a>plex will MAJORLY the neighborhood In a negative way! The Intersection Is already congested and dangerous. Now you will be adding an additional 300+cars to It with NO controlled Intersectlon! Many children travel this frontage road to local businesses and to school! Also, there are certainly blind spots at both 2 Stacy Beno chanhasse MN 55317 11/15/12 entrances of Vasserman Ridge. Crazyl Rldiculousl NOIII Traffic and something so monstrous and so close to Hwy 5 and 78th St. will look ridiculous for our community. That corner Is not very big to support such a tall structure. Also, there Is a dangerous corner coming out Vasserman Ridge and adding all that traffic right at the neighborhood entrance 3 Tamara Hodgins Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 will be even more dangerous. I agree with the points In the overview and am especially worried about traffic related to the density 4 Chris Sibley Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 of the proposed development. To replace a beautiful wetland with a huge conglomerate of an apartment complex would be an eye- sore to our green environment, a traffic nightmare, complete noise pollution and an environmental hazzard (water run-off sewer and electrical, etc). Zone It for a restaurant or coffee shop. A 225 5 Kim Daughton Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 unit apartment complex??? That's pure crazyl I I don't believe this will be a positive Impact on preserving the overall city of Chanhassen with traffic, 6 Ben Bartels chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 safety and home values. We have witnessed numerous accidents around the area of the proposed apartments. Adding the 7 Leah Plath Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 additional traffic to this area will be dangerous. traffic and safety Issues. Property not zoned for this. Too dense for size of property. 8 Craig Stacey chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Environmental Impact. Chad Meyer Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Live In neighboring area. Mary Valentine Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Increased traffic and public safety This large 225 unit apartment building would create a significant traffic hazard In an already 9 10 it Tiffany Weyandt Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 dangerous Intersection. I believe the parcel of land In question should be developed; however, the proposed development Is not consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan and we homeowners nearby relied on the Comprehensive Plan when we purchased. During this terrible economy most of us have seen our home prices greatly Impacted with many people now having negative equity. The proposed development will not add value to the homes (and townhomes) nearby. A variance In this situation should only be Issued where there is a meaningful public benefit, not just because there Is a limited economic benefit to the property owner. Here, the size and scope of the project only benefits the property owner. The streets of Galpin and 78th Street cannot sustain 300+ more cars dally, particularly during peak rush hour. The U-turns out of Kwlk Trip and the bllndspot exiting Vasserman Ridge community to 78th Street are already dangerous. Also, the Bluff Creek watershed district is currently under active Investigation by the state for water quality problems. The proposed development is a major change in the City Comprehensive Plan which could easily d0 damage to Bluff Creek which would Increase costs to all city taxpayers In mitigation. If the market does support such a major apartment complex In Chanhassen, there are more appropriate sites In the city, closer to Highway 212 where there are large tracts already zoned for this kind of development, near Park & Ride. We ask the Planning Commission and City Council to resist the temptation apparent In increased tax revenue. We ask that they fulfill their oaths to serve the residents of Chanhassen for the public benefit. Please deny the variances and other changes that are needed to 12 lRobert Webber Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Proceed on this development. A g C D F I G Property values, Too much traffic at corner, too big for the 13 kathieen vankrevelen Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 property. I use that Intersection dally. 78th and Galpin Is a very dangerous Intersection and needs NO MORE 14 Laura Larson Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 TRAFFICI Ronald Solhelm Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Density not appropriate for site and area This Is not the appropriate location for an apartment complex. It would add tremendous stress to 15 16 Nicole Muschewske Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 an already delicate road way. The Increase In car and foot traffic would be very dangerous. This complex will be right out the back of my home. Lights from cars on 78th currently shine right Into my bedroom. I hate to think what It would be like with 100's of additional cars per nlghtl And, 17 Gerald Wolfe Chanhassen MN 55317-4 11/15/12 the lights from the parking lot will light up our house all night long. I believe this proposed complex would bring traffic Issues, pedestrian safety Issues and It would be 18 Kathleen Price Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 unsightly and excessively large for such a small site. I live near this proposed development and I do not want an appartment complex built there. It will 19 Valerie Pass Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 have a negative Impact on the surrounding wetlands as stated In this Petition. I live on Galpin and already hear too much traffic behind my house. This would greatly depreciate the value of my home, as well as reduce the quality of life In Chanhassen. There are no foreseeable 20 David McKinley Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 benefits to allowing this variance In the zoning of this property. I travel Galpin multiple times every day and am very concerned that the Increased volume of cars from a facility - that Is proposed to be over the maximum density use for the plot - will brlrg an 21 todd allard chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Increased likelihood of accidents and Injury. David Moser Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Traffic hazard, not consistent with surronding development Traffic at the Intersection, a elementary school already at capacity, other type of businesses needed 22 23 Allsa Lacomy Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 In that area The traffic at Intersection with Kwlk trip and CVS already there Is very bad In morning and evening. This would add to the problem. Does not fit neighborhood buildings. Would cause school 24 Todd Jutting Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 rezoneing. Stephen Sando Edina MN 55424 11/15/12 Have family In area. Already too much traffic and congestion. Traffic at Hwy 5 and Galpin would become to great and a danger to our residents. Changes the 25 zoning. It Is a bad location for high density housing. I am concerned about water quality and the 26 Patty Hugh Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 burden on police and utilities services. Increased concern with traffic and safety of children and adults using the trail system around the 27 John Gans Excelsior MN 55331 11/15/12 proposed development. A project of this size will be a burden to the neighborhood and strain our city budget. Our Infrastructure Is not prepared to handle the Influx of this many people. This would affect schooling, 28 Dagmar Diethelm Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 street and utilities In a manner that the city Is not prepared to upgrade at this point. Angela Vukovlch Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 I'm concerned about the traffic hazards this would create. Sharon Kraus Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Increased traffic, potential safety hazards Cara Kail Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 I live directly down the streetl Michelle Luterbach chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 It completely demolishes the aesthetics of the streets around my home. Janet Rzonca Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Too big for that corner - too much congestion, This will add enormous traffic to an Intersection that Is already dangerous. There are so many 29 30 31 32 33 children who ride their bikes to Kwlk Trip and CVS. I've already seen several accidents and adding 34 Teri Kocourek chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 that much more traffic would increase that risk of more accidents ex onential . A B C D I I I G Would like to preserve the look, feel and function of our area. Keep It single family home 35 Marlssa Schulz Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 orientated. Kim Wellman Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 We do not need Increased traffic In this area. It Is already dangerous enough. A development of this size on this location would negatively Impact traffic and safety, the 36 environment and would not fit Into healthy planning for the city of Chanhassen's growth and 37 Mary Oppegaard Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 development. Brad Lacomy Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Detriment to my neighborhood Karen Blmberg Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 bad Idea to build an apartment complex at this location. Preserve the way of living that we expected when moving to Chanhassen. The current Infrastructure 38 39 Is not prepared to absorb such an Influx of residents In this area. Additionally, the location Is perched between a fontage road and Highway 5 - what Is the posltve outlook on such a 40 Louis Diethelm Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 development with plenty of other sites avallable 7 I am very concerned with traffic/safety Issues and do not believe something of this magnitude can 41 Julie McGaughey Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 be accommodated In this location. Mary Olson Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Traffic, zoning, watershed, noise & safety concerns. K S Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 traffic and crime Lived In Longacres subdivision for 12 years. Love the neighborhood and love that It's all Inhabited 42 43 by private homeowners. Apartments promote the feel of "temporary" dwellers. Great for young people, and young couples with no children, but doesn't really fit In to the Family neighborhood feel of this area. I believe would bring home values down either further than they already are. NOT the 44 Robyn Chargo Mound MN 55364 11/15/12 right timing for this, at all. As a home owner of Majestic Way (located off Galpin) I feel this Is a horrible Idea and am happy to pass this petition on. The Intersection of Galpin & 78th Street Is already a difficult Intersection to cross (in car or on foot) with the number of cars who make u -turns coming out of CVS and/or Kwik Trip. Plus, I feel there has been an Increase In traffic on Galpin after the Hwy 41 construction. Galpin Is quickly becoming unsafe for children to cross. Not to mention, adding short term housing In the area will only remove home buyers from the market thus lower values even further. Townhomes are very affordable right now and the city should be encouraging people to buy homes and not rent them. There are 7 town homes under $120K and have been on the market for monthsl I am signing this because I feel the need for apartments In my neighborhood Is NOT wanted. Please 45 Josh Klmber Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 support. The home values within the blocks near this complex will go down. It Is also not aesthectic to the 46 Kristine Checherls Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 environment in the area. The Intersection of 5 and Galpin Is already very busy and accident prone. That much additional 47 ]III Hake Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 traffic at that Intersection will create significantly more risk of accident. Due to heavier traffic along that way If this complex goes up, I am more worried about car accidents 48 Nadia Janson Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 on Highway 5 because of this proposed development. Particularly concerned about impact on property values and safety due to increased density and 49 Andrew Maus Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 traffic (especially due to blind spot on 78th West of Vasserman Trail). A B C D F I G Safety, there Is always an accident at that stop light as well as safety of the kids at Bluff Creek Elementary. Generally apts do not raise the property value of the city and I feel like Chanhassen when given the opportunity to devlelop we choose options that de -value the City and the property 50 carolyn thomson chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 of the residents. Christine Stark Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Too much traffic congestion near a quiet neighborhood and school. Scott Yager Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 I live In Longacres and don't want the traffic of an apartment complex. Too many units. Way too large of a developement with high volume traffic In an already dangerously over crowded 51 52 53 Jennifer Fritz Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Interectlon at both frontage road and State Highwayl The additional traffic Is certainly a concern. 225 units would also drastically Increase the population of the fairly small area. This could negatively Impact the community In many ways,A7safety, home 54 Chris Hentges Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 values, schools. Shyla Allard Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 I am concerned about the traffic this will create. This Is a big safety concern. Traffic and the reason I live out here is to get away from this kind of density. In addition, property 55 values are already a challenge In this economy and this will only make the situation worse. Also feel 56 Ken Saddler Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 bad for my neighbors who live even closer to It than I do. There Is better uses for the land, never Imagine high density development would have been one of 57 Jim Haider Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 them when I purchased my Home. This Is a giant complex that not only doesn't fit with It's surroundings. Increased traffic issues. Why 58 Pam Schwarz Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Is this complex not being built closer to Hwy 2127 Ted Ellefson Chanhassen MN 55317 11/16/12 Child safety between Bluff Creek and our neighborhood. Unit density Is too high for this space. Sandra VanDerveer Excelsior MN 55331 11/16/12 It effects my grandchildren and their safety!! I have seen many car accidents on galpin highway 5 Intersection area lately. If there Is going to be 59 60 an Increase In traffic In this area, 1 can't Imagine what else I will see especially when there Is a 61 sengtavanh meas chanhassen MN 55317 11/16/12 school and park nearby. Proposal would creat traffic congestion, safety concerns and doesn't follow the Integrity of 62 Abby Ellis Chanhassen MN 55317 11/16/12 Chanhassen and the city's comprehensive plan. Lisa Egenes Chanhassen MN 55317 11/16/12 Preserve the nature of that area with small business and residential famlly-owned homes The traffic congestion Is already terrible. Cant Imagine adding more rush hour traffic along with 63 64 Sarah Pletts Chanhassen MN 55317 11/16/12 children on foot or bikes to that area. Eileen Kieffer Chanhassen MN 55317 11/16/12 Too much traffic for this area. Primarily due to traffic and safety concerns at the corner of 78th street and Galpin. It's not an 65 66 Alicia Schlmke Chanhassen MN 55317 11/16/12 Intersection that can or should sustain an Increased flow of traffic. This Is not the original zoning of the area and It would Increase the traffic significantly In the area. 67 Jacqueline Schmidt Chanhassen MN 55317 11/16/12 Galpin Is already having a huge increase In It's traffic 41 was closed this summer. Do we really need an apt complex at every Intersection on the hwy 5 corridor. This Is going to bring the value of my house down; density Is way too much for our Infrastructure. This was NOT what I 68 susan cohoon Chanhassen MN 55317 11/17/12 want to look at from my backyard and I will If this goes through. MASSIVE complex totally out of character with the 1-2 story townhomes and 1 story retail for about 69 Lynn Wilder Chanhassen MN 55317 11/17/12 the surrounding square mile. Major unsafe traffic Issues on W 78th St and at GalPln Intersection. Traffic Increase to Galpin and lake Lucy road. 5& Galpin Intersection Is too close to major 41&5 70 Lisa Levine Excelsior MN 55331 11/17/12 Intersection. Will drastically slow traffic on 5 Concern over Increased traffic and safety. Hard to cross Galpin to get to the park as It Is. Since 41 71 Allan Olson Chanhassen MN 55317 11/18/12 has been under construction traffic has already doubled, Blake Gottschalk Chanhassen MN 55317 11/18/12 Safety concerns, traffic concerns, infrastructure concerns. I believe It will be in opposition to the zoning of this land and also create too much traffic and safety 72 73 Ted Kendall Chanhassen MN 55317 11 18 12 to west 78th and Gal In. A B C D F I G 74 Chris novogratz Chanhassen MN 55317 11/18/12 congestion and safety near this Intersection not proper use of land to high density for location Increased traffic 75 bonnie and Charles Peterson Chanhassen MN 55317 11/18/12 probable Increased juvenile crime centered around nearby stores Steve Vreeman Chanhassen MN 55317 11/18/12 Traffic Increase on the corner of Galpin and W 78th St, will Increase to unsafe levels. I don't want to see more development In that area, and I don't believe It's necessary to build more 76 77 Carla Ferrell Chanhassen MN 55317 11/19/12 apartments In the area. Current zoning does not support this type of project and a change would not be appropriate for this 78 Michael Shields CHANHASSEN MN 55317 11/19/12 property. Traffic and Increased noise are major concerns. The Intersection an Galpin and Highway 5 Is already too busy. AWhy are the plans being changed. 79 Georgia Eck Chanhassen MN 55317 11/19/12 Protect the wetland preserve area. Krlstl Nyberg Chanhassen MN 55317 11/19/12 I do not want added traffic to the Intersection of 78th Street and Galpin Blvd. Rochelle Owens Chanhassen MN 55317 11/19/12 Traffic and Public Safety hazard it will create Matthew Steele Chanhassen MN 55317 11/19/12 Preserving the community This Intersecton Is already busy enough. This will just Increase conjestion In the area. Furthermore 80 81 82 83 Paul Nyberg Chanhassen MN 55317 11/19/12 there are sufficient high density housing opportunities already close enough to this location. Melissa Wlndschltl Chanhassen MN 55317 11/20/12 I live In the neighboring development. Ralph Pamperin Chanhassen MN 55317 11/20/12 wetland protection, Intersection safetly This Issue Is Important to me because I live a stones throw from this project and It's size would ET 85 dwarf anything else In the area have very high density and make our traffic congestion even worse. 86 Mark Magnuson Chanhassen MN 55317 11/21/12 t oppose this project. The intersection of Galpin and 78th Is already a safety hazard - I can't Imagine adding this many 67 Maureen Magnuson Chanhassen MN 55317 11/21/12 more vehicles. Art Roberts Chanhassen MN 55317 11/21/12 Zoning violation, Huge people traffic versus fast auto traffic Adding that much traffic to that area will make It even more dangerous than It Is. Plus having a 88 89 Bill Olson Chanhassen MN 55317 11/22/12 building of that size, with hat many residents seems A bit out of place for that location. We live across the street from this 90 Lance Erickson Chanhassen MN 55317 11/22/12 project, traffice would be a major probllem Dan Geier Chanhassen MN 55317 11/26/12 Another decrease In our property value. Brenda Geier Chanhassen MN 55317 11/26/12 C Roger Remaley Chanhassen MN 55317 11/26/12 This Is a horrid Ideal The Intersection has too much congestion now and adding many cars Is a concern. There is no safe 91 92 93 way for our kids to cross that road except the walk sign. Density Housing should be focused around 94 Dana Johnson Chanhassen MN 55317 11/26/12 the 212 highway. I do not believe this size of an apartment complex Is appropriate for this area. The Increased traffic down Galpin Blvd to Highway 7 Is not appropriate given the size of road way access of Galpin Blvd and W. 78th Street. The additional trips would make an already highly traveled stop light area tough to navigate. There is a lot of traffic from Kwik Trip and CVS already that Imposes difficulties In getting around this area. It had never been planned for the Increase of 162 units which would equate to approx 250 additional cars which Is 1.5 cars per apartment. Similar to Walmart and the 95 Todd Slmning Chanhassen MN 55317 11/26/12 traffic congestion, this project is not conducive to this area. Barbara Miller Chanhassen MN 55317 11/27/12 Too much traffic conciestion & construction 96 A B C D F I G We moved to Chanhassen 2 years ago because of the beauty of the neighborhoods and how untouched they were by development. PLEASE do not bulld in this area! Please keep Chanhassen 97 Christina Crowther Chanhassen MN 55317 11/27/12 with the open spaces It has. Kevin Carlson Chanhassen MN 55317 11/27/12 Family safety Ordell & Sonja Lelnes Chanhassen MN 55317 11/27/12 Too high density for this neighborhood. I live nearly and do not want more traffic, nor more difficulty crossing 78th at Galpin In my car or 98 99 100 Karin Moore Chanhassen MN 55317 11/27/12 bicycle 101 Erin Buss Chanhassen MN 55317 11/27/12 We live very close to this area and a project of this size is lust too much for the area. 102 David Buss Chanhassen MN 55317 11/27/12 This Is too large of a development for the area. My family walks past this corner every day walking the children to school. The traffic In and out 103 lames Denton Chanhassen MN 55317 11/27/12 would destroy this experience. I live a mile away from this intersection. My teenage son and I walk/run/bike around this area often and the extra traffic density would make this hazardous. I also think this Is not the logical area for an apartment building of this size. Rush hour traffic Is already difficult down Hwy S. It would 104 Allison Fredlund Chanhassen MN 55317 11/27/12 make more sense to add an apartment building of this size closer to Hwy 212. If I wanted to live In Eden Prairie I would not have spent 850,00 on my house In Chanhassen. And, our property values are down, and this apartment complex would do nothing to Improve 105 Peter Polingo Chanhassen MN 55317 11/27/12 chanhassen, property values or the neighbors and neighborhood. 106 Lynn Polingo Chanhassen MN 55317 11/27/12 We want to preserve our neighborhood values and value... West 78th Is a peaceful slow traffic area for families to walk dogs and ride bikes. A lot of kids are able to ride to KwlkTrip during the summer, but with the huge amount of we traffic In that area It would become Increasingly more dangerous for families and kids to cross the street. This will also 107 Colleen O'Hare Miller Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 cause even more traffic Issues In Chanassen with rush hour traffic due to the Increase In traffic. 108 Paulette Tomaschko Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 I am concerned about traffic In that corner --It's already BUSY! 109 MARILYN MATZKE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 11/28/12 CONGESTION, PROTECTION OF MARSHLAND My main concerns are the Increased traffic density in the area as a result of this. Also I am 110 Allen Hauwlller Maple Grove MN 55369-3 11/28/12 concerned about the wetland and zoning concerns with the proposed site. My niece's school Is across from where this building Is proposed. With the Increase In traffic this 111 Jllllan Steinke Minneapolis MN 55405 11/28/12 complex would bring, I worry about the safety of the children. Please do not allow the building of this large apartment complex. It will add much more traffic to an area that Isn't set up to accomodate It and take away from the beauty of the area. In addition It will 112 Al Crowther Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 tax our natural resouces Including nearby wetlands. 113 Jennifer Perrlll Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 We live off of Galpin and do not want to see addiltonal traffic and safety concerns. 114 Julie Sorensen Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 It is too large and does not fit with the type of residential area. This project Is not In line with long term development plans of the city as I understand them. Major 115 Greg Maanum Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 concern about added traffic at Intersection so near an elementary school. 116 Cecilia Fredlund Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 2 117 Jackie Neva Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 Protect home value I will be moving to Chanhassen In the next year and I do not want the are "over -developed". I do 118 Edward Schultz Chaska MN 55318 11/28/12 not want the city's resources strained and traffic congested. Do not believe the Increase In traffic this development would bring to our neighborhood can be 119 Amy Steffen Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 handled In a safe and effective way. It IIs a poor environment to have people live In such a high density setting, surrounded by noise and traffic polluition. The higher density In our neighborhood will Impact traffic, parks, schools, and 120 Vera Brady Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 biking trails to the detriment of everyone. 121 Nancy Gomez Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 It would be too much traffic so close to a school. 122 Dale & Gloria Blom uist chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 too much traffic con estion A g D F I G The scale of this development contradicts the environmental and lifestyle goals that Chanhassen 123 Chris Conroy Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 stands for. Forcing that density and traffic Into that parcel will negatively Impact the area Primary concern Is for the safety of the citizens this vicinity related to traffic Incidents. A close 124 Rachelle Uberecken Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 second Is against the zoning changes that decrease property values In this area. STOP the proposed development of this high density apartment complex with parking for 350 autos; high density traffic Issues & safety risks; Intersection not currently designed to handle traffic flow through the Intersections at Galpin, West 78th and Hwy 5; according to the site drawing there Is only one entrance to the apartment complex which Is 78th Street for a minimum of 225 residents; negative Impact on property values for current homeowners In the area; environmental Impact/pollution; Increased costs to City of Chanhassen for city services. This property Is not currently zoned for this high density apartment complex; parcel Is currently designated for office use with less density per acre. You cannot justify the value of this proposed 225 unit apartment 125 Susan Blair Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 development when conslderng the risks and negative Impact to the citizens of Chanhassen. Galpin Rd cuts right through all of our neighborhoods and In my opinion some of the nicest areas of the city. The Increased traffic that this will bring would diminish some of the reasons I just moved 126 Shane Waskey Chanhassen MN 55317 11/29/12 here. This project should be downsized In half or moved to commercial areas around Powers blvd. We live off Galpin. The traffic Is already too busy due to the recent addition of the high school. 127 Diana Noller Chanhassen MN 55317 11/29/12 Adding this building will dramatically Increase traffic and change the appeal of the area. Environmental Issues - Green space, wetlands; Safety - too congested In that area; Increased 128 129 Jeanette Taylor Minnetonka MN 55345 11/29/12 Crime Judith Werner Chanhassen MN 55317 11/30/12 I am most concerned about the Increase In cars, traffic and safety In the neighborhood. This development Is not In line with the Comprehensive plan and would deteriorate the quality of life for area residents. In addition, having such a large unit development In such a small area will greatly Increase the safety risk for everyone living or travelling through this area. Besides the Increased traffic at an already dangerous Intersection, there will now be a reason for children living In the development to want to cross this major Intersection to go to CVS, Kwik Trip, or tc go to Bluff Creek Elementary/Chanhassen Recreation Center. Without an underpass or overpass, you will be putting chlldrens lives in jeopardy. To sum up, this is not an appropriate development for this area 130 Michael H ermstad Chanhassen MN 55317 11/30112 and should stay A2 for Office use. Aanenson, Kate From: AI-Jaff, Sharmeen Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 9:30 AM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: what I sent Dave Callister. Kate, I told Dave that there are many environmental features on this site. Creeks and wetlands. The numbers are an estimated gross and not net buildable area. From: AI-Jaff, Sharmeen Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 3:25 PM To: 'dcallister@plymouthmn.gov' Subject: �11...iy Ov - Sincerely, Sharmeen AI-Jaff Senior Planner 952.227.1134 1 11 I 1a -/CT CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 4, 2012 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Kathleen Thomas, Lisa Hokkanen, and Kim Tennyson MEMBERS ABSENT: Bill Colopoulos STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Public Works Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen AI-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Alyson Fauske; Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: Diane & Lance Erickson Lary & Michaele Martin Bob Webber Cathy Meyer Ron Schuster Gerald Wolfe Steve Sheldon Michael Wagner Paul & Vera Brady Charles Engh Deborah Zorn Roger VanHaaften David Windschitl Dan Beno Brad & Tamara Hodgins Andy Maus Charles Peterson Ron & Linda Solheim James Denton Bob Schwartz Jim Boettcher Mary Olson Norma May Roger Remaley, President Walnut Grove Villas Del & Barb Vanderploeg Kathryn Peterson Carrie Webber Melissa Crow Don Dahlquist Kathie Price Chuck & Loretta Goetzinger Kevin Kemptgen Tim Pass Mary K. & Art Roberts 7735 Vasserman Trail 7725 Vasserman Trail 7608 Ridgeview Way 7662 Ridgeview Way 8001 Acorn Lane 7755 Vasserman Trail 7711 Ridgeview Way 17749 George Moran Drive, Eden Prairie 2028 Clover Court 7642 Prairie Flower 7574 Ridgeview Point 2102 Clover Court 7620 Ridgeview Way 7563 Ridgeview Point 7633 Ridgeview Way 7656 Ridgeview Way 7496 Crocus Court 7717 Vasserman Place 2305 Lukewood Drive 2507 Bridle Creek Trail 7476 Crocus Court 7461 Windmill Drive 2050 Clover Court 2198 Baneber y Way West 7706 Vasserman 7713 Vasserman Place 7608 Ridgeview Way 7663 Ridgeview Way 7634 Prairie Flower Blvd 7569 Ridgeview Point 7521 Windmill Drive 7662 Vasserman Trail 7650 Ridgeview Way 7762 Vasserman Place SCANNED Chanhassen Planning Commission — December 4, 2012 Chris Hentges Mike Benkovich Mike Shields Larry Donlin Sarah Thomas Chris & Julie Sibley Mike & Molly Aker Julie McGaughey Mary & Stan Valensky Debby Tysdad Bill Guggemos Nora Stacey Josh Kimber Suzannah Armentrout Blake Gottschalk Mike Muffenbier Allen Bergren Dan Bock Joe & Eileen Kieffer Khai Train 7500 Windmill Drive 2352 Fawn Hill Court 7759 Vasserman Trail 8038 Autumn Ridge 2555 Longacres Drive 7683 Vasserman Trail 2131 Brinker Street 7175 Gunflint Trail 7752 Vasserman Place 7661 Arboretum Village Lane 2165 Majestic Way 7699 Ridgeview Way 2060 Majestic Way 2420 Bridle Creek Trail 2197 Majestic Way 7675 Ridgeview Way 7680 Ridgeview Way 7677 Vasserman Trail 7602 Ridgeview Way Chanhassen Lisa & Kreg Levine 1850 Lake Lucy Road Mike Hodges 8101 Pinewood Circle Mike Ryan 6835 Lake Harrison Circle Mark & Maureen Magnuson 7715 Vasserman Trail Brian & Patty Hugh 7441 Windmill Drive Sue & Jim Cantlin 7674 Ridgeview Way Abby Ellis 7284 Bent Bow Trail Steve & Debbie Ledbetter 7756 Vasserman Place Regina & E. Keith Deanes 7651 Ridgeview Way Scott Yager 2351 Hunter Drive Michael Hjermstad 2056 Waterleaf Lane West Elizabeth Kressler 1750 Valley Ridge Trail North Kate McGuire 7973 Autumn Ridge Lane Robert Ahrens 2351 Lukewood Drive PUBLIC HEARING: CHANHASSEN APARTMENTS: REOUEST FOR CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) FOR A 224 -UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING ON 8.08 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURAL ESTATE (A2) AND LOCATED AT 7750 GALPIN BOULEVARD (NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 4 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD). APPLICANT: OPPIDAN. INC. OWNER: AMERICANA COMMUNITY BANK- CHANHASSEN, PLANNING CASE 2012-18. Aanenson: Thank you Commissioner Aller, members of the Planning Commission. Again just another little introduction. I'm Kate Aanenson. I'm the Community Development Director. I've been here over 20 years. Also in attendance tonight is Paul Oehme, the City Engineer/Public Works Director. He will be addressing some of the technical engineering, traffic, utility section. Again just some formalities. This will be, the verbatim will be put out on You Tube. That should be available sometime tomorrow. Ifyou want to find that site. It's You Tube, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota. All one word. CityofChanhassenMinnesota so if you can't find that you can contact the City. We'll help you find that so you can watch the replay. Also we do do verbatim Minutes to go with the council packet but they will Chanhassen Planning Commission — December 4, 2012 not be done until Friday. We'll have summary minutes. This item is scheduled to go to the City Council on Monday night so I also did receive additional comments, emails that were not included in your packet. I did, those were put out on the table and the Planning Commission did also receive those. They will be included in the packet. That packet will go out tomorrow. Also we did receive the petition. The full printout of the petition which was presented to the Planning Commission and I'm confident that that will be discussed tonight. A lot of my comments based on the presentation will also focus on some of the points that were in the petition too. Again the goal tonight is to give comments to the City Council. It's a little bit less formalized than a regular project but to give direction to the council on how you would like to see this proceed. So with that, as you stated Chairman, this application is for a concept plan. If this project was to go forward the development plan, the application would also include a land use amendment from office to residential low density to residential high density and a rezoning to PUD, and we'll talk a little bit more about that as we move through the slides. So the land use, the subject site again in black here. This is currently how it is guided. This was changed in the 2008 comprehensive plan. It is guided office on the southern 8 acres and low density residential on the northern 6 acres. As you can see surrounding it, the Vasserman area is guided low density. Then across the street we have the commercial piece with the gas station and the pharmacy and then the City Rec Center so the zoning on this property, it is zoned A2. It's typically considered a holding zone for tax purposes. State law requires that when we rezone a piece of property it is consistent with the land use designation. Therefore for this project to proceed a land use designation needs to happen so before that all occurs the goal tonight and with the City Council is to give direction whether or not that would be something the applicant would pursue. So again the zoning, and there's a lot of different land. A few different uses under the low density. For example on the Vasserman area it's R4 which allows for twins and singles and you've got medium density on some of the other surrounding projects around there so there's a mix within there. The existing location and subject site, again this road, West 78's Street splits the parcels and again we talked about the neighborhood commercial in this area. There is a trail here to get underneath the frontage road, West 78s' and then also to get underneath Highway 5 where there's an elementary school and city park. I just wanted to just talk a couple minutes on the PUD concept and why we're doing the PUD concept. Again the PUD concept is intended to gather information without a lot of expense on behalf of the developer because we are looking at a land use amendment, which the city does have a lot of discretion in doing a land use, and if you look at the level of discretion, the most discretion would be with the land use amendment. The least amount of discretion is when you have a building permit for something that's entitled so with this project the PUD is intended to, without incurring a lot of expense, to review the project. Identify areas that may be of concern or give the developer direction so they would decide whether it's a go or no go in this process. So I did include in your staff report the details of how the PUD process works. I also want to point out that we did amend the PUD process after a large PUD hearing that we had last year at this time because our PUD ordinance was set up in such a way that it required more legalistic recommendations, Findings of Fact which is not the direction we wanted to go. Certainly all these recommendations are forwarded on to the City Council and then it's up to the developer, based on those comments, whether or not they choose to go forward or not without the binding of the city and of the legal implications of the Findings of Fact. So with that. Aller: And Kate when you say go forward it means, make a formal application to finalize the process. Aanenson: Correct. Based on the comments that are given, then it's at their choosing to I think I've got some good feedback. I can make those changes. Or I've got good support or I don't have enough support and make that, that would be up to the developer to choose what direction they want to go. So the challenge then, the staff did put some comments in, would be for the Planning Commission based on your comments, public input, and then the City Council input to direct this project. So the history of the site, I put that in the staff report. A quite lengthy history of the site. Of how it's been used over the years. Most recently as I stated in 2008 we had a developer that wanted to put commercial. Worked really hard over probably over a year's time to try to get commercial on the site. We, in the City of Chanhassen Chanhassen Planning Commission — December 4, 2012 really try hard to keep the, there is neighborhood support commercial which is a component of being able to get gas and convenience in the neighborhoods. If you look on the north side of the street, that's how that's set up to service those neighborhoods. The staff did not want to see commercial at this corner and recommended that it be kind of, as either a higher density or an office. The developer proposed a project that the City Council then did recommend, as we went through the comprehensive plan, to give it the office zoning on that north side. Excuse me, on that south side of the 8 acres. So in 2006 there was a concept plan that included 10 acres. There was a comment in that that project was denied. I just want to clarify for that. There was a project that came in as a PUD that did get conceptual approval and I can talk about that in a little bit more detail. This project here did come in for conceptual approval. It was denied. The residential came in by itself. The PUD was given conceptual. Again conceptual does not have legal standing. They still have to come back through the process. The project did come in on the north side for 12 units. That was denied, and it wasn't denied for the density, and I have the Findings of Fact. This was a point in the petition. I just wanted to point out for the fact that the staffs opinion is that we wanted to see it developed as an entire PUD. It was always our position, the staff position, similar to what we did on the gas station, Kwik Trip on the other side. We preserved that narrow strip on that north side. It was always our position to maximize development on the south side and preserve the north side, and that's still our guiding principle today so that's the reason why, and those Findings of Fact are of record but I wanted to clarify that so the reason why that project was denied, just for the residential, wasn't because of density. There were some other reasons regarding the access of driveways, the width of the driveways, but they wanted to see the entire project come in and not just the residential. So the PUD concept itself, again the reason for the PUD concept as we're going forward now, the PUD does allow some of that transfer of density. The hard surface coverage so if you go to the other side where the Kwik Trip convenience store and the CVS, it does allow them to maximize that side and then preserve that area where the trees are on the north side and that would be this area in here, and I'll show that on another slide in a minute but that was the intent of doing the PUD. Wanted to use that same application on this side, whether it be an office use or become some other use. That was always the intent is to try, any ponding or improvements would be made over here and take that density or that hard cover and place it on the other side. So that's the purpose of the application of the PUD. It allows you to use that as a tool. So I just wanted to point out what's permitted in the office zoning district. I did include it as an attachment so and this again is where that discretion comes in. Because if something came in that met the standards of the office zoning district, the City would have less discretion to deny that if it met all the standards. All the parking ratios. The height. And yes the height is different in this zoning district. It's two stories for office, but I just wanted to give you kind of a comparison because I think it's hard to understand always the scale of projects so we looked at Family of Christ which will have two additional additions on their property. They're on 5.7 acres of property and they have the ability to expand. If we look at Park Nicollet, they're at 56,000. If we go back to the other project, they're at 66,000 square feet for office use, or if we go back to this project right here, their total and the number of parking stalls so these buildings were spread out. They actually had a bank on this property so I just want to be clear that the office zoning is a broad zoning district and depending on how they wanted to put a building on there, it could be so. The goal that we undertook in looking at this and considering this application is similar to what we did on the Park Nicollet site. That zoning district only allowed one story and meeting with those neighbors they wanted to go to the two stories because they thought the noise attenuation from Highway 5 would be a benefit so they have two stories with the ability to go to three. They've already put the footings in place to go to three and that was a successful project in the neighbors eyes because it did provide that buffer from Highway 5 so we kind of took the same approach in looking at this, to give some consideration to those kind of benefits of having something a little bit taller. Architecturally nice that might provide some noise and light attenuation from Highway 5. In addition just showing the square footage of the Ridgeview clinic so if you look at some of the uses there would be community center. Certainly churches could go on there. We looked at churches. Recommended a lot of people to look at that site for churches. Didn't happen so kind of put some of the other uses that would go in there, just to give you a comparison. I'll let the City Engineer maybe address this. 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission — December 4, 2012 Oehme: Thanks Ms. Aanenson. Planning Chair Aller and Planning Commission members. Just wanted to just review the utilities that are available. City utilities available for the development site. There is an 18 inch watermain along 780' Street that the developer could connect to and there also is a trunk 28 inch watermain along Galpin that's also available. The sanitary sewer connection would come off of trunk sewer line that's just on the north edge of the property. An 18 inch trunk sanitary sewer. Appropriate depth so and has enough capacity to handle the proposed development so all the connection charges would be paid for by the developer plus the construction as well so current and, like with all other developments so. Aanenson: So next we'll kind of move into this particular site plan then. We went through the intent of the PUD and measured this project up against what would be the standards, assuming that the land use was in place. You know preservation of the features to the north which we talked about was our goal. Again transferring the density, whether it was commercial or not that's always been our goal as it was on the property with the commercial. High quality design. Again we thought the articulation of the buildings, the balconies, the pitched roof, again the PUD standards on that would be put into a contract, PUD design standards which we've done on other projects. Again it does need to be re -guided to be consistent with that but those are all found on the staff report on pages 8 and 9. Again I also want to point out that the City, the developer would have to pay stormwater fees and park and trail fees. This isn't a plat but the developer is agreeing to paying 50% of those fees at the rate in force at the time when this project would go forward. Typically fees are extracted with the subdivision so that cost would be, and I think that was one of the, on the original petition, one of the concerns was whether or not there would be enough utility service in place. That's what you know the development fees cover that. That portion of it so I believe that that would be addressed with that. Aller: Can I interrupt real quick? We just went through utilities. Do they meet the requirements for a project of this size or do we expect to have to increase or do any work? Oehme: No. There is, there's adequate capacity out there for water and sewer service. Aller: Thank you. Aanenson: So with that I want to point out that this project has underground parking. The only use in this city that requires underground parking is actually apartment units over 20. Some of the projects that have done underground recently is some of the banks in Villages on the Pond, which is over by St. Hubert's and then also Park Nicollet has underground parking but by requiring one of the spaces to be around for each unit, that frees up some of that space on the outside so if you look at what they've got underneath and then the additional parking, the majority of it being underneath, it lessens the impact visually. If you were to compare these two, which I have a slide later trying to look at that visual comparison, those are all the things that we're trying to look at. Long term visual comparison of the two. The two uses. So the elevations. Again the underlying zoning district, which we pointed out in the staff report, the R-16 allows 3 stories, 35 feet. This exceed that. We take from the midpoint of the roof. It's higher than that. The PUD ordinance would allow you to set a different height standard. Like 1 say we've done that in other projects so that would be something that you would want to have some discussion on. The staff certainly feels that a pitched roof adds a lot of architectural value to the city long term wise and definitely wouldn't want to see that as something that we would want to deviate from. Again as I mentioned earlier we believe that this is highly articulated building. Very nice design and with the balconies, the cement board, the brick, all those sort of things that we think make a good quality project. Again for the long term what we believe, not just the density but it's the look of the building. The articulation. I didn't spend a lot of time talking about this. I'm sorry, I want to go back and just mention a little bit about this. There is a clubhouse on the site besides the 224 units and then also a pool Chanhassen Planning Commission — December 4, 2012 so I know it's been brought up that there's not some other amenities. There is access to a park. We have other parts of 16 units an acre apartments that are at 16 units an acre that do not have amenities on site. We have some that do and some that don't so I guess it would be the rentee's position on whether they wanted those amenities close at hand or not. So with that I'll let a few of the traffic questions go to the City Engineer. Oehme: So I just have a few slides hereto talk about traffic and current traffic volumes. The proposed development site is currently right here. It is on a collector roadway designated by the city. Collector roadways you know carry higher capacity traffic than say your local streets. It's our estimation that the road currently as it is designed can service this development. We did ask the developer to generate traffic volumes that are anticipated for this development and we also did compare them to the Galpin Crossing project that was approved conceptually a few years ago as well so, here are some of the numbers and the traffic generation information is in your packet if you have additional questions that I'll just quickly go through that so. The apartment complex is anticipated to generate about right around 1,500 trips per day. What really traffic engineers focus on is the peak a.m. and p.m. trip generation. That's typically where we see the most congestion and the most issues during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours so these are the estimated numbers for that, say 7:00 to 8:00 hour period that would be generated through this development. We compared those to the Galpin Crossing development as well shown right here. What's interesting we think is the Galpin Crossing generates less a.m., or actually more a.m. peak hour traffic volumes than the proposed family development currently before you today but the multi family development does generate more daily trips so just information that we will, you know if this project moves forward we will look at through a traffic study and see how that compares and how that works into the current traffic generation. That's currently out there and looking out into the future as well. So this is just a quick slide showing what the current traffic in the area is. In 2011. Again the current proposed site is down here so there's approximately 1,750 trips per day in front of the development. About 5,000 trips per day between West 78'h Street and Galpin as well. As we look farther north, again Galpin's up here. This is just for comparison sake. Lake Lucy Road we're seeing about 2,100 trips per day on Lake Lucy Road over by Highway 41 and then east of Galpin it's about 1,950 trips per day. Again fairly similar to what we're seeing right now on 78h Street. 1,700. Little over 1,700 trips per day so. In the future we are, you know as this area develops we are anticipating more traffic along Galpin but you know as traffic increases you know Galpin eventually will have to be upgraded. Aanenson: Okay, that's me. I'll take it from here. So again just in summary we, if this project were to proceed we would do a more detailed analysis. I just think antidotally we're trying to compare an office use with the apartment use just to give you some a.m. peak and obviously we would do, ask the developer to do a more detailed study if this project were to proceed. So I know there was a lot of comments on the Bluff Creek Overlay District and density transfer. We want to talk about that because we've done a lot of that up in this area. The City was one of the first ones to do this type of overlay district and when we first put it in place there was a lot of discussion of trying to buy all the property in the overlay district which starts up at Lake Minnewashta and goes all the way down to the Minnesota River valley and at that time, because not all of the property was in urban service area, which means there's not sewer and water available, there was a big price differential and the council at that time chose to say let's look at each project on an incremental basis and decide whether or not, how you want to transfer that density. How that works and how that looks. So within this project you can see the overlay district, there is a wetland in there. In this primary district which you can see in pink here. And then that wetland, we have asked the developer to give us more detail on the size of that so that size of that wetland would be taken out of the density calculation because it's in the overlay district but if some of this area here, because it's not encumbered by a wetland could be, while you can't build in it. You can use it for density transfer. That's how it works. That's how we preserve that corridor and that's been used throughout the entire corridor so we're being consistent on that. So certainly the acreage or the number of units would come down based on the size of that wetland. We don't have that information. We can make a guess on that but I think it's Chanhassen Planning Commission — December 4, 2012 important that we look at that so that would definitely impact the amount of development so you can see what we're trying to accomplish here through that preservation area. So this is the area that we preserved. I don't know if you can see that on that Kwik Trip site across the street. That was a preservation area so again our goal would be not only to preserve what's in the overlay district but this area here and that might be something too that we would look at if this project was to proceed, is to look at some enhancements or things to do to improve the quality and the function of the creek as it goes through there and the wetlands. So I did want to show how density transfer works because we have done this in the city. I think there's some thinking that we've never done this before and actually one of the first applications was when we did the senior housing project right up here behind City Hall. This townhouse project came in and we actually converted this to 30 units an acre. 65 units of senior housing. Got the community gardens here across the street but that project was done via a density transfer so that's what, using the PUD. It wasn't necessarily for preservation of open space but it was taking some of the density that was allocated across that whole site and compressing it to one side so just another use of how that can be done. The Arboretum Village which would bejust to the west of this site was an application of the Bluff Creek Overlay District. Within there's actually two developments. You have the Arboretum Village itself and then you have the Highlands on Bluff Creek in this area here so this pibject here, Arboretum Village, they actually owned this property over here so there's nothing built in front of Westwood Church. That was preserved. That area that was available was transferred over to here so it compressed the density as we did with this piece of property here. Some of this is owned by the HOA. The homeowner's association so, and not all of it is part of the density transfer but I want to show you the area that were preserved. This one is owned by the HOA but the City is named on these parcels here so what happened with that is actually the City then became the owner of that property so that was a density transfer. So that was done quite a few years ago. Lake Susan Apartments is located south on 101. across from Presbyterian Homes. Lake Susan Apartments includes 3 buildings. It's 162 units. 9 acres and it's 16 units an acre. This is part of a larger PUD that was put together for Villages on the Pond. This is a project that is also adjacent to single family across the street. Down the road and across the street. There is no public park within that area. They do have access to trails as this project would too. Connect a sidewalk, the Chanhassen Apartments would connect a sidewalk to get to the trails so that's what this project also employs is using the trails and the sidewalks to get to other amenities. Powers Ridge Apartments. This one is not completely built out. We do not have that many high density. I think there might be some, you know there is some high density to the east of this. The property owner there has requested that we take him off of, we do have available land on a listing that someone could look at. He's asked to not be on that register. Has no intention to develop so we have limited high density development. This project here, Powers Ridge which is located just south of the industrial park south of Highway 5, off of Powers Boulevard actually has 344 units. It was part of a larger PUD. If you look in there's twin homes along Powers Boulevard. There's also townhouses across the street. It's immediately adjacent to single family. Two of the buildings, or 3 of the buildings, these two buildings are connected underground with underground parking so of that all but the 88 units and the senior units so the senior units has a different parking standard so those two buildings have not been built yet. But they do have the entitlements to proceed. Again that was part of a PUD. There was no density transfer but as part of a larger PUD and that PUD actually ran a series of approximately, probably 20 years we're at now on that whole project. Just tried to superimpose this project on here just so you get an idea of the scale and what we were trying to accomplish. The City staff in looking at this project as it compared to some other, certainly understand the issues regarding the height, density and traffic and those sort of things. We would comment on trying to look at that wetland, the total number of units and but again we were looking at the noise attenuation, the buffering, the use there, compressing that and preserving on the, putting everything on the south side. This PUD I've outlined in the staff report that it meets all the standards of the PUD as far as the setbacks, hard surface coverage and all that. While it's not on top of Highway 5, it'd be similar setback if you would go along some of these buildings further on the east side along Highway 5. For example Park Nicollet. These are all set back 50 feet, plus there's additional right-of- way to Highway 5 so it's actually about 1 10-120 feet from actual edge of asphalt on Highway 5. Also Chanhassen Planning Commission — December 4, 2012 been asked regarding tree preservation. There isn't any oaks or any significant trees on that site. It's also outside of the power line easement so that wouldn't be an issue. I know that was a point of discussion too in the petition. So with that I did have another slide, just kind of illustratively showing the two so 1 think the challenge that we are looking at is to say you know looking at some empirical information to say does it make sense to change and certainly there's a lot of discretion to change the land use or leave it how it is in place today. Again there is value on that north side. You can put something there. The question that the City had at the time is they didn't want to see that developed ahead of the other without combining those two because our goal was not to just have the residential there and then not provide that opportunity to increase the density on the south side so really the challenge would we say under what circumstances would this make sense or would we just say, we'd like to leave it and we'll see what comes in in the future so just for illustrative purposes we tried to kind of compare and contrast the parking lot and the amount of green space on the apartments as opposed to the parking lots with all the office building. Again this project may, we may never see anything close to that. It may be one big building. Again we talked about it could be 2 or 3 buildings. We have no idea what the market would bring so we thought it would make sense to evaluate this. Give it a critical view again under that concept so with that we have a motion that you just forward your comments on after you open the public hearing and again I think based on what the staff has received as far as comments, we certainly understand... we've included all of those and the comments that we had in the staff report for recommendations including the traffic report, the payment of fees, working through some of the wetland delineations. Taking that acreage out so those are all part of our conditions so with that Chairman Aller I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. Aller: Anyone? Do we know what the occupancy rate is of the projects that we've looked at where we actually have high density apartments? Aanenson: Sure. What we've been told in the market study is Chanhassen's at the lowest right now. We're under 2% so we're on the radar screen right now which is why you're seeing projects for the need for additional apartments, and we haven't done one. The Powers Ridge we did, actually went condo. Then it went back. There's a large group that went in there and bought 75 units. An investment group so there's renters back in there so there is some pent up demand for market rate apartments. I didn't touch on that too much. The market rate. Maybe I'll just address that really quickly because I know that will probably come up later. We have two other projects 16 units an acre that were built since 2000. The Powers Ridge and the Lake Susan Apartments. They've been in place for a number of years. We haven't seen a big decrease in values in the areas nor have we seen a large increase in crime in either of those projects. Again both those projects are well designed and that's the goal. Undestad: I have a quick question Kate. The two other apartments you showed, the Lake Susan and Powers Ridge. Lake Susan had density transfers and Powers Ridge did not, is that right? Aanenson: No. Both of them werepart of a PUD. PUD for the Villages on the Pond was actually a mixed use so it did provide for commercial. It provided for office so you included the church. It has an institutional use. Church. It has the Foss Swim School. It has retail so this is actually part of the original Ward family property so this piece they wanted to do apartments on there so it was given the 16 units an acre under that mixed use. That's what is allowed. Undestad: Okay, that's for the Lake Susan across the street. Across 101. Aanenson: Correct. And Powers Ridge was just a larger PUD that Joe Miller way, way back when he did, that was the last component to be developed so all the single family, and they did smaller lots in there for single family. When 1 say smaller they're not the standard 15,000 square feet. They're a little bit smaller than that and then some of the other product came along in the 90's. The twin homes. The townhouses and then finally the apartments. Chanhassen Planning Commission — December 4, 2012 Undestad: And the apartments were at 16 units... Aanenson: Correct. Undestad: Okay. And a quick question for Paul. The sewer connections, is it the intent would be to connect up there by Galpin? Right up, so we're not cutting through the wetland down on that side. Oehme: Yeah, I would anticipate the connection would be closer to Galpin Boulevard and I would also estimate or anticipate that a lot of that pipe would be directionally bored underneath the highway or underneath 78h Street just to reduce the impacts to traffic in that area. Undestad: Okay. Aller: A lot to digest. Any questions at this point? Is the developer present? Would like to make a presentation. Please state your name and address for the record. Paul Tucci: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, Paul Tucci. I'm with Oppidan, Inc., 5125 County Road 101 in Minnetonka. Aller: Welcome sir. Paul Tucci: Tried to do the same thing here that Kate did. First off, thank you for having us here tonight. We, last week had a lot of the faces I see in this crowd at a neighborhood meeting and we talked about a lot of things. I'm going to try not to duplicate what Kate said. I want to fill in some of the blanks and we can talk about some of the other things. We're proposing 224 units in two detached buildings. There is a club house in the middle, a pool in the back. As Kate said no building on the north lot. It's a 3 story design. The height, we are over the 35 feet. We're I think at about 48 feet, if I remember. 47. And for those who asked that question last week, that's where we're at. I was telling you I thought it was less than 50. Got the number. Cement board siding, masonry, glass. That's what we're talking about here. As I said there's a pool. These are market rate apartments. We're going to have a community room inside. You know TV, sitting area so you can have a party in there. We will have a workout facility inside. We're also contemplating somewhere in there having a mini -business office so if you're a resident, work out of your home, you want to have a meeting, you'll have a spot to go down. It's something we've talked to the analyst in the area, that's becoming more and more prevalent. People working out of their homes. Working in a scenario like this rather than I used the reference to Kinko's. Rather than having to go to Kinko's to do everything, you might be able to go plug in. Have a meeting. Have somebody over. You don't have to use Kinko's, Caribou, and Starbuck's as your office anymore. We did talk about trail connections. One thing I will point out that we said, and I know it's going to come up later and Paul can jump in is, we have two entry points here and we did talk, we realize that the entry furthest east is going to have to be a right-in/right-out access. I did see a letter from one of the residents that was passed onto me earlier tonight and they talked about U turns, you know a pork chop will go in there. I'm not going to debate whether people will continue to take U turns and go in. I know that I've been to this CVS and I've seen people take U turns at that intersection. Short of building a wall anywhere you're never going to prevent people from taking U turns. I've seen them do it in the middle of highways. I'm sure we all have. Zoning, I do want to touch on that. Kate did talk about where we're at today. The north lot is 6, a little over 6 acres and it's zoned low density which allows up to 4 units per acre. Simple math says, and we can debate what's buildable and what's not but there's potentially 24 units available on there. Obviously there was discussion about the wetland up there and we will get that delineated, mitigated where we can but the old plan showed 10. Could be 24, up to 24 depending on the Chanhassen Planning Commission —December 4, 2012 size. On the south side it's zoned office and just to point out, and could you throw that plan that you had, throw the old plan up? Aanenson: Sure. Paul Tucci: That would be awesome. Thanks Kate. When we did, as this is getting put up, when we did our traffic analysis, this is the plan that we used that was previously presented. It has, as was referenced, 66,000 feet on the south lot which includes a 5,000 bank in there. You know when we did our traffic analysis, that's what we used because we had no other point of reference but I will tell you as was pointed out earlier, the zoning district here we can cover up to 70%, and please jump in if I say something wrong here. Two stories on the office building and you can do a one story parking deck and you can do underground parking. I'm throwing that out because this is a plan that we made our traffic study. We had to have something to compare it to. We compared it to what was presented before. Point of all of that discussion is that this could be much denser. I think as was pointed out with the Park Nicollet building you have 56,000 feet on roughly half the size of that south lot. 3 1/2 acres. That south lot is just about 8 acres so there could be you know 100,000 feet on that site with two story with some underground parking, with some decks. We didn't run our traffic study at that. We ran it against something that was there. Point is we're going to talk about the traffic information we ran shows more trips on our development versus this but if this got denser, that whole dynamic may change and I, Paul you can chime in when this is all done so I just wanted to get that. You know we're aware that traffic was an issue. It was brought up and we've talked about it already with city staff and as said, we are going to have to do a full blown traffic study when we come in with the project but you know I will point which was pointed out earlier that this is zoned today for, or I'm sorry, it's guided today for low density on the north and office on the south. Something is going to be developed there. The question is what makes the most sense and that's what we're here tonight to talk about. I'm not going to get into the overlay. I think that other than to say we understand it's there and we know that water quality, you know runoff, we have to make sure that we meet all the guidelines of the watershed district, the City and anyone else who has jurisdiction in there. We know that we have no chance of getting a building permit until we do that so I'm not going to debate into that because we know there's city standards and we'll deal with it. We talked quickly about services and availability. One thing that I will mention that I mentioned at the neighborhood meeting is, we're going to be paying over $2 million dollars in fees and those fees include sewer connection, water connection, park dedication. That does not, I don't even think we calculated in building permit at that so you know we're paying a lot in fees for services that are there so, you know it's not like we're getting this for free. It's there. It's sized correctly. We're accessing what's there and we're paying to access it just like any development would pay to access it. There was a concern at the meeting about a strain on services and again I tried to in the best way I could just say that the City is always planning ahead and growth is going to happen. Your city has grown remarkably. I commented at the neighborhood meeting, my wife and I have been 25 year residents over in Eden Prairie and we watched this whole, she grew up out west of here and I for 30 years have watched this whole area grow and you know the people you have here don't get into these positions without having the ability to think forward and plan. That's what makes all cities good and Chanhassen has been rated in the top 5, I think you were 1 once weren't you? Close to it. And Eden Prairie, you know cities like that they have the foresight to plan and think and that's what all of the services are there. The roadways are there. One of the other things I want to touch on briefly and I was asked a question at the meeting about home values and was there any empirical data about putting an apartment building in and home values and it was mentioned earlier, I got a copy of a report that was done in September of 2000 by Maxfield who also did our study. This is not a report that we had anything to do with. This was done for the Family Housing Fund in Minneapolis and this was for affordable housing development going in next to residential and the conclusions that are in here, and I did forward this onto the City, were that there was no impact with affordable housing going in next to housing so somebody had asked that so the City does have that. I forget who asked. You can call me. I think everyone got my number and information or you can get it 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission — December 4, 2012 from the City and I'd be happy to forward that onto you to look at. You know I guess with that, I know there's a lot of questions and a lot of comments coming. I will answer any questions I can so we can get everybody who came here up and talk. Aller: While it's fresh, we talk about affordable housing. How does that compare in your mind to what you're presenting here? Paul Tucci: This, we are not presenting affordable housing. We are market rate housing. You know our rental rates are over $1,000 for the studios and they go up to almost $1,500. Is what we're going to propose depending on the units you have, and we're going to have a variety of units. We're going to have studios. We're going to have one's. One's with den. Two's. Two's with den. The mix is still kind of being determined and we have to lock that in because it impacts what we need for parking and how we want to do everything. Some of the units we're actually looking at, are we going to do fireplaces inside the units so you know our goal and the market study has point it out that the primary market area that we're targeting is kind of mid point from 5 and 212 north. Runs out to Victoria. Runs up to the southern side of Minnetonka and runs to the very, to the western side of Eden Prairie, probably getting into County Road 4, Eden Prairie Road area and Kate put out 1.7% is what it shows in Chanhassen in the primary market area which I just kind of described if you can picture that circle. There's about 2.2% vacancy so this area is an area that is, based on the information we have, in need of a project like this. Aller. Thank you. Oehme: Can I just comment on the developer's comments. The developer just, they have not done a traffic analysis or report yet. Basically all they did right now is traffic generation and what potentially the traffic would, for this development would generate. You know there's a long ways to go yet in terns of traffic analysis. If the project were to go forward we would ask the developer again to complete a significant detailed traffic analysis for the development, and especially for the intersection of Galpin and 781h Street. You know look at the cuing and the back-up potentials and the U turn issues that we know that's out there right now so you know if any, we need a level of service for this area and for this intersection so you know if we need to we're going to put in a signal. Maybe a round about or something like that. We're going to look at all those options. Galpin Boulevard is a county road so they have to also look at the traffic and potential improvements along the corridor along with MnDOT as well too so there's several agencies who will have to take a look at this development and potential traffic impacts to this area. Just not the City too so we're going to be looking at what the developer would look at. We'll probably be actually hiring or looking at the traffic analysis they have. Hiring a consultant to give a second opinion as well too so there's just, just wanted to reiterate there's a long, long way to go in terms of traffic analysis and how this development would potentially come in and impact the transportation system in this area. Aanenson: And if I can Commissioner Aller, also no matter what went there, if it was an office building, we would employ the same thing to look at that. We understand that, that while it is a collector function between two state highways, 101 and 41 going through downtown, that's intended to carry local trips, we recognize that that's increasing as more development comes along the corridor so whether this project went forward or an office project came forward, we would still look at a traffic study when the next project, whatever project comes forward. Aller: Okay. Yeah, thank you for reminding us all that this is a concept plan so what we're doing is talking about potentials and that a lot of work would still have to be done if we consider the potential. But secondly my follow up question was going to be, when you start mentioning round about's and things like that 1 kind of have the hair stand up on my neck saying what are we talking about here and I don't necessarily want to change our major infrastructure for one project so hearing that we're going to need 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission — December 4, 2012 some improvements in the future and that we're looking in that forward direction helps a little bit. I'm sure that that's one of the answers we're going to be wanting to take a look at if this thing moves forward is just what are we doing with the traffic. Aanenson: Right. Aller. And it's been a major concern. Aanenson: If I may. Sometimes it will say within a certain timeframe. When you get to a certain number you need to make improvements which we've, whether it's a signal, which we've done on other roads in the city so it might not be with this project or another project but at a certain point it will give us information on what improvements need to be made today and then when volumes get to a certain level what additional improvements may need to be made. So it's a planning document. Paul Tucci: And we're very aware. We've had the discussion with staff that that is going to have to happen. A number of things have to happen. We have to get a utility plan out and get it to the city engineer to make sure that works but we're aware that there's more steps. One thing I also wanted to say is that you know this is designed to keep. costs down but I will tell you that we've spent a lot of money and time at this point. We have done a traffic analysis. It's not a full analysis. It's a trip generation analysis. We have done a wetland report that the City has. We have done a market research on the site. We've hired our architect to design. We've hired our engineers so we have spent a fair amount to date. 1 think the point of staff is that it helps us not spend even more than that and we're grateful that we can come through this process. Gather information to make sure that we have all of the issues addressed when we come in with a full presentation. Aller: Thank you. Any questions at this point? Okay. Alright, well what we're going to do now is we're going to open up the public hearing portion of this meeting. Again what we would like to do is in an orderly fashion those of you who wish to speak either for or against a proposition, they would please come forward. State your name and address for the record. If you're in another room, please take your time and come around and get in line and we'll do this in an orderly fashion. We would like to hear from anyone and everyone who wishes to speak again either for or against and with that I'll open the public hearing portion of the meeting. Larry Martin: Good. Mr. Chairman, commissioners, city officials, my name is Lary Martin. I live at 7725 Vasserman Trail. That's in the twin homes which are right inside Vasserman Trail there off of 78`s Street. I thank the staff for their report. Very complete report. We have had a number of neighborhood meetings where the neighbors have of course voiced a lot of opinions on here and what we'd like to do and what you're doing tonight is setting some of the opinions straight. We appreciate that and we'd like to go forward. We know that these parcels will be developed. The Chairman asked to state whether you're for or against this. I'm for it and I'm against it. We want good development here and that's what we all want to work together to get. Many of the people in Vasserman Ridge bought their homes knowing that the adjacent land was planned A2 with the possibility of office and R4 across the street. The 2008 submission changed all that so obviously there's a lot of people that are looking at the value of their property. I was going to give a little history here on this back through 2006 and whether things were approved or not approved in concept and everything. Suffice it to say that it did not go forward for a number of reasons. The proposed apartment complex here surfaced just a month ago and we noted that there are a number of sites along Highway 5 that are available for building and it turns out there's 1,900 sites that are available there and we're wondering gee, why this site because it is so difficult to develop. One of the things that the people have really questioned is this density transfer thing and we say gee there's, across the street we could do that. Well maybe we could buy 5 acres from the farm there and using high density that would allow 80 more units. 1 mean we could really pack this thing up. Our 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission — December 4, 2012 understanding is that high density is normally used for senior housing. It isn't used a lot for market rate housing. A report in 2007 by a person, and this was sent to Kate, his name was William Theibold. He was a professional planner who looked at this site. Some of his findings were sound planning principles support use of this site for shopping and non-residential. He had a section there on noise. Under noise he said, traffic volumes and speeds on Highway 5 support commercial use and rule against residential use given the size and location of the site. This, as I mentioned before this plan to combine parcels A and B and create this on something that's zoned A2 seems to be moving a lot of things around. The conclusion from the meetings that we've had is that there is no benefit in doing this to the neighborhood so it's upset the people. This development, you can see on the maps here, is adjacent to Vasserman Ridge here. This building would be about 200 feet from the homes on Vasserman Trail. The building at this point, as Paul stated, 48 feet tall. That's a pretty imposing edifice that's right across from there. We don't think it would be prudent development to have or wouldn't you think it would be prudent to have a graduated development between low density, medium high density and not go right from low density right to high density in 200 feet. In 2006 only a little over 1 acre was developed and that was just the land earlier. The reason was the wetland was there and they couldn't go back. Along the front here is a large sewer easement so that is not developable. I don't think you want to build homes on top of ft sewer easement so it is limited over there. We don't think it's right to include that entire site when you're doing the transfer of densities there. It's not unheard of as Kate said to do that but 1 think we have to be prudent when we're doing that. Some of the draw backs we see to this site are one, it's adjacency to Highway 5. The noise on Highway 5 as the consultant says there. Another is the proximity to electrical distribution lines. If you look here there's a transmission line across here arid it turns and it goes down here. Presently those are 69 KV lines. They're being upgraded to 115,000 volt lines. I don't know if you'll be able to hold your iPhone out the window and track, and charge it but there are some things that can cause some problems in those areas and those are controversial in the studies there but the one thing is, if you're on the third floor of this apartment building, if you look straight out you're going to be looking at a transmission line. I don't know that that would be desirable and the market studies I'm sure will have to look at that. We couldn't conclude what's going to happen there. There's no public transportation in this area. I think with 224 units there's a high probability that some of the people who are going to live there are going to need public transportation. 1 can see single parent families moving there with their children and stuff and the road issues we've talked about before are significant. The Galpin and 78'" has been a problematic comer because of the U turns. It isn't just an occasional U turn there. I bet there's a U turn probably every 30 to 40 seconds. Coming out of there so some of our people have gotten the accident rates at that thing and I know the council and the Planning Commission have said gee, we've got to do something about that but they don't know exactly what to do about it. The right-in/right-out there is going to require that they do put in a merge lane on 788. That's going to redo that intersection which is probably going to have to redo Galpin. When we start getting into these things upgrading and that intersection and that, and Paul you can, can be a $2 million dollar thing and so we need that traffic study. Another thing I'd like to say on the traffic study, rather than have the developer do the traffic study, I would much rather the City commission the traffic study and bill the developer back. I think that gives us more objectivity in the study as it's done. So the one thing we also see here is that this whole transfer and the rezoning, because this was guided and sent to the Metropolitan Council, and I'm not a legal guy here, could require this whole development to go for permission to the Metropolitan Council before it goes forward so we'd like to see that a market study be done, a traffic study and that this, we have as much information as possible before we launch into this so with that I'll sit down. Thank you. Aller: Thank you for your comments. Aanenson: Mr. Chair, can I just make a couple points of clarification? Just I think. Aller: Sure. 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission — December 4, 2012 Aanenson: Mr. Theibold and I disagreed strongly about the commercial on this site. If there's a desire for noise attenuation we've got plenty of people that would like to put commercial on that site. We have fought, myself, this planning staff has fought vehemently against that. Having said that, you know we, the council compromised on the office zoning there so I just want to make sure that we did not support commercial. If it wanted to go commercial we have plenty of people that would develop it right away. Again we try to push that to the downtown. It is our practice to have the city do the traffic study. We just wanted to do this without a lot of expense to just give you a comparison between the two. That is our practice. I also just want to point one other thing, the twin homes on the north side, if it's low density it's I to 4 units. There's a lot of ways to do slab on grade to get more units there. You could do an attached project so to say it's only going to be 10 or 12, I'm not sure there is value across there. You can include the easement area for your sewer as part of your lot line so I didn't want anybody to think that there's no value on that side of the street. So I just wanted to clarify those points there. Aller: Thank you and I think the prior plan which was already approved allowed for structures over there. Aanenson: That's correct. Aller: 10 structures. And Paul if you want to chip in any time. I would like to make this more of a conversation than just a list of either complaints or kudos so if at any time either of you want to step in and have a comment. Same rules apply for everyone in the room. We're Minnesota Nice here. We want to be respectful. We want to make sure that everyone's heard. Aanenson: Just one. more thing I wanted to add too. It does require a land use amendment. We said it does go to the Met Council. That's part of the process. They've already sent the original thing that we are looking at that so. Aller: Thank you. Art Roberts: My name is Art Roberts, 7762 Vasserman Place, which is the cul-de-sac in the middle of Vasserman Ridge. I'd like to raise one basic issue that hasn't been talked about at all and that, the point of that is, is I think this is a tremendously dangerous location for high density residential. What makes it so is 3 things. Number one, the high speed, high traffic Highway 5 right there in front of it. Number two, the school across the street and number two the park across the street. In Vasserman Ridge, back in the single family area. Not the twin homes up front but there are, I think there are 50 single family homes and at one point we counted we had 85 kids there. More than I per house. Audience: 100 Art Roberts: Is it 100 now? Audience: 105. Art Roberts: 105 kids. Audience: And growing. Art Roberts: Let me take a real conservative number like in those 225, suppose we had 50 elementary kids that needed to go back and forth to school and because it's less than a mile and they're so dam close, why would their parents pay for a school bus so they're going to walk across Highway 5. Now if you take those 50 kids over and back, that's 100 times 180 school days, that's 18,000 trips across the street. Point number two, after school there are almost no play facilities for the kids right there on the property 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission — December 4, 2012 so what would they do? They'd go back across the street because there is tennis, hockey, softball, baseball, whatever. Okay. What if that were 25 kids that went over and back 360 days a year. That's another 18,000 trips across that highway. Well 18,000, that's 36,000 trips across that highway. Holy cow. So high density residential is going to generate a tremendous amount of traffic and you know what that sucker's like. I mean Highway 5 is just you know 60 miles an hour and I don't know what to think. In addition or no fences across there so kids could kick balls onto the street and chase them onto Highway 5 or throw baseballs out but that would be pretty minimal I think. But more important I'm talking about the 36,000 trips and say I'm not an insurance guy. My dad was but if we've got 36,000 kids, 36,000 times a year, what does that mean? How many accidents per year? Any of those going to be fatalities. It seems to me we have no business putting high density residential across the street from a school and a park that is such a magnet for the kids. Now that hasn't been brought up by anybody else here. You know you're talking about the buildings and the. Aanenson: Chair, I would just say that we do have that project Art Roberts: This is a critical reason not to put high residential Vera Brady: _ Wouldn't you also have to cross. Aller: Ma'am, what we're going to do is, if you'd like to come forward Vera Brady: It's just a question. Aller: We want to make sure that there's a clean record and everybody can hear your opinion so that. Vera Brady: Well I think... Art Roberts: Okay, that's the end of my point. Is it seems to be an incredibly dangerous situation. Vera Brady: 1 just want to say you can't cross. Aller: Ma'am, if you could state. Vera Brady: Vera Brady and I live in, on Clover Court in Chanhassen. Aller: Great, thank you. Vera Brady: 1 just want to say that you cannot cross directly across to, across Highway 5 without first crossing Galpin which would double all the trips he's talking about because a crossing is adjacent to Galpin there and that's where the crosswalk is so you would have to cross Galpin, then you would have to cross over Highway 5. Aller: Thank you. Vera Brady: So you'd have to double everything. Aanenson: Yeah, again we did point out there are tunnels there. 1 think just so we have knowledge base, we do have apartment building adjacent to State Highway 101 which has a school across the street which also has a park across the street. There are trails similar to this so we have some experience with an apartment building against a state highway so. And I think we have to separate the trip generation 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission — December 4, 2012 because there's going to be trips no matter what the use is from, I mean I understand the school children question but I think that would be similar to the other project that we have. Aller. Thank you. Steve Smith: I'm Steve Smith. I live at 2536 Bridle Creek Trail which is just off of Galpin. First of all I'd like to thank the City of Chanhassen for opening this up. I just drove from the north Dallas border down to Dallas and you can see the results of cities and communities that don't plan. It was just pure sprawl. It was horrible. You'd never stop for gas if you had to make a left turn so I commend you for having this meeting. I'm already, I'm going to beat a dead horse on traffic but it won't be long. I think we already have a lot of traffic. I think we're starting to see sprawl in the Eden Prairie area of Highway 5. 1 heard about traffic U turns at that corner and it seemed to be the answer was live with it. There was talk of upgrading Galpin. That sounds rather nightmarish to me from where I live and so the big point I would like to make is why there when there are so many locations available and someone mentioned further up Highway 5 which still has a traffic •problem, but there's also 212 which is pretty wide open territory. There's a lot of room on 212. Just a lot of vacant area so that's my two cents. Aller: Thank you sir. David Windschitl: Good evening. My name is David Windschitl, 7620 Ridgeview Way. Vasserman Ridge neighborhood. I'm not going to talk about traffic. I'll let the rest of you approach you on that but 1 will mention that in 2008, as you are all aware, 30 year comp plan was revised. The land use, we all know what those were designated for. I'm concerned that 4 years into this we're already looking to revamp that. Youknowsignificant time, resources went into this plan. But I also do understand and realize that we need to have the latitude and discretion to change if something that benefits and is better than what could be there. I'm struggling to find anything that's better about this potential plan. Chanhassen's been a desirable place to live. As Paul had mentioned he's grown up in neighboring community. I've grown up in this community for 39 years. I've seen this. My grandparents used to live on the Byerly's farm, where Byerly's is now located so I'm familiar with this community. We've gotten to where we are today because we followed the plan. We had a vision for what we wanted and you know it's something that we followed and we've had, a lot of success with that. One of the things that Kate has mentioned, she's brought up in phone conversations with plenty of people, including myself, the Park Nicollet office building, medical facility and how that's a sound mitigate and how the residents actually asked that that would be a helpful thing. Well I'm here to tell you that we're not asking for that. Okay. I think the neighbors are here and coming to you to say we do not want that. We're not looking for the sound mitigation. We're not looking for 3 stories. We're looking for a good product there that we can be proud of that we can be a part of. That we can help support and I hope you guys understand and feel the same way. The other thing that's of particular trouble for me on this particular development is the land density swap. I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around it. And I understand why he's asking for it. Why the developer's asking for it. I absolutely understand why it's a time of giving. It's Christmastime. I get that. And this is nothing more than a gift to the developer. I go back to 2006 when there was another development plan in place for this. What Kate has said it was not denied to do, tonight she has said it's not denied due to the density. It was clearly noted in the May 22, 2006 notes, in the development for the 12 units on that northern parcel. At the time current city councilor Bethany Tjomhom. Forgive me if I do not pronounce it correctly. Stated, I quote, I think there is too many. 1 think they're kind of crammed in there. I have to agree with the Planning Commission on that. So my struggle is if 12 units was too much at that time for those 6 acres, why in the world would we allow a land transfer, or the land use needs to change to high density residential. Right now the developer is asking for 96 units. 96 units to be transferred into the southern parcel. I have an objection to that. That's too much. That's too much of a gift, okay. So from that, that is a part that I am really struggling with and not only is the 96 number that they're trying to transfer over, and I understand this concept plan. I also understand 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission — December 4, 2012 that we have to decide how much of those is buildable but there's no way, as in the neighborhood meeting, you said well if we can't build all of this on the southern we'll just put the 96 units over on the northern part. I would appeal to the better judgment of this Planning Commission and the City Council that we never, ever put 96 units on the northern parcel. So in short I guess with that I'll conclude that I view that there's some significant shortcomings in this particular development. 1 have no issue whatsoever that this is a quality developer. That he can provide a quality product. All 1 ask is that he finds a right spot for it. I'd love it to be in Chanhassen. Just find the right spot. This is not it. With that 1 thank you for your time. Aller: Thank you. Tamara Hodgins: Hi, Tamara Hodgins, 7633 Ridgeview Way. Planning Commission, thank you very much for letting us all speak. Unlike the gentleman before me I have three cents instead of two and I one of them is about traffic. The first one is I'm asking you to reconsider, to consider denying the density transfer. I was reading in the Planning Commission report where it said that some development of Parcel A is possible but the shallow water table and poor soils make this parcel a difficult site for development so the recommendation is to transfer that density to Parcel B. Again it doesn't make sense to me, as well as a lot of other people, if the entire 6 acres, 6.8. 1 can't quite see it from here. If the entire site isn't able to be developed, how can you take the developable capacity from that site and transfer it if you never would be able to put that many on that site. Parcel B, with the foresight from the commission and from the City years ago, they decided how much would be developable on that land. Stick with that. 1 don't think it's reasonable, if that couldn't have gone on Parcel A anyway and originally it shouldn't have gone on Parcel B, don't let all of it go to Parcel B so my first request is please consider denying the density transfer. The density transfer. The second thing is the size of the unit. It seems as though it would be a monstrosity. From what I understand at the last meeting that we had with the communities, they would have to get a variance on the size because it's already been determined that that's too big. I understand that there are a lot of other very big things in the community. The Park Nicollet, Target, Lifetime Fitness, the Ridgeview Medical Clinic, the one right on Highway 5. The doctors offices. Not the big 212 medical center. They're all rather big. The ones that are very close to the road are much closer to the city center. I kind of see this area as outside of the city center. Getting to the exurban or the suburban of Chanhassen, if that makes any sense. Some of the ones that are quite big, such as Lifetime Fitness that are out in that direction are quite set back. They're not right there next to any roads. Maybe Lifetime is close to Highway 41 but it's down a big berm and it's kind of set down. It's not this big monstrosity as you're driving by Highway 5 through parklands and you start to feel a good sense of community. Some nice neighborhoods on either side. The parkland on either side and then all of a sudden boom, a monstrosity right there on Highway 5. 1 don't think that that's the feeling that a lot of people want for the outskirts of Chanhassen. And then the third thing is, I'm very concerned about traffic. The traffic patterns. The traffic safety for a lot of different comers, many of which have already been mentioned. 1, myself have eye witnessed 3 accidents in the last maybe year and a half, two years right here on this comer. That is a very dangerous comer. I don't think many people have mentioned this turn off from Highway 5. That's a very high speed turn. If you add the hundreds or thousands of people, a lot of people have talked about crossing roads. I'm just talking about that turn. Your 55, 50-55 miles an hour, whatever the speed limit is, turning onto Galpin with a much slower speed limit. Many people will have to make a very sudden change over. It's very hazardous, busy as it is. The other thing that many people have mentioned is the U turns. We have lived in Chanhassen, not nearly as long as Mr. W indschitl but we've been here for 9 years and very soon after we moved in I called the City wondering about that. Asking when a crosswalk was going to be put in. When a stop sign would be put in. No crosswalk. No stop signs have been put in. Those U turns make a very unsafe traffic pattern. Crossing highway, or crossing Galpin right here is treacherous in a car. It's time consuming in a car. We have 5 kids living in Vasserman Ridge right now. There are 105 in the neighborhood. Crossing to get to the trail that goes under Highway 5. They still have to cross here. There are many people in the neighborhood who will not let their kids make that 17 Chanhassen Planning Commission — December 4, 2012 journey. Now they're starting to get to be old enough. They're starting to get to be into their mid teen years. We're just now allowing them to do it. With that many hundreds, maybe even thousands of trips that corner is really going to need to be addressed. I understand that there is crossing under Highway 5. It's not Highway 5 that's treacherous to me. It's Galpin. The other thing that nobody has mentioned is this corner right now coming, it's the east entrance of Vasserman Ridge. There's a big berm right here. This is a pretty high speed. It's about 40 miles an hour. Many people don't travel the speed limit. They're going faster. That is a dangerous corner. I don't know of any accidents that have happened. I know of many, many near misses. Of 105 kids living in this neighborhood right now, how many are driving age? Maybe 5. Soon 105 are going to be driving. That comer is treacherous. If you have cars, the added volume that will be turning in and turning out in every which direction, I just ask, I like the foresight of how the original parcels were arranged. Please have the foresight to consider those traffic patterns, and especially the ones, people have mentioned crossing Highway 5 and Galpin. I'm asking you to consider the turnoff and the entrance to this community if you add whatever traffic pattern entrances and exits and that volume of cars. Thank you very much. Paul Moniker: Paul Moniker. Aller: If I could just take a second. If we can keep the applause down to a minimum. What we want to do is just make sure that everybody's heard and we understand that you support certain positions and that's why you're here. We'd like to hear the next person as quickly as possible so. Paul Moniker: Paul Moniker, Chanhassen. My wife and I built here. We moved from Eden Prairie and the reason we built here is because there were other homes, the size of our's and the like minded people that wanted to build that type of homes in these types of neighborhoods. We lived in an apartment, or we lived in a house in Eden Prairie and down the street from our house was an apartment complex and we were broken into twice in one year and when I asked the police what happened, why this is happening and he just pointed down the street. I'm not saying that this is what's going to happen, but I'm saying that, you mentioned that when you built the apartment complexes there wasn't a huge decrease in property value or wasn't a huge increase in crime but I think any decrease in property value or any decrease, or increase in crime is something to be considered. One of the reasons we're voted second in the nation for Chanhassen is because we're smart. We're, you know we build what we want. We are like minded people. I don't think this is what Chanhassen wants. Thanks. Aller: Thank you. Deborah Zorn: Chair, commissioners, hello. My name is Deborah Zorn. I live at 7574 Ridgeview Point in the Vasserman Ridge neighborhood. You have before you a handout that I brought to the meeting this evening. I will be brief as I know several have addressed some of these issues as well or already but I do want to highlight the petition that we have online for the, opposing the Galpin Apartments. We're at currently 575 signatures. You have a list of those individuals as well as 129 of those individuals did leave personal comments. Please take some time to look through those if you haven't already. I believe that this speaks volumes having a petition with less than a month timeframe is pretty critical. I mean if you recall our recent local election, our City Council individuals who were voted in were voted with a margin much smaller than that so please thank you for having us here this evening and strongly hold these petition signers as well. I think that it's pretty obvious, we feel this is a pretty large structure for this site. Stepping back I think over arching is the zoning issue. It's currently zoned as something other than this proposal. Stay with the 2030 comp plan. Simply put. Let the marketplace determine what type of office space will go there. In addition the density transfer. Yes, in 2006 that north parcel, I believe that Kate said that there was a part of that proposal that did pass through Planning Commission but that north parcel did not and as Dave Windschitl mentioned there are, if you go back to the May 26, 2006 minutes there are City Council members indicated hey, that spot is too crammed for 12 units. If it's too crammed for 12 18 Chanhassen Planning Commission — December 4, 2012 units, why is 96 even remotely considered? And on election day, if we have double the car trips in this intersection, and if I digress for just a minute, I think it is inaccurate to compare the projected traffic for this complex with the 2006 Galpin Crossing because those are projections. Those are 5 years old at this point and much different traffic patterns with all of the growth that is further west. That's something that we haven't also mentioned. All of the growth that has happened. The new 212 that's in. All of that growth down there and all the available land that is appropriately zoned for a complex like this. But back to the traffic. On election day I voted. 1 was there at 7:30. Came back. I was hearin northbound on Galpin over Highway 5. There were 15 cars deep. I could not turn left onto West 78` hearing west because there were cars, if I may, lined up. This is a little bit of a dip which you cannot see. There's a little bit of a dip and so there were cars lined all the way up to just about the top of the ridge. I believe that is a representation of what this, it would be like with this complex. What does upgrading Galpin mean? What does upgrading Galpin mean? Can a traffic light even go at West 78h and Galpin? Is a turn about appropriate? Will there be some type of tunneling system? All of that is, as Lary mentioned, beginning price tag $2 million dollars. Add more and more, should it be something more complex? Paul, I would like to hear what you, when you commented on oh Galpin would be upgraded. What does that . mean? Oehme: Well this area is still as, we'll see some development in the future so you know traffic is bound to go up in the future. The road is getting old. It's deteriorated. The County overlaid it maybe 4-5 years ago. It's due to... Deborah Zorn: So they're basic upgrades. They're not a complete overhaul which a project like this would warrant. Oehme: Well if the County would come in and do an improvement project I think an appropriate measure would be to look at what the future forecast for the trips along Galpin would be and plan for those, for that traffic in the future so you know it's something that we still have to look at. I mean we haven.'t put together a traffic plan or a traffic report yet so all of those things have to be considered as we look forward, not just for this development but into the future as areas along the Galpin Boulevard do develop. Deborah Zorn: Okay, okay. Well along those lines what makes me a little nervous when we were at the neighborhood meeting last week the developer was very kind and open to answering all of our questions. Thank you Paul. But where I have concern is when I asked, I mean they've been in, he and his partner have been in the development business for 20 some years. I asked him, a complex this size, what typically would be a traffic situation? You know what would be on the corner of something like this and he could not speak to that. I understand every you know jurisdiction is different. It's a county highway but this is where 1 think it's a signal that they'rejust saying this box fits. Let's put it here and let's see if we can make a go irrelevant of what the environment is, how it will enhance our neighborhoods or make potentially much more dangerous. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Aanenson: Can I just make one clarification? Those trips that we showed were 2011 ADT's. I just want to make sure that was clear. That is current information. The goal of comparing the project that was advanced in 2006 with conceptual approval was just to give you a threshold between what the trip generation could be under a typical office on that site and that's all it was intended to do but the trip numbers you saw in there were 2011. They're not old data. And just to go back to one of the points, and maybe Paul wants to comment on this, there will be additional development in this area. There are vacant parcels so when we look at that traffic study you have to kind of, as we talked about here, think ahead because there will be additional traffic on this road. Whether or not this property develops but property to the west or as the city as a whole develops so that we have to think ahead not just on this piece but looking at all the parcels so while the city would be the primary person reviewing that, based on this development, we'd also look at background data as we do with any other project. Take similar vacant 19 Chanhassen Planning Commission —December 4, 2012 properties because you don't want to come back in 3 years and say we didn't appropriately size it. Whether it's this project or something else, we would have to look at that so I just want to make that clarification. Aller: Thank you and Kate just for clarification on the documents that were provided with the list of names and comments. That will be put on the website, the City website as well along with the package. Aanenson: Yep. Yes. Aller: So that anybody that wishes to take a look at those comments and see them, whether you're listening in or you're here, that will be made available on the website so that you can follow this along. Aanenson: Yeah, yeah. I did note that some of the comments that we got were people outside of Chanhassen. I'm not sure that's reflected in here but they will all be included in the packet that goes to council and they will also be scanned into the file so anybody that wants to read it can certainly go look at this project file. Hopefully you all know how to do that. Go to find it on the City's website and click on the things that are public information and that will all be posted on there. Aller: Alright, thank you. Would anyone else like to come forward and speak either for or against? Roger Remaley: Good evening Planning Commission and city staff. Roger Reinaley, President of Walnut Grove Villas Townhouse Association. 2198 Baneberry Ridge, Baneberry Way West, sorry. I think I've got a few details to hit that some have been hit before. Maybe not from quite the same angle but I think the one thing that we can all agree on residents here, whether it be Longacres, Walnut Curve, Walnut Grove Villas, Vasserman Ridge, is that we innately know that this is not a good idea. And we're the ones that live there. A few things to talk about. The only way kids can access the school other than crossing Highway 5 directly is to cross Galpin at 781h Street and then use the trail to access the tunnel. I don't know if you guys have been down there but that tunnel is often 12 inches deep in mud. And in the winter it's even worst. It's an ice mess so it's not a very viable way to get over there, really and truly. The creek runs right next to it and that's why so the creek overflows all the time. Galpin, as you probably know is a really dangerous street as has been stated at 78h Street. It's also pretty bad up where you can come into Walnut Grove Villas. There's often more than one accident there a week. My wife and I were rear ended there 1 think it was in early September. Our car was totaled while we were waiting to turn left into the development. The very next day there was an accident when we left in the morning at the same place, and there has been a fatality one block up where the stop signs are. Actually I think there have been two fatalities so it is a serious issue already. A few other things, I think everybody has touched on. I think the size of this is part of what people don't feel is right. The height and just the massiveness of it. It doesn't feel right with the surrounding communities. Obviously children's safety I kind of touched on that. The transfer of 96 units when we were taking about, to go from 10 units to a 96 does seem extreme, especially considering the wetland that's over there in the spring. That thing is like 4 feet deep in water. One other thing I'd like to touch on. I don't know why this was brought up but the developer cited a study about low income housing not having an effect on property values and crime and this isn't low density housing so I don't know why it was even brought up but 1 can guarantee you I can go find a bunch of studies that will say exactly the opposite and I could do it on a computer in probably 5 minutes. So I would just ask that you take some of these things into consideration. Another issue is pretty minor but it's something to think about. With the lack of green area in this development I can foresee most of our neighborhoods becoming the place to take your dog to relieve himself. And we already have a big issue in our neighborhood with, our grounds crew has to pick up tons of dog waste every week. And some of that may be our own residents but we know a lot of it isn't. It's other people. And nobody wants to be sitting down to dinner and look out their front dining room window and have somebody's dog going 20 Chanhassen Planning Commission — December 4, 2012 to the bathroom in their front yard. And that's going to put some pressure on these neighborhoods too. So with that I thank you for your time and have a good evening. Aller: Thank you. Bob Webber: Hi, my name is Bob Webber. I live at 7608 Ridgeview Way. I really want to thank you for just doing this public service and being on the Planning Commission. 1 find it hard to believe people volunteer their time to listen to us rant and rave. I kind of want to approach it a little bit differently than maybe some other people, although I am opposed to this project. I think that Chanhassen needs to encourage development. I think that development is good for the city. We have a lot of open space in the city. I think based on my research and a lot of antidotal information that developer that has come to work on this project is a very good developer and has a great reputation. So I think being pro development, particularly on market rate apartments I mean but one of the things I'm thinking is that if you guys on the Planning Commission, if somebody comes to you and they're a developer and they say yeah, I think there's a real need for market rate apartments in Chanhassen. I want to build 225 units. Where should I go? How many guesses would you have before you got to 5 and Galpin? I mean therms so many other places that would be a natural fit for this and I think that the Planning Commission does, as I understand it, have a sort of a wide latitude in terms of discretion. It's sort of a reasonableness type standard and I think that you'd actually be doing a favor to the developer to say we want developers like you in our city but we don't want you screwing up the comp plan which is part of our long term vision of the city and it's actually a lot more beneficial to the developer in my view to tell them right now that it's sort of a non starter to be working on this project because basically if you give a mixed message this meeting in the development stage, they're going to spend a lot of money working on it and we're going to keep coming to these meetings and complaining and ranting and telling you about these things and if you just at the beginning just say look, we have a city plan. You guys are the Planning Commission and you know this just isn't the place for this project but there are places a little bit east and certainly south off of 212 and we want you to come. If you want to build 400 market rate apartments I think we should encourage that. You know it just seems like such a strange place. I was sort of envisioning you know like a young couple that he described to us in the neighbors meeting that you know this might be a place where young couples, professionals would live and you're sort of thinking okay well you'll have sort of a romantic evening with those red lights of CVS shining in your apartment. It's just a strange, it's a strange place between the power lines and the Highway 5 and to pay $1,500 a month. Now of course he's the expert on development and in terms of you know what will sell so I'm not, you know if he wants to do that but it just seems so strange that we ended up at this particular place and I feel that the commission is actually doing everyone a service to just tell the developer hey, we want you to build in Chanhassen but this is not the parcel for this project and don't, you know don't waste your money because you're just going to end up spending a lot of money and it's not going to end up being what you want. So that's kind of my main point is to stick with the plan. You're the Planning Commission. We sort of rely on you to put up with all of us ranting but also to be the sort of the defenders of the plan. I mean that's kind of your I think spot in the process that somebody spent a lot of time building the plan. I think the plan was clearly the basis or at least one of the reasons why the City is a great place. Even the developer has acknowledged that Chanhassen is a planning city. Has made a good plan so we should stick with the plan and just tell the developer hey, down on 212 there's a new park and ride. There's big space there. Put 400 units there. Great for taxes. Great for development and we are open for business for development, I think that's an important part of this city, what the city should be. Thanks. Aanenson: Can 1 just comment on that because... planning staff. We do not have this size parcel available for development. As I mentioned earlier the piece to the east has asked to not be approached. Wants to maintain that property in a rural. We do have a piece next to the park and ride. The neighborhood over there also there's a lot of concern about that type of development. There's only 40 units an acre. The only other piece we have is the piece that we talked about on the Powers Ridge that 21 Chanhassen Planning Commission — December 4, 2012 has two vacant parcels. One of them is entitled for senior housing. Would take a complete re-application of that so if there was another site to provide for this developer he certainly would have been directed to that. That is his choice to pursue. When someone files an application we're obligated to process it. Whether we tell them what their chances are or not so here we are trying to give clear direction under the concept review. Aller: Thank you. I see the line has dwindled. Anyone else wishing to come forward? Cathy Meyer: Hi. My name is Cathy Meyer. I live at 7662 Ridgeview Way in Chanhassen. Also part of Vasserman community. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Mine is, I'm just struggling with this development and I may be dense, no pun intended but I've lived in apartments in Boston and Chicago for years. As recent as last year my family lived in Lake Susan during a remodel and so we paid less money for more space, significantly less money for more space. The underpass was 20 feet from outside the building to go under to go to the parks. There was access to public transportation by walking down the street. And there were no power lines out my window and I also had a park out the other side that I could walk to the lake so I just struggle with who is going to really fill up this apartment. Who's going to pay for less space and more money and I'm not saying it's affordable housing or he's been clear that we're not going down that path but I just don't get it. Like I'd love to seethe study that says we're going to fill up this apartment at this kind of size and dollar proportion so that's my first point. And then the only second point is as a mother who has a 4 1/2 year old son getting ready to go to Bluff Creek, my understanding and I'm not totally in on this so others in the room probably know is that there is a, the district is considering a 2 mile no busing zone so you would have to pay for the bus so that's just a consideration for those that are in the apartment as well as those of us who aren't in the apartment and it speaks to the traffic issues. Those are my comments. I Aller: Thank you. Cathy Meyer: Thank you Aller: Yes sir. Lance Erickson: Good evening, thank you. My name is Lance Erickson and I live at 7735 Vasserman Trail which is right about here on the map. Just overlooking that northeast property right there. I had gosh a piece of paper I was going to bring up with about 9 or 10 bullets on it and really was going to talk about a lot of things but everybody that's preceded me has covered all the points that I thought were so unique that I had prepared to discuss this, and in addition Kate gave a nice presentation. The developer did a nice job when he talked about the project and so all of the things that I was going to mention, somebody else has already talked about so, and the Chair said tonight we shouldn't duplicate so I'm trying not to do that. One last point I would make though, and the developer brought it up and that is that Chanhassen wasn't all that long ago was named the number one city in the United States of America and gosh guys that didn't happen because of luck or just by chance. That happened because of you guys on the council here. It happened because of the mayor. It happened because of the city council and your plan for the future of this city in which you've put down with the Metropolitan Council and the long goals of how you wanted things done, and that plan says this particular site should be office and retail. It doesn't say anything about high density apartments. So I'm just saying I think you've got a beautiful plan for this city and I think you ought to stay with it. Thank you. Steve Sheldon: Hi, my name is Steve Sheldon and I live at 7711 Ridgeview Way, which is kind of on the west side of Vasserman, about the third house in. One comment that I would make. Our house, it's third house. We're up on the hill overlooking kind of our, the houses to the south of us so we get a substantial amount of noise from Highway 5. We're not really buffered. There isn't a big berm there. Not a lot of 22 Chanhassen Planning Commission — December 4, 2012 trees. No other houses so much. You know it's, we knew that buying the place in 2010. You know we're comfortable with it and everything but you know the location of where our house is relative to Highway 5 would be kind of up along this top part of this parcel and this project and I just don't see how these units down here on the south side, the noise is going to be tremendous. Highway 5 you know is a major kind of state highway here. There's a lot of semi traffic on there. A lot of other trucks and stuff. We get jake braking occasionally. You know people coming and stop at the stoplight there and stuff. You know I would really question if anybody's going to want to live there just because of that. My wife, when I first met her you know 8 years ago lived in apartments. Chanhassen Village, kind of on the east side of 101 on the north side of 5 there. Right next to the train tracks. Not a real desirable location you know and you know the train goes off at 5:00 a.m. and I don't know so that's my only comment. I just, I don't know about the location suitability just because of noise. Thank you. Aller: Thank you sir. Mike Aker: My name is Mike Aker. I'm from 2131 Brinker Street. Just moved in about a year ago. I'm part of the quaky voiced passionate crowd that is really looking probably not to hhve this apartment complex there. A couple of things that came to mind when I was listening to the developer speak, a couple of the things that he brought up that I found interesting was how he was going to put $2 million dollars into the City coffers through all of the permitting and so forth. Wouldn't it be true that any development that came into that would put a large amount of money into city coffers so for him to say that his specific development is going to do that is somewhat skewed. The second thing that he said, that he and his ownership group has invested a lot of money already into this and I would counter that with; I can't speak for everybody but there's a lot of people who have put a good portion of their life savings into their houses and don't want to see them devalued. We talked a little bit about the traffic. If you ever see me on the corner of Brinker Street and Galpin with my daughter, you'll see me with my hand on the collar of her coat. She's almost been ran over twice already. I can't imagine 400 more people traveling up and down just out of this complex or the amount of traffic so I guess I would be on the against side of this development. And the last thing I would say is, why not develop that area to create a resource for the citizens that we have here already rather than develop it to create more citizens that are going to tax all of that area right there. It just seems that there's a lot of different things that we could do there as opposed to adding that much more so that's all I have to say. Aller: Thank you. Yes ma'am. Kathryn Peterson: Kathryn Peterson, 7713 Vasserman Place. My point is trust. If this high density is such a wonderful idea, why was it not zoned high density from the very beginning? We put our trust in you people and our City Council to carry out this plan and to on a whim, well it's probably not a whim but for various reasons all of a sudden we're changing from the zoning plan that was in place to a new zoning plan just to fulfill this plan. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Any other individuals wishing to come forward? Anyone from the another room wishing to come forward? Seeing no one come forward I'm going to close the public portion of the hearing and at this point we'll have some discussion and comments. Anyone? Undestad: I'll start off with my two cents here. Everything that was brought up by the residents here, I mean these are all great, valid points. Everything that the developer needs to consider in his own mind to know if he even wants to try to push this thing or do anything with it. All those would have to be resolved and dealt with. The traffic. The safety. The kids. The school. You know locations. Other locations was brought up south and I think part of what we're looking at here, and again I won't say that I don't agree with the high density. The number of units. I think there's a blend. There's something we can do in there but to take a project like that and move it south to the 212 corridor or something, two 23 Chanhassen Planning Commission — December 4, 2012 reasons. Number one, 1 don't think we have infrastructure down there in place to handle something like that but more than that is, again what we've created for families. For kids. For everybody around here. You put the apartment down there on 212, the kids still want to be able to get to town. And again this works for that but I don't think that the densities, I don't think the number of units on there is something that, you know that's something that has to be looked at hard. I think the land to the north, if anything I'd like to see that stay just the way it is. The neighbors can take their dogs over there and take care of the grass. But again you know there is, there's a lot of concerns. A lot of things that have to be worked out on there to even, even at you know in my mind as a less dense apartment complex in there. The location, it's close to town. I think that's a good thing. 225 units right there, that's what I kind of struggle with there too so, but again you know the comments, the list and what's going to be on the public record, it's a lot of work. A lot of thought to go through that process so, that's my two cents. Tennyson: 1 agree with a lot of what the commissioner just said. Conceptually I don't really have a problem with it knowing that the developer is going to have a whole lot of obstacles and other hoops to go through in order to even get to 221 units. They're going to have to address all of these concerns which were, as was said, everybody did a really good explaining their concerns. Everyone was really articulate with it. I didn't know I was going to hear anything new and I did but to me it didn't really lead me away from thinking that the concept in general is okay as long as we know that there are so many other things that the developer needs to go through. Thomas: I'll go. I'm also in agreement with the other commissioners as well. I believe that the concept of the idea of what would go on this parcel of land is a benefit to being able to be close to downtown and have an apartment complex for people to be able to live at which is something that we definitely need in . Chanhassen. We don't have this capacity any place else within Chanhassen. I mean you heard from other people that counts we're at like 2% which is considerably quite low for apartment complexes within Chanhassen and livable spaces for other people besides single family or twin homes and things like that. I also, I mean I like to kind of see the back part of the property stay the way it is and just focus on the front. I understand, l live close to the property as well. I understand that there are U turns there at the CVS. I'd like to see that intersection changed regardless of what happens. Regardless of what happens with this project I'd like to see that intersection worked upon. Whether, stop light. Maybe a round about. I don't know, something needs to be done there so we can create a better, safer turning pattern because I'm not a fan of it by any means and I go by there enough and long enough and often so I'd like to see it updated regardless of what happens and moves forward but general of the process if we can work through some of the issues and we can move forward I would be alright with it. Hokkanen: Okay, I'm going to give my ten cents worth because full disclosure I live in Longacres. I work at Edina Realty so I go that corner. I travel there. I understand everybody's concerns. Everybody did articulate all their concerns. I think the project in general, we do have a need in Chanhassen for market rate apartments. We just, the occupancy, I mean there's just a demand for it. Whether this particular project is the right fit, I have great concern about the density of this project at this location. You know what we can do something with it, and I agree about the intersection. Even if this project does not go through we need to work on that project. I drive there. I'm one of those people that has many trips a day back and forth on all those roads. Concerned with the kids. The tunnel. I just, the overall density of the project. I think it will be a nice project. I don't know if at this, I want that land to develop. I don't know that I would be in favor of rezoning it for the higher density so that's my ten cents worth. Any questions? Aller: I got the packet and I started thinking about the things that we need to look for and the issues that are facing Chanhassen and us as we move forward as a commission and there are two. One, how do we provide economic development to Chanhassen and how do we balance that with providing a broader range of housing. There are two things that are coming about nationally. They're news all over and 24 Chanhassen Planning Commission — December 4, 2012 they're impacting us as well and that's that there typically has been a decreasing in the size of housing and the aging population. We're starting to look at more seniors here in Chanhassen. We're looking at less single family residences and more mobility in the youth and in young couples and people that are just changing lifestyles, changing jobs and the economy so I tried to balance that when I looked at the project and I feel a real need for this type of project here in Chanhassen to give us the broadest range of housing and to make it available to our residents and to our neighbors. I have a problem with the density as well based on just the numbers and the size because it's tough to wrap your head around a building of that size when it sits on a corner but I do know, and I've experienced here on the commission where we have the same zoning for two different projects and you have so many houses per acre and one project feels like it's bigger, better and more closely related to the neighborhood than the other and it all comes down to the quality of the construction. It comes down to the landscaping and it comes down to the neighborhood and the facilities themselves so I'm hearing that there's not a problem with the quality of the developer. The quality of the construction that's been proposed and so that's a good thing. I still worry about the traffic. The traffic patterns because it's going to be something that again we have to face regardless. And the safety, the public safety issues so it will be interesting to see whether or not, if this is undertaken that maybe public safety agencies provide a report indicating what theirview on this would be and the impact of that on our schools and on our parks and on our traffic. General crime rates statistics perhaps. And I would thank the members of the public that appeared today as well as those who made phone calls, left messages, emails, signed petitions because what we're doing is we're looking at the conscience power of our neighbors and the wisdom of the crowd so to speak and so we've heard from different neighbors with different backgrounds. Different ages. bifferent areas and I think we need to listen to them as we move forward and I think the developer so far has done a good job of that and -1see no reason why that would stop in the future. So I would say I don't have a problem with the matter moving forward, looking at the conditions that were in the report. That were requested to be reviewed in the report. Knowing that the watershed, water, state other agencies are going to come down and take a look at this and they're going to have to jump through all those hurdles, and they're well aware of that as the developer stated so I think if they follow through with this and they heed, and it sounds like they will, that that wisdom of our flash mob of planning neighbors, that it would be a good project to move forward with the concern, the primary concern being the density. Any other comments to go forward? Undestad: No. Yeah, I'd like just one more. I mean there was comments made about you know we just arbitrarily change zoning and things on here and over the years that we've all been involved around here, I mean it's just a matter of projects that are presented. Back then. Now. In the future and it's not a matter of you know okay we're just going to change because he came in and wants apartments. Oh that must be what it needs. We do look at these overall in the entire city and I think again that's what everybody's been doing for quite a few years out here so we're not just jumping ship saying oh well, it's the only thing going on. Let's give it to him. Again he's got some decisions to make. If the densities aren't there, then he's got the economics to think about. I think that's kind of the biggest ticket right there is how many units realistically would go on there. Aller: 1 agree and in looking at our plan I think there's a difference between having a strong neighborhood and a strong community and in order to have that strong community there has to be something that keeps us from being isolated so as much as we would like to be the single family home on a 3,000 acre parcel where everybody leaves us alone and there's no cell phone, we're not in that kind of world and so I think it builds community and builds neighbors if we allow for, and again the density is I think the primary issue that I'm thinking of with, call it a buffer but call it a change of housing so that you have single family. You have multi use facilities next to each other and the question is how much and how close. Aanenson: Mr. Chair if 1 may. If you wanted to, I was taking notes of your comments. They're also, like I said, there will be verbatim minutes but if you would make a recommendation to pass your comments 25 Chanhassen Planning Commission — December 4, 2012 onto the City Council with the ones that were in the staff report and the ones you just enumerated, then we would make that recommendation to the City Council. If that's your desire. Aller: So I'll ask for a motion. It's not an up or down motion. It's a motion to pass these comments along. Aanenson: Correct. Undestad: I'll make a motion. Aller: Okay. Undestad: We pass along the comments. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Thomas: Second. Aller: I have a motion and a second. Any further conversation regarding that discussion? Thomas: No. Undestad moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommend their comments be forwarded to the City Council. All voted in favor andthe motion carried unanimously with a vote of5to0. Aller: Motion carries. Comments will be passed along to the City Council for their review and action. Thank you again to the members of the public who contacted. us with their opinions. We're going to take a 2 minute recess while the rooms clear and then we have another item to come before the committee. Thank you. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Thomas noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 20, 2012 as presented. Thomas moved, Hokkanen seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 26 Aanenson, Kate From: Steve Sheldon [steve@sodablue.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 3:27 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Cc: paul@oppidan.com Subject: Regarding the proposed apartment complex at Galpin My name is Steve Sheldon and I live at 7711 Ridgeview Way. I spoke at the planning commission meeting last night about noise coming from Highway 5 in relation to this proposed apartment complex. I'd love for the property to be developed with my perfect concept in mind, however I'm not really certain what would be perfect. The chief concern I have with an apartment building is that it won't be attractive to tenants and without tenants it's going to fall into disrepair and degrade over time. That's a quality of location, style, and the attitude of the management company. The main problems with the concept plan are the proximity to Highway 5, and the power lines. I think the property would be more appealing if the apartment buildings were located along the north side with the parking lot along the south providing a buffer from noise. I think this would provide more flexibility in the landscaping plan to introduce trees, berms and other features to mitigate noise. Aligning the building this way would also provide for many more units with a view, over looking the wetland and preservation area to the north. As far as the height goes, I think three stories is probably acceptable with an increased set back. I would suggest looking at the feasibility of having a single entrance/exit along the west side of the property near the runoff pond. This would place it down near the end of the curve and I think would make it less of a blind turn. It'd also mean the cars were slowing as they approached and that would help with the blind turn at the east Vasserman entrance. The north parcel, I appreciate it being left alone. I would like to see it better maintained. Right now it's overgrown with thistle and burdock and I'd like to see that replaced with a grove of trees. And then the west end of the parcel, something needs to be done to shield the twinhomes from the headlights. 45AMER connMu Date: December 3, 2012 I CANA NITY BANK To: Kate Aanenson Community Development Director, City of Chanhassen From: James J. Swiontek Sr. Credit Officer, Americana Community Bank RE: Galpin Boulevard Property This memo is to present facts regarding the role Americana Community Bank has had in the sale of the land at the corner of Galpin Boulevard and Highway 5 in Chanhassen. Americana Community Bank (ACB), along with two other community banks, became the owner of the Galpin Boulevard property through a default by a borrower in March, 2009. Community banks are prohibited from developing real estate or speculating on real estate development. They are also prohibited from owning land that was acquired through a default for an indefinite period of time. The Galpin Boulevard property has been listed with a realtor since the default of the borrower and was recently sold to Oppidan, Inc. Oppidan, Inc. and the three banks are buyer and sellers, respectively, and have no other ties in this transaction. The buyer and the City of Chanhassen have been working on concept plans for the property, which are now before the City of Chanhassen Planning Commission. Administrative Office 600 Market Street, Suite 230, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone 952.230.9720, Fax 952.230.9727 Figure 4-20: City Rental Units Project Year Total Units Unit Carver County Population (2005 / 2015 / 2030) Location ion Built Vacant Unit Mix Size Monthly Rent AmenitieslComments 8,165 10,300 % Vacant 31,210 50,200 1 77,820 Household Growth (2005 to 2030) 4,435 46,610 Median Household Income (2006) $99,270 Three 3 -story buildings. residents pay Median Age of Population (2000 & 2020) 33.5 1 39.4 33.4 1 36.4 59 1 BR 821 $805-$900 electric & heat. UG garage included, Lake Susan A 001 162 12 1 BR/D 1,031 $925-$1,050 central A/C, patio, dishwasher, dispos- 8260Market Blvd. . 6% 82 2 BR 1,125-1,153 $1,005-$1,150 al, microwave, outdoor pool, sauna, 5 9 3 BR 1,344 $1.250-$1.395 Jacuzzi, party room, fitness room. in -unit W/D, picnic area, play area. Residents pay electric, heat, and gas. Heritage Park Apts. 59 19 1 BR 875-929 $795-$850 UG garage parking is not included. 425 Chan View 1990 3 6 1 BR+D 1,020 $875 A/C, elevator, party room, fitness 5.1% 35 2 BR 990-1.020 $975 room, play area. in -unit W/D, secure entrance. Santa Vera Apts. 18 Walk-up building. Owner pays heat. 16 601-612 Santa Vera 1979 1 8 1 BR 700 $550 garages included in the rent. Tenants Drive 5.6% 10 2 BR 900 $765 765 electric, phone, and cable. Five -building campus. Residents pay Chanhassen Village Apts. 1971 120 $620-$675 electric. Owner pays heat. water, 7601, 7621, 7701. 7721 69 1 BR 720 sewer and trash. Detached garage & 7741 Chanhassen 1972 0 51 2 BR 970 $720-$775 parking is available for $30 per month. Road 1973 0.0% A/C, party room, sauna, outdoor pool, play area, in -building W/D. Chan View Apts. 1966 35 2 EH_ 550 $500 Heat and water is included in the rent. 420,440 & 489 Chan 1967 1 11 1 BR 750 $595 Tenants pay the rest of the utilities. No View 1968 2.9% 22 2 BR 900 $725 elevators or garages. Chapman Apts. 24 2 Eff. 600 Two-story walk-up building. Owner 7610 Great Plains Blvd. 1966 N/A 11 1 BR 700 N/A pays heat. tenant pays electric. 11 2 BR 900 Carver Court Apts. 1964 24 12 1 BR 650 N/A Two 12 -unit buildings. Heat is included 410 Chan View N/A 12 2 BR 750 in the rent. SOurCe. Maxheld Research. Inc. Figure 4-21: Demographic Summary Source: Maxfield Research, Inc. 'Modified by the City of Chanhassen to meet Metropolitan Council projections. City of Chanhassen • 2030 Comprehensive Plan HOUSING 14 13 Demographic Summary Chanhassen Carver County Population (2005 / 2015 / 2030) 23,020 27,750 38.000' 86,300 132,000 198,650 Households (2005 / 2015 / 2030) 8,165 10,300 14,800' 31,210 50,200 1 77,820 Household Growth (2005 to 2030) 4,435 46,610 Median Household Income (2006) $99,270 $79,375 Median Age of Population (2000 & 2020) 33.5 1 39.4 33.4 1 36.4 Homeownership Rate (2000) 89.6% 83.5% Source: Maxfield Research, Inc. 'Modified by the City of Chanhassen to meet Metropolitan Council projections. City of Chanhassen • 2030 Comprehensive Plan HOUSING 14 13 4 December 2012 Dear Planning Commission members, My name is Deborah Zorn. I live at 7574 Ridgeview Point, Chanhassen, within one mile of the proposed project. Together with surrounding neighborhood developments and residents, we have collected over 570 petition signatures against the proposal: hitp://www change org/petitions/city-of-chanhassen-preserve-Chanhassen-stop-galoin- apt-proposal-a-225-unit-deveiopment#share While nearly 600 residents may be a small number, the context to consider is collecting this number in less than one month (11/13-12/4) and during the holiday season. After the recent election last month, we all know the importance of nearly 600 residents casting their opinion. As you learn more about the Galpin Apartment proposal this evening and hear from community members, I would like to share with you the following: 1. Chanhassen Best Place to Live — let's keep it that way! I encourage City Council to welcome thoughtful development, according to the 2030 Comp Plan that enhances our community. 2. Zoning — why consider a zoning change when there is land already guided in the 2030 Comp Plan for high-density residential? Even without this project, there are or will be 1,706 multi -family units in the Highway 5 corridor from Audubon to Highway 41' .... and including this project, over 1900 units. There is no glaring need to add more high density residential units into this area which has no public transportation or retail services. Just to the east on 78`h Street there is already 103+ acres zoned medium and high density residential. This area has already been planned with medium and high density residential in mind and does not need additional areas such as the Galpin Apartment proposal. 'Note: attachments below. 3. Density transfer — how can a density transfer be applied to two distinct legal parcels that are separated by a public street? Internal is defined as "existing or situated within the limits". In most cases and most cities, density transfers are utilized within a single property. Furthermore, on May 22, 2006, City Council denied the Galpin Crossing proposal on the north parcel with one finding being that the 12 units were too many. /f 12 units were not approved in 2006, why should 96 units be considered for transfer? In closing, let's welcome the developer to Chanhassen and build 225 units of market - rate apartments. This is the wrong site for many reasons. Let's encourage them to come to Chanhassen and build in spaces guided for this type of use and in areas of with retail and transportation services. Sincerely, Deborah Zorn MAP OF MULTI -FAMILY UNITS IN CORRIDOR y cc•.r-r n Property Multi -Family Units Gorra Property (103 acres) 1,048 est. Walnut Grove Villas 206 Arboretum Village 312 Autumn Ridge 140 Total 1,706 Galpin Apartments 224 Total w/Galpin Apts. 1,930 i o V` �lilt lilt / tp ill--- ca --- 0 � I ON H 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 N38 m Im Kelly Koemptgen Carrie Webber Stacy Beno Jackie Duea Tamara Hodgins Richard Birhanzel Amy Hamann Lisa Birhanzel Chris Sibley Danielle Schenk Schenk Brenda Wellner Jeff Weyandt Robyn Bartels Sriram Viswanathan Greer Hussey Kim Daughton Christy Bauman Kyle Duea Scott Hussey Brian Schoenberger Ben Bartels Leah Plath Kathy Wosje Melissa Crow Craig Stacey Trisha Rinzel Lori Moser Pete Rinzel Cathy meyer Melissa Pelzel Ila Wheeler Chad Meyer Arlene Schreifels Angela Zay Mary Valentine Tiffany Weyandt Susan Fagan Susan Quinn AnnMarie Gerczak Robert Webber Kathleen VanKrevelen Laura Larson Brad Hodgins Ronald Solheim Carrie O'Keefe Mark Larson B City Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Ramsey Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen D Zip Code 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55303 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 F Signed On 11/13/12 11/14/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12, 11/15/12 11/15/12', 11/15/12' 11/15/12' 11/15/12', 11/15/12 11/15/12, 11/15/12 11/15/12', 11/15/12' 11/15/12' 11/15/12 11/15/121 11/15/12. 11/15/12! 11/15/12 11/15/12', 11/15/12. 11/15/12, 11/15/12', 11/15/121 11/15/12, 11/15/12 11/15/12] 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 I If._-T_,� I A B D F 49 Nicole Muschewske Gerald Wolfe Linda Solheim Natalie Johnson Nicole Jesse Mary B Silbernagel Eric Best Matt Pattee Jayne Meyer Allison Wideman Kathleen Price Patty Gilk Lisa Bastian Valerie Pass David McKinley Liz Beckley Jacqueline tysonlacquelineTyson Sheila Erickson Rebecca Brick Susanne Cantlin Diane Perry Andrea Mach Kristy Ruelle todd allard Sue Statsick Daniel Bock Dennis DuBois Molly Johnson Carrey Schottler Theresa Vesledahl Deborah Zorn David Moser Shelley Berken Jim Boettcher Mark Gilk Bret Shanahan Alisa Lacomy Rachel Berhow Anne Jutting Yousria Ibrahim Kari Hentges Todd Jutting Mary Sando Wren Feyereisen Patty Hugh John Gans Dagmar Diethelm Michelle Tre tau Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Excelsior Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Carver Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Victoria Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Excelsior Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Edina Chanhassen Chanhassen Excelsior Chanhassen Chanhassen 55317 55317 55317 55331 55317 55317 55317 55317 55346 55315 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55386 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55331 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55424 55317 55317 55331 55317 55317 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/121 11/15/12 11/15/12! 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 I -9T A T B D F Angela Vukovich Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 98 Patrick Rutledge Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 99 Tashana Dalen Carver 55315 11/15/12 100 jeff spear Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 101 Thomas Kraus Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 102 Karen sandefur chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 103 Andrew Eilertson Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 104 Carol Pitz Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 105 Larry Martin Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 106 Cara Kail Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 107 Christina Salek Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 108 Sam Snyder Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 109 Emily Snyder Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 110 Chery Stanton Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 111 Michelle Luterbach chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 112 Janet Rzonca Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 113 Teri Kocourek Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 114 Sandra Wells Paine Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 115 Ted Lundberg Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 116 Marissa Schulz Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 117 Jeff Tritch Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 118 Matthew Berhow Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 119 Kim Wellman Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 120 Deborah Medeiros Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 121 Cindy Brodigan Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 122 Paul Boddicker chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 123 -i Sharon Cerjance Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 2-4 Jack Cerjance Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 125 Tim Cerjance Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 126 Margaret Wise Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 1Z7 Mary Oppegaard Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 128 Lisa Tritch Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 129 Brad Lacomy Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 130 Karen Ryan Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 131 Kristin Terrell Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 132 Kyle O'Keefe Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 133 Laura Liedtke Excelsior 55331 11/15/12 134 David Erickson Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 135 Leah Swartzbaugh Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 136 Greg Kassebaum Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 137 diana kirchoff Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 138 Patty Palm by Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 139 Michael Cerjance Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 140 Karen Bim berg Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 141 Louis Diethelm Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 142 Julie McGaughey Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 143 Pete Swartzbaugh Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 144 Mary Olson Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 0 AMERICANA COMMUNITY BANK Sleepy Eye Medford Chanhassen Maple Grove Minnetonka ..ww.americanafinancial.com Aseuea rorc bOD MARKET MEF, SUK7 230 Cl1ANNA N, M 55317 Senior Lending Officer Email: jims®arnxicanahnonciaLcom phone: 952-230-9720 direct 952-2309712 cell: 612-209-8106 Fax: 952-2309727 'Whencrar you see a successful business, someone once made a courageous decision.' KIEV EMUCKER HELPING YOU ACHIEVE FINANCIAI SUCCESS THROUGHOUT YOUR LIFETIME w ..omericonofinancial.com A B D F 145 Michael Flake Elizabeth Sween K S Jon Crow Robyn Chargo Josh Kimber Lori Doyle Mike Benkovich Mike Benkovich Denise Westerhaus MARY JO LUKAS Kristina Schwendinger Ashley Browning Barbara Cobb Gary Rzona Lori Thorne Jill Hake Kristine Checheris Mike Mattson Nadia Janson Renee Pawlyshyn Andrew Maus Carolyn Thomson Christine Stark Rechelle Hollowaty Nichole Kauls Cameron Olsen Scott Yager shelly christy Zach Bacon Jennifer Fritz Colin Moser Chris Hentges Julie Lizak Tim Pass James Chmura Natalie Christenson Shyla Allard Ken Saddler Kimberly Rolfes Molly Lagerback Mary Beth Hebeisen Jacqueline Mrosko Mike Wellner Jim Haider Susan Lombardo Pam Schwarz Andrea Sebenaler Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Mound Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen CHANHASSEN Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen 55317 55317 55317 55317 55364 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/16/12 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 A 193 Gail Gelino 194 Sue Chapman 195 Susan Noble 196 Kris Mattson 197 Holli Glendenning 198 Andy Merrill 199 Rod Bubke 200 Sonya Benkstein 201 Dawn Erdman 202 Nancy Bubke 203 Pamela Callister 204 Shelley Haider 205 Ted Ellefson 206 Sandra VanDerveer 207 Alison Lang 208 Ann Healey -Allen 209 sengtavanh meas 210 Laura Trantham 211 Brian IaramyBrianLaramy 212 Elizabeth Kressler 213 Serena Rosen 214 Tim Bastian 215 eric maher 216 Lisa Egenes 217 Suzanne Milacnik 218 Lisa Thompson 219 Warren Meyer 220 Sarah Pinamonti 221 John Wicka 222 Sarah Pletts 223 Eileen kieffer 224 Joe Kieffer 225 Beckie Laengle 226 Randy Strobel 227 Alicia Schimke 228 Kyle Green 229 Beth Reding 230 Debra Lochner 231 Judi Selinger 232 Don Schulz 233 Jon Trantham 234 Barry La Bounty 235 Danielle Antonovich 236 Steve and Joni Hansen 237 Holly Tchida 238 Karen Walker 239 Michelle Janson M. Chanhassen Victoria Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Excelsior Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen CHANHASSEN chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Eden Prairie Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen CHanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen 55317 55386 55317-8329 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55331 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55346 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317-7400 55317 55317 55317 55317 F 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 5 A B D F 241 James Heyman Matthew Hanson John Bartoloni Audret Dorholt teralyn siller Del & Barb Vanderploeg susan cohoon Renee Pederson Dave Callister Stephanie Larson Eric Zorn Carly Blackowiak Regina Deanes Ann Eilertson Steve Emerson James Ruelle Jeff Armentrout Dianelulson Anne Wicka Katie Novogratz suzannah armentrout Lynn Wilder Patricia Bremer Lisa Levine Dorothy Croskey Jennifer Burg David Pederson Allan Olson Kirstin Heyman Bhuvana Nandakumar Debbie Ippolito Joe Ippolito Judie Mattson Ann Allen Blake Gottschalk Anne Taus Steven Cohoon Rachel Scott Ted Kendall Loretta Goetzinger Julie Litthn Patty Vannucci chris novogratz James Schmidt Mindi Dahl bonnie and charles peterson Steve Vreeman Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Minnetonka arlington Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Minneapolis Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Excelsior Excelsior Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Marine on St C Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Whitewater Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen 55317 55317 55317 55345 76018 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55408 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55331 55331 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55047 55317 55317 55317 55317 53190 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 286 fl285 287 A B D F 289 Tami Gottschalk Carla Ferrell Mary Pernula Robin Warden Matt Schillerstrom John Murphy Kelly Bock Jan Hall Natalia Sander Jennifer Weiner Nancy Patterson Michael Smith Jason Martagon Mark Miller Michael Shields Georgia Eck Kristi Nyberg Rochelle Owens Matthew Steele Elle Swenson Brian Smith Kathryn Corgiat Kelly Pedersen Scott Jesse Paul Nyberg Richard Lindquist Shannon Smith Len Johnson Cherree Theisen Susan Coult Peter O'Gorman Elizabeth Smith Susan Busch Kevin Koemptgen Kristine Beer Debra Bauler Melissa Windschitl Michaele Martin Ashley Smith Jocelyn O'Brien Steve Anderson Elizabeth Ekstrand ralph pamperin Mark Magnuson Maureen Magnuson Bruce Eaton Jon McLain Mary McLain Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen CHANHASSEN chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Victoria Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Minneapolis Chanhassen Chanhassen 55317 55317 55317 55317 55316 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55386 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55401 55317 55317 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/20/12 11/20/12 11/20/12 11/20/12 11/20/12 11/20/12 11/20/12 11/20/12 11/20/12 11/20/12 11/20/12 11/20/12 11/21/12 11/21/12 11/21/12 11/21/12 11/21/12 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 9 A B D F 337 David Royer Christine Fischer Scott Cater Art Roberts Tonya Sadura Donna Strauss Seweryn Sadura Bill Olson Lance Erickson Keith Abrahamson Lindsey Brady Tammy Brady Julie Maanum Teresa Luterbach Joan Cowan Dan Geier Brenda Geier Laura Carlson Scott Elleraas David McAlpin Roger Remaley James Callaghan Holly Loberg Lynn Li Dana Johnson Todd Simning Barbara Miller Mike Aker Christina Crowther James Farrell Ingrid Steele Jody Hanson Kevin Carlson Clint Egenes Mike Muffenbier Michelle Muffenbier Laura Kimber Molly Aker lori abblett Sonja Leines Ron Schuster Lynne Etling Christine Allen David Windschitl Jaime Martin Mark Hemann don mcdonald Daniel Cloutier Chanhassen Chanhassen CHANHASSEN Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhasssen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55331 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 11/21/12 11/21/12 11/21/12 11/21/12 11/21/12 11/21/12 11/22/12 11/22/12 11/22/12 11/23/12 11/24/12 11/24/12 11/24/12 11/24/12 11/25/12 11/26/12 11/26/12 11/26/12 11/26/12 11/26/12 11/26/12 11/26/12 11/26/12 11/26/12 11/26/12 11/26/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 9 r. 00 A B D F 385 Holly Huber Jessica Tait Karin Moore Jill Hauwiller Jennifer Davis Sarah Fischer jeff heinemann Nancy Wright Erin Buss Tara Graff Alana Montgomery Tim Opitz David Buss Elizabeth Johnson Amy Wesley James Denton Heidi Pagano Allison Fredlund LuAnne Wright Jessica Lundgren Hailan Huang Peter Polingo Stephanie Tollefson Dan Beno Lynn Polingo Kara Peterson Trent Mahr Karry Scheirer Dan Waldron Pat Zettel Tyler Scholten Erin Denton Michael Burrows Nedal Nassar Durwood Birdsall Kyla Spencer Colleen O'Hare Miller Paulette Tomaschko Jean Nitchals Hilarie Gibson Stephen Withrow Kristin Kingbay David Wisniewski G. Ritchot MARILYN MATZKE Jean Negaard Ben Mondeel Katie Jor enson Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Maple Grove Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Eden Prairie Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen CHANHASSEN chanhassen Broomfield Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Rosemount Chanhassen Lindstrom CHANHASSEN Chanhassen Chaska Chanhassen 55317 55317 55317 55369 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55344 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 80021 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55068 55423 55045 55317 55317 55318 55317 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 r. 00 t�• A B D F 433 Allen Hauwiller Jillian Steinke Al Crowther Jenny Erickson Amy Boehm G Sorci Heles Candance Carlson Stephanie Mondeel Pamela Olson Sue Selland Jennifer Perrill Jon Noller Ilyne Sandas Julie Sorensen Greg Maanu m Cecilia Fredlund Kim Farniok Steve Janson Jackie Neva Edward Schultz Jeanette Janski Glenn Steffen Craig OConnor Laura Neva Hany Gross Peter Neva Jaime Wallis Ellen Rowe Vera Brady Melissa Young Melissa Young Del Young Kristen Eisinger Brenda Brown Dale R. Blomquist Gloria Patty Bornhoft Katie Hodges Chris Conroy Doris French Pat McGaughey kathrynjeffery Cindy Cowles Rachelle Uberecken Terry Carlson Susan Blair Norma May Mark Johnson Mike Schachterle Maple Grove Minneapolis Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chahassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chaska Waconia Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen A. Blomqui<chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chaska Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen 55369-3474 55405 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 Ido NOT want 553147 55317 55318 55387 55317 5317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 85251 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55318 55317 55317 55317 55317 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/29/12 11/29/12 11/29/12 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 t�• f/• A B D F 481 Todd Michels Shane Waskey Diana Noller Nancy Benson Amy Dykoski Lori Lavelle Matthew Taylor Eric Deanes Michelle Jopling Laura Papas Brian Kline Jeanette Taylor Thomas Papas Chad Hamann Judith Werner Michael Hjermstad Ronald Neitzel Wendy OConnor Karen Neitzel JEFFREY OLSON Nicole Carlson Amy Waters Amy Beer Mark David Mary Ervasti Holly Erickson Pam Schelling Kathren Klaesges Rena Miller Debby Tysdal Nancy Glades Patricia Hansen LaVon Johnson michelle wrase TamiBeehner Chris Rumble DAvid Hurrell Erica Huls Mei-Kuei Hjermstad Carol Buesgens Jessica Cimmerer George Borchardt Chris Hartwigsen JUNE CASEY John St Andrew Douglas Backstrom Cynthia Olson marlie johnson Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Minnetonka Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen CHANHASSEN Victoria Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Excelsior Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen CHANHASSEN Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen excelsior 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55345 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55439 55386 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55318 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55331 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55331 11/29/12 11/29/12 11/29/12 11/29/12 11/29/12 11/29/12 11/29/12 11/29/12 11/29/12 11/29/12 11/29/12 11/29/12 11/29/12 11/30/12 11/30/12 11/30/12 11/30/12 11/30/12 11/30/12 11/30/12 11/30/12 11/30/12 11/30/12 11/30/12 11/30/12 11/30/12 11/30/12 11/30/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 '52 6 527 528 f/• t T. A B D F 529 Heather Nelson Lori Zuehlke Mark Mullen Steve Smith Christina Krienke Steve Carroll Dianna Cowles Laura Richardson Mike Ryan Nancy Bielski Kristi Bush kim petroska Julie Jorgenson Michael Meyer Mike Ladd Omar Taha Marwa Ibrahim Eric Christenson Christine Correa Robert Lokhorst Jennifer Yankovec: Renee Kirkeby Karen Brown Wendy Luse Don and Jan Dahlquist Thomas Witek John Lalim John & Elizabeth Cullen Steven Ranz Mary WItek Jacob Hill Patricia Ranz Cathy Larson Julie Peterson Sharon Punt Molly Scholle Kyle Zirbes courtney kramer Shawn Zellman Ed Robbins Christina Hill David Haggbloom Elwood Johnson Julie Gallagher Thomas Kraker Jennifer Jorgenson david thorn pson Allan Bergren Andover Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chaska Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhasen Excelsior Chanhassen Chanhassen VICTORIA Chanhassen Waconia Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen 1810 55317 55317 55317 Chanhassen 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317-8357 55317 55317 55318 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 553177 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55331 55317 55317 55386 55317 55387 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/2/12 12/2/12 12/2/12 12/2/12 12/2/12 12/2/12 12/2/12 12/2/12 12/2/12 12/2/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 _12/4[2 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 t T. A B C U F I G 1 Name City State Zip SlgnedOn Comment I feel this 225+ unit <a href="http://apt.com' rel="nofollow">apt.com</a>plex will MAJORLY the neighborhood In a negative wayl The Intersection Is already congested and dangerous. Now you will be adding an additional 300+cars to It with NO controlled Intersectlonl Many children travel this frontage road to local businesses and to schooll Also, there are certainly blind spots at both 2 Stacy Beno chanhasse MN 55317 11/15/12 entrances of Vasserman Ridge, Crazy[ Rldiculousl NOIII Traffic and something so monstrous and so close to Hwy 5 and 78th St. will look ridiculous for our community. That corner Is not very big to support such a tall structure. Also, there Is a dangerous corner coming out Vasserman Ridge and adding all that traffic right at the neighborhood entrance 3 Tamara Hodgins Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 will be even more dangerous. I agree with the points In the overview and am especially worried about traffic related to the density 4 Chris Sibley Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 of the proposed development. To replace a beautiful wetland with a huge conglomerate of an apartment complex would be an eye- sore to our green environment, a traffic nightmare, complete noise pollution and an environmental hazzard (water run-off sewer and electrical, etc). Zone It for a restaurant or coffee shop. A 225 5 Kim Daughton Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 unit apartment complex??? That's pure crazyl! I don't believe this will be a positive Impact on preserving the overall city of Chanhassen with traffic, 6 Ben Bartels chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 safety and home values. We have witnessed numerous accidents around the area of the proposed apartments. Adding the 7 Leah Plath Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 additional traffic to this area will be dangerous. traffic and safety Issues. Property not zoned for this. Too dense for size of property. 8 Craig Stacey chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Environmental Impact. Chad Meyer Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Live In neighboring area. Mary Valentine Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Increased traffic and public safety This large 225 unit apartment building would create a significant traffic hazard In an already 9 10 11 Tiffany Weyandt Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 dangerous Intersection. I believe the parcel of land In question should be developed; however, the proposed development is not consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan and we homeowners nearby relled on the Comprehensive Plan when we purchased. During this terrible economy most of us have seen our home prices greatly Impacted with many people now having negative equity. The proposed development will not add value to the homes (and townhomes) nearby. A variance In this situation should only be Issued where there Is a meaningful public benefit, not Just because there is a limited economic benefit to the property owner. Here, the size and scope of the project only benefits the property owner. The streets of Galpin and 78th Street cannot sustain 300+ more cars dally, particularly during peak rush hour. The U-turns out of Kwlk Trip and the blindspot exiting Vasserman Ridge community to 78th Street are already dangerous. Also, the Bluff Creek watershed district is currently under active Investigation by the state for water quality problems. The proposed development is a major change In the City Comprehensive Plan which could easily do damage to Bluff Creek which would Increase costs to all city taxpayers In mitigation. If the market does support such a major apartment complex In Chanhassen, there are more appropriate sites In the city, closer to Highway 212 where there are large tracts already zoned for this kind of development, near Park & Ride. We ask the Planning Commission and City Council to resist the temptation apparent In Increased tax revenue. We ask that they fulfill their oaths to serve the residents of Chanhassen for the public benefit. Please deny the variances and other changes that are needed to 12 Robert Webber Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 proceed on this development. A B C D F I G Property values, Too much traffic at corner, too big for the 13 kathleen vankrevelen Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 property. I use that Intersection dally. 78th and Galpin Is a very dangerous Intersection and needs NO MORE 14 Laura Larson Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 TRAFFICI Ronald Solhelm Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Density not appropriate for site and area This Is not the appropriate location for an apartment complex. It would add tremendous stress to 15 16 Nicole Muschewske Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 an already delicate road way. The Increase In car and foot traffic would be very dangerous. This complex will be right out the back of my home. Lights from cars on 78th currently shine right Into my bedroom. 1 hate to think what It would be like with 300's of additional cars per night) And, 17 Gerald Wolfe Chanhassen MN 55317-4 11/15/12 the lights from the parking lot will light up our house all night long. I believe this proposed complex would bring traffic Issues, pedestrian safety Issues and It would be 18 Kathleen Price Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 unsightly and excessively large for such a small site. I live near this proposed development and I do not want an appartment complex built there. It will 19 Valerie Pass Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 have a negative Impact on the surrounding wetlands as stated In this Petition. I live on Galpin and already hear too much traffic behind my house. This would greatly depreciate the value of my home, as well as reduce the quality of life In Chanhassen. There are no foreseeable 20 David McKinley Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 benefits to allowing this variance In the zoning of this property. I travel Galpin multiple times every day and am very concerned that the Increased volume of cars from a facility - that Is proposed to be over the maximum density use for the plot - will brlrg an 21 Codd allard chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Increased likelihood of accidents and Injury. David Moser Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Traffic hazard, not consistent with surronding development Traffic at the Intersection, a elementary school already at capacity, other type of businesses needed 22 23 Allsa Lacomy Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 In that area The traffic at Intersection with Kwik trip and CVS already there Is very bad In morning and evening. This would add to the problem. Does not fit neighborhood buildings. Would cause school 24 Todd Jutting Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 rezoneing. Stephen Sando Edina MN 55424 11/15/12 Have family In area. Already too much traffic and congestion. Traffic at Hwy 5 and Galpin would become to great and a danger to our residents. Changes the 25 zoning. It Is a bad location for high density housing. I am concerned about water quality and the 26 Patty Hugh Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 burden on police and utilities services. Increased concern with traffic and safety of children and adults using the trail system around the 27 John Gans Excelsior MN 55331 11/15/12 proposed development. A project of this size will be a burden to the neighborhood and strain our city budget. Our Infrastructure Is not prepared to handle the Influx of this many people. This would affect schooling, 28 Dagmar Dlethelm Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 street and utilities in a manner that the city is not prepared to upgrade at this point. Angela Vukovich Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 I'm concerned about the traffic hazards this would create. Sharon Kraus Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Increased traffic, potential safety hazards Cara Kall Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 I live directly down the street! Michelle Luterbach chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 It completely demolishes the aesthetics of the streets around my home. Janet Rzonca Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Too big for that corner - too much congestion, This will add enormous traffic to an Intersection that is already dangerous. There are so many 29 30 31 32 33 children who ride their bikes to Kwlk Trip and CVS. I've already seen several accidents and adding 34 Teri Kocourek chanhassen MN 55317 11/15112 that much more traffic would Increase that risk of more accidents ex onential . A B C D F I G Would like to preserve the look, feel and function of our area. Keep It single family home 35 Marissa Schulz Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 orientated. Kim Wellman Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 We do not need Increased traffic In this area. It is already dangerous enough. A development of this size on this location would negatively Impact traffic and safety, the 36 environment and would not fit Into healthy planning for the city of Chanhassen's growth and 37 Mary Oppegaard Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 development. Brad Lacomy Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Detriment to my neighborhood Karen Bimberg Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 bad Idea to build an apartment complex at this location. Preserve the way of living that we expected when moving to Chanhassen. The current Infrastructure 38 39 is not prepared to absorb such an Influx of residents In this area. Additionally, the location Is perched between a fontage road and Highway 5 - what Is the posltve outlook on such a 40 Louis Dlethelm Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 development with plenty of other sites available 7 I am very concerned with traffic/safety Issues and do not believe something of this magnitude can 41 Julle McGaughey Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 be accommodated In this location. Mary Olson Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Traffic, zoning, watershed, noise & safety concerns. K S Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 traffic and crime Lived in Longacres subdivision for 12 years. Love the neighborhood and love that It's all Inhabited 42 43 by private homeowners. Apartments promote the feel of "temporary" dwellers. Great for young people, and young couples with no children, but doesn't really fit in to the Family neighbarhood feel of this area. I believe would bring home values down either further than they already are. NOT the 44 Robyn Chargo Mound MN 55364 11/15/12 right timing for this, at all. As a home owner of Majestic Way (located off Galpin) I feel this Is a horrible Idea and am happy to pass this petition on. The Intersection of Galpin & 78th Street Is already a difficult Intersection to cross (In car or on foot) with the number of cars who make u -turns coming out of CVS aid/or Kwlk Trip, Plus, I feel there has been an Increase In traffic on Galpin after the Hwy 41 construction. Galpin is quickly becoming unsafe for children to cross. Not to mention, adding short term housing In the area will only remove home buyers from the market thus lower values even further. Townhomes are very affordable right now and the city should be encouraging people to buy homes and not rent them. There are 7 town homes under $120K and have been on the market for monthsl I am signing this because I feel the need for apartments In my neighborhood Is NOT wanted. Please 45 Josh Kimber Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 support. The home values within the blocks near this complex will go down. It Is also not aesthectic to the 46 Kristine Checheris Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 environment In the area. The intersection of 5 and Galpin Is already very busy and accident prone. That much additional 47 Jill Hake Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 traffic at that Intersection will create significantly more risk of accident. Due to heavier traffic along that way if this complex goes up, I am more worried about car accidents 48 Nadla Janson Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 on Highway 5 because of this proposed development. Particularly concerned about Impact on property values and safety due to Increased density and 49 Andrew Maus Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 traffic (especially due to blind spot on 78th West of Vasserman Trail). A B C D F I G Safety, there is always an accident at that stop light as well as safety of the kids at Bluff Creek Elementary. Generally apts do not raise the property value of the city and I feel like Chanhassen when given the opportunity to devlelop we choose options that de -value the City and the property 50 carolyn thomson chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 of the residents. Christine Stark Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Too much traffic congestion near a quiet neighborhood and school. Scott Yager Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 I live In Longacres and don't want the traffic of an apartment complex. Too many units. Way too large of a developement with high volume traffic In an already dangerously over crowded 51 52 3 Jennifer Fritz Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Interectlon at both frontage road and State Hlghwayl The additional traffic Is certainly a concern. 225 units would also drastically Increase the population of the fairly small area. This could negatively Impact the community In many ways,Atsafety, home 54 Chris Hentges Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 values, schools. Shyla Allard Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 I am concerned about the traffic this will create. This Is a big safety concern. Traffic and the reason I live out here Is to get away from this kind of density. In addition, property 55 values are already a challenge In this economy and this will only make the situation worse. Also feel 56 Ken Saddler Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 bad for my neighbors who live even closer to It than I do. There Is better uses for the land, never Imagine high density development would have been one of 57 Jim Halder Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 them when I purchased my Home. This Is a giant complex that not only doesn't fit with It's surroundings. Increased traffic Issues. Why 58 Pam Schwarz Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Is this complex not being built closer to Hwy 2127 Ted Ellefson Chanhassen MN 55317 11/16/12 Child safety between Bluff Creek and our neighborhood. Unit density Is too high for this space. Sandra vanDerveer Excelsior MN 55331 11/16/12 It effects my grandchildren and their safetyll I have seen many car accidents on galpin highway 5 Intersection area lately. If there Is going to be 59 60 an Increase In traffic In this area, I can't Imagine what else I will see especially when there Is a 61 sengtavanh meas chanhassen MN 55317 11/16/12 school and park nearby. Proposal would creat traffic congestion, safety concerns and doesn't follow the Integrity of 62 Abby Ellis Chanhassen MN 55317 11/16/12 Chanhassen and the city's comprehensive plan. Lisa Egenes Chanhassen MN 55317 11/16/12 Preserve the nature of that area with small business and residential family-owned homes The traffic congestion Is already terrible. Cant Imagine adding more rush hour traffic along with 63 64 Sarah Pietts Chanhassen MN 55317 11/16/12 children on foot or bikes to that area. Eileen kleffer Chanhassen MN 55317 11/16/12 Too much traffic for this area. Primarily due to traffic and safety concerns at the corner of 78th street and Galpin. It's lot an 65 66 Alicia Schimke Chanhassen MN 55317 11/16/12 Intersection that can or should sustain an Increased flow of traffic. This is not the original zoning of the area and It would Increase the traffic significantly In the area. 67 Jacqueline Schmidt Chanhassen MN 55317 11/16/12 Galpin Is already having a huge Increase In It's traffic 41 was closed this summer. Do we really need an apt complex at every Intersection on the hwy 5 corridor. This Is going to bring the value of my house down; density Is way too much for our Infrastructure. This was NOT what I 68 susan cohoon Chanhassen MN 55317 11/17/12 want to look at from my backyard and I will If this goes through. MASSIVE complex totally out of character with the 1-2 story townhomes and 1 story retail for about 69 Lynn Wilder Chanhassen MN 55317 11/17/12 the surrounding square mile. Major unsafe traffic Issues on W 78th St and at Galpin Intersection. Traffic Increase to Galpin and lake Lucy road. 5& Galpin intersection is too close to major 41&5 70 Llsa Levine Excelsior MN 55331 11/17/12 Intersection. WIII drastically slow traffic on 5 Concern over Increased traffic and safety. Hard to cross Galpin to get to the park as It is. Since 41 71 Allan Olson Chanhassen MN 55317 11/18/12 has been under construction traffic has already doubled. Blake Gottschalk Chanhassen MN 55317 11/18/12 Safety concerns, traffic concerns, Infrastructure concerns, I believe It will be In opposition to the zoning of this land and also create too much traffic and safety 72 73 Ted Kendall Chanhassen MN 55317 11118112 to west 78th and Gal In. A B C D I FI G 74 chrls novogratz Chanhassen MN 55317 11/18/12 congestion and safety near this Intersection not proper use of land to high density for location Increased traffic 75 bonnie and charles peterson chanhassen MN 55317 11/18/12 probable Increased juvenile crime centered around nearby stores Steve vreeman Chanhassen MN 55317 11/18/12 Traffic Increase on the corner of Galpin and W 78th St, will Increase to unsafe levels. I don't want to see more development In that area, and I don't believe It's necessary to build more 76 77 Carla Ferrell Chanhassen MN 55317 11/19/12 apartments In the area. Current zoning does not support this type of project and a change would not be appropriate for this 78 Michael Shields CHANHASSEN MN 55317 11/19/12 property. Trafflc and Increased noise are major concerns. The Intersection an Galpin and Highway 5 Is already too busy. AWhy are the plans being changed. 79 Georgia Eck chanhassen MN 55317 11/19/12 Protect the wetland preserve area. Krlstl Nyberg Chanhassen MN 55317 11/19/12 I do not want added traffic to the Intersection of 78th Street and Galpin Blvd. Rochelle Owens Chanhassen MN 55317 11/19/12 Traffic and Public Safety hazard it will create Matthew Steele Chanhassen MN 55317 11/19/12 Preserving the community This Intersecton Is already busy enough. This will just Increase conjestlon In the area. Furthermore 0 81 82 83 Paul Nyberg Chanhassen MN 55317 11/19/12 there are sufficient high density housing opportunities already close enough to this location, Melissa Wlndschltl Chanhassen MN 55317 11/20/12 I live In the neighboring development. Ralph Pamperin Chanhassen MN 55317 11/20/12 wetland protection, Intersection safetly This Issue Is Important to me because I live a stones throw from this project and It's size would 84 85 dwarf anything else In the area have very high density and make our traffic congestion even worse. 86 Mark Magnuson Chanhassen MN 55317 11/21/12 I oppose this project. The intersection of Galpin and 78th Is already a safety hazard - I can't Imagine adding this many 87 Maureen Magnuson Chanhassen MN 55317 11/21/12 more vehicles. Art Roberts Chanhassen MN 55317 11/21/12 Zoning violation, Huge people traffic versus fast auto traffic Adding that much traffic to that area will make It even more dangerous than It Is. Plus having a 88 69 Bill Olson Chanhassen MN 55317 11/22/12 building of that size, with hat many residents seems A bit out of place for that location. We live across the street from this 90 Lance Erickson Chanhassen MN 55317 11/22/12 project, trafflce would be a major probllem Dan Geier Chanhassen MN 55317 11/26/12 Another decrease In our property value. Brenda Geier Chanhassen MN 55317 11/26/12 C Roger Remaley Chanhassen MN 55317 11/26/12 This Is a horrid Ideal The Intersection has too much congestion now and adding many cars is a concern. There Is no safe 91 92 93 way for our kids to cross that road except the walk sign. Density Housing should be focused around 94 Dana Johnson Chanhassen MN 55317 11/26/12 the 212 highway. I do not believe this size of an apartment complex Is appropriate for this area. The Increased traffic down Galpin Blvd to Highway 7 Is not appropriate given the size of road way access of Galpin Blvd and W. 78th Street. The additional trips would make an already highly traveled stop light area tough to navigate. There Is a lot of traffic from Kwlk Trip and CVS already that Imposes difficulties in getting around this area. It had never been planned for the Increase of 162 units which would equate to approx 250 additional cars which is 1.5 cars per apartment. Similar to Walmart and the 95 Todd Simning Chanhassen MN 55317 11/26/12 traffic congestion, this project Is not conducive to this area. Barbara Miller Chanhassen MN 55317 11127/12 Too much traffic congestion & construction 96 A B C G We moved to Chanhassen 2 years ago because of the beauty of the neighborhoods and how untouched they were by development. PLEASE do not build In this areal Please keep Chanhassen 97 Christina Crowther Chanhassen MN 55317 11/27/12 with the open spaces It has. Kevin Carlson Chanhassen MN 55317 11/27/12 Family safety Ordell & Sonja Lelnes Chanhassen MN 55317 11/27/12 Too high density for this neighborhood. I live nearly and do not want more traffic, nor more difficulty crossing 78th at Galpin In my car or 98 99 100 Karin Moore Chanhassen MN 55317 11/27/12 bicycle 101 Erin Buss Chanhassen MN 55317 11/27/12 We live very close to this area and a project of this size Is just too much for the area. David Buss Chanhassen MN 55317 11/27/12 This Is too large of a development for the area. 102 My family walks past this corner every day walking the children to school. The traffic In and out 103 lames Denton Chanhassen MN 55317 11/27/12 would destroy this experience. I live a mile away from this Intersection. My teenage son and I walk/run/bike around this area often and the extra traffic density would make this hazardous. I also think this Is not the logical area for an apartment building of this size. Rush hour traffic Is already difficult down Hwy S. It would 104 Allison Fredlund Chanhassen MN 55317 11/27/12 make more sense to add an apartment building of this size closer to Hwy 212. If I wanted to live In Eden Prairie I would not have spent 850,00 on my house In Chanhassen. And, our property values are down, and this apartment complex would do nothing to Improve 105 Peter Polingo Chanhassen MN 55317 11/27/12 chanhassen, property values or the neighbors and neighborhood. 106 Lynn Polingo Chanhassen MN 55317 11/27/12 We want to preserve our neighborhood values and value... West 78th Is a peaceful slow traffic area for families to walk dogs and ride bikes. A lot of kids are able to ride to KwIkTrIp during the summer, but with the huge amount of we traffic In that area It would become Increasingly more dangerous for families and kids to cross the street. This will also 107 Colleen O'Hare Miller Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 cause even more traffic Issues In Chanassen with rush hour traffic due to the Increase In traffic. 108 Paulette Tomaschko Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 I am concerned about traffic In that corner --It's already BUSYI 109 MARILYN MATZKE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 11/28/12 CONGESTION, PROTECTION OF MARSHLAND My main concerns are the Increased traffic density In the area as a result of this. Also I am 110 Allen Hauwlller Maple Grove MN 55369-3 11/28/12 concerned about the wetland and zoning concerns with the proposed site. My niece's school Is across from where this building Is proposed. With the Increase In traffic this 111 Jllllan Steinke Minneapolis MN 55405 11/28/12 complex would bring, I worry about the safety of the children. Please do not allow the building of this large apartment complex. It will add much more traffic to an area that Isn't set up to accomodate It and take away from the beauty of the area. In addition It will 112 Al Crowther Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 tax our natural resouces Including nearby wetlands. 10 Jennifer Perrlll Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 We live off of Galpin and do not want to see addiitonal traffic and safety concerns. Julie Sorensen Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 It Is too large and does not fit with the type of residential area. 114 This project Is not In line with long term development plans of the city as I understand them. Major 115 Greg Maanum Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 concern about added traffic at Intersection so near an elementary school. 116 Cecilia Fredlund Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 2 117 Jackie Neva Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 Protect home value I will be moving to Chanhassen In the next year and I do not want the are "over -developed". I do 118 Edward Schultz Chaska MN 55318 11/28/12 not want the city's resources strained and traffic congested. Do not believe the Increase In traffic this development would bring to our neighborhood can be 119 Amy Steffen Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 handled In a safe and effective way. It IIs a poor environment to have people live In such a high density setting, surrounded by noise and traffic polluition. The higher density In our neighborhood willi Impact traffic, parks, schools, and 120 Vera Brady Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 biking trails to the detriment of everyone. 121 Nancy Gomez Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 It would be too much traffic so close to a school. 122 Dale & Gloria Blom uist Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 too much traffic con estion A B C D F I G The scale of this development contradicts the environmental and lifestyle goals that Chanhassen 123 Chris Conroy Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 stands for. Forcing that density and traffic Into that parcel will negatively Impact the area Primary concern Is for the safety of the citizens this vicinity related to traffic Incidents. A close 124 Rachelle Uberecken Chanhassen AN 55317 11/28/12 second Is against the zoning changes that decrease property values In this area. STOP the proposed development of this high density apartment complex with parking for 350 autos; high density traffic Issues & safety risks; Intersection not currently designed to handle traffic flow through the Intersections at Galpin, West 78th and Hwy 5; according to the site drawing there Is only one entrance to the apartment complex which Is 78th Street for a minimum of 225 residents; negative Impact on property values for current homeowners In the area; environmental Impact/pollutlon; Increased costs to City of Chanhassen for city services. This property Is not currently zoned for this high density apartment complex; parcel Is currently designated for office use with less density per acre. You cannot justify the value of this proposed 225 unit apartment 125 Susan Blair Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 development when conslderng the risks and negative Impact to the citizens of Chanhassen. Galpin Rd cuts right through all of our neighborhoods and In my opinion some of the nicest areas of the city. The Increased traffic that this will bring would diminish some of the reasons I just moved 126 Shane Waskey Chanhassen MN SS317 11/29/12 here. This project should be downsized In half or moved to commercial areas around Powers blvd. We live off Galpin. The traffic Is already too busy due to the recent addltlon of the high school, 127 Diana Noller Chanhassen MN 55317 11/29/12 Adding this building will dramatically Increase traffic and change the appeal of the area. Environmental Issues - Green space, wetlands; Safety - too congested In that area; Increased 128 129 Jeanette Taylor Minnetonka MN 55345 11/29/12 Crime Judith Werner Chanhassen MN 55317 11/30/12 I am most concerned about the Increase In cars, traffic and safety In the neighborhood. This development Is not In line with the Comprehensive plan and would deteriorate the quality of life for area residents. In addition, having such a large unit development In such a small area will greatly Increase the safety risk for everyone living or travelling through this area. Besides the Increased traffic at an already dangerous Intersection, there will now be a reason for children living In the development to want to cross this major Intersection to go to CVS, Kwik Trip, or tc go to Bluff Creek Elementary/Chanhassen Recreation Center. Without an underpass or overpass, you will be putting chlldrens lives in jeopardy. To sum up, this Is not an appropriate development for this area 130 Michael H ermstad Chanhassen MN 55317 11/30/12 and should stay A2 for Office use. C1 i+ a cn G O r Ol u v CL 0 W M B O L 7 C1 G O Ol u v CL 0 W M B O L 7 °�° m O N M W O a 0 H W— = a+ X I 81d 3•c. August 2, 2012 MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Paul Tucci Oppidan FROM: Ms. Amanda Janzen Maxfield Research Inc. RE: Initial Market Assessment for Market Rate Rental Units on a Site in Chanhassen, Minnesota Introduction This memorandum provides an initial market assessment of the potential demand for market rate rental units on property located near the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and Highway 5 in Chanhassen, Minnesota. Our analysis includes the following research components: • Identification of an appropriate draw area ("Market Area") for the proposed rental devel- opment in Chanhassen; • Analysis of demographic factors that impact the feasibility of the development of additional market rate rental housing units; • Inventory of newer rental developments in Chanhassen and the remainder of the market area, including information on unit mix, pricing, vacancies, and amenities; • Identification of pending rental projects in Chanhassen and the remainder of the market area and a discussion of their timing and impact on the proposed project; • Calculation of demand for general occupancy market rate rental housing in the market area and an estimation of the market share of excess demand that the proposed project could capture at the subject Site; • Discussion including recommendations for total units supportable and pricing, and pro- jected unit absorption. 612-338-0012 (fax)612-904-7979 1221 Niwilet Mall, Suite 218, Minneapolis, MN 55403 w .maxfieldresearch.conn Mr. Paul Tucci August 2, 2012 Oppidan Page 2 Market Area Definition The draw area or "Market Area" for the subject Site was determined based on our analysis of the Site's access and visibility to the surrounding area, community orientation, renter leasing patterns, man-made boundaries, and our general knowledge of the draw areas for rental hous- ing in the Twin Cities Metro Area. Based on these factors, we determined the Primary Market Area (otherwise referred to as the "PMA") as the Cities of Chanhassen, Chaska, Eden Prairie, Victoria, Shorewood, Tonka Bay, Excelsior, Greenwood and the southern portion of Minnetonka south of Highway 7. We estimate that approximately 80% of the demand for market rate rental housing in Chanhas- sen would come from the defined PMA, while the remaining portion (20%) would come from outside the PMA. A map of the PMA is displayed below. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. Mr. Paul Tucci August 2, 2012 Oppidan Page 3 Population and Household Growth Trends and Projections Table 1 presents population and household growth trends in the PMA from 2000 to 2020. Fig- ures for 2000 and 2010 are sourced from the U.S. Census Bureau. Estimates for 2012 and pro- jections through 2020 are based on information from ESRI (national demographics service pro- vider) and the Metropolitan Council (Twin Cities regional planning agency) with adjustments calculated by Maxfield Research Inc. based on recent trends. The adjustments are intended to reflect growth that will likely be realized after considering the impact of the housing market slowdown and current recession. As of 2010, the PMA totaled 146,255 people and 56,828 households. The City of Chanhas- sen comprised approximately 15.7% of total population and 14.7% of total households in the PMA. • Between 2000 and 2010, the PMA added 16,479 people (+12.7%) and the household base grew by 8,652 households (+18.0%). The City of Chanhassen accounted for 16% of -the PMA growth in the last decade, adding+2,631 people. Due to the slowdown in the housing market and other economic pressures, we estimate that the population base in Chanhassen, the PMA, and the Twin Cities Metro Area for 2020 will be less than current forecasts by Metropolitan Council. The revised forecast is based on projected growth from residential building permits and average household size. Over the next ten years, 2010 to 2020, the PMA is forecast to add 11,495 people (+7.9 %) and 4,422 households (+7.8%). By 2020, the PMA is forecast to contain a total of 157,750 people and 61,250 households. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. Mr. Paul Tucci August 2, 2012 Oppidan Page 4 MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. TABLE 1 POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD GROWTH TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS PRIMARY MARKET AREA 2000 to 2020 Change U.S. Census Estimate Forecast 2000 to 2010 2010 to 2020 2000 2010 2012 2020 No. Pct. No. Pct. POPULATION Chanhassen 20,321 22,952 23,542 26,000 2,631 12.9 3,048 13.3 Remainder of the PMA 109,455 123,303 125,208 131,750 13,848 12.7 8,447 6.9 ' Primary Market Area 129,776 146,255 148,750 157,750 16,479 12.7 11,495 7.9 Twin Cities Metro Area 2,642,062 1,849,567 2,897,000 3,035,000 207,505 7.9 185,433 6.5 HOUSEHOLDS Chanhassen 6,914 8,352 8,570 9,485 1,438 20.8 1,133 13.6 Remainder of the PMA 41,262 48,476 49,175 51,765 7,214 17.5 3,289 6.8 Primary Market Area 48,176 56,828 57,745 61,250 8,652 18.0 4422 7.8 " Twin Cities Metro Area 1,021,454 1,117,749 1,137,500 1,105,000 96,295 9.4 87,151 7.8 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; Metropolitan Council; Maxfield Research Inc. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. Mr. Paul Tucci August 2, 2012 OOppidan Page 5 Age Distribution Table 2 shows the age distribution of the PMA population in 2000 and 2010 with estimates for 2012 and projections for 2017. The 2000 and 2010 distribution is from the U.S. Census Bureau and 2012 figures are an estimate based on 2010 Census data. Maxfield Research Inc. derived the 2017 projections by adjustments made to data obtained from ESRI, Inc. • Families with children are the dominant demographic of the PMA, as illustrated by the high percentage of children (an estimated 27.1% of the PMA population in 2012). • Mirroring trends observed across the Nation, the aging baby boomer generation is substan- tially impacting the composition of the PMA's population. Born between 1946 and 1964, these individuals generally comprise the age groups 45 to 54 and 55 to 64 in 2012. As of 2012, baby boomers account for an estimated 31.1% of the total population in the PMA. • The 55 to 64 age cohort had the largest population growth in both percent and numeric in- crease during the 2000s, adding about 9,100 people (+96.5%) in the PMA. The growth in this age cohort can be primarily attributed to the baby boom generation aging into their mid -age adult years. • Younger households are a primary market for rental housing. As of 2012, 18.2% of the pop- ulation (27,118 people) is estimated to be between ages 18 and 34. Between 2012 and 2017, the 18 to 24 age cohort is projected to decrease by -71 people and the 25 to 34 age cohort is projected to increase by +1,073 people. Overall, these younger age groups typical- ly account for the highest proportion of the renter population in many rental properties. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. TABLE 2 POPULATION AGE DISTRIBUTION PRIMARY MARKET AREA 2000 to 2017 Census Estimate Projection Change 2000 2010 2012 2017 z000-20101 2012-2017 Age No. No. No. No. No. Pct. No. Pct. Under 18 39,018 39,589 40,264 41,383 571 1.5 1,119 2.8 18 to 24 7,741 9,057 9,212 9,141 1,316 17.0 -71 -0.8 25 to 34 17,501 17,606 17,906 18,980 105 0.6 1,073 6.0 35 to 44 26,947 20,649 21,001 20,989 -6,298 -23.4 -12 -0.1 45 to 54 20,457 26,972 27,432 26,122 6,515 31.8 -1,310 -4.8 55 to 64 9,409 18,484 18,799 20,887 9,075 96.5 2,087 11.1 65 and over 81703 13,898 14,135 16,873 5,195 59.7 2,738 19.4 Total 129,776 146,255 148,750 154,375 16,479 12.7 5,625 3.8 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; ESRI; Maxfield Research Inc. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. Mr. Paul Tucci August 2, 2012 Oppidan Page 6 • Older adult and senior households are also attracted to the PMA. Some of these house- holds prefer to move from their single-family homes into multifamily housing to reduce maintenance responsibilities. As of 2012, 9.5% of the population is estimated to be age 65 or older (14,135 people). Between 2012 and 2017, the number of seniors in the PMA is forecast to grow by another +2,738 people. Household Income by Age of Householder Income data is important when considering the ability of households to pay different rent le- vels. Table 3 presents data on household income by age of householder for the PMA based on data from ESRI. This data assists in quantifying the number of households that comprise the target market based on the income level of households at various ages. • In 2012, the median household income in the PMA was estimated to be $95,736. Compared to the Twin Cities Metro Area as a whole, incomes in the PMA are, higher. A review of income data from the Census reveals that the PMA's incomes are 8% higher than the Metro Area's median income ($89,200 in 2012 according to ESRI projections). • Median income often increases with household age. In 2012, the median income in the PMA is an estimated $54,832 for households age 15 to 24 increasing to a median income of $114,622 for households age 45 to 54. After age 45 to 54, household income declines with age, as senior households often do not have income-producing employment and are more likely to have only one income per household. Households under the age of 35 are most likely to rent their housing. These households are generally young professionals and working people, roommates, and cohabitating couples without children. • In the PMA, households with incomes of $50,000 or more are expected to show significant increases in each age cohort. Households in the PMA with incomes of $50,000 or higher are expected to account for the majority of the growth. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. Mr. Paul Tucci August 2, 2012 MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. TABLE 3 HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY AGE OF HOUSEHOLDER PRIMARY MARKET AREA (Number of Households) 2012 & 2017 Age of Householder OEM W -M 2012 Less than $15,000 1,847 124 161 109 149 265 299 742 $15,000 to $24,999 2,280 135 287 233 336 214 396 679 $25,000 to $34,999 2,510 143 432 269 340 331 394 600 $35,000 to $49,999 4,930 218 944 787 785 829 789 578 $50,000 to $74,999 9,443 406 2,182 1,727 1,870 1,873 905 481 $75,000 to $99,999 9,480 155 2,015 1,886 2,717 1,606 699 400 $100,000 to $149,999 14,561 109 1,767 3,378 4,854 3,263 824 365 $150,000 to $199,999 5,417 51 509 1,390 1,949 1,074 237 206 $200,000+ 7,278 56 451 1,654 2,571 1,846 437 262 Total 57,745 1,398 8,749 11,434 15,570 11,301 4,980 4,312 Median Income $95,736 $54,832 $79,569 $109,359 $114,621 $108,286 $66,913 $38,542 2017 Less than $15,000 1,281 102 131 44 66 159 242 536 $15,000 to $24,999 1,336 94 199 95 205 102 242 399 $25,000 to $34,999 1,635 106 328 119 185 197 309 389 $35,000 to $49,999 2,845 143 636 328 401 429 544 364 $50,000 to $74,999 8,603 409 2,361 1,048 1,480 1,502 1,267 536 $75,000 to $99,999 8,294 158 2,175 1,115 2,176 1,413 818. 439 $100,000 to $149,999 17,859 166 2,576 2,888 5,655 4,103 1,919 553 $150,000 to $199,999 8,006 78 969 1,477 2,777 1,557 771 377 $200,000+ 10,077 82 882 1,587 3,406 2,606 1,090 423 Total 59,936 1,336 10,257 8,702 16,351 12,069 7,203 4,019 Median Income $118,008 $63,648 $91,932 $135,916 $142,077 $139,479 $105,459 $64,900 Change - 2012 to 2017 Less than $15,000 -567 -22 -29 -65 -83 -106 -57 -205 $15,000 to $24,999 -944 -41 -89 -139 -130 -112 -154 -279 $25,000 to $34,999 -875 -37 -104 -150 -155 -134 -84 -210 $35,000 to $49,999 -2,085 -76 -308 -459 -383 -401 -244 -214 $50,000 to $74,999 -840 3 179 -679 -390 -371 362 56 $75,000 to $99,999 -1,185 2 160 -770 -541 -193 118 39 $100,000 to $149,999 3,298 56 809 -490 801 840 1,095 188 $150,000 to $199,999 2,589 26 460 87 828 483 534 171 $200,000+ 2,799 26 431 -67 835 760 653 161 Total 2,191 -62 1,508 -2,732 781 767 2,223 -294 Median Income $22,172 $8,817 $11,364 $26557 $17,455 $31,193 $38,546 $26358 Sources: ESRI; Maxfield Research Inc. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. Mr. Paul Tucci August 2, 2012 Oppidan Page 8 Tenure by Age of Household Table 4 shows household tenure by age of householder for the City of Chanhassen and PMA in 2000 and 2010. The data is compiled from the U.S. Census Bureau. All data excludes unoccu- pied units and group quarters such as dormitories. Household tenure information is important in understanding households' preferences to either rent or own their housing. In addition to preferences, factors that contribute to these proportions include mortgage interest rates, household age, and lifestyle considerations, among others. Between 2000 and 2010, the proportion of renters has increased in every age group. Over- all, 20.1% of all households rented in the PMA in 2000 compared to 22.6% in 2010. This is mainly due to problems in the economy and the crisis in the housing market. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. TABLE 4 TENURE BY AGE OF HOUSEHOLDER PRIMARY MARKET AREA 2000 & 2010 City of Chanhassen Primary Market Area No. Pct. No. Pct. No. Pct. No. Pct. Age 15-24 Own 42 27.3 32 26.7 333 20.8 246 17.9 Rent 112 72.7 88 73.3 1,265 79.2 1,130 82.1 Total 154 100.0 120 100.0 1,598 100.0 1,376 100.0 25-34 Own 1,029 83.5 730 75.4 5,385 62.0 4,628 53.8 Rent 203 16.5 238 24.6 3,298 38.0 3,982 46.2 Total 1,232 100.0 968 100.0 8,683 100.0 8,610 100.0 35-44 Own 2,473 94.4 1,664 89.9 12,680 86.1 8,945 79.5 Rent 147 5.6 186 10.1 2,052 13.9 2,307 20.5 Total 2,620 100.0 1,850 100.0 14,732 100.0 11,252 100.0 45-54 Own 1,549 94.6 2,480 92.5 10,683 89.2 13,366 87.2 Rent 88 5.4 202 7.5 1,289 10.8 1,957 12.8 Total 1,637 100.0 2,682 100.0 11,972 100.0 15,323 100.0 55-64 Own 622 91.5 1,432 92.9 5,086 90.1 9,783 88.0 Rent 58 8.5 110 7.1 560 9.9 1,339 12.0 Total 680 100.0 1,542 100.0 5,646 100.0 11,122 100.0 65 + Own 480 81.2 874 73.4 4,322 77.9 7,024 76.8 Rent 111 18.8 316 26.6 1,223 22.1 2,121 23.2 Total 591 100.0 1,190 100.0 5,545 100.0 9,145 100.0 TOTAL Own 6,195 89.6 7,212 86.4 38,489 79.9 43,992 77.4 Rent 719 10.4 1,140 13.6 9,687 20.1 12,836 22.6 Total 6,914 100.0 8,352 100.0 48,176 100.0 56,828 100.0 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; Maxfield Research Inc. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. Mr. Paul Tucci August 2, 2012 Oppidan Page 9 Households under the age of 35 are among the most likely to rent their housing. The younger age groups tend to be mobile, are more likely to be single, may not have yet accu- mulated a down payment for a single-family home or do not want to settle into homeow- nership. In 2010, 82.1% of households age 15 to 24 and 46.2% of households age 25 to 34 rented their housing. Households over age 65 are also likely to rent; however, a number of older renter households often live in age -restricted senior apartments that may have ser- vices and do not necessarily compete with market rate general occupancy rental housing. • All age groups, except age 65+, rented at lower rates in the City of Chanhassen than in the PMA. Overall, 13.6% of all households rented in Chanhassen compared to 22.6% in the PMA. • It is likely that the proposed development would attract a wide range of ages. Based on te- nure by age patterns, however, the majority of those who choose to reside at the communi- ty will likely be younger aged households (age 34 and younger). Employment Growth Trends Table 5 shows employment growth trends and projections from 1990 to 2020 based on the most recent information available from the Minnesota Department of Employment and Eco- nomic Development and the Metropolitan Council. The employment information for the PMA is based on Traffic Analysis Zones that closely approximate the PMA. Employment growth can fuel household and population growth as people generally desire to live near where they work. In 2000, there were 86,996 jobs in the PMA. In light of the economic recession, employ- ment in 2010 in the PMA decreased by -10.1% (-8,787 jobs). This is in contrast to the City of Chanhassen, where employment increased over the period by +18.5% (+1,974 jobs). Much of the growth in Chanhassen was a result in new commercial development. The Twin Cities Metro Area as a whole experienced a -4.1% decrease in jobs between 2000 and 2010. • Job growth is expected to rebound in the PMA between 2010 and 2020. The PMA is pro- jected to experience a +14.3% gain. The City of Chanhassen is projected to experience an increase, growing +17.4% while employment throughout the Twin Cities Metro Area ex- pands by +7.9%. Increases in employment for the Twin Cities Metro Area are due to the growing number of jobs located in the suburbs. Employment growth will increase demand for new rental housing throughout the Twin Cities Metro Area. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. Mr. Paul Tucci August 2, 2012 Oppidan Page 10 Typically, households prefer to live near work for convenience. This is particularly true for renters. Young adults entering the work force, a primary target market for rental housing, often place great value on living near employment, shopping and entertainment. In addi- tion, because young adults usually have more moderate incomes, transportation costs often account for a greater percentage of their budgets. Resident Employment Table 6 shows employment information from 2000 to June 2012 that is sourced from the Min- nesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED). Resident employment data is calculated as an annual average and reveals the work force and number of employed people living in the area. It is important to note that not all of these individuals necessarily work in the area. All information is reported as an annual average of each individual month. • Resident employment in Chanhassen increased by about +985 people between 2000 and 2011(+8.6%). However, the number of individuals in the labor market also increased faster, which resulted in an increase in unemployment from 1.8% (2000) to 6.3% (2011). • The City's unemployment rate of 6.3% in 2011 was lower than the State of Minnesota (6.4%) and the Nation (8.9%). Between 2010 and year to date 2012, the unemployment rate in Chanhassen dropped from 6.9% to 4.7%. The State of Minnesota also saw a sizable decrease between 2010 and 2012, decreasing from 7.3% in 2011 to 6.0% in 2012. These are indicators that the economy is re- covering. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. TABLE 5 EMPLOYMENT GROWTH TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS PRIMARY MARKET AREA 1990-2020 Pr n 1 2000 C2000 s 2Noj 2ry1o0-2020 1990 2010 2020 No. Pct L Pd Pct EMPLOYMENT Chanhassen 6,105 10,674 12,648 14,850 4,569 74.8 1,974 18.5 2,202 17.4 Remainder of the PMA 47,471 76,322 65,561 74,550 28,851 60.8 -10,761 -14.1 8,989 13.7 Primry Market Area 53,576 86,996 78,209 89,400 33,420 62.4 -8,787 401 11,191 14.3 Twin Cities Metro Area 1,272,773 1,607,,916 1,542,086 1,663,500 335,143 26.3 -65,830 -4.1 121,414 7.9 Sources: Metropolitan Council; Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development; Maxfield Research Inc. Typically, households prefer to live near work for convenience. This is particularly true for renters. Young adults entering the work force, a primary target market for rental housing, often place great value on living near employment, shopping and entertainment. In addi- tion, because young adults usually have more moderate incomes, transportation costs often account for a greater percentage of their budgets. Resident Employment Table 6 shows employment information from 2000 to June 2012 that is sourced from the Min- nesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED). Resident employment data is calculated as an annual average and reveals the work force and number of employed people living in the area. It is important to note that not all of these individuals necessarily work in the area. All information is reported as an annual average of each individual month. • Resident employment in Chanhassen increased by about +985 people between 2000 and 2011(+8.6%). However, the number of individuals in the labor market also increased faster, which resulted in an increase in unemployment from 1.8% (2000) to 6.3% (2011). • The City's unemployment rate of 6.3% in 2011 was lower than the State of Minnesota (6.4%) and the Nation (8.9%). Between 2010 and year to date 2012, the unemployment rate in Chanhassen dropped from 6.9% to 4.7%. The State of Minnesota also saw a sizable decrease between 2010 and 2012, decreasing from 7.3% in 2011 to 6.0% in 2012. These are indicators that the economy is re- covering. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. Mr. Paul Tucci August 2, 2012 ODpidan Page 11 Covered Employment by Industry Table 7 presents covered employment in the City of Minneapolis in 2006 and 2011 from the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED). Covered employ- ment data is calculated as an annual average and reveals the number of jobs in the City that are covered by unemployment insurance. Most farm jobs, self-employed people and some other types of jobs are not covered by unemployment insurance and are not included in the table. • Between 2006 and 2011, only -81 jobs were lost in the City of Chanhassen. The industries that experienced the most significant job declines were Good Producing Industries (-1,242 jobs) and Financial Activities (-108 jobs). • Professional & Business Services posted the highest numerical growth with 519 jobs (+54.2%) followed by Education & Health Services, with growth of 504 jobs (+57.1%). • It is important to note that although the Leisure & Hospitality industry accounts for about 12% of jobs, the average wage is $16,640, the lowest average annual wage among the clas- sified industries. Many of the jobs in this industry are part-time employees. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. TABLE 6 RESIDENT EMPLOYMENT (ANNUAL AVERAGE) CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2000 to 2011 Total Minnesota U.S. Labor Total Total Unemply. Unemply. Unemply. Year Force Employed Unemployed Rate Rate Rate 2000 11,631 11,419 212 1.8% 3.1% 4.0% 2001 11,974 11,642 332 2.8% 3.8% 4.7% 2002 12,184 11,756 428 3.5% 4.5% 5.8% 2003 12,505 12,087 418 3.3% 4.9% 6.0% 2004 12,490 12,089 401 3.2% 4.6% 5.6% 2005 13,029 12,695 334 2.6% 4.2% 5.1% 2006 13,060 12,712 348 2.7% 4.1% 4.6% 2007 13,008 12,630 378 2.9% 4.7% 4.6% 2008 12,888 12,423 465 3.6% 5.4% 5.8% 2009 12,942 12,161 781 6.0% 8.0% 9.3% 2010 - 12,967 12,262 705 6.9% 7.3% 9.6% 2011 12,957 12,404 553 6.3% 6.4% 8.9% 2012' 12,659 12,062 597 4.7% 6.0% 8.3% Change 2000-11 1,326 985 341 4.5% 3.3% 4.9% . Through June 2012 Sources: MN Dept. of Employment and Economic Development; Maxfield Research Inc. Covered Employment by Industry Table 7 presents covered employment in the City of Minneapolis in 2006 and 2011 from the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED). Covered employ- ment data is calculated as an annual average and reveals the number of jobs in the City that are covered by unemployment insurance. Most farm jobs, self-employed people and some other types of jobs are not covered by unemployment insurance and are not included in the table. • Between 2006 and 2011, only -81 jobs were lost in the City of Chanhassen. The industries that experienced the most significant job declines were Good Producing Industries (-1,242 jobs) and Financial Activities (-108 jobs). • Professional & Business Services posted the highest numerical growth with 519 jobs (+54.2%) followed by Education & Health Services, with growth of 504 jobs (+57.1%). • It is important to note that although the Leisure & Hospitality industry accounts for about 12% of jobs, the average wage is $16,640, the lowest average annual wage among the clas- sified industries. Many of the jobs in this industry are part-time employees. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. Mr. Paul Tucci August 2, 2012 Oppidan Page 12 • The overall average annual wage among covered employees was $49,188 in 2011, up from $44,193 in 2006. Wage ranges vary by industry with Leisure & Hospitality having the lowest annual average wage ($16,640) and Goods Producing Industries having the highest annual average wage ($60,268). Overall Rent and Vacancy Trends Table 8 shows average monthly rents and vacancies from 2nd Quarter 2012 by unit type in the Chanhassen, Chaska, Eden Prairie, Excelsior/Spring Park, and Minnetonka submarkets as well as the Twin Cities Metro Area. Marquette Advisors, Inc. compiles this information quarterly, with 2nd Quarter 2012 being the most recent information available. • According to the 2nd Quarter Metro Trends Report 2012, Chanhassen had a 2.3% vacancy rate overall, Chaska had a 1.9% vacancy rate, Eden Prairie had a 2.5% vacancy rate, Excel- sior/Spring Park had a 1.4% vacancy rate, and Minnetonka had a 2.6% vacancy rate. The Metro Area's vacancy rate (2.7%) is among the lowest nationally, trailing only New York and New Haven, CT, among the nation's top 82 metro areas. • The properties included in the survey are both newer and older. Because there has been limited new construction in the PMA, average rents shown in Table 8 are less than what is currently being achieved by the newest properties that have come on-line. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. TABLE 7 COVERED EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY CITY OF CHANHASSEN Annual Average 2006 and 2011 rr. � Employment Avg. Wage Employment Avg. Wage No. Pct. Goods Producing Industries' 4,703 41.6% $53,300 3,461 30.8% $60,268 -1,242 -26.4% TTU' 2,153 19.0% $48,880 2,414 21.5% $59,488 261 12.1% Information 226 2.09. $50,700 159 1.4% $38,948 -67 -29.6% Financial Activities 480 4.2% $48,984 372 3.3% $53,924 -108 -22.5% Professional & Business Services 958 8.5% $50,856 1,477 13.1% $56,992 519 54.2% Education & Health Services 883 7.8% $33,436 1,387 12.3% $38,532 504 57.1% Leisure and Hospitality 1,395 12.3% $15,184 1,390 12.4% $16,640 -5 -0.4% Other Services 408 3.6% $23,972 427 3.8% $31,460 19 4.7% Public Administration 110 1.0% $40,976 148 1.3% $37,856 38 -- Total 11,316 100% $44,193 11,235 100% $49,188 -81 -0.7% ' Includes natural resource/mining, construction, and manufacturing. Trade, transportation, & utilities. Sources: Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development; Maxfield Research Inc. • The overall average annual wage among covered employees was $49,188 in 2011, up from $44,193 in 2006. Wage ranges vary by industry with Leisure & Hospitality having the lowest annual average wage ($16,640) and Goods Producing Industries having the highest annual average wage ($60,268). Overall Rent and Vacancy Trends Table 8 shows average monthly rents and vacancies from 2nd Quarter 2012 by unit type in the Chanhassen, Chaska, Eden Prairie, Excelsior/Spring Park, and Minnetonka submarkets as well as the Twin Cities Metro Area. Marquette Advisors, Inc. compiles this information quarterly, with 2nd Quarter 2012 being the most recent information available. • According to the 2nd Quarter Metro Trends Report 2012, Chanhassen had a 2.3% vacancy rate overall, Chaska had a 1.9% vacancy rate, Eden Prairie had a 2.5% vacancy rate, Excel- sior/Spring Park had a 1.4% vacancy rate, and Minnetonka had a 2.6% vacancy rate. The Metro Area's vacancy rate (2.7%) is among the lowest nationally, trailing only New York and New Haven, CT, among the nation's top 82 metro areas. • The properties included in the survey are both newer and older. Because there has been limited new construction in the PMA, average rents shown in Table 8 are less than what is currently being achieved by the newest properties that have come on-line. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. Mr. Paul Tucci August 2, 2012 Oppidan Page 13 MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. TABLE 8 AVERAGE RENTS/VACANCIES TRENDS PRIMARY MARKET AREA 2nd Quarter 2011 through 2nd Quarter 2012 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR/D Average Total Studio 1 BR w/ Den 28R w/ Den 3 SR or 48R Increase CHANHASSEN Units 389 -- 166 21 181 - 21 - No. Vacant 4 - 2 2 0 -- 0 -- - Avg. Rent $1,027 -- $865 $1,100 $1,117 -- $1,451 - 7.0% Vacanc 1.0°6 1.2% 9.5% 0.0% 0.0% -0.7% Unite 443 - 166 21 235 21:1 - _ No. Vacant 10 -- 2 0 6 21. Avg. Rent $1,075 -- $958 $1,094 $1,124 $1,427: 47% Vacanc 2.3% 11% 0.0% 2.6%. 9.5%. Units 875 8 217 36 497 -- 117 - - _ No. Vacant 7 0 5 0 2 -- 0 - - Avg.Rent $948 5635 $800 $1,012 $943 -- $1,187 -- 2.8% Vacanc 0.8% 0.0% 2.3% 0C%0.4% 0.0% 44% Units 924 9 250 36 512. - - ill -- No.Vacant 18 0 6 0 8 -- 4 - Avg. Rent $976 $647 '$812 $1,067 $981 -- " $1,245 -- 2:9% Vacanc 1.9% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0% 1.6% 3.4% - 1.1% Units 3,758 61 1,185 144 1,912 181 253 22 _ No. Vacant 109 5 27 3 64 6 3 1 - Avg. Rent $1,058 $761 $893 $972 $1,089 $1,282 $1,450 $2,250 3.6% Vacanc 2.9% 8.2% 2.3% Ll% 3.3% 3.3% 1.2% 4.5% -1.3% - Units 3,663 86 1,315 136 1,703 172 -- 229 22 - No.Vacant 91 2 27 2 47 5 8 0 - Avg. Rent $1,091 $725 $924 $1,058 $1,148 $1,414 $1,436 $2,250 3.2% Vacan 2.5% 2.3% 2.1% 1.5% 2.8% 2.9% 3.5% 0.0%-0.4%- EXCELSIOR/SPRING PARK Units 699 14 377 - 297 11 - No. Vacant 3 0 2 - 1 0 - - - Avg.Rent $800 $633 $731 - 5884 $1,100 - -- 0.6% Vacancy 0.4% 0.0% 0.5% 0.3% 0.0%4.8% Units 853 17 441 -- 384 - NO. Vacant 12 0 9 -- 3 - - -- $795 $627. $729 - $871 - jAvg.Rent -0.6Vacan 1.4% 0.0% 2.0% 0.8°6 1 r Units 3,726 76 1,321 198 1,722 96 295 18 - _ No. Vacant 82 2 26 9 38 3 4 0 -- Avg.Rent $1,112 $780 $936 $1,118 $1,162 $1,473 $1,514 $2,117 0.D% Vacancy2.2% 2.6% 2.0% 4.5% 2.2% 3.1% 1.4% 0.0% -3.5% Units 3,528 58 1,233. 152 1,719 96 252 18 No. Vacant 93 0 28 3 43 Avg.Rent $1,098 $803 $911 $1,158 $1,139 $1,457 vacancy 2.6% 0.0%. - 23% 2.0%.. 2.5%_. 6,3% METROTWIN CITIES AREA Units 106,986 5,036 46,583 2,206 46,248 1,101 5,521 291 - _ Vacant2,561 155 1,016 54 1,139 29 165 3 -- vg.Rent LmAvacancy $921 $679 $801 $1,100 $998 $1,391 $1,303 $1,615 2.0962.4% 3.1% 22% 24% 2.5% 2.6% 3.0% 1.0% -2.6% Units 107,822 5,080 46,851 2,080 46,487 1,159 5,885 Z80 No. Vacant 2,919 135 1,130 55 1,359 - 32 197 11 -- Avg.Rent $951 $712 $830 $1,143 $S,D34 $1,447 $1,301 $1,641 3.3% Vacancy 2.7% 2.7% 2.4% 2.6% 2.9% 2.8% 3.3% 3.9% 0.3% Sources: Marquette Advisors, Maxfield Research Inc. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. Mr. Paul Tucci August 2, 2012 Oppidan Page 14 10.0% 9.0% 8.0% 7.0% 6.0% U `m 5.0% V N 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 c v s $1,000 $500 Average Vacancy Rate by Unit Type 2nd Quarter 2012 Total Studio 1 BR 1 BR 2 BR 2 BR w/ w/Den Den Unit Type Average Monthly Rent by Unit Type 2nd Quarter 2012 ■Chanhassen ■ Chaska ■ Eden Prairie ■ E¢elsior/Spring Park ■ Minnetonka 3 BR 3 BR/D or 4 BR Total Studio 1 BR 1 BR 2 BR 2 BR w/ 3 BR 3 BR/D or w/Den Den 4 BR Unit Type MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. Mr. Paul Tucci August 2, 2012 Oppidan Page 15 Although the majority of communities in the PMA have seen a slight increase in average va- cancy rates from 2nd Quarter 2011, they remain well below the 5% market equilibrium level for a balanced market that provides for sufficient consumer choice and turnover. Vacancy rates below 5% indicate that pent-up demand exists for additional rental units in the mar- ket. In the PMA, no community had an overall vacancy rate above 3.0%. • Average rents in Chanhassen increased by 4.7%,2.9% in Chaska, 3.6% in Eden Prairie, 0.6% in Excelsior/Spring Park and remained stable in Minnetonka. Rent increases typically signa a strengthening market and landlords' confidence that they would be able to achieve quoted rents. Selected Market Rate Rental Developments Maxfield Research Inc. surveyed selected newer market rate rental properties in the PMA that would be competitive with a proposed development at the subject Site. Analyzing competitive developments aids in understanding the depth of demand for additional market rate rental units and provides a point of comparison in considering the positioning of the proposed devel- opment. Table 9 displays the surveyed rental housing developments included in the PMA and provides information on the unit mix, unit sizes, rents and vacancies; Table 10 follows and supplies in- formation on amenities of the surveyed properties. • Nine rental properties with a total of 1,191 units were surveyed in July 2012. Only one is lo- cated in Chanhassen (Lake Susan Apartments). The remaining properties are located in Chaska, Eden Prairie, and Minnetonka. • There are 27 units available out of 1,191 units, resulting in an overall vacancy rate of 2.3%. This vacancy rate is below the market equilibriumb rate of 5.0%, indicating that there is a need for more market rate units in the PMA. • Among the surveyed developments, the total unit mix has a majority of two-bedroom units, which comprise 38.1% of the total unit supply. In descending order of the percentage of to- tal units, the remaining supply is comprised of one -bedroom units (35.8%), three-bedroom units (10.5%), two-bedroom plus den units (10.1%), one -bedroom plus den units (4.7%), studio units (0.7%), and three-bedroom plus den units (0.3%). MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. Mr. Paul Tucci August 2, 2012 Oppidan Page 16 MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. TABLE 9 MARKET RATE GENERAL OCCUPANCY RENTAL DEVELOPMENTS PRIMARY MARKET AREA July 2012 Year Total Monthly Avg Rent Project Name OUR Units Unit Mix Unit Slxe Rent Rent Per $a Ft. Comments/Features Oaks Glen Lake Apartments 2008 52 7 EFF 535-550 $825-$895 $860 $1.54 $1.63 Four-story building with first floor retail. 14414 Stewart Lane 2 16 - 18R 680 -890 $925 -S1,225 $1,075 $1.36 -$1.38 Tenants pay gas, electric, and water. UG Minnetonka 3.8% 31 - IBR/D 875 - 1,065 $1,250 -$1,450 $1,350 $1.36 - $1.43 parking $50/month. 18 - 28R 1,140 - 1,330 $1,595 _$11850 $1,723 $1.39 $1.40 Highland Shores 2006/ 120 na - EFF 583 -583 $860 -S860 $860 $1.48 -$1.48 Two four story buildings. Tenants pay heat 3100 Chestnut Street N 2008 0 na - IBR 830 - 1,070 $980 -$1,175 $1,078 $1.10 - $1.18 and electric. Basic cable is included but must Chaska 0.0% na -28R 1,242 -1,463 $1,299 .$1,545 $1,422 $1.05 -$1.06 pay Installation fee. One UG parking stall included. Chaska Place 2004 127 22 -1811 756 -793 $939 -$989 $964 $1.24 -$1.25 Three story building. Formerly called North 325 Engler Boulevard 0 78 - 2BR 1,039 - 1,193 $1,139 -$1,325 $1,232 $1.10 - $1.11 Meadows, Tenants Pay all utilities. One UG Chaska 0.0% 27 - 3BR 1,345 - 1,454 $1,379 -S1,499 $1,439 $1.03 -$1.03 parking stall included. Additional stall 550/month. Watertower Apartments 2004 228 141 - 18R 726 - 1,012 $1,075 -$1,635 $1,355 $1.48 -$1.62 Four story building. Tenants pay all utilities. 123005ingletree Lane 12 23 - 1BR/D 980 -980 $1,245 -$1,850 $1,548 $1.27 - $1.89 One UG parking stall included. Eden Prairie 5.3% 40 - 2BR 1,165 - 1,295 $1,445 - $2,215 $1,830 $1.24 $1.71 24 - 38R 1,529 - 1,529 $2,135 -$2,500 $2,318 $1.40 -$1.64 Bluffs at Nine Mile Creek 2004 192 71 - IBR 797 -959 $1,200 .$1,380 $1,290 $1.44 -$2.51 Five -story building. Tenants pay all utilities. 7475 Flying Cloud Drive 6 4 - 1BR/D 941 .941 $1,375 -$1,450 $1,413 $1.46 -51.54 UG parking included in select homes. Larger Eden Proirie 3.1% 89 - 2BR 922 - 1,634 $1,415 -$2,250 $1,833 $1.38 - $1.53 units have two stalls included. 24 - 2BR/D 1,615 -1,615 $2,150 -$2,300 $2,225 $1.33 - $1.42 4 - 38R 1,474 -1,474 $2,150 -$2,200 $2,175 $1.46 -$1.49 Lake Haaeltine Woods 2002 42 14 - 1811 1,222 - 1,342 $1,320 -$1,385 $1,353 $1.03 - $1.08 Townhomes with attached garage. Tenants 3400 Autumn Woods Drive 0 25 - 2BR 1,502 -1,568 $1,505 -$1,575 $1,540 $1.00 _$100 pay electric and gas. Internet Included in Chaska 0.0% 3 - 3BR/D 3,000 -3,000 $2,195 -$2,225 $2,210 $0.73 -S0.74 rent. Lake Susan Apartments 2001 162 59 - LEA 821 -821 $875 -$1,025 $950 $1.07 -$1.25 Three, three-story buildings. Tenants pay all 8260 Market Boulevard 5 12 - SBR/D 1,031 - 1,031 $1,035 51,225 $1,130 $1.00 - $1,19 utilities. One UG parking stall included. Chanhassen 3.1% 82 - 2811 1,125 - 1,153 $1,095 $1,275 $1,185 $0.97 - $1.11 Additional stall $75/month. 9 - 38R 1,344 - 1,344 $1,405 -$1,S20 $1,463 $1.05 -$1.13 Sun Lake Woods 2001 82 18 - 18R 816 -839 $885 -$895 $890 $1.07 -$1.08 Three-story building. Tenants pay gas and 1045 Yellow Brick Road 0 52 - 28R 1,128 - 1,282 $1,015 - $1,185 $1,100 $0.90 -$0.92 electric. One UG parking stall included. Chaska 0.0% 12 - 38R 1,392 - 1,392 $1,205 -$1,205 $1,205 $0.87 - $0.87 Lincoln Parc Apartments 2001 186 42 - IBR 876 -976 $995 - $1,050 $1,023 $1.08 -$1.14 Five -story building. Tenants pay all utilities. 12100 Singletree Lane 2 24 - 2BR 1,142 - 1,142 $1,225 -$1,225 $1,225 $1.07 -$1.07 One UG parking stall Included. Eden Prairie 1.1% 84 - 2BR/D 1,271 -1,557 $1,295 -$1,415 $1,355 $0.91 -$1.02 36 3BR 1,404 1,634 $1410 - 51,515 $1,463 50.93 51.00 Total Units 1,191 Vacant Units 27 Vacancy Rate 2.3% So,,, M,, ield R,,,,d, Inc MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. Mr. Paul Tucci August 2, 2012 Oppidan Page 17 MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. TABLE 10 UNIT AND BUILDING FEATURE COMPARISON PRIMARY MARKET AREA July 2012 ao c v s i" v a°14e Project a a' ct o G94.a3 '� 4, C 4 a 2 4 Other Oaks Glen Lake Apartments Central Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes In -Unit UG Yes No No No Yes No 1st floor retail Highland Shores Central S Yes Yes Yes S Yes In -Unit UG Yes No No No No No views of Jonathan Lake Chaska Place Central S Yes Yes Yes No S In -Unit UG Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No guest suite, billards room Watertower Apartments Central S Yes Yes Yes No Yes In -Unit UG Yes Yes Yes No Yes No basketball and racquetball courts Bluffs at Nine Mile Creek Central Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes In -Unit UG Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No rooftop deck, media room Lake Hazeltine Woods Central Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes In -Unit Attach No No No No Yes No views of Lake Hazeltine Lake Susan Apartments Central Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes In -Unit UG Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No lakefront views Sun Lake Woods Central Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes In -Unit UG Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No business center Lincoln Parc Apartments Central Yes Yes Yes Yes No S In -Unit UG Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No guest suite, court and Garage, Off-St=Off-Street Note:S=Some, UG=Under round, DG=Detached Sources: Maxfield Research Inc. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. Mr. Paul Tucci August 2, 2012 Oppidan Paee 18 • The overall average rent among the surveyed properties is $1,376 or $1.24 on a per square foot basis. Summary information on the surveyed properties is presented in Table 11. The table presents the monthly rent ranges, average rents and sizes, and average price per square foot for each unit type at the surveyed properties. The majority of properties require the tenants pay all utilities, which includes gas, electrici- ty, trash, water, sewer as well as additional services such as telephone, cable and internet. Each unit comes with one underground parking space with an option to rent an additional stall, if stalls are available. Oaks Glen Lake Apartments is the only property that charges for a parking stall at $50/month. • New properties are offering residents contemporary features and amenities such as: • Large oversize windows that allow plenty of natural light; • Full kitchen appliance package including microwave oven; • Granite counters and center kitchen islands depending on the size of the unit; • Patios/balconies; • In -unit laundry; • Indoor pool, barbeque area, game room, exercise room; • Community room with kitchens, flat -screen TVs, billiards table; and • Business center with fax. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. TABLE 11 RENT SUMMARY July 2012 Monthly Rents Weighted Range Avg. Avg. Avg. Unit Type Low Nigh Rent Size Rent/Sq. Ft. Studio $825 -$895 $860 543 $1.59 1BR $875 - $1,635 $1,188 874 $1.36 1BR/D $1,035 - $1,850 $1,393 987 $1.42 2BR $1,015 -$2,250 $1,435 1,211 $1.18 2BR/D $1,295 - $2,300 $1,548 1,459 $1.05 3BR $1,205 -$2,500 $1,638 1,355 $1.12 3BR/D $2,195 - $2,225 $2,210 3,000 $0.74 Weighted Average Overall $1,376 1,121 $1.24 Source: Maxfield Research Inc. The majority of properties require the tenants pay all utilities, which includes gas, electrici- ty, trash, water, sewer as well as additional services such as telephone, cable and internet. Each unit comes with one underground parking space with an option to rent an additional stall, if stalls are available. Oaks Glen Lake Apartments is the only property that charges for a parking stall at $50/month. • New properties are offering residents contemporary features and amenities such as: • Large oversize windows that allow plenty of natural light; • Full kitchen appliance package including microwave oven; • Granite counters and center kitchen islands depending on the size of the unit; • Patios/balconies; • In -unit laundry; • Indoor pool, barbeque area, game room, exercise room; • Community room with kitchens, flat -screen TVs, billiards table; and • Business center with fax. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. Mr. Paul Tucci August 2, 2012 ODDldan Page 19 Pending Market Area Rental Developments Maxfield Research interviewed planning staff at the Cities of Chanhassen, Chaska, Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Shorewood, Tonka Bay, Greenwood, and Excelsior to identify any planned or pending rental developments in the PMA that may be competitive with the proposed project. Eden Prairie • Scott Carlston is proposing to build Mitchell Crossing, a 192 -unit market rate rental property nearthe intersection of Highway 212 and Mitchell Road. The project received Planning Commission and City Council Approval in June 2012, but has to go back to the Planning Commission in August to receive approval on revisions to the site plan. We include these units in the demand calculation. Chaska • The Goodman Group is proposing to build two apartment buildings, with a total of 120 units, on the west side of Highway 41 and Hazeltine Boulevard. The buildings would com- plete the Highland Shores development which was originally proposed as four buildings. To date, only two buildings have been constructed. The first building was constructed as con- dominiums but converted to rentals and the second building was built as rentals. A total of 48 out of the 120 units would be affordable for households making less than $50,000 a year. The Goodman Group is also looking at building 120 units of senior assisted living units at the northeast corner of Highway 41 and Hazeltine Boulevard. Goodman Group is working with the City of Chaska in work sessions but has not received any city approvals. However, con- struction on the first apartment building is anticipated to start in fall 2012, the senior hous- ing complex in spring 2013, and the second apartment building in fall of 2013 or spring of 2014. Minnetonka Duffy Development is set to begin construction in August on Sunset Ridge, a 64 -unit afford- able tax -credit project located at 394 and Ridgedale Drive near Ridgedale Mall. Due to the affordability component of this project, we do not include it in the demand calculation. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. Mr. Paul Tucci August 2, 2012 Oooidan Pape 20 Calculation of Rental Demand Table 12 presents our calculation of market rate rental housing demand for the subject Site. This analysis identifies potential demand for rental housing that is generated from both new households and turnover households. We first calculate potential demand from new household growth by age group based on the propensity of households to rent their housing. For purposes of our analysis, we focus on households between the ages 18 and 64 that will account for the vast majority of rental de- mand at the proposed development. The propensity to rent or own is based off of the 2010 U.S. Census figures by age cohort. Next, we calculate the percentage of renters who are in- come -qualified for market rate rental housing. For market rate housing, household incomes will most likely need to earn $40,000 or more in order to afford a unit at the proposed devel- opment. Secondly, we calculate demand from existing households in the PMA that would turnover. Younger households tend to be more highly mobile than older households, but generally the youngest are unable to afford rents at the top of the market unless they receive assistance from parents or desire a roommate. Consequently, the PMA has an exceptionally high renter proportion and mobility rate. Next we calculate the proportion of these households that would seek new general occupancy multifamily housing versus renting at older properties and apply these proportions to the in- come -qualified household market turning over. Combining demand from household growth plus turnover results in total demand in the PMA for 1,079 units over the next five years. An additional proportion is added for households that would move to a rental project in the PMA who currently reside outside the PMA. We estimate that 20% of the demand potential for rental housing on the subject Site would be derived from outside the PMA, increasing total demand to 1,349 units from non -seniors. From the total demand potential, we subtract approved developments at market equilibrium (95% occupancy) to find the remaining excess demand in the PMA. We subtract the 192 units at Mitchell Crossing and 72 market rate units at Highland Shores. We estimate that a development on the subject Site in Chanhassen could capture 15% to 20% of the total demand in the PMA. We project that a development on the subject Site could sup- port 165 to 220 units of new general occupancy rental housing between 2012 and 2017. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. Mr. Paul Tucci August 2, 2012 ODDidan Page 21 MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. TABLE 12 PROJECTED DEMAND FOR RENTAL HOUSING PRIMARY MARKET AREA 2012 to 2017 -------- Number of Households ------- Under 25 Age 25 to 34 Age 35 to 44 Age 45 to 64 Age 65 & Over Demand From Household Growth Projected Household Growth 2012 - 2017 -62 1,508 -2,732 1,548 1,929 (times) Proportion Estimated to Be Renting Their Housing' x 82.1% 46.2% 20.5% 12.5% 23.2% 448 (equals) Demand For Rental Housing, 2012 - 2017 = -51 697 -560 194 (times) Percent of Households Income Qualified' x 66.0% 86.3% 92.4% 91.9% 61.6% 276 (equals) Demand For Rental Housing, 2012 - 2017 = -34 602 -517 178 Demand From Existing Households Number of renter households in 2012 1,148 4,042 2,344 3,359 2,156 (times) Estimated Percent Turnover between 2012 & 2017' x 99.1% 90.2% 74.5% 58.2% 41.7% 899 (equals) Total Existing Households Projected to Turnover - 1,137 3,646 1,746 1,955 (times) Percent of Households Income Qualified` x 66.0% 86.3% 92.4% 91.9% 61.6% 554 (equals) Total Number of Income -Qualified Households - 751 3,148 1,613 1,797 (times) Estimated %Desiring New Rental Housing x 5% 15% 10% 10% 5% 28 (equals) Demand From Existing Households = 38 472 161 180 Total Demand From Household Growth and Existing Households 4 1,074 -356 3581 304 Market Area Demand for Market Rate General Occupancy Rental Housing 1,079 (plus) Demand from Outside the Primary Market Area (20%) 270 (equals) Total PMA Demand for Market Rate Rental Housing 1,349 (minus) Competitive Units Pending/Planned in Market Area - 251 (equals) Excess Demand Potential for Market Rate Rental Housing 1,098 (times) Percent Capturable on the Subject Site I Sx 70'v, .' (equals) Total Demand Capturable on the Subject Site - 165 - 220 ' Tenure based on 2010 Census from the U.S. Census Bureau $37,000 in 2012 dollars ' Based on Turnover from 2010 American Community Survey for households moving between 2005 and 2010. Source: Maxfield Research Inc. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. Mr. Paul Tucci August 2, 2012 Oppidan Pace 22 Recommended Development Concept Our suggested unit mix and sizes for a newly constructed building reflect development patterns that have been successful in Chanhassen and the PMA. We recommend the following rental unit mixes and monthly rents for a newly constructed building as shown on Table 12. The rec- ommended rents are quoted in 2012 dollars and can be trended upward by 2.5% annually prior to occupancy to account for inflation depending on overall market conditions. In addition to premiums for new construction, the incorporation of appropriate in -unit features and community amenities will aid in optimizing the rental rates that may be achieved. Newly constructed rental buildings throughout the Twin Cities are now requiring tenants to pay most of the utilities. We recommend the landlord provide professional management, grounds/common area maintenance, and refuse removal. The tenant should be responsible for heat, water/sewer, electricity and the following optional fees: telephone, cable or satellite tel- evision, Internet, and underground parking ($50+ per month). We recommend that the developer consider contracting for a master plan for cable/satellite television and internet connection to the units. This would likely result in a significant cost sav- ings to the residents for these features. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. TABLE 12 RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT SUBJECT SITE July 2012 -- Unit Mix-- Gross Unit Size Price/ Price/ Unit Type No. Monthly Rent' (Sq. Ft.) Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. General Occupancy Market Rate 11313 61 - 80 $1,110 - $1,215 750 -775 $1.48 - $1.57 $1.48 - $1.57 IBR+Den 33 -44 $1,300 - $1,375 875 -950 $1.49 - $1.45 $1.45 -$1.49 213R 54 -73 $1,595 - $1,650 1,100 - 1,175 $1.45 - $1.40 $1.40 - $1.45 2BR+Den 17 - 23 $1,800 - $2,075 1,300 - 1,350 51.38 - $1.54 $1.38 -$1.54 TOTAL 165-220 Weighted Average = $1.47 Monthly rents are quoted in 2012 dollars and includes management, maintenance, and trash removal; monthly fees Fan let!upward by 2.5% annually to occupancy. Source: Maxfield Research Inc. Newly constructed rental buildings throughout the Twin Cities are now requiring tenants to pay most of the utilities. We recommend the landlord provide professional management, grounds/common area maintenance, and refuse removal. The tenant should be responsible for heat, water/sewer, electricity and the following optional fees: telephone, cable or satellite tel- evision, Internet, and underground parking ($50+ per month). We recommend that the developer consider contracting for a master plan for cable/satellite television and internet connection to the units. This would likely result in a significant cost sav- ings to the residents for these features. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. Mr. Paul Tucci August 2, 2012 QDDidan Page 23 Suggest Features and Amenities At a minimum, the following bullet points outline the recommended in -unit features and com- munity amenities that should be incorporated into the proposed development. These recom- mendations closely mirror the features and amenities that are available at new rental develop- ments across the Metro Area. In -Unit Features • Open floor plans with over -sized windows; • 9' or higher ceilings; • Individually climate controlled heating with central air conditioning; • Full kitchen appliance package including dishwasher and microwave oven; • Granite or other solid surface countertop and similar backsplash; • Granite counters (or other solid surface) in vanity; • Hardwood or hardwood laminate flooring in kitchen and. living room or throughout the unit; • In -unit washer/dryer (stacked or side-by-side); • Window treatments; • Private balcony or patio; • Walk-in closets; and • Wired for high-speed Internet; recommend wireless system. Building Features & Amenities • Community room(s) with full serving kitchen, lounging/game areas, large screen TV and a high-quality sound system; • Rooftop or lower level outdoor community terrace with gas grills; • Fully -equipped fitness room; • Business/conference center; • Common area Wi-Fi; • Jacuzzi whirlpool; • Bike storage; • Heated underground parking garage (additional $50+/month); • Car wash facilities; • Extra storage; • Concierge services; and • Inclusion of some environmentally -responsible design and features (i.e. high -efficiency ap- pliances, lighting, and rainwater capture and reuse to minimize runoff). MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. Mr. Paul Tucci August 2, 2012 Oooidan Page 24 Projected Absorption Based on current market conditions and vacancies among the existing competitive properties in and near the PMA, we project that approximately 15% of its units pre -leased (25 to 22 units) with the remaining units leasing at a rate of 8 units per month, with stabilized occupancy (95%) reached within 16 to 22 months of opening. This absorption period and projected absorption rate assumes that the project would open for occupancy during the peak leasing season beginning in mid to late spring to allow for the max- imum exposure to prospective renters and that an effective marketing campaign will be under- taken to generate awareness of the project. If the project comes on-line during the late fall or winter months (November through February), absorption will be extended by an estimated two to three months beyond our initial projection, resulting in a slightly slower period from lease -up to stabilized occupancy. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 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: December 10, 2012 SUBJ: Concept Planned Unit Development — Chanhassen Apartments Planning Case 2012-18 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 the applicant hosted a neighborhood meeting. On Tuesday, December 4, 2012, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the request which was well attended by residents, who voiced their concerns regarding the proposal. Summary minutes are attached. In addition to the comments provided in the staff report, the Planning Commission provided the following additional comments: • The residents presented valid concerns which the developer will have to address if the project moves forward. • The project location is desirable in its proximity to the downtown. • There is a demand for market rate apartments in Chanhassen. • Traffic concerns need to be addressed, specifically at the intersection of West 78th Street and Galpin Boulevard. • The northern parcel should remain undeveloped if the project moves forward. • Consider reducing the density of the project. • Nationally, there has been a decrease in the size of housing and an increase in the age of the population. We need to balance that by providing a broader range of housing. • The applicant has presented a quality project. • Obtain additional information on the impact this project would have to public safety, schools, parks and traffic. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated December 4, 2012. 2. Letter and Petition from Deborah Zorn dated December 4, 2012. 3. Planning Commission Staff Report dated December 4, 2012. g:\plan\2012 planning cases\2012-18 chanhassen apartments\cc staff reponAm Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow SCANNED CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING a� SUMMARY MINUTES DECEMBER 4, 2012 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Kathleen Thomas, Lisa Hokkanen, and Kim Tennyson MEMBERS ABSENT: Bill Colopoulos STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Public Works Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen AI-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Alyson Fauske; Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: Diane & Lance Erickson Larry & Michaele Martin Bob Webber Cathy Meyer Ron Schuster Gerald Wolfe Steve Sheldon Michael Wagner Paul & Vera Brady Charles Engh Deborah Zorn Roger VanHaaften David Windschitl Dan Beno Brad & Tamara Hodgins Andy Maus Charles Peterson Ron & Linda Solheim James Denton Bob Schwartz Jim Boettcher Mary Olson Norma May Roger Remaley, President Walnut Grove Villas Del & Barb Vanderploeg Kathryn Peterson Carrie Webber Melissa Crow Don Dahlquist Kathie Price Chuck & Loretta Goetzinger Kevin Kemptgen Tim Pass 7735 Vasserman Trail 7725 Vasserman Trail 7608 Ridgeview Way 7662 Ridgeview Way 8001 Acorn Lane 7755 Vasserman Trail 7711 Ridgeview Way 17749 George Moran Drive, Eden Prairie 2028 Clover Court 7642 Prairie Flower 7574 Ridgeview Point 2102 Clover Court 7620 Ridgeview Way 7563 Ridgeview Point 7633 Ridgeview Way 7656 Ridgeview Way 7496 Crocus Court 7717 Vasserman Place 2305 Lukewood Drive 2507 Bridle Creek Trail 7476 Crocus Court 7461 Windmill Drive 2050 Clover Court 2198 Baneberry Way West 7706 Vasserman 7713 Vasserman Place 7608 Ridgeview Way 7663 Ridgeview Way 7634 Prairie Flower Blvd 7569 Ridgeview Point 7521 Windmill Drive 7662 Vasserman Trail 7650 Ridgeview Way Planning Commission Summary — December 4, 2012 Mary K. & Art Roberts 7762 Vasserman Place Chris Hentges 7500 Windmill Drive Mike Benkovich 2352 Fawn Hill Court Mike Shields 7759 Vasserman Trail Larry Donlin 8038 Autumn Ridge Sarah Thomas 2555 Longacres Drive Chris & Julie Sibley 7683 Vasserman Trail Mike & Molly Aker 2131 Brinker Street Julie McGaughey 7175 Gunflint Trail Mary & Stan Valensky 7752 Vasserman Place Debby Tysdad 7661 Arboretum Village Lane Bill Guggemos 2165 Majestic Way Nora Stacey 7699 Ridgeview Way Josh Kimber 2060 Majestic Way Suzannah Armentrout 2420 Bridle Creek Trail Blake Gottschalk 2197 Majestic Way Mike Muffenbier 7675 Ridgeview Way Allen Bergren 7680 Ridgeview Way Dan Bock 7677 Vasserman Trail Joe & Eileen Kieffer 7602 Ridgeview Way Khai Train Chanhassen Lisa & Kreg Levine 1850 Lake Lucy Road Mike Hodges 8101 Pinewood Circle Mike Ryan 6835 Lake Harrison Circle Mark & Maureen Magnuson 7715 Vasserman Trail Brian & Patty Hugh 7441 Windmill Drive Sue & Jim Cantlin 7674 Ridgeview Way Abby Ellis 7284 Bent Bow Trail Steve & Debbie Ledbetter 7756 Vasserman Place Regina & E. Keith Deanes 7651 Ridgeview Way Scott Yager 2351 Hunter Drive Michael Hjermstad 2056 Waterleaf Lane West Elizabeth Kressler 1750 Valley Ridge Trail North Kate McGuire 7973 Autumn Ridge Lane Robert Ahrens 2351 Lukewood Drive ORAH PUBLIC HEARING: CHANHASSEN APARTMENTS: REOUEST FOR CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) FOR A 224 -UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING ON 8.08 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURAL ESTATE (A2) AND LOCATED AT 7750 GALPIN BOULEVARD (NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 4 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD). APPLICANT: OPPIDAN. INC. OWNER: AMERICANA COMMUNITY BANK- CHANHASSEN, PLANNING CASE 2012-18. Kate Aanenson and Paul Oehme presented the staff report on this item. Paul Tucci, with Oppidan, Inc. outlined details of their plan regarding facilities, access, zoning, traffic analysis, Bluff Creek Overlay District, home values, and the fact that this apartment building will be market rate housing. After listening to 15 residents address concerns with transition from low to high density, noise, traffic, pedestrian safety, density transfer, building size, location, the need to stay with the land use in the comprehensive plan, and devaluation of homes, Planning Commission members had the following remarks and motion. f� Planning Commission Summary —December 4, 2012 Aller: Thank you. Any other individuals wishing to come forward? Anyone from the other room wishing to come forward? Seeing no one come forward I'm going to close the public portion of the hearing and at this point we'll have some discussion and comments. Anyone? Undestad: I'll start off with my two cents here. Everything that was brought up by the residents here, I mean these are all great, valid points. Everything that the developer needs to consider in his own mind to know if he even wants to try to push this thing or do anything with it. All those would have to be resolved and dealt with. The traffic. The safety. The kids. The school. You know locations. Other locations was brought up south and I think part of what we're looking at here, and again I won't say that I don't agree with the high density. The number of units. I think there's a blend. There's something we can do in there but to take a project like that and move it south to the 212 corridor or something, two reasons. Number one, 1 don't think we have infrastructure down there in place to handle something like that but more than that is, again what we've created for families. For kids. For everybody around here. You put the apartment down there on 212, the kids still want to be able to get to town. And again this works for that but I don't think that the densities, I don't think the number of units on there is something that, you know that's something that has to be looked at hard. I think the land to the north, if anything I'd like to see that stay just the way it is. The neighbors can take their dogs over there and take care of the grass. But again you know there is, there's a lot of concerns. A lot of things that have to be worked out on there to even, even at you know in my mind as a less dense apartment complex in there. The location, it's close to town. I think that's a good thing. 225 units right there, that's what t kind of struggle with there too so, but again you know the comments, the list and what's going to be on the public record, it's a lot of work. A lot of thought to go through that process so, that's my two cents. Tennyson: I agree with a lot of what the commissioner just said. Conceptually I don't really have a problem with it knowing that the developer is going to have a whole lot of obstacles and other hoops to go through in order to even get to 221 units. They're going to have to address all of these concerns which were, as was said, everybody did a really good explaining their concerns. Everyone was really articulate with it. I didn't know I was going to hear anything new and I did but to me it didn't really lead me away from thinking that the concept in general is okay as long as we know that there are so many other things that the developer needs to go through. Thomas: I'll go. I'm also in agreement with the other commissioners as well. I believe that the concept of the idea of what would go on this parcel of land is a benefit to being able to be close to downtown and have an apartment complex for people to be able to live at which is something that we definitely need in Chanhassen. We don't have this capacity any place else within Chanhassen. I mean you heard from other people that counts we're at like 2% which is considerably quite low for apartment complexes within Chanhassen and livable spaces for other people besides single family or twin homes and things like that. I also, I mean I like to kind of see the back part of the property stay the way it is and just focus on the front. I understand, I live close to the property as well. I understand that there are U turns there at the CVS. I'd like to see that intersection changed regardless of what happens. Regardless of what happens with this project I'd like to see that intersection worked upon. Whether, stop light. Maybe a round about. I don't know, something needs to be done there so we can create a better, safer turning pattern because I'm not a fan of it by any means and I go by there enough and long enough and often so I'd like to see it updated regardless of what happens and moves forward but general of the process if we can work through some of the issues and we can move forward I would be alright with it. Hokkanen: Okay, I'm going to give my ten cents worth because full disclosure I live in Longacres. I work at Edina Realty so I go that corner. I travel there. I understand everybody's concerns. Everybody did articulate all their concerns. I think the project in general, we do have a need in Chanhassen for market rate apartments. We just, the occupancy, I mean there's just a demand for it. Whether this Planning Commission Summary —December 4, 2012 particular project is the right fit, I have great concern about the density of this project at this location. You know what we can do something with it, and I agree about the intersection. Even if this project does not go through we need to work on that project. I drive there. I'm one of those people that has many trips a day back and forth on all those roads. Concerned with the kids. The tunnel. I just, the overall density of the project. I think it will be a nice project. I don't know if at this, I want that land to develop. I don't know that I would be in favor of rezoning it for the higher density so that's my ten cents worth. Any questions? Aller: 1 got the packet and I started thinking about the things that we need to look for and the issues that are facing Chanhassen and us as we move forward as a commission and there are two. One, how do we provide economic development to Chanhassen and how do we balance that with providing a broader range of housing. There are two things that are coming about nationally. They're news all over and they're impacting us as well and that's that there typically has been a decreasing in the size of housing and the aging population. We're starting to look at more seniors here in Chanhassen. We're looking at less single family residences and more mobility in the youth and in young couples and people that are just changing lifestyles, changing jobs and the economy so I tried to balance that when I looked at the project and I feel a real need for this type of project here in Chanhassen to give us the broadest range of housing and to make it available to our residents and to our neighbors. I have a problem with the density as well based on just the numbers and the size because it's tough to wrap your head around a building of that size when it sits on a corner but I do know, and I've experienced here on the commission where we have the same zoning for two different projects and you have so many houses per acre and one project feels like it's bigger, better and more closely related to the neighborhood than the other and it all comes down to the quality of the construction. It comes down to the landscaping and it comes down to the neighborhood and the facilities themselves so I'm hearing that there's not a problem with the quality of the developer. The quality of the construction that's been proposed and so that's a good thing. I still worry about the traffic. The traffic patterns because it's going to be something that again we have to face regardless. And the safety, the public safety issues so it will be interesting to see whether or not, if this is undertaken that maybe public safety agencies provide a report indicating what their view on this would be and the impact of that on our schools and on our parks and on our traffic. General crime rates statistics perhaps. And I would thank the members of the public that appeared today as well as those who made phone calls, left messages, emails, signed petitions because what we're doing is we're looking at the conscience power of our neighbors and the wisdom of the crowd so to speak and so we've heard from different neighbors with different backgrounds. Different ages. Different areas and I think we need to listen to them as we move forward and 1 think the developer so far has done a good job of that and I see no reason why that would stop in the future. So I would say I don't have a problem with the matter moving forward, looking at the conditions that were in the report. That were requested to be reviewed in the report. Knowing that the watershed, water, state other agencies are going to come down and take a look at this and they're going to have to jump through all those hurdles, and they're well aware of that as the developer stated so I think if they follow through with this and they heed, and it sounds like they will, that that wisdom of our flash mob of planning neighbors, that it would be a good project to move forward with the concern, the primary concern being the density. Any other comments to go forward? Undestad: No. Yeah, I'd like just one more. I mean there was comments made about you know we just arbitrarily change zoning and things on here and over the years that we've all been involved around here, I mean it's just a matter of projects that are presented. Back then. Now. In the future and it's not a matter of you know okay we're just going to change because he came in and wants apartments. Oh that must be what it needs. We do look at these overall in the entire city and I think again that's what everybody's been doing for quite a few years out here so we're not just jumping ship saying oh well, it's the only thing going on. Let's give it to him. Again he's got some decisions to make. If the densities aren't there, then he's got the economics to think about. I think that's kind of the biggest ticket right there is how many units realistically would go on there. Planning Commission Summary — December 4, 2012 Aller: I agree and in looking at our plan I think there's a difference between having a strong neighborhood and a strong community and in order to have that strong community there has to be something that keeps us from being isolated so as much as we would like to be the single family home on a 3,000 acre parcel where everybody leaves us alone and there's no cell phone, we're not in that kind of world and so I think it builds community and builds neighbors if we allow for, and again the density is I think the primary issue that I'm thinking of with, call it a buffer but call it a change of housing so that you have single family. You have multi use facilities next to each other and the question is how much and how close. Aanenson: Mr. Chair if I may. if you wanted to, I was taking notes of your comments. They're also, like I said, there will be verbatim minutes but if you would make a recommendation to pass your comments onto the City Council with the ones that were in the staff report and the ones you just enumerated, then we would make that recommendation to the City Council. If that's your desire. Aller: So I'll ask for a motion. It's not an up or down motion. It's a motion to pass these comments along. Aanenson: Correct. Undestad: I'll make a motion. Aller: Okay. Undestad: We pass along the comments. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Thomas: Second. Aller: I have a motion and a second. Any further conversation regarding that discussion? Thomas: No. Undestad moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommend their comments be forwarded to the City Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of5to0. Aller: Motion carries. Comments will be passed along to the City Council for their review and action. Thank you again to the members of the public who contacted us with their opinions. We're going to take a 2 minute recess while the rooms clear and then we have another item to come before the committee. Thank you. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Thomas noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 20, 2012 as presented. Undestad moved, Thomas seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 4 December 2012 Dear Planning Commission members, My name is Deborah Zorn. I live at 7574 Ridgeview Point, Chanhassen, within one mile of the proposed project. Together with surrounding neighborhood developments and residents, we have collected over 570 petition signatures against the proposal: http://www.change.orci/petitions/city-of-chanhassen-preserve-chanhassen-stop-gal pi n- apt-proposal-a-225-unit-development#share While nearly 600 residents may be a small number, the context to consider is collecting this number in less than one month (11/13-12/4) and during the holiday season. After the recent election last month, we all know the importance of nearly 600 residents casting their opinion. As you learn more about the Galpin Apartment proposal this evening and hear from community members, I would like to share with you the following: 1. Chanhassen Best Place to Live— let's keep it that way! I encourage City Council to welcome thoughtful development, according to the 2030 Comp Plan that enhances our community. 2. Zoning — why consider a zoning change when there is land already guided in the 2030 Comp Plan for high-density residential? Even without this project, there are or will be 1,706 multi -family units in the Highway 5 corridor from Audubon to Highway 41' .... and including this project, over 1900 units. There is no glaring need to add more high density residential units into this area which has no public transportation or retail services. Just to the east on 781h Street there is already 103+ acres zoned medium and high density residential. This area has already been planned with medium and high density residential in mind and does not need additional areas such as the Galpin Apartment proposal. 'Note: attachments below. 3. Density transfer — how can a density transfer be applied to two distinct legal parcels that are separated by a public street? Internal is defined as "existing or situated within the limits". In most cases and most cities, density transfers are utilized within a single property. Furthermore, on May 22, 2006, City Council denied the Galpin Crossing proposal on the north parcel with one finding being that the 12 units were too many. /f 12 units were not approved in 2006, why should 96 units be considered for transfer? In closing, let's welcome the developer to Chanhassen and build 225 units of market - rate apartments. This is the wrong site for many reasons. Let's encourage them to come to Chanhassen and build in spaces guided for this type of use and in areas of with retail and transportation services. Sincerely, Borah Zorn SCANNED MAP OF MULTI -FAMILY UNITS IN CORRIDOR _ b L f x>a / a I c' g ti _ v 1 ♦.e e...00>oc Cy ra P� Property Multi -Family Units Gorra Property (103 acres) 1,048 est. Walnut Grove Villas 206 Arboretum Village 312 Autumn Ridge 140 Total 1,706 Galpin Apartments 224 Total w/Galpin Apts. 1,930 P= 3 �a: 1 z ! 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 1 31 1 its A Kelly Koemptgen Carrie Webber Stacy Beno Jackie Duea Tamara Hodgins Richard Birhanzel Amy Hamann Lisa Birhanzel Chris Sibley Danielle Schenk Schenk Brenda Wellner Jeff Weyandt Robyn Bartels Sriram Viswanathan Greer Hussey Kim Daughton Christy Bauman Kyle Duea Scott Hussey Brian Schoenberger Ben Bartels Leah Plath Kathy Wosje Melissa Crow Craig Stacey Trisha Rinzel Lori Moser Pete Rinzel Cathy meyer Melissa Pelzel Ila Wheeler Chad Meyer Arlene Schreifels Angela Zay Mary Valentine Tiffany Weyandt Susan Fagan Susan Quinn AnnMarie Gerczak Robert Webber Kathleen VanKrevelen Laura Larson Brad Hodgins Ronald Solheim Carrie O'Keefe Mark Larson I Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Ramsey Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen D Zip Code 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55303 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 F Signed On 11/13/12 11/14/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 'L--T-ate N A 6 — D F 49 Nicole Muschewske Gerald Wolfe Linda Solheim Natalie Johnson Nicole Jesse Mary B Silbernagel Eric Best Matt Pattee Jayne Meyer Allison Wideman Kathleen Price Patty Gilk Lisa Bastian Valerie Pass David McKinley Liz Beckley Jacqueline tyson)acquelineTyson Sheila Erickson Rebecca Brick Susanne Cantlin Diane Perry Andrea Mach Kristy Ruelle todd allard Sue Statsick Daniel Bock Dennis DuBois Molly Johnson Carrey Schottler Theresa Vesledahl Deborah Zorn David Moser Shelley Berken Jim Boettcher Mark Gilk Bret Shanahan Alisa Lacomy Rachel Berhow Anne Jutting Yousda Ibrahim Kari Hentges Todd Jutting Mary Sando Wren Feyereisen Patty Hugh John Gans Dagmar Diethelm Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Excelsior Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Carver Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Victoria Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Excelsior Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Edina Chanhassen Chanhassen Excelsior Chanhassen 55317 55317 55317 55331 55317 55317 55317 55317 55346 55315 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55386 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55331 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55424 55317 55317 55331 55317 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12'i 11/15/121 11/15/12!, 11/15/12', 11/15/12 11/15/12'' 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 -9T 92 93 E94 95 N A B D F 97 Angela Vukovich Patrick Rutledge Tashana Dalen jeff spear Thomas Kraus Karen Sandefur Andrew Eilertson Carol Pitz Larry Martin Cara Kail Christina Salek Sam Snyder Emily Snyder Chery Stanton Michelle Luterbach Janet Rzonca TeriKocourek Sandra Wells Paine Ted Lundberg Marissa Schulz Jeff Tritch Matthew Berhow Kim Wellman Deborah Medeiros Cindy Brodigan Paul Boddicker Sharon Cerjance Jack Cerjance Tim Cerjance Margaret Wise Mary Oppegaard Lisa Tritch Brad Lacomy Karen Ryan Kristin Terrell Kyle O'Keefe Laura Liedtke David Erickson Leah Swartzbaugh Greg Kassebaum diana kirchoff Patty Palmby Michael Cerjance Karen Bimberg Louis Diethelm Julie McGaughey Pete Swartzbaugh Mary Olson Chanhassen Chanhassen Carver Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Excelsior Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen 55317 55317 55315 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55331 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 11/15/12 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 A B D F 145 Michael Flake Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 146 Elizabeth Sween Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 147 K S Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 148 Jon Crow Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 149 Robyn Chargo Mound 55364 11/15/12 150 Josh Kimber Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 151 Lori Doyle Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 152 Mike Benkovich Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 153 Mike Benkovich Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 154 Denise Westerhaus Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 155 MARY JO LUKAS CHANHASSEN 55317 11/15/12 156 Kristina Schwendinger Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 157 Ashley Browning Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 158 Barbara Cobb Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 159 Gary Rzona Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 160 Lori Thorne Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 161 Jill Hake Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 162 Kristine Checheris Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 163 Mike Mattson Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 164 Nadia Janson Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 165 Renee Pawlyshyn Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 166 Andrew Maus Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 167 Carolyn Thomson chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 168 Christine Stark Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 169 Rechelle Hollowaty Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 170 Nichole Kauls Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 171 Cameron Olsen Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 172 Scott Yager Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 173 shelly christy chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 174 Zach Bacon Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 175 Jennifer Fritz Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 176 Colin Moser Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 177 Chris Hentges Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 178 Julie Lizak Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 179 Tim Pass Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 180 James Chmura Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 181 Natalie Christenson Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 182 Shyla Allard Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 183 Ken Saddler Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 184 Kimberly Rolfes Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 185 Molly Lagerback Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 186 Mary Beth Hebeisen Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 187 Jacqueline Mrosko Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 188 Mike Wellner Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 189 Jim Haider Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 190 Susan Lombardo Chanhassen 55317 11/15/17 191 Pam Schwarz Chanhassen 55317 11/15/12 192 Andrea Sebenaler Chanhassen 55317 11/16/12 A B D F 193 Gail Gelino Sue Chapman Susan Noble Kris Mattson Holli Glendenning Andy Merrill Rod Bubke Sonya Benkstein Dawn Erdman Nancy Bubke Pamela Callister Shelley Haider Ted Ellefson Sandra VanDerveer Alison Lang Ann Healey -Allen sengtavanh meas Laura Trantham Brian IaramyBrianLaramy Elizabeth Kressler Serena Rosen Tim Bastian eric maher Lisa Egenes Suzanne Milacnik Lisa Thompson Warren Meyer Sarah Pinamonti John Wicka Sarah Pletts Eileen kieffer Joe Kieffer Beckie Laengle Randy Strobel Alicia Schimke Kyle Green Beth Reding Debra Lochner Judi Selinger Don Schulz Jon Trantham Barry La Bounty Danielle Antonovich Steve and Joni Hansen Holly Tchida Karen Walker Michelle Janson Jacqueline Schmidt Chanhassen Victoria Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Excelsior Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen CHANHASSEN chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Eden Prairie Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen CHanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen 55317 55386 55317-8329 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55331 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55346 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317-7400 55317 55317 55317 55317 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 t A B D F 241 James Heyman Matthew Hanson John Bartoloni Audret Dorholt teralyn siller Del & Barb Vanderploeg susan cohoon Renee Pederson Dave Callister Stephanie Larson Eric Zorn Carly Blackowiak Regina Deanes Ann Eilertson Steve Emerson James Ruelle Jeff Armentrout Diane Julson Anne Wicka Katie Novogratz suzannah armentrout Lynn Wilder Patricia Bremer Lisa Levine Dorothy Croskey Jennifer Burg David Pederson Allan Olson Kirstin Heyman Bhuvana Nandakumar Debbie Ippolito Joe Ipponto Judie Mattson Ann Allen Blake Gottschalk Anne Taus Steven Cohoon Rachel Scott Ted Kendall Loretta Goetzinger Julie Littfin Patty Vannucci chris novogratz James Schmidt Mindi Dahl bonnie and Charles peterson Steve Vreeman Janice Vreeman Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Minnetonka arlington Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Minneapolis Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Excelsior Excelsior Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Marine on St C Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Whitewater Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen 55317 55317 55317 55345 76018 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55408 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55331 55331 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55047 55317 55317 55317 55317 53190 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/16/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/17/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 11/18/12 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 t 1- A B D F 289 Tami Gottschalk Carla Ferrell Mary Pernula Robin Warden Matt Schillerstrom John Murphy Kelly Bock Jan Hall Natalia Sander Jennifer Weiner Nancy Patterson Michael Smith Jason Martagon Mark Miller Michael Shields Georgia Eck Kristi Nyberg Rochelle Owens Matthew Steele Elle Swenson Brian Smith Kathryn Corgiat Kelly Pedersen Scott Jesse Paul Nyberg Richard Lindquist Shannon Smith Len Johnson Cherree Theisen Susan Coult Peter O'Gorman Elizabeth Smith Susan Busch Kevin Koemptgen Kristine Beer Debra Bauler Melissa Windschitl Michaele Martin Ashley Smith Jocelyn O'Brien Steve Anderson Elizabeth Ekstrand ralph pamperin Mark Magnuson Maureen Magnuson Bruce Eaton Jon McLain Mary McLain Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen CHANHASSEN chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Victoria Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Minneapolis Chanhassen Chanhassen 55317 55317 55317 55317 55316 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55386 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55401 55317 55317 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/19/12 11/20/12 11/20/12 11/20/12 11/20/12 11/20/12 11/20/12 11/20/12 11/20/12 11/20/12 11/20/12 11/20/12 11/20/12 11/21/12 11/21/12 11/21/12 11/21/12 11/21/12 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 _j 0-4 305 306 307 _j 0-8 309 _j 1-0 311 '3 1-2 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 d335 1- A T B D F 337 David Royer Christine Fischer Scott Cater Art Roberts Tonya Sadura Donna Strauss Seweryn Sadura Bill Olson Lance Erickson Keith Abrahamson Lindsey Brady Tammy Brady Julie Maanu m Teresa Luterbach Joan Cowan Dan Geier Brenda Geier Laura Carlson Scott Elleraas David McAlpin Roger Remaley James Callaghan Holly Loberg Lynn Li Dana Johnson Todd Simning Barbara Miller Mike Aker Christina Crowther lames Farrell Ingrid Steele Jody Hanson Kevin Carlson Clint Egenes Mike Muffenbier Michelle Muffenbier Laura Kimber Molly Aker lori abblett Sonja Leines Ron Schuster Lynne Etling Christine Allen David Windschiti Jaime Martin Mark Hemann don mcdonald Daniel Cloutier Chanhassen Chanhassen CHANHASSEN Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhasssen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55331 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 11/21/12 11/21/12 11/21/12 11/21/12 11/21/12 11/21/12 11/22/12 11/22/12 11/22/12 11/23/12 11/24/12 11/24/12 11/24/12 11/24/12 11/25/12 11/26/12 11/26/12 11/26/12 11/26/12 11/26/12 11/26/12 11/26/12 11/26/12 11/26/12 11/26/12 11/26/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 338 -i 3-9 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 fop A B D F 385 Holly Huber Jessica Tait Karin Moore Jill Hauwiller Jennifer Davis Sarah Fischer jell heinemann Nancy Wright Erin Buss Tara Graff Alana Montgomery Tim Opitz David Buss Elizabeth Johnson Amy Wesley James Denton Heidi Pagano Allison Fredlund LuAnne Wright Jessica Lundgren Hailan Huang Peter Polingo Stephanie Tollefson Dan Beno Lynn Polingo Kara Peterson Trent Mahr Karry Scheirer Dan Waldron Pat Zettel Tyler Scholten Erin Denton Michael Burrows Nedal Nassar Durwood Birdsall Kyla Spencer Colleen O'Hare Miller Paulette Tomaschko Jean Nitchals Hilarie Gibson Stephen Withrow Kristin Kingbay David Wisniewski G. Ritchot MARILYN MATZKE Jean Negaard Ben Mondeel Katie Jorgenson Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Maple Grove Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Eden Prairie Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen CHANHASSEN chanhassen Broomfield Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Rosemount Chanhassen Lindstrom CHANHASSEN Chanhassen Chaska Chanhassen 55317 55317 55317 55369 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55344 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 80021 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55068 55423 55045 55317 55317 55318 55317 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/12 11/27/121 11/27/12] 11/27/12 11/27/12'1 11/27/12 11/27/12', 11/27/12 11/27/121 11/27/12'. 11/27/12'1 11/27/12' 11/27/12' 11/27/12 11/27/12' 11/27/12' 11/27/121 11/27/12 11/27/121 11/27/12 11/27/12' 11/27/12, 11/27/12', 11/27/12' 11/27/121 11/27/12. 11/27/121 11/27/12', 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 -T9 5 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 '4 2-4 425 426 427 -4 2-8 429 430 431 432 fop 0 A B D F 433 Allen Hauwiller Jillian Steinke Al Crowther Jenny Erickson Amy Boehm G Sorci Heles Candance Carlson Stephanie Mondeel Pamela Olson Sue Selland Jennifer Perrill ]on Noller Ilyne Sandas Julie Sorensen Greg Maanu m Cecilia Fredlund Kim Farniok Steve Janson Jackie Neva Edward Schultz Jeanette Janski Glenn Steffen Craig OConnor Laura Neva Hany Gross Peter Neva Jaime Wallis Ellen Rowe Vera Brady Melissa Young Melissa Young Del Young Kristen Eisinger Brenda Brown Dale R. Blomquist Gloria A. Patty Bornhoft Katie Hodges Chris Conroy Doris French Pat McGaughey kathryn jeffery Cindy Cowles Rachelle Uberecken Terry Carlson Susan Blair Norma May Mark Johnson Mike Schachterle Maple Grove Minneapolis Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chahassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chaska Waconia Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Blomqui<.chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chaska Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen 55369-3474 55405 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 I do NOT want 553147 55317 55318 55387 55317 5317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 85251 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55318 55317 55317 55317 55317 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12, 11/28/12! 11/28/12 11/28/12' 11/28/12' 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/28/12 11/29/17 11/29/12 11/29/12 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 0 fl. A B D F 481 Todd Michels Chanhassen 55317 11/29/12 482 Shane Waskey Chanhassen 55317 11/29/12 483 Diana Noller Chanhassen 55317 11/29/12 484 Nancy Benson Chanhassen 55317 11/29/12 485 Amy Dykoski Chanhassen 55317 11/29/12 486 Lori Lavelle Chanhassen 55317 11/29/12 487 Matthew Taylor Chanhassen 55317 11/29/12 488 Eric Deanes Chanhassen 55317 11/29/12 489 Michelle Jopling Chanhassen 55317 11/29/12 490 Laura Papas Chanhassen 55317 11/29/12 491 Brian Kline Chanhassen 55317 11/29/12 492 Jeanette Taylor Minnetonka 55345 11/29/12 493 Thomas Papas Chanhassen 55317 11/29/12 494 Chad Hamann Chanhassen 55317 11/30/12 495 Judith Werner Chanhassen 55317 11/30/12 496 Michael Hjermstad Chanhassen 55317 11/30/12 497 Ronald Neitzel Chanhassen 55317 11/30/12 498 Wendy OConnor Chanhassen 55317 11/30/12 499 Karen Neitzel Chanhassen 55317 11/30/12 500 JEFFREY OLSON CHANHASSEN 55439 11/30/12 501 Nicole Carlson Victoria 55386 11/30/12 502 Amy Waters Chanhassen 55317 11/30/12 503 Amy Beer Chanhassen 55317 11/30/12 504 Mark David Chanhassen 55317 11/30/12 505 Mary Ervasti Chanhassen 55317 11/30/12 506 Holly Erickson Chanhassen 55317 11/30/12 507 Pam Schelling Chanhassen 55317 11/30/12 508 Kathren Klaesges Chanhassen 55317 11/30/12 509 Rena Miller Chanhassen 55318 12/1/12 510 Debby Tysdal Chanhassen 55317 12/1/12 511 Nancy Glades Chanhassen 55317 12/1/12 512 Patricia Hansen Chanhassen 55317 12/1/12 513 LaVon Johnson Chanhassen 55317 12/1/12 514 michelle wrase Chanhassen 55317 12/1/12 515 Ta mi Beehner chanhassen 55317 12/1/12 516 Chris Rumble Chanhassen 55317 12/1/12 517 DAvid Hurrell Excelsior 55331 12/1/12 518 Erica Huls Chanhassen 55317 12/1/12 519 Mei-Kuei Hjermstad Chanhassen 55317 12/1/12 520 Carol Buesgens Chanhassen 55317 12/1/12 521 Jessica Cimmerer Chanhassen 55317 12/1/12 522 George Borchardt Chanhassen 55317 12/1/12 523 Chris Hartwigsen Chanhassen 55317 12/1/12 524 JUNE CASEY CHANHASSEN 55317 12/1/12 525 John St Andrew Chanhassen 55317 12/1/12 526 Douglas Backstrom Chanhassen 55317 12/1/12 527 Cynthia Olson Chanhassen 55317 12/1/12 528 marlie 'ohnson excelsior 55331 12/1/12 fl. A B D F 529 Heather Nelson Lori Zuehlke Mark Mullen Steve Smith Christina Krienke Steve Carroll Dianna Cowles Laura Richardson Mike Ryan Nancy Bielski Kristi Bush kim petroska Julie Jorgenson Michael Meyer Mike Ladd Omar Taha Marwa Ibrahim Eric Christenson Christine Correa Robert Lokhorst Jennifer Yankovec Renee Kirkeby Karen Brown Wendy Luse Don and Jan Dahlquist Thomas Witek John Lalim John & Elizabeth Cullen Steven Ranz Mary WItek Jacob Hill Patricia Ranz Cathy Larson Julie Peterson Sharon Punt Molly Scholle Kyle Zirbes courtney kramer Shawn Zellman Ed Robbins Christina Hill David Haggbloom Elwood Johnson Julie Gallagher Thomas Kraker Jennifer Jorgenson david thompson Allan Bergren Andover Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chaska Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhasen Excelsior Chanhassen Chanhassen VICTORIA Chanhassen Waconia Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen chanhassen Chanhassen 1810 55317 55317 55317 Chanhassen 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317-8357 55317 55317 55318 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 553177 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55331 55317 55317 55386 55317 55387 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 55317 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/1/12 12/2/12 12/2/12 12/2/12 12/2/12 12/2/12 12/2/12 12/2/12 12/2/12 12/2/12 12/2/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/3/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 12/4/12 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 IL -7 -fes A B C D F I G 1 Name City State Zip SlgnedOn Comment I feel this 225+ unit <a href="http://apt.com" rel="nofollow">apt.com</a>plex will MAJORLY the neighborhood In a negative wayl The Intersection Is already congested and dangerous. Now you will be adding an additional 300+cars to It with NO controlled Intersectlonl Many children travel this frontage road to local businesses and to school! Also, there are certainly blind spots at both 2 Stacy Beno chanhasse MN 55317 11/15/12 entrances of Vasserman Ridge. Crazyl Rldlculousl NOIII Traffic and something so monstrous and so close to Hwy 5 and 78th St. will look ridiculous for our community. That corner Is not very big to support such a tall structure. Also, there Is a dangerous corner coming out Vasserman Ridge and adding all that traffic right at the neighborhood entrance Tamara Hodgins Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 will be even more dangerous. I agree with the points In the overview and am especially worried about traffic related to the density 4 Chris Sibley Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 of the proposed development. To replace a beautiful wetland with a huge conglomerate of an apartment complex would be an eye- sore to our green environment, a traffic nightmare, complete noise pollution and an environmental hazzard (water run-off sewer and electrical, etc). Zone It for a restaurant or coffee shop. A 225 5 Kim Daughton Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 unit apartment complex??? That's pure crazyll I don't believe this will be a positive Impact on preserving the overall city of Chanhassen with traffic, 6 Ben Bartels chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 safety and home values. We have witnessed numerous accidents around the area of the proposed apartments. Adding the 7 Leah Plath Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 additional traffic to this area will be dangerous. traffic and safety Issues. Property not zoned for this. Too dense for size of property. 8 Craig Stacey chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Environmental Impact. Chad Meyer Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Live In neighboring area. Mary Valentine Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Increased traffic and public safety This large 225 unit apartment building would create a significant traffic hazard In an already 9 10 11 Tiffany Weyandt Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 dangerous Intersection. I believe the parcel of land In question should be developed; however, the proposed development Is not consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan and we homeowners nearby relied on the Comprehensive Plan when we purchased. During this terrible economy most of us have seen our home prices greatly Impacted with many people now having negative equity. The proposed development will not add value to the homes (and townhomes) nearby. A variance In this situation should only be Issued where there Is a meaningful public benefit, not just because there Is a limited economic benefit to the property owner. Here, the size and scope of the project only benefits the property owner. The streets of Galpin and 78th Street cannot sustain 300+ more cars dally, particularly during peak rush hour. The U-turns out of Kwlk Trip and the blindspot exiting Vasserman Ridge community to 78th Street are already dangerous. Also, the Bluff Creek watershed district is currently under active Investigation by the state for water quality problems. The proposed development is a major change In the City Comprehensive Plan which could easily do damage to Bluff Creek which would Increase costs to all city taxpayers In mitigation. If the market does support such a major apartment complex In Chanhassen, there are more appropriate sites in the city, closer to Highway 212 where there are large tracts already zoned for this kind of development, near Park & Ride. We ask the Planning Commission and City Council to resist the temptation apparent In Increased tax revenue. We ask that they fulfill their oaths to serve the residents of Chanhassen for the public benefit. Please deny the variances and other changes that are needed to 12 Robert Webber Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 proceed on this development. A B C D F I G Property values, Too much traffic at corner, too big for the 13 kathleen vankrevelen Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 property. I use that Intersection dally. 78th and Galpin Is a very dangerous Intersection and needs NO MORE 14 Laura [arson Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 TRAFFICI Ronald Solhelm Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Density not appropriate for site and area This Is not the appropriate location for an apartment complex. It would add tremendous stress to 15 16 Nicole Muschewske Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 an already delicate road way. The Increase In car and foot traffic would be very dangerous. This complex will be right out the back of my home. Lights from cars on 78th currently shine right Into my bedroom. I hate to think what It would be like with 100's of additional cars per nightl And, 17 Gerald Wolfe Chanhassen MN 55317-4 11/15/12 the lights from the parking lot will light up our house all night long. I believe this proposed complex would bring traffic Issues, pedestrian safety Issues and It would be 18 Kathleen Price Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 unsightly and excessively large for such a small site. I live near this proposed development and I do not want an appartment complex built there. It will 19 Valerie Pass Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 have a negative Impact on the surrounding wetlands as stated In this Petition. I live on Galpin and already hear too much traffic behind my house. This would greatly depreciate the value of my home, as well as reduce the quality of life In Chanhassen. There are no foreseeable 20 David McKinley Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 benefits to allowing this variance In the zoning of this property. I travel Galpin multiple times every day and am very concerned that the Increased volume of cars from a facility - that Is proposed to be over the maximum density use for the plot - will brlrg an 21 todd allard chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Increased likelihood of accidents and Injury. David Moser Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Traffic hazard, not consistent with surronding development Traffic at the Intersection, a elementary school already at capacity, other type of businesses needed 22 23 Allsa Lacomy Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 In that area The traffic at Intersection with Kwlk trip and CVS already there is very bad in morning and evening. This would add to the problem. Does not Flt neighborhood buildings, Would cause school 24 Todd Jutting Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 rezoneing. Stephen Sando Edina MN 55424 11/15/12 Have family In area. Already too much traffic and congestion. Traffic at Hwy 5 and Galpin would become to great and a danger to our residents, Changes the 25 zoning. It Is a bad location for high density housing. I am concerned about water quality and the 26 Patty Hugh Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 burden on police and utilities services. Increased concern with traffic and safety of children and adults using the trail system around the 27 John Gans Excelsior MN 55331 11/15/12 proposed development. A project of this size will be a burden to the neighborhood and strain our city budget. Our Infrastructure Is not prepared to handle the Influx of this many people. This would affect schooling, 28 Dagmar Diethelm Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 street and utilities In a manner that the city Is not prepared to upgrade at this point. Angela Vukovlch Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 I'm concerned about the traffic hazards this would create. Sharon Kraus Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Increased traffic, potential safety hazards Cara Kali Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 I live directly down the streetl Michelle Luterbach chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 It completely demolishes the aesthetics of the streets around my home. Janet Rzonca Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Too big for that corner - too much congestion, This will add enormous traffic to an Intersection that Is already dangerous. There are so many 29 30 31 32 33 children who ride their bikes to Kwlk Trip and CVS. I've already seen several accidents and adding 34 ITeri Kocourek chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 that much more traffic would Increase that risk of more accidents ex onentlal . A B C D F I G Would like to preserve the look, feel and function of our area. Keep It single family home 5 Marlssa Schulz Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 orientated. Kim Wellman Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 We do not need Increased traffic In this area. It Is already dangerous enough. A development of this size on this location would negatively Impact traffic and safety, the 36 environment and would not fit Into healthy planning for the city of Chanhassen's growth and 3 Mary Oppegaard Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 development. Brad Lacomy Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Detriment to my neighborhood Karen Blmberg Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 bad Idea to build an apartment complex at this location. Preserve the way of living that we expected when moving to Chanhassen. The current Infrastructure 38 39 Is not prepared to absorb such an Influx of residents In this area. Additionally, the location Is perched between a fontage road and Highway 5 - what Is the positve outlook on such a 40 Louis Dlethelm Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 development with plenty of other sites available 7 I am very concerned with traffic/safety Issues and do not believe something of this magnitude can 41 Julle McGaughey Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 be accommodated In this location. Mary Olson Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Traffic, zoning, watershed, noise & safety concerns. K S Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 traffic and crime Lived In Longacres subdivision for 12 years. Love the neighborhood and love that It's all Inhabited 42 43 by private homeowners. Apartments promote the feel of "temporary" dwellers. Great for young people, and young couples with no children, but doesn't really Flt In to the Family neighborhood feel of this area. I believe would bring home values down either further than they already are. NOT the 44 Robyn Chargo Mound MN 55364 11/15/12 right timing for this, at all. As a home owner of Majestic Way (located off Galpin) I feel this Is a horrible Idea and am happy to pass this petition on. The Intersection of Galpin & 78th Street Is already a difficult Intersection to cross (In car or on foot) with the number of cars who make u -turns coming out of CVS and/or Kwlk Trip. Plus, I feel there has been an Increase In traffic on Galpin after the Hwy 41 construction. Galpin Is quickly becoming unsafe for children to cross. Not to mention, adding short term housing In the area will only remove home buyers from the market thus lower values even further. Townhomes are very affordable right now and the city should be encouraging people to buy homes and not rent them. There are 7 town homes under $120K and have been on the market for months) I am signing this because I feel the need for apartments In my neighborhood Is NOT wanted. Please 45 Josh Kimber Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 support. The home values within the blocks near this complex will go down. It Is also not aesthectic to the 46 Kristine Checheris Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 environment In the area. The Intersection of 5 and Galpin Is already very busy and accident prone. That much additional 47 Jill Hake Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 traffic at that Intersection will create significantly more risk of accident. Due to heavier traffic along that way If this complex goes up, I am more worried about car accidents 48 Nadia Janson Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 on Highway 5 because of this proposed development. Particularly concerned about Impact on property values and safety due to Increased density and 49 Andrew Maus Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 traffic (especially due to blinds of on 78th West of Vasserman Trall . A B C U F I G Safety, there Is always an accident at that stop light as well as safety of the kids at Bluff Creek Elementary. Generally apts do not raise the property value of the city and I feel like Chanhassen when given the opportunity to devlelop we choose options that de -value the City and the property 50 carolyn thomson chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 of the residents. Christine Stark Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Too much traffic congestion near a quiet neighborhood and school. Scott Yager Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 I live In Longacres and don't want the traffic of an apartment complex. Too many units. Way too large of a developement with high volume traffic In an already dangerously over crowded 51 52 53 Jennifer Fritz Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Interaction at both frontage road and State Highway! The additional traffic Is certainly a concern. 225 units would also drastically Increase the population of the fairly small area. This could negatively Impact the community In many waysAsafety, home 54 Chris Hentges Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 values, schools. Shyla Allard Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 I am concerned about the traffic this will create. This is a big safety concern. Traffic and the reason I live out here Is to get away from this kind of density. In addition, property 55 values are already a challenge In this economy and this will only make the situation worse. Also feel 56 Ken Saddler Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 bad for my neighbors who live even closer to It than I do. There Is better uses for the land, never Imagine high density development would have been one of 57 Jim Haider Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 them when I purchased my Home. This Is a giant complex that not only doesn't Flt with It's surroundings. Increased traffic Issues. Why 58 Pam Schwarz Chanhassen MN 55317 11/15/12 Is this complex not being built closer to Hwy 212? Ted Ellefson Chanhassen MN 55317 11/16/12 Child safety between Bluff Creek and our neighborhood. Unit density Is too high for this space. Sandra VanDerveer Excelsior MN 55331 11/16/12 It effects my grandchildren and their safetyl I I have seen many car accidents on galpin highway 5 Intersection area lately. If there Is going to be 59 60 an Increase In traffic In this area, I can't Imagine what else I will see especially when there Is a 61 sengtavanh meas chanhassen MN 55317 11/16/12 school and park nearby. Proposal would creat traffic congestion, safety concerns and doesn't follow the Integrity of 62 Abby Ellis Chanhassen MN 55317 11/16/12 Chanhassen and the city's comprehensive plan. Lisa Egenes Chanhassen MN 55317 11/16/12 Preserve the nature of that area with small business and residential family-owned homes The traffic congestion Is already terrible. Cant Imagine adding more rush hour traffic along with 63 64 Sarah Pletts Chanhassen MN 55317 11/16/12 children on foot or bikes to that area. Eileen kieffer Chanhassen MN 55317 11/16/12 Too much traffic for this area. Primarily due to traffic and safety concerns at the corner of 78th street and Galpin. It's not an 65 66 Alicia Schlmke Chanhassen MN 55317 11/16/12 Intersection that can or should sustain an Increased flow of traffic. This Is not the original zoning of the area and It would Increase the traffic significantly In the area. 67 Jacqueline Schmidt Chanhassen MN 55317 11/16/12 Galpin Is already having a huge Increase In It's traffic 41 was closed this summer. Do we really need an apt complex at every Intersection on the hwy 5 corridor. This Is going to bring the value of my house down; density Is way too much for our Infrastructure, This was NOT what 1 68 Susan cohoon Chanhassen MN 55317 11/17/12 want to look at from my backyard and I will If this goes through. MASSIVE complex totally out of character with the 1-2 story townhomes and 1 story retail for about 69 Lynn Wilder Chanhassen MN 55317 11/17/12 the surrounding square mile. Major unsafe traffic Issues on W 78th St and at Galpin Intersection. Traffic Increase to Galpin and lake Lucy road. 5& Galpin Intersection Is too close to major 41&5 70 Lisa Levine Excelsior MN 55331 11/17/12 intersection. WIII drastically slow traffic on 5 Concern over Increased traffic and safety. Hard to cross Galpin to get to the park as It Is. Since 41 71 Allan Olson Chanhassen MN 55317 11/18/12 has been under construction traffic has already doubled. Blake Gottschalk Chanhassen MN 55317 11/18/12 Safety concerns, traffic concerns, Infrastructure concerns. I believe It will be In opposition to the zoning of this land and also create too much traffic and safety 72 73 Ted Kendall Chanhassen MN 55317 11/18/12 to west 78th and Galpin. A B C D I F I G 74 chrls novogratz Chanhassen MN 55317 11/18/12 congestion and safety near this Intersection not proper use of land to high density for location Increased traffic 75 bonnle and charles peterson chanhassen MN Steve Vreeman Chanhassen MN 55317 55317 11/18/12 probable Increased juvenile crime centered around nearby stores 11/18/12 Traffic Increase on the corner of Galpin and W 78th St. will Increase to unsafe levels. I don't want to see more development in that area, and I don't believe It's necessary to build more 76 77 Carla Ferrell Chanhassen MN 55317 11/19/12 apartments In the area. Current zoning does not support this type of project and a change would not be appropriate for this 78 Michael Shields CHANHASSEN MN 55317 11/19/12 property. Traffic and Increased noise are major concerns. The Intersection an Galpin and Highway 5 Is already too busy. AWhy are the plans being changed. 79 Georgia Eck chanhassen MN Krlstl Nyberg Chanhassen MN Rochelle Owens Chanhassen MN Matthew Steele Chanhassen MN 55317 55317 55317 55317 11/19/12 Protect the wetland preserve area. 11/19/12 I do not want added traffic to the intersection of 78th Street and Galpin Blvd. 11/19/12 Traffic and Public Safety hazard It will create 11/19/12 Preserving the community This Intersecton Is already busy enough. This will lust Increase conjestion In the area. Furthermore 80 81 82 83 Paul Nyberg Chanhassen MN Melissa Windschitl Chanhassen MN Ralph Pamperin Chanhassen MN 55317 55317 55317 11/19/12 there are sufficient high density housing opportunities already close enough to this location, 11/20/12 I live In the neighboring development. 11/20/12 wetland protection, intersection safetly This Issue Is Important to me because I live a stones throw from this project and It's size would 84 85 dwarf anything else In the area have very high density and make our traffic congestion even worse. 86 Mark Magnuson Chanhassen MN 55317 11/21/12 I oppose this project. The Intersection of Galpin and 78th Is already a safety hazard - I can't Imagine adding this many 87 Maureen Magnuson Chanhassen MN Art Roberts Chanhassen MN 55317 55317 11/21/12 more vehicles. 11/21/12 Zoning violation, Huge people traffic versus fast auto traffic Adding that much traffic to that area will make It even more dangerous than It Is. Plus having a 88 89 BIII Olson Chanhassen MN 55317 11/22/12 building of that size, with hat many residents seems A bit out of place for that location. We live across the street from this 90 Lance Erickson Chanhassen MN Dan Geier Chanhassen MN Brenda Geler Chanhassen MN Roger Remaley Chanhassen MN 55317 55317 55317 55317 11/22/12 project, traffice would be a major probllem 11/26/12 Another decrease in our property value. 11/26/12 C 11/26/12 This Is a horrid Ideal The Intersection has too much congestion now and adding many cars Is a concern. There Is no safe 91 92 93 way for our kids to cross that road except the walk sign. Density Housing should be focused around 94 Dana Johnson Chanhassen MN 55317 11/26/12 the 212 highway. I do not believe this size of an apartment complex Is appropriate for this area. The Increased traffic down Galpin Blvd to Highway 7 Is not appropriate given the size of road way access of Galpin Blvd and W. 78th Street. The additional trips would make an already highly traveled stop light area tough to navigate. There Is a lot of traffic from Kwik Trip and CVS already that Imposes difficulties In getting around this area. It had never been planned for the Increase of 162 units which would equate to approx 250 additional cars which is 1.5 cars per apartment. Similar to Walmart and the 95 Todd SImning Chanhassen MN Barbara Miller Chanhassen MN 55317 55317 11/26/12 traffic congestion, this project is not conducive to this area. 11/27/12 Too much traffic congestion & construction 96 A 6 C F I G We moved to Chanhassen 2 years ago because of the beauty of the neighborhoods and how untouched they were by development. PLEASE do not build In this areal Please keep Chanhassen 97 Christina Crowther Chanhassen MN 55317 11/27/12 with the open spaces It has. Kevin Carlson Chanhassen MN 55317 11/27/12 Family safety Ordell & Sonia Lelnes Chanhassen MN 55317 11/27/12 Too high density for this neighborhood. I live nearly and do not want more traffic, nor more difficulty crossing 78th at Galpin In my car or 98 99 0 Karin Moore Chanhassen MN 55317 11/27/12 bicycle Erin Buss Chanhassen MN 55317 11/27/12 We live very close to this area and a project of this size Is just too much for the area. 101 102 David Buss Chanhassen MN 55317 11/27/12 This Is too large of a development for the area. My family walks past this corner every day walking the children to school. The traffic In and out 103 James Denton Chanhassen MN 55317 11/27/12 would destroy this experience. I live a mile away from this Intersection. My teenage son and I walk/run/bike around this area often and the extra traffic density would make this hazardous. I also think this Is not the logical area for an apartment building of this size. Rush hour traffic Is already difficult down Hwy 5. It would 104 Allison Fredlund Chanhassen MN 55317 11/27/12 make more sense to add an apartment building of this size closer to Hwy 212. If I wanted to live In Eden Prairie I would not have spent 850,00 on my house In Chanhassen. And, our property values are down, and this apartment complex would do nothing to Improve 105 Peter Polingo Chanhassen MN 55317 11/27/12 chanhassen, property values or the neighbors and neighborhood. Lynn Polingo Chanhassen MN 55317 11/27/12 We want to preserve our neighborhood values and value... West 78th Is a peaceful slow traffic area for families to walk dogs and ride bikes. A lot of kids are 6 able to ride to KwIkTHp during the summer, but with the huge amount of we traffic In that area It would become Increasingly more dangerous for families and kids to cross the street. This will also 107 Colleen O'Hare Miller Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 cause even more traffic Issues In Chanassen with rush hour traffic due to the Increase In traffic. Paulette Tomaschko Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 I am concerned about traffic In that corner --It's already BUSYI 108 109 MARILYN MATZKE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 11/28/12 CONGESTION, PROTECTION OF MARSHLAND My main concerns are the Increased traffic density In the area as a result of this. Also I am 110 Allen Hauwlller Maple Grove MN 55369-3 11/28/12 concerned about the wetland and zoning concerns with the proposed site. My niece's school Is across from where this building Is proposed. With the Increase In traffic this 111 Allen Steinke Minneapolis MN 55405 11/28/12 complex would bring, I worry about the safety of the children. Please do not allow the building of this large apartment complex. It will add much more traffic to an area that Isn't set up to accomodate It and take away from the beauty of the area. In addition It will 112 Al Crowther Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 tax our natural resouces Including nearby wetlands. 113 Jennifer Perrlli Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 We live off of Galpin and do not want to see addlitonal traffic and safety concerns. 114 Julie Sorensen Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 It Is too large and does not fit with the type of residential area. This project Is not In line with long term development plans of the city as I understand them. Major 115 Greg Maanum Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 concern about added traffic at Intersection so near an elementary school. 116 Cecilia Fredlund Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 2 117 Jackie Neva Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 Protect home value I will be moving to Chanhassen In the next year and I do not want the are "over -developed", I do 118 Edward Schultz Chaska MN 55318 11/28/12 not want the city's resources strained and traffic congested. Do not believe the Increase In traffic this development would bring to our neighborhood can be 119 Amy Steffen Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 handled In a safe and effective way. It IIs a poor environment to have people live In such a high density setting, surrounded by noise and traffic pollution. The higher density In our neighborhood will Impact traffic, parks, schools, and 120 Vera Brady Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 biking trails to the detriment of everyone. 121 Nancy Gomez Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 It would be too much traffic so close to a school. 122 Dale & Gloria Blom uist chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 too much traffic con estlon A B C D F I G The scale of this development contradicts the environmental and lifestyle goals that Chanhassen 123 Chris Conroy Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 stands for. Forcing that density and traffic Into that parcel will negatively Impact the area Primary concern Is for the safety of the citizens this vicinity related to traffic Incidents. A close 124 Rachelle Uberecken Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 second Is against the zoning changes that decrease property values In this area. STOP the proposed development of this high density apartment complex with parking for 350 autos; high density traffic Issues & safety risks; Intersection not currently designed to handle traffic flow through the Intersections at Galpin, West 78th and Hwy 5; according to the site drawing there Is only one entrance to the apartment complex which Is 78th Street for a minimum of 225 residents; negative Impact on property values for current homeowners In the area; environmental Impact/pollutlon; Increased costs to City of Chanhassen for city services. This property Is not currently zoned for this high density apartment complex; parcel Is currently designated for office use with less density per acre. You cannot justify the value of this proposed 225 unit apartment 125 Susan Blair Chanhassen MN 55317 11/28/12 development when conslderng the risks and negative Impact to the citizens of Chanhassen. Galpin Rd cuts right through all of our neighborhoods and In my opinion some of the nicest areas of the city. The Increased traffic that this will bring would diminish some of the reasons I just moved 126 Shane Waskey Chanhassen MN 55317 11/29/12 here. This project should be downsized In half or moved to commercial areas around Powers blvd. We live off Galpin. The traffic Is already too busy due to the recent addition of the high school. 127 Diana Noller Chanhassen MN 55317 11/29/12 Adding this building will dramatically Increase traffic and change the appeal of the area. Environmental Issues - Green space, wetlands; Safety - too congested In that area; Increased 128 Jeanette Taylor Minnetonka MN 55345 11/29/12 Crime 129 Judith Werner Chanhassen MN 55317 11/30/12 I am most concerned about the Increase In cars, traffic and safety In the neighborhood. This development Is not In line with the Comprehensive plan and would deteriorate the quality of life for area residents. In addition, having such a large unit development In such a small area will greatly Increase the safety risk for everyone living or travelling through this area. Besides the Increased traffic at an already dangerous Intersection, there will now be a reason for children living In the development to want to cross this major Intersection to go to CVS, Kwik Trip, or tc go to Bluff Creek Elementary/Chanhassen Recreation Center. Without an underpass or overpass, you will be putting chlldrens lives In jeopardy. To sum up, this Is not an appropriate development for this area 130 Michael H ermstad Chanhassen MN 55317 11/30/12 and should stay A2 for Office use. PROPOSED MOTION: "The Chanhassen Planning Commission provide the City Council with comments and feedback, along with staff's proposed comments listed in the staff report." PROPOSAL: Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) on approximately 14 acres of land located at the northwest corner 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. Americana Community Bank �^ 5125 CR 101, Suite 100 600 Market Street, Suite 100 d V� Minnetonka, MN 55345 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Paul Tucci Jim Swiontek 952-294-1234 952-937-9596 paulna.oppidan.com jims@americanfinancial.com ZONING: A2 Agricultural Estate District 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 SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval for a general concept plan for a PUD for 224 apartments. If the project is to proceed for preliminary or development plan approval, the application would include a land use amendment from office and residential low density to residential high density, a rezoning to Planned Unit Development — Residential from Agricultural Estate District, A2, and a site plan review. 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. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a general concept plan for a Planned Unit Development (PUD). 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 concept 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. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 2 of 20 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. The property would need a land use amendment to High Density, rezoning to PUD -R (allowing 16 units an acre) and site plan approval to proceed. BACKGROUND 2008 Comprehensive Plan changed the land use guiding to Office on the southern eight acres of property 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, two-story office building development including a bank with drive-thm facilities with approximately 66,000 square feet of floor area. *See attachment #3 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 78th Street. The land north of West 78th Street, which was proposed for townhouse development, was not approved as part of the concept planned unit development. In 2000 and 2001, West 78t' 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. December 12, 1998, the Chanhassen City Council adopts the Bluff Creek Overlay District. December 1996, Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan is completed. 1996, City Council adopts the Land Uses for the North 1995 Study Area, guiding this property for residential — low density use. In August 1995, the Highway 5 Corridor Land Use Design Study was completed. The bulk of the area was recommended for single-family residential. A portion of the Mills property (Arboretum Village site) was recommended for neighborhood convenience retail center, but only ancillary to office, institutional or multi -family residential. Highway 5 Corridor Design Standards adopted July 11, 1994. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 3 of 20 As part of the 1991 Comprehensive Plan, this property was included as part of the 1995 study area for determination of the land use of the property. On February 12, 1990, the Chanhassen City Council approved a zoning ordinance amendment making golf driving ranges interim uses in the A2 district. On November 16, 1987, the Chanhassen City Council approved a zoning ordinance amendment to permit golf driving ranges as a conditional use in the A2 zoning district and a conditional use permit for John Przymus for a golf driving range and miniature golf course at the subject property. On November 4, 1985, the Chanhassen City Council revoked the conditional use permit for a golf driving range at the northwest comer of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard due to non- compliance with the conditions of the conditional use permit. On December 19, 1983, the Chanhassen City Council approved a conditional use permit for a golf driving range at the northwest comer of Highway 5 and Galpin Blvd. APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Chapter 20: Article VIII, Planned Unit Development District, Article VI, Wetland Protection, Article VII, Shoreland Management district, Article XXXI, Bluff Creek Overlay District Concept PUD - What is required? The intent of the concept plan is to get direction from the Planning Commission and City Council without incurring a lot of expense. There will be a greater level of detail required through the city code and the recommendations and direction in this report. Following are the requirements for conceptual PUD approval. Chanhassen City Code, Section 20-517 General concept plan. (a) The general concept plan for a PUD provides an opportunity for the applicant to submit a plan to the city showing the basic intent and the general nature of the entire development without incurring substantial cost. The plan shall include the following: (1) Overall gross and net density. (2) Identification of each lot size and lot width. (3) General location of major streets and pedestrian ways. (4) General location and extent of public and common open space. (5) General location and type of land uses and intensities of development. (6) Staging and time schedule for development. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 4 of 20 (b) The tentative written consent of all property owners within the proposed PUD shall be filed with the city before the staff commences review. Approval of the concept statement shall not obligate the city to approve the final plan or any part thereof or to rezone the property to a planned unit development district. (c) The final acceptance of land uses is subject to the following procedures: (1) The developer meets with the city staff to discuss the proposed developments. (2) The applicant shall file the concept stage application and concept plan, together with all supporting data (3) The planning commission shall conduct a hearing and make recommendations to the city council. Notice of the hearing shall consist of a legal property description, description of request, and be published in the official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing, written notification of the hearing shall be mailed at least ten (10) days prior thereto to owners of land within five hundred (500) feet of the boundary of the property and an on-site notification sign erected. (4) Following the receipt of the report and recommendations from the planning commission, the city council shall consider the proposal. The council may comment on the concept plan. 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 Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 5 of 20 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 and includes 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 224 units including studio, one and two-bedroom apartments. Building materials are cement board and brick. The building would be three stories with underground parking. There is an additional 119 surface parking stalls provided with 127 underground stalls. Amenities for the apartments include a swimming pool and clubhouse. 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 (see attached zoning district). The following elements of the comprehensive plan discuss land use policies that should be evaluated in changing the land use. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 6 of 20 Chanter 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 Medium 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. 2.10 Office Land Use This 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, corporate headquarters site would be appropriate. The zoning district for the land is OI (Office Institutional District). 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 7.6.5 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. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 7 of 20 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. 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. d xUI ilQlllill .1s l?` 4X: i 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 Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 8 of 20 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. 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 proposed 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 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. A land use amendment to High Density Residential would be required to be consistent the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 9 of 20 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 subject site. The development proposes a pool and clubhouse. 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 be increase in overall trips. A more detailed traffic study would need to be completed to study the function of the intersection of Galpin and West 78a' 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. Finding. If the project moves beyond conceptual approval, preliminary PUD design standards will be created that will control the development of the project. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 10 of 20 Sec. 20-503. - District size and location. 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 S, 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 staff report. The development must receive a land use amendment, rezoning and site plan review approvals. Chapter 20 Article X H 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. Finding. 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. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 11 of 20 (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 and buffering for adjoining properties that represent improvements over normal ordinance standards. Finding: 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 must calculate the net developable acres of the site and wetland acreage. The project proposes using all of the area of the northern six -acre parcel including wetlands to develop this site, thus maximizing the density. (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. Finding. Not applicable with this request. The project will be market rate. (e) Hard surface coverage shall be limited as follows: Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 12 of 20 Comprehensive Plan Designation Hard Surface Coverage (%) Low or medium density residential 30 High density residential 50 Office 70 Commercial (neighborhood or community) 70 Commercial (regional) 70 Industrial 70 Mixed use 70 Individual lots within PUD may exceed these standards as long as the average meets these standards. Finding: The development appears to be under 50 percent hard cover. The developer shall provide the hard surface coverage calculation to confirm. (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 has a 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. One small portion of the building encroaches into the required setback The building shall be adjusted to meet the setback (g) More than one building may be placed on one platted or recorded lot in a PUD. Finding: The project proposes two apartment buildings and a clubhouse on one lot. The property will not be subdivided. Storm water and park and trail fees are collected with a subdivision. Because there is no platting, the city is requesting 50 percent of these fees in force at the time of project approval be paid if the project advances. (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 Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 13 of 20 other parties without restriction; however, all parcels will remain subject to the PUD development contract that will be recorded in each chain -of -title. Finding: 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. Finding: 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 five 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 property owner or a homeowners association shall be responsible for maintenance of the identification/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 =11 and XXV of this chapter may be applied by the city as it deems appropriate. Finding: The project will follow the city's design standards and landscaping, tree removal and buffering requirements (see m). (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. A traffic study will be required to determine if any improvements need to be made to the existing roadway system. Access to the site is via a collector street. The internal streets are private and shall meet the city's driveways standards. A traffic analysis was done comparing the current proposal with the Galpin Crossings proposal. The study found that the am and pm peak tips would be less, but there would be a minor increase in overall trips. A more detailed traffic study would need to be completed to study the function of the intersections of Galpin at West 78'h Street and Highway 5. (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. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 14 of 20 Finding. Not applicable at this time. (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. Finding. The area guided for low density land use designation 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. Finding. With a land use amendment to high density residential and the rezoning of the property, the standard would be met. Additional design standards will be generated as a part of the PUD review. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 15 of 20 (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. Finding. 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. (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 following landscaping requirements make the proposal consistent with the requirements: Parking lot requirements: • An island or peninsula for every 6000 square feet of vehicular use area. May need one more island in parking lot. • All islands must have minimum interior width of 10 feet. Building requirements: • Foundation plantings. • Headlight/traffic screening. Additional: • City boulevard trees must be protected during construction and replaced if damaged. Trees must be shown on plans. Plantings along the roads must comply with the bufferyard B standards of the city code. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 16 of 20 • Canopy coverage for site should be around 25% (78 trees or so) (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... Findings: The building will be reviewed under the city's design standards for multifamily development, Chapter 20, Article MR,, Division 9, including archictural style, materials, lighting, etc. as well at the R16 Zoning District. MnDOT requires that the building be designed for noise attenuation. The R16 zoning district permits a height of three stories or 35 feet. The pitch of the building's roof adds additional height making the building approximately 50 feet tall. The midpoint of the roof is used is used for calculated height. The PUD ordinance can address the height by permitting taller buildings. The building is highly articulated with pitched roofs and balconies, windows and patio doors. The materials are cement boards and brick. STREETS AND ACCESS Access to the site is proposed via two access points on West 78a' Street. The westerly access is a full access and the easterly access is a right-inhight-out only. Staff recommends that a traffic study be completed for the proposed development should the Planning Commission and City Council support the concept PUD. The study must address intersection of Galpin Boulevard at West 78t' Street and Highway 5. UTILITIES City sewer and water is available to the site. A preliminary utility plan would be required as part of any future development review. GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL A grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be required as part of the preliminary Planned Unit Development review for the project should it move beyond the concept stage. The concept plans prepared by Alliant Engineering; Incorporated on behalf of Oppidan dated 10/11/12 and were received by Chanhassen on November 2, 2012. The delineation preformed by Kjolhaug Environmental on November 2, 2012 was field reviewed. A final delineation report was submitted the afternoon of 11/19/2012. This report will need to be noticed to Technical Evaluation Panel members for review and comment prior to approval. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 17 of 20 The property is divided by West 78`s Street into two parcels. These parcels have been identified as Parcel A north of West 78`s Street and Parcel B to the south. BLUFF CREEK MANAGEMENT Parcel A includes a large wetland complex which is also the origination of Bluff Creek. Bluff Creek was listed as impaired for aquatic life due to high turbidity in 2002 and for low fish biota scores in 2004. Bluff Creek drains to the Lower Minnesota River which is also impaired due to elevated turbidity. Wetlands The area was first delineated in 2003 by Schoell and Madson, Inc. It was delineated again this fall by Kjolhaug Environmental. Both delineation reports found extensive wetlands on Parcel A. In addition, one wetland was found on Parcel B in both cases. However, in 2003 it was determined that this area was created incidental to the construction of West 78"' Street. Because Minnesota Rules 8420.0255, Subpart 4 states that an LGU decision is only valid for three (3) years, the applicant must request a No Loss decision. However, the determination from 2004 that the wetland was incidental to the construction of West 78n' Street can be used as evidence that a decision of No Loss should be granted for the wetland on Parcel B. Any impacts to wetlands would have to meet the sequencing requirements of Minnesota Rules, Chapter 8420. Avoidance is always preferred and economics cannot be the sole justification for wetland impacts. But these same rules do allow for the impact and replacement of wetlands provided that sufficient argument is made for why avoidance is not possible. Bluff Creek Overlay District A significant portion of Parcel A is within the Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD). It is required that the primary zone of the BCOD be preserved as open space and that any natural habitat areas, including wetlands, remain undisturbed. The intent of the Bluff Creek Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 18 of 20 Natural resources Management Plan was to protect the water quality of Bluff Creek and provide for a continuous greenway along Bluff Creek to the Minnesota River. Minnesota Shoreland Rules Parcel B is outside of the shoreland management district and would not be subject to the same lot and building requirements as Parcel A. Floodplain A substantial portion of Parcel A is within a flood hazard area Zone A. This flood hazard area is approximately coincidental with the BCOD. There is no established base flood elevation. No portion of Parcel B is within a flood zone. Soils Approximately 60 percent of Parcel A is mapped as Houghton and Muskego soils. Houghton soils have a profile which consists of muck to a depth of at least 80 inches. Muskego soils have a profile of muck overlying coprogeneous earth at a depth of 3 feet and extending to five feet or greater. Muck is defined as being dark, finely divided, well decomposed organic soil material. Muck soils and coprogenous soils are very poorly drained and make for extremely poor building sites. These soil types were confirmed during the construction of West 78th Street. Conclusion While some development of Parcel A is possible, the presence of wetlands, Bluff Creek, a shallow water table and poor soils make this parcel a difficult site for development. The Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act does not preclude wetland impacts provided adequate justification is given for why a project could not occur without wetland impacts. As such, while the wetland located on Parcel A within the BCOD would be protected from any and all impact, it is not possible to conclude that some development would not allow for some impacts to the wetland on Parcel A outside of the BCOD. Because of the constraints found on Parcel A and the desire to protect and improve the water quality of Bluff Creek, it would be my recommendation that Parcel A is preserved and that density is transferred to Parcel B. More specifically: 1. Parcel A is provided to the City for management consistent with the Bluff Creek Management Plan, the Bluff Creek TMDL and the 2ni1 Generation Surface Water Management Plan. 2. The applicant and the City should work together to develop an appropriate mitigation scenario. 3. That 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. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 19 of 20 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 Hwy 5. No additional parkland dedication is recommended as a condition of approval for this proposal. Trails The city trail along West 78`h Street provides access from this site to the four public parks in the area and the city's larger trail network. No additional trail construction is recommended as a condition of approval for this proposal. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Chanhassen Planning Commission provide the City Council with comments and feedback to along with the following comments: 1. A detailed traffic study would need to be completed to study the function of the intersection of Galpin Boulevard at West 78h Street and Highway 5. 2. Payment of 50% of the required park and trail dedication fee and stormwater fee at the rate in force upon final development approval. 3. Parcel A is provided to the City for management consistent with the Bluff Creek Management Plan, the Bluff Creek TMDL and the 2"a Generation Surface Water Management Plan. 4. The applicant and the City should work together to develop an appropriate mitigation scenario. 5. That 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. 6. Wetland delineation report shall be finalized. 7. A PUD Ordinance shall be created to govern the site and design standards. 8. The developer shall calculate hard surface coverage. 9. Buildings must meet the 50 -foot perimeter setback requirements. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development December 4, 2012 Page 20 of 20 10. The development shall meet multi -family design standards in Chapter 20, Article =II, Division 9. 1. Development Review Application. 2. Site Plan. 3. Existing Conditions. 4. Garage Level Plan. 5. First Level Plan. 6. Typical Floor Plan. 7. Elevations. 8. Galpin Crossing Concept Plan, 9. City Code Chapter 20, Article M. — "OP' Office and Institutional District. 10. Traffic Analysis from Alliant Engineering, Inc. dated November 20, 2012. 11. Letter from MnDOT dated November 20, 2012. 12. Letter from CenterPoint Energy dated November 6, 2012. 13. Affidavit of Mailing of Public Hearing Notice. 14. Letter from Mr. and Mrs. D.B. Dahlquist dated November 26, 2012. 15. Email from Erin Buss dated November 27, 2012. 16. Email from Alice English dated November 28, 2012. 17. "Preserve Chanhassen" Online Neighborhood Petition. gAp1an12012 planning cases12012-18 chanhassen apartnents\staff report pc.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Applicant Name and Address: Q 1pj� DAyn ZN C 515 1 1 M n nPbwn a m ) SS 3yS Contact: Paul L U cc i Phone: 9s�-2tiN-12..43 Fax:9sa-a�H-CI6-/ Email:OT oPP,&c,n, r6qy\ plans Consultation with City staff is required Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non -conforming Use Permit \/ 7_�'u, Planned Unit Development' C- C&"�Y� 1014.1 Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)' Subdivision` Planning Case No,:g01'3L-rii CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED NOV 0 2 2012 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Property Owner Name and Address: NMe121CAM0, �wmmUn��r, 13M�1C loop (1 A IFT .ST- � .te 16 fL Gha-At6 Bmf l �S3)`-)-NSL�j Contact: _-Tom Sw. r,,,�e K Phone:vs.;2-X13-7-1596 Fax: 9154-Ii3-7- `ISIS review of development Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) (Additional recording fees may apply) Variance (VAR) Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign $200 (City to install and re X Escrow fog Fees/Attorney Cost*' -$5( CURA/ACA/ARMAP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Mqi Jr UB TOTAL FEE $ An additional fee of $3.00 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. PROJECT NAME: LOCATION:_Ncr4kwe: i- Co(ner O -C H%i J vgoLj `O -(Vx ' 6a LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: 10 I S00 77SO TOTALACREAGE: WETLANDS PRESENT: X YES NO PRESENT ZONING: A - REQUESTED ZONING: Po -O PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: REQUESTED LAND USE C REASON FOR REQUEST: 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 Signature of Fee Owner gAplan\f r \development review applic tim.dm Date Date SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION PLEASE PRINT Applicant Name and Address: NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development' Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)' Subdivision` Planning Case No. Fax: , including review of development Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) (Additional recording fees may apply) Variance (VAR) Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign — $200 (City to install and remove) X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost*' - $50 CUP/SPR/VAC/VARANAP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB TOTAL FEE $ An additional fee of $3.00 pera dress within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. 'Five (5) full-size fold d copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy for each plan heet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 ('.tit) format. "Escrow will be rep(uired 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. Contact: Conta Phone: Fax: Email: Phone Email: NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development' Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)' Subdivision` Planning Case No. Fax: , including review of development Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) (Additional recording fees may apply) Variance (VAR) Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign — $200 (City to install and remove) X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost*' - $50 CUP/SPR/VAC/VARANAP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB TOTAL FEE $ An additional fee of $3.00 pera dress within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. 'Five (5) full-size fold d copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy for each plan heet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 ('.tit) format. "Escrow will be rep(uired 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. 1v Z Builder oftm = Creator of value. 5125 COUNTY ROAD 101 • #100 • MINNETONKA, MN 55345 • PHONE: 952/294-0353 • FAX: 952/294-0151 • WEB: www.oppidan.com November 1, 2012 Kathryn Aanenson, AICP, Community Development Director City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 CI?V OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED RE: Proposed Apartment Development NWC Highway 5 & Galpin Blvd NOV 02 2012 Chanhassen, MN C44NHASSENP LANNIN(; DEPT Dear Kate: This letter is designed to serve as a brief narrative for proposed apartment development at Galpin Boulevard and Highway 5. The highlights of the plans are as follow: • A new, market rate apartment building, containing 224 total units. • The target mix of unit is currently being finalized. Goal is to have 5-10% Studio Units, 55% One Bedroom Units and the balance 2 Bedroom Units. This will move a bit as design continues. • Parking will meet 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 washer and dryer and some units will be designed to have the potential for a fireplace. • The building exterior will be a combination of brick/block and cement board siding for the predominance of the building elevation. • 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 area and outdoor pool are planned on the southeast comer of the site. This will be appropriately fences and landscaped. • Outside sitting/park areas and trails will be provided to connect to the existing walkway system. A Market Study has been completed and the indication is that this product type and size is supportable in this location. The design and amenities are that of a Class A market rate facility. 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. Sincerel Paul J. i X axe n vmaxc roomewi � eo.eao s= HIGHWAY -'- MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (225 UNITS ±) GALPIN BLVD, CHANHASSEN ❑) CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED NOV 02 2012 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT SCANNED veNNme � ENIx.1HCC 1 BNIgNL F11T11Mi' L -7 / CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED NOV 02 2012 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT SCANNED | SNOIIICINOQ DNUm q�||§| __� _� _ H § !.I � U�• 1 1�'iq 11 f�i�� i �elii fl s W o 0 0 ap t W N z z Z> N a UU w W OCE O y Z U z= = U \ \ 4 8gL f' u S z a J a N W - J w o I. rill I f1W'i — W C� U � W V W � j W S N d W SUJ a UU WwZ U ¢ � z = U { •A A \ � � I Z I I � I � 1 ` I I � i Z I \ Z NN \ \ Q J y2 V \ y t00 J 00 \ J \ mm \\ I N o3 \ S i G s • � N �4 �i o -melt w�•• R 1-ii3l CCC �l I 11::1 C � I :11::1 - Ws:: iimm., C [[_I =CC -u::l I--- = H M � . a c L MIm:: MSI1 _. MU: C -C HUN ::a:: 9 � $ ie° q#q k � � 2 Rg g 8 ::}��ggeiiytBt�tF� C egg ggx {EY��S€fE :iy1B=R ieanss`sa i:� Y��SR 4'2 SSa SYi csg f�i d 00 W e U 9 � $ ie° q#q k � � 2 Rg g 8 ::}��ggeiiytBt�tF� C egg ggx {EY��S€fE :iy1B=R ieanss`sa i:� Y��SR 4'2 SSa SYi 2 3 2 2 F k � �1 s r R a 2 ;�p € f o � � r ry i ol Municode Page I of 3 Chanhassen, Minnesota, Code of Ordinances >> - CITY CODE >> Chapter 20 - ZONING >> ARTICLE XXI. - "OI" OFFICE AND INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT >> ARTICLE XXI. - "OI" OFFICE AND INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT Sec. 20-791. - Intent. Sec. 20-792.- Permitted uses. Sec. 20-793. - Permitted accessory uses Sec. 20-794. - Conditional uses. Sec. 20-795. - Lot requirements and setbacks. Sec. 20 -796. -Interim uses. Secs. 20-797-20-810. - Reserved. Sec. 20-791. - Intent. The intent of the "OI" district is to provide for public or quasi -public nonprofit uses and professional business and administrative offices. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V. § 15(5-15-1). 12-15-86) Sec. 20-792. - Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in an "OI" district: (1) Antennas as regulated by article XXX of this chapter. (2) Community center. (3) Churches. (4) Fire station. (5) Funeral homes. (6) Health services/hospitals. (7) Library. (8) Museum. (9) Nursing homes. (10) Offices. (11) Post office. (12) Public parks/open space. (13) Public recreational facilities. (14) Schools. (15) Utility services. (Ord. No. 80. Art. V, § 15(5-15-2), 12-15-86: Ord. No 259. § 25, 11-12-96, Ord. No. 377. § 107, 5-2404) Sec. 20-793. - Permitted accessory uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in the "OI" district: http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientlD=14048&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f... 11/28/2012 Municode Page 2 of 3 (1) Parking lots. (2) Signs. (3) Temporary outdoor sales (subject to the requirements of section 20-312). (Ord. No. 80. Art. V, § 15(5-15-3), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 243, § 13, 2-13-95: Ord. No. 377, § 108, 5-24-04) Sec. 20-794. - Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in the "OI" district: (1) Adaptive reuse of vacant public or private school buildings for private business uses. (2) Commercial towers as regulated by article XXX of this chapter. (Ord. No. 80. Art. V, § 15(5-15-4), 12-15-86: Ord. No. 259, § 26, 11-12-96) State law reference— Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595. Sec. 20-795. - Lot requirements and setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "OI" district subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter: (1) The minimum lot area is 15,000 square feet. (2) The minimum lot frontage is 75 feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de=sac shall have a minimum lot frontage of 60 feet. (3) The minimum lot depth is 150 feet. (4) The maximum lot coverage is 65 percent. (5) Off-street parking shall comply with district setback requirements except: a. There is no minimum setback when it abuts a railroad right-of-way, except as provided in chapter 20, article XXV, division 3, pertaining to landscaping requirements. b. There is no minimum setback when it abuts, without being separated by a street, another off-street parking area. C. The minimum setback is 50 feet when it abuts a residential district without being separated from the residential district by a street or railroad right-of-way. d• The minimum setback is 25 feet for side street side yards. (6) The maximum height is as follows: a. For the principal structure, two stories. b• For accessory structures, one story. (7) Minimum setback requirements: a. For front yards, 35 feet. b• For rear yards, 30 feet. C. For side yards, 15 feet. d. The minimum setback is 50 feet when it abuts a residential district without being separated from the residential district by a street or railroad right-of-way. (Ord. No. 80. An V. § 15(5-15-5), 12-15-86, Ord. No. 947 §§ 1, 6, 7-2'"x88; Ord, No. 451, § 7, 5-29-07) Sec. 20-796. - Interim uses. The following are interim uses in the "OI" district: http://library.municode.comlprint.aspx?h=&clientlD=14048&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f .. 11/28/2012 Municode Page 3 of 3 (1) Temporary classroom structures for use by public or private schools needed for temporary use. (Ord. No. 282. § 1. 6-22-98) Secs. 20-797-20-810. - Reserved. http://library.municode.comlprint.aspx?h=&clientlD=14048&HTMRequest=http%3a%2£.. 11/28/2012 _711111IF all Alliant Engineering, Inc. neenur�aa�arrararloxi MEMORANDUM DATE: November 20ih, 2012 TO: Paul Tucci - Oppidan FROM: Katie Schmidt, PE SUBJECT: Chanhassen Multi-FamilyDevelopment - Trip Generation Comparison This memorandum has been prepared to document the trip generation potential of the Chanhassen Multi - Family Development in Chanhassen, M. The trip generation of the Multi -Family Development has been compared to the trip generation potential of the previously approved office/residential land uses for the Galpin Crossing Development. The trip generation rates for the proposed and previously approved land uses were obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9" Edition. This manual is a compilation of daily and peak hour trip generation rates based on data collected from similar development sites. The estimated volume of site -generated trips for the weekday AM and PM Peak hours and on a daily basis for the proposed development is summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Proposed Multi -Family Development Trio Generation Trip Rate Vehicle Trips Land Use/ITE Code' ITE Unit No./Size AM PMz Daily AM PM Daily Apartments/220 DU 1 224 0.51 0.62 6.65 114 139 1490 Total Trips 114 139 1490 Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers. ' Trip rate for the AM and PM peak hour of adjacent street traffic. Table 2 details the estimated volume of site -generated trips for the previously approved Galpin Crossing Development. Table 2. Previousiv Approved Galuin Crossines Trip Generation Land Use/ITE Code' ITE Unit No./Size AM Trip Rate PM Daily AM Vehicle Trips PM Daily Bank (Drive-Thri)/912 Drive-Thru Lanes 1 4 9.29 1 33.24 1 139.25 37 133 557 General Office'/ 710 SF 61,000 1.56 1.49 11.03 95 91 673 Townhouse / 230 DU 3o 0.44 0.52 5.81 4 5 58 Total Trips 137 229 1288 ' Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip rate for the AM and PM peak hour of adjacent street traffic. ' The 5,000 SF 2nd story ofthe bank is assumed to be office space. The trip rate is per 1,000 SF. The difference in trips between the proposed Chanhassen Multi -Family Development and the previously approved Galpin Crossing Development is shown in Table 3. 233 Park Avenue South, Suite 300, Minneapolis Minnesota 55415-1108 Phone 612.767.9300, Fax 612.753.3099 Chanhassen Multi -Family Development — Trip Generation November 20th, 2012 Table 3. Difference in Trip Generation Scenario Vehicle Trips AM PM Daily Proposed Chanhassen Multi -Family Development 114 139 1490 Previously Approved Galpin Crossing 137 229 1288 Trip Difference -22 -90 202 -16% -39% 16% During the weekday AM and PM peak hours it is anticipated that there will be a lower number of trips for the proposed Multi -Family Development when compared to the previously approved Galpin Crossing Development. In particular 22 less trips or a reduction of 16% during the AM peak hour is estimated and 90 less trips or a reduction of 39% in the PM peak hour is estimated. There is a slight increase of 202 daily trips (16%). This increase will be insignificant as the residential trips are spread out during a 24- hour period with many occurring during off-peak traffic times. In summary, the trip generation for the proposed Chanhassen Multi -Family Development is estimated to generate a lower number of trips during the critical weekday AM and PM peak traffic hours than the previously approved Gaipin Crossing Development. On a daily basis the proposed Chanhassen Multi - Family Development is estimated to generate slightly more trips than the previously approved Galpin Crossing Development. This will be an insignificant increase as residential trips occur during a 24-hour period with many trips occurring during off-peak traffic times. It is noted that that the office land uses in the Galpin Crossing Development have usual weekday business hours with a very lower number of trips occurring outside regular business hours. Alliant Engineering, Inc. #12-0103 Page 2 "°'�tio Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan District Waters Edge Building 1500 County Road B2 West Roseville, MN 55113 November 20, 2012 Ms. Kate Aanenson, AICP Community Development Director 7700 Market Blvd. PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 SUBJECT: Chanhassen Apartments MnDOT Review # S 12-052 NW Corner of TH 5 and CR 117 (Galpin Blvd.) Chanhassen, Carver County Control Section 1002 Dear Ms. Aanenson: NOV 2 R 2012 CITY OF CHA. �R-iASSEN Thank you for the opportunity to review the Chanhassen Apartments Site Plan. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has reviewed the site plans and has the following comments: Water Resources: A MnDOT drainage permit will be required. The drainage permit application form can be found at hM://www.dot.state.mn.us/utili!y/fortns/index.html. The following information is required with the drainage permit application: • Final drainage plan showing storm sewer plan, storm sewer and culvert profiles and pond contours • Existing and proposed drainage area maps with flow arrows • Existing and proposed drainage/pond computations for the 2, 10, and 100 year rainfall events Addition information may be required once a drainage permit is submitted and after a detailed review. MnDOT will not allow an increase in discharge to MnDOT right-of-way. Please direct any questions regarding these issues to Hailu Shekur (651-234-7521 or hailu.shekurAstate.mn.us ) of MnDOT's Water Resources Engineering section. 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. 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. Review Submittal Options: MnDOT'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. MnDOT can accept the plans via e-mail at metrodevreviews.dot a)state.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: MnDOT — Metro District Planning Section Development Reviews Coordinator 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 3. One (1) compact disc. 4. Plans can also be submitted to MnDOT's External FTP Site. Please send files to: ftp://fto2.dot.state.mn.us/nub/incominp-/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.dot&state.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)234-7793. Sincerely, Michael J. Corbett, PE Senior Planner 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. 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 MnDOTs noise policy please contact Peter Wasko in our Design section at (651) 234- 7681. Review Submittal Options: MnDOT'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 pd£ version of the plans. MnDOT can accept the plans via e-mail at metrodevreviews.dot@state.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: MnDOT — Metro District Planning Section Development Reviews Coordinator 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 3. One (1) compact disc. 4. Plans can also be submitted to MnDOT's External FTP Site. Please send files to: ftp://fty2.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.dot(a�state.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) 234-7793. Sincerely, Michael J. Corbett, PE Senior Planner Copy sent via E -Mail: Hailu Shekur, Water Resources Diane Langenbach, Area Engineer Peter Wasko, Design Nancy Jacobson, Design Dale Gade, Design Buck Craig, Pennits Dale Matti, Right -of -Way Steve Channer, Right -of -Way David Sheen, Traffic Engineering Clare Lackey, Traffic Engineering Ann Braden, Metropolitan Council le,-CenterPoint® Energy November 6, 2012 Kate Aanenson AICP, Community Development Dir. 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 5530117 RE: Proposed request for Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) Located at: 7750 Galpin Boulevard, Chanhassen MN, 55317. Dear Ms. Aanenson: 700 West Linden Avenue PO Box 1165 Minneapolis, MN 55440-1165 With reference to your request, CenterPoint Energy has no natural gas facilities within the property PID area of 250101800, but has mains in the Right of Way of the surrounding roads of Galpin Blvd and 78" Street West. For gas service to your proposed development please contact Cherie Monson at 612-321-5435 or email her at Cherie.monson@centerpointenergy.com If you have any questions, please contact me at 612-321-5381. Respectfully, CENTERPOINT ENERGY Chuck Mayers Right -of -Way Administrator 612-321-5381 RECEINED NOV 8 - 2012 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 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 November 21, 2012, 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 2012-18 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A', by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Subscribed and sworn to before me thisa6*1 ' day of I400ermbe,- , 2012. LAIA�,,h�g., KIM T. MEUWISSEN Notary Public -Minnesota Notary P blit �,y cpmm�s w FxWres Ja^ 31.2ot5 Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of theagenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a Proposal: 224 -unit Apartment Building on 8.08 acres of property zoned Agricultural Estate A2 — Chanhassen Apartments Applicant: Oppidan, 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 public hearing through the following steps: What Happens 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. at 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 oroiect. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2012-18. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate Aanenson by Questions & email at kaanenson(Mci.chanhassen.rill or by phone at Questions & 952-227-1129. 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 writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete, Any person wishing to follow an item through the. process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is 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 Stag person named on the notification. Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of theagenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a Proposal: 224 -unit Apartment Building on 8.08 acres of property zoned Agricultural Estate A2 — Chanhassen Apartments Applicant Oppidan, 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 public hearing through the following steps: What Happens 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. at 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/2012-18. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate Aanenson by Questions & email at kaanensonCcDci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at 952-227-1129. 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 writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take severe[ months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested persorl • 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, lease 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 WI 54602-2107 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 553174506 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 553171506 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 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 553174536 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 WI 54602-2107 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 553174506 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 553174536 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 11/26/12 TO: Mayor Tom Furlong tfurlon¢CiDci.chanhassen.mn.us Council Member; Bethany Tjornhom btiornhorn@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Jerry McDonald imcdonaldCcDci.chanhassen.mn.us RE: Proposed 244 Unit Apartment Building at Highway #5, Galpin, and 781h Street; CASE 2012-18 First, to our two re-elected Council Members, congratulations. Next, to our good mayor Tom Furlong, thank you for your leadership and especially in managing our property taxes yet providing the solid services we enjoy. Next, concerning the proposed Apartment Building for the triangle shaped property at 7750 Galpin and 78th Street, adjacent and north of Highway of Highway #5. We ask that you Mr. Mayor and our City of Chanhassen council members PLEASE do not approve this apartment "case 2012-18" proposal The original proposal for this property for a one story professional building caused concerns but seemed more suited for the property and acceptable than this apartment proposal. The current, existing zoning seems thought out and correct. A zoning change to accommodate the increased population of 244 unit renters and 350 auto's does not seem acceptable. The increased daily traffic at the corners of 78th Street and Galpin and 78th Street and Century would cause tremendous congestion and dangers. Actually any apartment building structure should not be a consideration for this property. May we suggest alternative solutions and locations. The location previously considered for a Walmart has the necessary city traffic controls already installed. The site at Powers Blvd. intersection, south of Highway #5. seems apropos. This site is closer to (1) the city commerce and (2) the new Southwest bus ramp, and (3) will be closer to the future light-rail extension depot, (4) no re -zoning would be necessary, (5) the water run off would not require re-classifying property across 78th Street. The height of the proposed apartment can be higher considering the adjacent properties, unlike the Galpin site. Finally, the city of Chanhassen already has similar apartment buildings only blocks from this recommended site. Another apartment building location suggestion is on the north side of Highway #5 on Powers Blvd. and 78th Street. This property shape is similar to the Galpin property also being triangular. Water parking lot run off could be achieved into the pond on the EKCANCAR property. The listed above advantages pertain to this site too, plus the advantage of a top light at the corner of Power Blvd. and 78th Street. We hope this is helpful. We again ask that this apartment proposal at 7750 Galpin, and 78th Street, north of Highway #5, NOT be approved. Regards, Mr. and Mrs. D.B. Dahlquist 7634 Prairie Flower Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Aanenson, Kate From: Erin Buss [ekbusser@msn.comj Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 8:03 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: FW: Aparment Building Proposal Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed It was suggested you be copied on all emails regarding this topic. Have a great day. From: ekbusser(almsn com To: btjornhom(&ci.chanhassen.mn us Subject: Aparment Building Proposal Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 16:45:03 -0600 Dear Ms. Tjornhom: Congratulations on your recent reelection! I'm proud to say I voted for you. I have recently discovered the proposed development of the property on the corner of 78th/Galpin/Hwy 5. I feel strongly that this development is wrong for the City and very wrong for this area of Chanhassen. I also feel that the council should conduct a town hall style forum with the neighborhood prior to voting on this development. Below are some of my concerns about this development. 1. School Area/Traffic - My daughter attends Bluff Creek Elementary. I have very real and strong worries about adding as many as 500 additional cars to the area near the school. There is already a fair amount of bus traffic before and after school in this area. If the concerns are true that a stop light could not be placed at the corner of 78th and Galpin, that corner will become extremely difficult to cross, especially with the addition of so many vehicles. I fear a situation of someone who really wants to cross that intersection and hits a school bus full of our children. Further, many people walk to CVS or Kwik Trip to get a perscription or grab a newspaper. The addition of all of these vehicles could create a very dangerous situation for pedestrians. 2. This development is just too too large - The zoning for the area is currently for office use - not for High Density Occupancy. The Proposed Development requires a change to PUDR or High Density Residential. The density of units would be in excess of 27 units per acre. Per the 2030 land use map the net density for residential high density is actually 8-16 units per acre. A development like this may be more suited to an area near hwy 212 which has easier access to the highway. 3. Affects to the Bluff Creek Wetlands - While this site is not directly adjacent to any wetlands, the proximity to it as well as the proposed underground garage suggest runoff and raises environmental concerns. 4. Police/Safety - A development of this size is very likely to strain resources and cost the city to upgrade existing utilities (water, police, fire) leaving very little realized tax income to the city. As noted in the recent citizen action against the proposed Chanhassen Walmart, the net realized tax income was greatly offset and amounted to just over $1,000 a month due to increased investment to utilities. Additionally, renters just don't have the same sense of community and responsibility that an owner does. By it's nature, apartment complexes are renting establishments that require significantly more attention by police and saftey personnel. This situation is not ideal for an area already raising many young families. I hope that the Council and Planning Commission will say NO to this development. It's not right for Chanhassen I am happy to discuss this with you further. Thank you so much for your time. Sincerely, Erin Buss 7638 Arboretum Village Place Chanhassen, MN 55317 Aanenson, Kate From: Alice English [dnaenglish2@att.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 6:56 AM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Re: Apartment Proposal at Galpin Blvd. Dear Kate Aanenson - My name is Alice English and I live in the Walnut Grove Homeowners Assn. on Galpin Blvd. 1 would appreciate your consideration with the following concerns of a possible apartment complex on Galpin. My serious concerns are: :Apartment complex could affect the value of our property. :Galpin Blvd. would have greater traffic congestion. :Apartment complex could have a potential for increased crime. I highly recommend DENYING this apartment project and 1 thank you for your consideration. Alice English CAMERICANA COMMUNITY BANK Date: December 3, 2012 To: Kate Aanenson Community Developmer Director, City of Chanhassen From: James J. Swiontek // Sr. Credit Officer, Americana Community Bank RE: Galpin Boulevard Property This memo is to present facts regarding the role Americana Community Bank has had in the sale of the land at the corner of Galpin Boulevard and Highway 5 in Chanhassen. Americana Community Bank (ACB), along with two other community banks, became the owner of the Galpin Boulevard property through a default by a borrower in March, 2009. Community banks are prohibited from developing real estate or speculating on real estate development. They are also prohibited from owning land that was acquired through a default for an indefinite period of time. The Galpin Boulevard property has been listed with a realtor since the default of the borrower and was recently sold to Oppidan, Inc. Oppidan, Inc. and the three banks are buyer and sellers, respectively, and have no other ties in this transaction. The buyer and the City of Chanhassen have been working on concept plans for the property, which are now before the City of Chanhassen Planning Commission. Administrative Office 600 Market Street, Suite 230, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone 952.230.9720, Fax 952.230.9727 RE: Conceptual Planned Unit Development at 7750 Galpin Boulevard Case #: 2012-18 Date: December 4, 2012 My name is Gerald Wolfe and I live at 7755 Vasserman Trail. I am in the first twinhome on the east side of Vasserman Trail. The north parcel (Parcel A) of the proposed development abuts the back of my property and the south parcel (Parcel B) is directly across 78th street. Along with our "roof -mates" we are the closest residential property to the proposed development and will be looking directly at it day in and day out. I have studied the entire 20 page Planning Department Staff Summary on the proposed development and have looked over the remaining 30 pages of attachments giving some of the attachments more scrutiny than others and I have spent hours (literally) writing and rewriting this document attempting, without success, to shorten its length. So, rather than use an inordinate amount of time at the Planning Commission meeting reading it into the minutes I decided to send this to Kate Aanenson and have her include it in your packets. I first want to say, for the record, that I'm not against development on Parcel B of this proposal and I'm not against an apartment building being that development if everyone agrees that is the best use for the property. However, I am against an apartment building of 3 stories and 224 units. It is simply too large for the site and proximity to the R4 Mixed Low Density Residential District of Vasserman Ridge. My first choice for development would be for office buildings similar to those in the 2006 Galpin Crossings proposal and secondly for an apartment building. Since the proposal before us is for the apartment building let's discuss it. I want to start with the proposed transfer of density from Parcel A to Parcel B. The developer is using 100% of the size of Parcel A to come up with a density transfer of 96 units to Parcel B. You all know what Parcel A's property looks like and the difficulties it presents for anyone desiring to develop it. The staff report conclusion on page 18 states that "while some development of Parcel A is possible, the presence of wetlands, Bluff Creek, a shallow water table and poor soils make this parcel a difficult site for development". Because of this any development of Parcel A will most likely make the preparation of the site for building extremely expensive and those increased costs would probably mean there would be little or no profit in developing the property. And, it is no secret that the residents along the east side of Vasserman Trail would prefer to see Parcel A remain in its current state as would many others in the Vasserman Ridge neighborhood. So, transfer of density makes sense in order to keep Parcel A as is. Having said that, I also believe that even without this transfer'of density Parcel A will remain undeveloped simply because of the difficulty and cost of developing the property. And, without the transfer of density the apartment complex will be much smaller in size and more palatable to everyone. On page 11 of the Staff report under letter (c) Density, in the Findings paragraph at the bottom staff states that the "developer must calculate the net developable acres of the site" and under number 1 of letter (c) it says that this number is to be used in determining the density per acre. As an aside, I believe this causes a conflict of interest to allow the developer to do this calculation because it is in their best interest to make that number as large as possible. For the proposal before us the developer has used 100% of the acreage of both parcels to come up with a maximum of 224 units. If the transfer of density from Parcel A to Parcel B is denied then the apartment could only be a maximum of 128 units. Since we know there are wetlands on Parcel A not all the land is developable which means that the building cannot be 224 units unless the Planning Commission and City Council waives the 16 unit maximum on net developable acres. Please don't do that. It is my understanding that there is estimated 2 to be up to 1.5 acres of wetland on Parcel A. Since net developable acres eliminates wetland acreage from total acres that means that only about 4.5 acres are developable on Parcel A. A sewer line bisects across the north end of Parcel A and I know nothing can be built on top of this sewer line so I'm not sure if that land can be considered developable or not. And, I suppose there could be other factors which could reduce this even more. For sure we know that 1.5 acres is not developable so assuming a transfer of density, the development can have a maximum of 200 units or 72 units more than if the transfer of density were denied. A drop from 224 to 200 is not a huge difference but enough that it will throw off the sizing of the current proposal and require some redesign of the buildings. But, it is still too large. I would suggest that transferring the density from Parcel A and then limiting the maximum size of the apartment to 2 stories and a maximum of 140 units comprised of 1, 1+den, 2 and 2+den bedroom units would make much more sense. On page 9 under point number 8 in the Analysis staff says the building will provide noise and light attenuation to the neighboring residential low density lands to the north and northwest. With all due respect to the staff I have to say this is a moot point. We already have light attenuation because of the mature trees along part of the east side and the entire south side of Parcel B. These mature trees provide almost 100% blocking of lights along Galpin Blvd and Hwy 5. 1 hope, if this proposal goes forward, the city will not allow the developer to cut down those beautiful mature trees. To be clear, I have absolutely no problem with light from vehicles, stop lights, Hwy lighting or the lights on the CVS Pharmacy. I do see light from the Kwik Trip but it does not cause any kind of inconvenience to me due to the way it is installed. The only thing an apartment building will do is completely block my view of Hwy 5 even when I want to be able to see it and force all residents of the apartment along Galpin Blvd. to look directly at the lighting from the CVS Pharmacy and Kwik Trip. As for noise reduction, in my opinion, there would be no attenuation of that from the apartment building at all. There is a 100% open view of Hwy 5 immediately to the west of the proposed 3 development and noise from Hwy 5 will not be lessened because a building is present. The people that will have to deal with noise, dirt and light are the people in the approximately 75 units of the proposed development that will look directly on Hwy 5 from about 100 feet away with nothing to attenuate that noise and lighting. I'm not sure who would want to pay $1100 or more per month to have that view and to deal with that noise. I suggest that the developer do something to block that view for those apartments on the south side of the development or I believe those units will be very difficult to rent. On page 16 under the Streets and Access heading it says the easterly access will be a right-in/right-out access. The developer said at our neighborhood meeting that this would be enforced with a "pork chop" island. With all due respect to the developer and anyone else who believes a pork chop island will stop vehicles coming from the east from entering the development at that entrance, I say you are naive, it simply will not work. 78th street is wide enough for a driver to easily make a U-turn to use that entrance to access the development and I believe many, if not most, of the residents of the east building will make that U-turn even, I suspect, if a no U-turn sign is present. I see many people making U-turns now and there is no development to access. And, those U-turns will increase the possibility of accidents. Even extending the median, unless it is extended almost all the way to the west entrance, will not stop U-turns to use the east entrance. It only makes sense that drivers will make the U-turn because why would you want to enter the property at the west entrance if you park your car in the underground parking of the east building whose entrance is just inside the east entrance to the development? I would do it if I lived in that complex. And, face it, most people will be coming off Galpin to enter the complex simply due to the fact that downtown Chanhassen and almost all business and shopping areas are to the east. I don't really know what a solution to this problem would be except for the extension of the median all the way to the west entrance. 4 On page 8 of the staff report under number 1 it says that Parcel A will never be developed because its density will have been transferred to Parcel B. I think I remember the developer mentioning at the neighborhood meeting that they might be required to put a storm water pond on Parcel A to handle the run off from the parking lot. I would suggest that it would greatly improve the visual palette of Parcel A to have that pond be quite large and geometrically aesthetic with a fountain in it to keep the water from stagnating and becoming a mosquito breeding spot, a walking path around it (preferably paved), trees, shrubs, grasses and possibly flowers in season for landscaping and a few sifting areas with benches. It might be reasonable to determine if it would be feasible or desirable to connect this pond to the existing storm water pond of the Vasserman Ridge neighborhood. This would improve Parcel A aesthetically and give the renters and others a pleasant place to view, relax at and watch the wildlife. The apartment management company would be responsible to maintain the fountain and keep the grass and landscaping watered and mowed. Also, on page 8 under number 3 it says the building will be cement board and brick. This is proposed as an upscale development therefore, I would like to see the building be all brick and other decorative stone work and masonry rather than a lot of cement board which will have to be painted every 5-8 years. On Page 15 under letter (d) Protection and preservation of natural features staff says that the "applicant must demonstrate that the flexibility provided by the PUD is used to protect and preserve natural features such as tree stands". Under letter (e) Landscaping plan and number (4) Tree preservation staff states that "tree preservation is a primary goal of the PUD". And, at the top of page 16 staff says "Canopy coverage for the site should be around 25% (78 trees or so)". There are at least 20 mature deciduous trees (I counted them) and a couple of mature pine trees on Parcel B. I think those trees appear to be where the building footprint shown on the proposal plans will fall which means those trees will end up being cut down. In order to meet the 5 requirements stated please require the developer to change the location of the building enough to spare the demise of as many of those mature trees as possible? Again, on Page 15 under letter (e)'s Findings and under the Building requirements heading staff says that the developer will need to provide head light/traffic screening. I'm assuming that means for the 1st floor residents of the building. However, I would like to see something done along the north side of 78th street to screen headlights from our twinhome building. Currently, vehicle headlights shine right into our sunporch and bedroom windows as they come around the curve from Galpin Blvd. With the additional vehicles driving into the apartment complex at all hours of the night that will significantly increase that intrusion into our homes. So, the addition of some tall pine trees on the north side of 78th street to mitigate vehicle headlights shining into our homes would be desirable. In order to accomplish this trees would have to be placed on Parcel A from approximately half the distance between the yellow diamond shaped sign and the fire hydrant to an equal distance west of the fire hydrant. Since the developer is proposing this as a "market rate" development I would like something put in the covenants of the property to preclude a future investor from changing that designation to low -rent or Section -8 use. And, finally, I do not know how good the soil is on Parcel B. But if the contractor has to drive pilings to provide solid footings for the complex can the developer and/or contractor be required to carry insurance to cover any damage to our foundations and/or interior walls and ceilings? I know this isn't something the city normally requires but, if pilings need to be installed, could it be done for this project so we don't have to sue the developer/contractor to fix any damage that may occur? At the very least there should be something in writing as part of the formal documentation on this project that obligates the developer and/or contractor to repair any and all damage incurred to residential or commercial property due to the driving of pilings. 3 I hope that if you approve this concept PUD that it will be for no more than 2 stories and no more than 140 units with the building(s) being all brick, stone and masonry with the units being 1, 1+den, 2 and 2+den sizes. There should be no studio apartments unless those studios are furnished and permanently reserved for use by resident guests. Underground parking should provide 1 parking spot for each apartment with some additional spots available for rent to residents with 2 vehicles. If you have read this entire document, I thank you for your interest and concern to do your job well. Aanenson, Kate From: Norma May [cornercotg@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 3:49 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Cc: Chuck Engh; William and Barbara Brown Subject: Proposed Apartment Complex at 7750 Galpin Blvd. Dear Ms. Aanenson-- I am a homeowner near the the site of the the proposed apartment complex at 7750 Galpin Blvd. I have reviewed the relevant documents on the Planning Commission section of the City website. I am against changing the current zoning, and I request that the Planning Commission deny approval to change the zoning. This site is appropriately zoned for office/professional use. But even if the zoning were changed to High Density Residential, using the City's density criteria, the site is too small to accommodate the proposed number of units. And reclassifying property on the north side of W. 78th and transferring the density to the other plot is a dishonest remedy, in my view. This site is too small for the proposed use as a 224 -unit apartment building. Surely there must be land elsewhere within Chanhassen where such a project can be built without compromising the City's comprehensive plan standards. Ms. Aanenson, as a Chanhassen resident, homeowner, and voter, I oppose this development and I urge you and the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council that the zoning changes needed for this project not be approved and no apartments be built at this location. Sincerely, Norma J. May 2050 Clover Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 Aanenson, Kate From: Karen Suedmeyer [bogeykas@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:47 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Galpin Blvd/proposed Chanhassen Apartments. Please pass this message on to the appropriate individuals within the City Planning Commission. I am very surprised and concerned that the City of Chanhassen would consider this large of a complex in the middle of what is already a very busy and congested area of the City, along with the fact that it would be in very close proximity to a school with children trying to cross already congested streets via both bicycles as well as by foot. This just doesn't sound like something that has been very well thought through. Chanhassen has historically spent significant time and money to give clear thought and foresight toward zoning issues taking into consideration what is in the best interest of the City, community, and it's residents. I think the current zoning should stand, which was well thought through and with clear rationale behind the thought process. The proposed plan sounds more like a short term access to additional dollars for the City, without thinking this through thoroughly and assessing the long term impacts. I clearly do NOT support this proposal. A very concerned citizen, K.A. Suedmeyer. Sent from my iPad 1 Aanenson, Kate From: Andrew Aller [aaller@mchsi.com] Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 8:04 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Community Contact - Proposed Apartment Complex @ Galpin & 78TH Kate - I received a VM message from Dan Beno (952)-474-1104 Thursday 11/29/12 at @ 3:15 pm requesting a call back regarding the proposed project. You might do a quick call back to him, or I can if you prefer. I still like written submissions, attendance and open discussion at the hearing, or both for a cleaner record. Tonight, I spoke with Ms. Mary K Roberts of 7762 Vasserman Place, and intends to be at the hearing: She stated that she attended the neighborhood meeting and thought very well done. Has primary concerns regarding Density and Public Safety: Thinks the Buildings too large for the lot and too many people in small area. Believes Crossings will be hazardous for children and pedestrians. (she is a walker and doesn't like the lack of X -walks and lights even now). Higher density will most likely bring more children using school and rec center and walking across 78`h, Galpin, & 5 Also concerned with the maintenance for the buildings once developer sells. 1 requested that she make these points and any others at the meeting, and thanked her for her interest and participation. Andrew Aller Aanenson, Kate From: Les & Carol Anderson [lesancar@me.com] Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 9:19 PM To: Aanenson, Kate; City Council; Furlong, Tom; Hokkanen, Lisa Subject: Galpin Apartment Project I live in the Walnut Grove Community on Clover Court. I attended the neighborhood meeting last night on this project by Oppidan Inc. The presentation was very complete and there was a lot of good discussion. However I came away from the meeting like most of the community members, very concerned that this project should not proceed. Building this large apartment project on that small parcel of land seems to make a mockery of the zoning ordinance. This is VERY HIGH DENSITY project and does not belong in that location and our neighborhood. In addition the intersection of Galpin and Highway 5 is already a major problem. The short distance to W 78th Street and traffic from this project would make that intersection even more hazardous. This project is NOT a good fit for our community. Please reject this project. 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN STAFF REPORT PC DATE: May 2, 2006 CC DATE: May 22, 2006 REVIEW DEADLINE: May 29, 2006 CA : 06-13 BY:, G, LH, ML, JM, JS PROPOSAL:Galpin Crossing Twinhomes - Request for rezoning from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Planned Unit Development — Residential, PUD -R; Preliminary plat approval creating 13 lots and one Outlot with a Variance for a private street and more than four homes accessing a private street; and Conditional Use Permit for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. LOCATION: North of West 78d' Street and west of Galpin Boulevard APPLICANT: Rich Ragatz — Epic Development XVI, LLC 9820 Sky Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55347 (612)730-2814 rragatz@earthlink.net PRESENT ZONING: A2, Agricultural Estate District 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential — Low Density (net density range 1.2 — 4.0 units per acre) ACREAGE: 6.09 DENSITY: gross - 1.97; net — 3.17 SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Request for a rezoning to Planned Unit Development — Residential to permit a 12 -unit (6 -structure) twin home development including a subdivision with a variance for the use of a private street and to permit more than 4 units to be accessed via the private street and a conditional use permit to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving rezonings, PUD's, and amendments to PUD's because the City is acting in its legislative or policy making capacity. A rezoning or PUD, and amendment thereto, must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The City's discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi judicial decision. The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Subdivision 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. Galpin Crossing Twinhomes Planning Case 06-13 May 2, 2006 Page 2 of 19 The City has limited discretion in approving or denying conditional use permits, based on whether or not the proposal meets the conditional use permit standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. If the City finds that all the applicable conditional use permit standards are met, the permit must be approved. This is a quasi judicial decision. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing a 12 -unit (6 -building) twin home development on six acres of land. The site is constrained on the north by Bluff Creek and the Bluff Creek Primary zone, on the south by West 7811 Street, a collector street, to the east by Galpin Boulevard, a collector street, and to the west by Vasserman Ridge, a storm water pond and electric transmission line. Though fronting on a public right-of-way, direct lot access onto a collector street is prohibited. The proposed units will be accessed via a private street. City utilities are available to the site. Bluff Creek and a wetland encompass the northern portion of the site. The site was previously used as the field area for a golf driving range. Trees exist along the western property line and adjacent to Bluff Creek. The city has a sanitary sewer trunk main running across the northern portion of the property. The high point of the property lies in the southeast corner and slopes towards the wetland and Bluff Creek. The area south of West 78h Street drains to the site via a culvert. The overhead power lines west of the west property line will remain. The property to the north is zoned Agricultural Estate District, but guided for residential — low density development, and contains a farmstead owned by Theodore Bentz. To the east is Galpin Boulevard and property owned by the City adjacent to Bluff Creek. To the south is West 781` Street and property that has concept Planned Unit Development approval for either a "family fun center" or an office park. The property to the west contains electrical towers and transmission lines, a storm water pond and twin homes within the Vasserman Ridge development. Under a perfect development scenario, this parcel would be used for open space purposes and stormwater ponding in conjunction with the parcel south of West 78th Street. This development configuration would permit an intensification of the use of the parcel adjacent to Highway 5, specifically permitting higher impervious area Stats is recommending approval of the development subject to the conditions of the staff report. APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Chapter 18 Subdivisions Chapter 20, Article II, Division 2, Amendments Chapter 20, Article IV, Conditional Use Permits Chapter 20, Article VI, Wetland Protection Chapter 20, Article VII, Shoreline Management Chapter 20, Article VIII, Planned Unit Development District Chapter 20, Article XXIX, Highway Corridor District Chapter 20, Article XXXI, Bluff Creek Overlay District Galpin Crossing Twinhomes Planning Case 06-13 May 2, 2006 Page 3 of 19 BACKGROUND On December 12, 2005, the Chanhassen City Council approved the concept planned unit development for a twin home (north of West 78th Street) and office development (south of West 78t' Street) project. 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 78t' Street. The land north of West 78th Street, which was proposed for townhouse development, was not approved as part of the concept planned unit development. In 2000 and 2001, West 78th 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. December 12, 1998, the Chanhassen City Council adopts the Bluff Creek Overlay District. December 1996, Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan is completed. 1996, City Council adopts the Land Uses for the North 1995 Study Area, guiding this property for residential — low density use. In August 1995, the Highway 5 Corridor Land Use Design Study was completed. The bulk of the area was recommended for single-family residential. A portion of the Mills property (Arboretum Village site) was recommended for neighborhood convenience retail center, but only ancillary to office, institutional or multi -family residential. Highway 5 Corridor Design Standards adopted July 11, 1994. As part of the 1991 Comprehensive Plan, this property was included as part of the 1995 study area for determination of the land use of the property. On February 12, 1990, the Chanhassen City Council approved a zoning ordinance amendment making golf driving ranges interim uses in the A2 district. On November 16, 1987, the Chanhassen City Council approved a zoning ordinance amendment to permit golf driving ranges as a conditional use in the A2 zoning district and a conditional use permit for John Przymus for a golf driving range and miniature golf course at the subject property. On November 4, 1985, the Chanhassen City Council revoked the conditional use permit for a golf driving range at the northwest comer of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard due to non- compliance with the conditions of the conditional use permit. On December 19, 1983, the Chanhassen City Council approved a conditional use pemmit for a golf driving range at the northwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Blvd. Galpin Crossing Twinhomes Planning Case 06-13 May 2, 2006 Page 4 of 19 Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD in this instance is to create a twin - home development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. 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 including the provision of development design standards for the structures, which would not be possible under standard zoning. The proposed development provides a compatible development with the surrounding development, provides a transition of uses from the highway to the residential development to the north, and preserves the Bluff Creek corridor within a separate outlot. Alternatively under the Residential — Low Density land use, the project could development under the Mixed Low Density Development (R4) District or Residential Low and Medium Density (RLM) standards for twin homes. * Required setback from West 781° Street Based on the standards zoning ordinances, the developer may not be able to plat 12 units under the R4 zoning categories. At a minimum, the plat would have to be significantly revised to determine compliance. It appears more feasible under the RLM zoning. A twin home development assists in the furtherance of the following land use policies of the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan: • Development will be encouraged within the MUSA line. • Encourage low density residential development in appropriate areas of the community in a manner that reinforces the character and integrity of existing single-family neighborhoods (the proposed twin homes would continue the development of twin homes in the southeast corner of the Vasserman Ridge development to the west of the site). • The plan should seek to establish sufficient land to provide a full range of housing opportunities. • The city will seek opportunities to provide transitions between different uses of different types. • Development should be phased in accordance with the ability of the city to provide services. Area (sq. ft.) per unit Frontage (ft.) per Depth (ft.) Setbacks: Front unit Rear, Side ft. R4 10,000 50 125 30, 10, 30 RLM 7,260 50 100 25, 10, 25 PUDR 3,330 (Avg. 3,668 45 74 50*, 0, 0 * Required setback from West 781° Street Based on the standards zoning ordinances, the developer may not be able to plat 12 units under the R4 zoning categories. At a minimum, the plat would have to be significantly revised to determine compliance. It appears more feasible under the RLM zoning. A twin home development assists in the furtherance of the following land use policies of the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan: • Development will be encouraged within the MUSA line. • Encourage low density residential development in appropriate areas of the community in a manner that reinforces the character and integrity of existing single-family neighborhoods (the proposed twin homes would continue the development of twin homes in the southeast corner of the Vasserman Ridge development to the west of the site). • The plan should seek to establish sufficient land to provide a full range of housing opportunities. • The city will seek opportunities to provide transitions between different uses of different types. • Development should be phased in accordance with the ability of the city to provide services. Galpin Crossing Twinhomes Planning Case 06-13 May 2, 2006 Page 5 of 19 A twin home project assists in the furtherance of the following housing policies of the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan: • A balanced housing supply with housing available for people of all income levels. • A variety of housing types for people in all stages of the life cycle. 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 PUD provides enhanced architectural standards, but the environment preservation meets the standards required by City Code, which would be met by the other zoning options. If a Planned Unit Development is the preferred zoning, then the following design standards are recommended: Development Design Standards a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a twin home, PUD Residential zone. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to be placed underground. b. Permitted Uses The permitted uses within the neighborhood shall be 12 twin home and appropriate accessory structures. If there is a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the Community Development Director shall make that interpretation. The type of uses to be provided on Outlot B shall be low intensity neighborhood oriented accessory structures to meet daily needs of residents. Such uses may include development signage, common gardens, association gazebo, association maintenance shed, association picnic shelter or association play equipment. An encroachment agreement shall be required prior to construction within Outlot B. c. Setbacks The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The following table displays those setbacks. Standards West 7e Street and Gal in Blvd. 50 feet West Project Property line 30 feet Minimum Driveway length (to back of curb 25 feet Galpin Crossing Twinhomes Planning Case 06-13 May 2, 2006 Page 6 of 19 Interior Lot Line (around each structure 0 feet Hard Surface Coverage 30 percent for the entire development Wetland: Buffer and buffer setback 16.5 feet and 40 feet Bluff Creek Primary zone boundary 40 feet Building Height 35 feet d. Building Materials and Design • Building exterior material shall be a combination of hardiboard, vinyl or shake siding and brick, stone or stucco. • No two adjacent structures shall be of the same color scheme. • Colors used shall be varied across color tones. • Garage doors must have windows. • All units shall utilize minimum timberline 30 -year shingles. • Each unit shall have a minimum of one over story tree within its front landscape yard (between the house and the private street). • All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building, landscaping or decorative fencing. (It should be noted that the proposed development as shown on the plans, including buildings, driveways and private streets, has site coverage of 21 percent. Even if each of Lots 1 - 12 were covered completely in impervious surface, the development would only be at 27 percent site coverage.) STREETS/ACCESS The proposed access to this development lies approximately 660 feet west of Galpin Boulevard and 420 feet east of Vasserman Trail. Access to the units will be from a privately owned and maintained drive, which will be 90 feet in diameter at the entrance, and 20 feet wide through the remainder of the site. A hammerhead turnaround will be installed at the eastern terminus of the drive. The plans show that the private drive will be installed five feet from the right of way line. Snow removal from the private drive must not encroach into the public right-of-way. Access to the office site is proposed via West 78h Street which is a collector street within the City of Chanhassen. No direct vehicular access from individual lots to collector roadways is permitted. The internal access to the twin homes is via a private street. Private street easements are 30 feet with a 20 -foot pavement width for twin homes. A turnaround at the east end of the private street shall be required. Under any of the development alternatives, a private street for access purposes would be likely. Galpin Crossing Twinhomes Planning Case 06-13 May 2, 2006 Page 7 of 19 Private Street In order to permit private streets, the city must find that the following conditions exist: (1) The prevailing development pattem makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. In making this determination, the city may consider the location of existing property lines and homes, local or geographic conditions and the existence of wetlands. (2) After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the public street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access, or to provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan. (3) The use of the private street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources including wetlands and forested areas. Due to the constraints on the site, West 78h Street and the Bluff Creek primary zone, it is not feasible to incorporate a public street within the development site. The use of a public street in this area would add unnecessary impervious surface and corresponding runoff to Bluff Creek. LANDSCAPINGMIEE PRESERVATION Tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations for the Galpin Crossing Twinhomes development are as follows: Total upland area (excluding wetlands) 238,018 SF Total canopy area (excluding wetlands) 33,490 SF Baseline canopy coverage 14% Minimum canopy coverage allowed 25% or 59,504 SF Proposed tree preservation 13% or 30,942 SF Developer does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed. Replacement plantings are required for the difference between the existing canopy coverage and the minimum required. Replacement required (25%-14%) 26,181 SF or 24 trees The applicant is removing all existing trees. This is penalized by multiplying the area by 1.2 to calculate the required replacement plantings. Canopy coverage removed 2,380 SF Multiplier 1.2 Total replacement 2,856 SF Total number of trees to be planted 3 trees A total of 27 trees are required as replacement plantings for this development. A replacement planting plan has been submitted to the city for approval. It shows 30 trees. In addition, the applicant shall provide each home with a minimum of one tree in the front yard. Galpin Crossing Twinhomes Planning Case 06-13 May 2, 2006 Page 8 of 19 Bufferyard requirements are as shown in the table: Landscaping Item Required Proposed Bufferyard B — South 17 overstory trees 18 overstory trees property line, 860' 34 understory trees 18 understory trees W. 78th Street 51 shrubs 54 shrubs Bufferyard B — East 4 Overstory trees 4 overstory trees property line, 210' 8 Understory trees 4 understory trees Gal in Blvd. 12 shrubs 12 shrubs Boulevard trees — W. 78th 22 overstory trees I 15 overstory trees with St. —1 per 30 fe 50'spacin The applicant falls short on understory requirements within the bufferyards. The applicant has submitted less boulevard trees than ordinance requirements, but the spacing is preferable to 30 feet with the additional understory and shrub plantings. Staff recommends that plantings shown along the wetland and Bluff Creek Primary Corridor be selected from the plant list in the appendix of the management plan. These shall be native plantings that will serve to enhance the environmental features of the site. The restoration plan shall be submitted to the city for approval prior to City Council final approval. GRADING/DRAINAGE The developer has submitted a soil boring report indicating that approximately two feet of peat material exists south of the wetland. This material will be excavated and fill will be imported to grade the site. The lowest floor elevations for Lots 1 through 4 must be raised to a minimum elevation of 963.1, which is three feet above the high water level of the existing pond to the west within the Vassemran Ridge development. The lowest floor elevations for Lots 5 through 12 must be raised to a minimurn elevation of 958.5, which is three feet above the high water level of the wetland, as indicated in the City of Chanhassen's 1994 Surface Water Management Plan. The final grading plan must identify an emergency overflow location and elevation for the proposed pond. The grading plan must be adjusted so that soil grades are minimum 2%. The proposed grading north and west of Lot 12 must be adjusted so that the drainage swale will not direct runoff toward the backs of Lots 11 and 12. The six foot high berm on the east side of the private drive must be shifted to the east to provide minimum five feet of boulevard space. Galpin Crossing Twinhomes Planning Case 06-13 May 2, 2006 Page 9 of 19 The developer must ensure that the final grading plan does not include driveways sloping towards the homes on Lots 11 and 12. Driveway grades must be between 1.5% and 10% at any point within the driveway. The developer has submitted hydrology calculations for the proposed development for the proposed site for staff review. The developer must submit existing and proposed drainage maps. Staff will forward comments to the developer prior to final plat consideration. The developer has sized the pond to accommodate the existing runoff from the property south of West 781i Street. Storm water ponding must be constructed for the additional post -development runoff when the property south of West 78h Street is developed. Hydraulic calculations must be submitted with the final plat submittals and must include storm sewer inlet capacity analysis to verify that 100% of the runoff from a 10 -year event can be captured. RETAINING WALLS The developer does not propose to construct any retaining walls on the site. WETLANDS Two aglurban wetlands exist on-site. Schoell & Madson, Inc. delineated the wetlands in June 2003. Basin 2 is a Type 2 wetland located in the west -central portion of the property, north of West 78h Street. The wetland is dominated by reed canary grass and smartweed. Basin 3 is a Type 2 wetland located in the northern portion of the property. The wetland is dominated by reed canary grass, smartweed, trembling aspen and box elder. On August 29, 2003, City staff issued a Notice of Wetland Conservation Act Decision for a wetland exemption for Basin 2. Aerial photography was reviewed by the City and the wetland basins on either side of West 781i Street were not present prior to the construction of West 781' Street. The wetlands were found to be a result of blockage of drainage along the south side of West 78h Street and concentration of runoff on the downstream (north) end of the culvert under West 78h Street. A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) must be maintained around Wetland 3. Wetland buffer areas should be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant must install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign. All structures must maintain a setback of at least 40 feet from the wetland buffer edge. EROSION AND SEDIWNT CONTROL All perimeter controls and inlet protections must remain in place until 70% of the area is permanently protected by vegetative cover. Galpin Crossing Twinhomes Planning Case 06-13 May 2, 2006 Page 10 of 19 All area disturbed within 200 feet of Bluff Creek must be stabilized within 3 days. The plans should be revised to show all areas with 3:1 slopes or steeper that will be blanketed. A stable emergency overflow (EOF) for the ponds should be provided. The EOF could consist of riprap and geotextile fabric or a turf re -enforcement mat (a permanent erosion control blanket). A typical detail should be included in the plan. Energy dissipation should be provided for all inlets and outlets within 24 hours of installation Wimco-type or other comparable inlet controls should be used and installed within 24 hours of installation of the inlets. Typical building lot controls should be shown on the plan in a typical detail. These controls should include perimeter controls (silt fence), rock driveways, street sweeping, inlet control and temporary mulch after final grade and prior to issuing the Certificate of Occupancy (CO). The proposed storm water ponds should be used as a temporary sediment basin during mass grading. The pond should be excavated prior to disturbing up -gradient areas. Plans should show how the water will be diverted to the temporary basin. Berms and/or ditches may be needed to divert water to the pond, and temporary pond outlets are needed. The outlet could be a temporary perforated standpipe and rock cone. The plans should be revised to include a detail for the temporary pond outlet. An adequate easement for pond access for maintenance purposes is needed and should be shown on the plan. The proposed silt fence along Wetland 3 should be Type 2 silt fence, as specified in Chanhassen Standard Detail Plate 5300. Type 1 silt fence may be used for the remainder of the site. The grading plan should be revised to show the proposed silt fence following the grading limits for the site, including the 20 -foot grading setback from the primary corridor. The perimeter controls should be inspected by the city and the SWCD prior to grading. The grading plan should be revised to show the location of the proposed rock construction entrance. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as -needed. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT FEES Water Quality Fees Because of the impervious surface associated with this development, the water quality fees for this proposed development are based on rates for duplexes of $1,800/acre. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 6.1 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $10,980. Galpin Crossing Twinhomes Planning Case 06-13 May 2, 2006 Page 11 of 19 Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average citywide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels, and stone water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single- family residential developments have a connection charge of $2,900 per developable acre. This results in a water quantity fee of approximately $17,690 for the proposed development. SWMP Credits This project proposes the construction of one NURP ponds. The applicant will be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from the site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. Credits may also be applied to the applicant's SWMP fees for oversizing in accordance with the SWMP or the provision of outlet structures. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $28,670. OTHER AGENCIES The owner/operator of the proposed development shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Site Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Department of Health) and comply with their conditions of approval. UTILITIES The developer proposes to extend lateral sanitary sewer from the existing Metropolitan Council interceptor line. The developer must obtain a permit from Metropolitan Council prior to utility installation. Lateral watermain will extend from the existing 18 -inch trunk within West 78t' Street. This connection will require cutting into West 78th Street approximately eight feet from the curb. West 78th Street must remain open during this utility connection. Advanced warning and traffic control measures required during this utility connection must comply with the latest edition of the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The develo�er must submit a financial security with the final plat to ensure the restoration of West 78 Street and the bituminous trail. The lateral sanitary sewer and watermain shall be publicly owned and maintained. The developer will be responsible for extending lateral sewer and water service to the lots; therefore, the sanitary sewer and water connection charges will be waived. Galpin Crossing Twinhomes Planning Case 06-13 May 2, 2006 Page 12 of 19 Each new lot is subject to the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. These fees are collected with the building permit and are based on the rates in effect at the time of building permit application. The party applying for the building permit is responsible for payment of these fees. The lowest floor elevation of each unit must be shown on the utility plan. The developer proposes to install lateral storm sewer to capture runoff from the private drive and the existing culvert under West 78"' Street and convey the runoff to the proposed storm water basin. This storm sewer shall be privately owned and maintained since it does not serve public property. EASEMENTS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY The plan identifies a MNDOT drainage easement on the southern property line, on the west side of the parcel. The developer must obtain permission from MNDOT before performing any work within this easement. A sanitary sewer easement lies along the north side of the property and ranges from 40 to 60 feet wide. The sewer within this easement is the 42 -inch Metropolitan Council interceptor. The developer must obtain permission from Metropolitan Council to perform the proposed grading within this easement. The plans do not identify an easement for the overhead utility lines on the west side of the project. Prior to final plat consideration, the developer must show the easement on the plans. The building footprint must not lie within this easement. The developer must comply with any setback requirements the utility company imposes. A drainage and utility easement will be platted over all of Lot 13, Block 1, which is the common lot within the proposed development. Right-of-way for West 78s' Street adjacent to this property ranges between 115 to 120 feet wide. Additional right-of-way is not required. Outlot A must be protected in perpetuity through the dedication of the outlot to the City of Chanhassen or by the recording of a conservation easement, to be approved by the City, over the entire Outlot A. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE Parks The property is situated within the park service areas of Sugarbush Neighborhood Park and the Chanhassen Recreation Center, a community park facility. No additional parkland dedication is required as a part of the Galpin Crossing proposal. Galpin Crossing Twinhomes Planning Case 06-13 May 2, 2006 Page 13 of 19 Trails Two segments of the city's comprehensive trail plan are adjacent to and service the proposed development area—the West 78th Street trail and Galpin Boulevard trail. In the absence of parkland dedication, it is recommended that Galpin Crossing pay full park dedication fees at the rate in force upon final platting. At today's rates, these fees would total $69,600 (12 units @ $5,800 each). COMPLIANCE TABLE Since the proposed development is a Planned Unit Development, the minimum requirements are those established as part of the development. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT The City of Chanhassen established the Bluff Creek Overlay District by ordinance in 1998 to protect the Bluff Creek Corridor, wetlands, bluffs and significant stands of mature trees through the use of careful site design and other low -impact practices. This parcel is partially encumbered by the Bluff Creek Overlay District. If any alterations are proposed on property within the Bluff Creek Overlay District, a conditional use permit must be obtained prior to alterations occurring. No alterations are allowed within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet of the setback from the primary corridor. Grading is proposed within the first 20 feet of the setback from the primary corridor north of Lots 5, 6 and 9 through 12, Block 1. The grading plan should be revised to eliminate grading within the first 20 feet of the setback from the primary corridor. All structures must maintain a minimum 40 -foot setback from the primary corridor. The proposed structure on Areas . ft. Width ft Depth ft. Lot 1 3,735 45 83 Lot 2 3,735 45 83 Lot 3 3,330 45 74 Lot 4 3,330 45 74 Lot 5 3,735 45 83 Lot 6 3,735 45 83 Lot 7 3,735 45 83 Lot 8 3,735 45 83 Lot 9 3,735 45 83 Lot 10 3,735 45 83 Lot 11 3,735 45 83 Lot 12 3,735 45 83 Lot 13 Outlot B 120,778 Outlot A 100,807 TOTAL 265,595 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT The City of Chanhassen established the Bluff Creek Overlay District by ordinance in 1998 to protect the Bluff Creek Corridor, wetlands, bluffs and significant stands of mature trees through the use of careful site design and other low -impact practices. This parcel is partially encumbered by the Bluff Creek Overlay District. If any alterations are proposed on property within the Bluff Creek Overlay District, a conditional use permit must be obtained prior to alterations occurring. No alterations are allowed within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet of the setback from the primary corridor. Grading is proposed within the first 20 feet of the setback from the primary corridor north of Lots 5, 6 and 9 through 12, Block 1. The grading plan should be revised to eliminate grading within the first 20 feet of the setback from the primary corridor. All structures must maintain a minimum 40 -foot setback from the primary corridor. The proposed structure on Galpin Crossing Twinhomes Planning Case 06-13 May 2, 2006 Page 14 of 19 Lot 12, Block 1 does not meet the 40 -foot setback from the primary corridor. The plans should be revised to show that the structure on Lot 12, Block 1 meets the required 40 -foot primary corridor setback. The applicant has proposed placing the portions of the site within the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary corridor into an outlot (Outlot A). Outlot A must be protected in perpetuity through the dedication of the outlot to the City of Chanhassen or by the recording of a conservation easement, to be approved by the City, over the entire Oudot A. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Chanhassen City Council adopt the following three motions based on the findings of fact attached to this staff report: A. "The Chanhassen City Council approves the Planned Unit Development rezoning the property within the Galpin Crossing Twinhomes project from A2, Agricultural Estate District, to PUD -R, Planned Unit Development — Residential incorporating the development design standards contained in this staff report." B. "The Chanhassen City Council approvesPlanning the Preliminary Plat creating 4-a 10 lots and 2 outlots with a variance for the use of a private street and for more than four homes accessed via a private street, plans prepared by Ryan Engineering, dated March 16, 2006, revised April 19, 2006, subject to the following conditions: 1. Designate Lot 13 as Outlot B and delete lots 3 and 4. 2. A cross -access and maintenance agreement shall be recorded over the private street. A 10 -foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. 4. No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. 5. Yellow curbing and "No Parking Fire Lane" signs will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of yellow curbing and locations of signs to be installed. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.3 and 503.4. 6. Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus. Submit tum around designs to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for approval. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.2.5. (Exception: the code official is authorized to increase the dimension of 150 feet where the building is equipped throughout with an approved automatic fire sprinkler Galpin Crossing Twinhomes Planning Case 06-13 May 2, 2006 Page 15 of 19 system installed in accordance with Minnesota State Fire Code Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2 or 903.3.1.3). 7. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protections shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 501.4. 8. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fine apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.2.3. 9. The new proposed street will be required to have a street name. Submit proposed to street name to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.3. 10. An additional fire hydrant will be required. Maximum spacing is 300 feet. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of required additional fire hydrant. 11. Accessibility will have to be provided to all portions of the development and a percentage of the units may also be required to be accessible or adaptable in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. Further information is needed to determine these requirements. 12. The buildings are required to be protected with an automatic sprinkler system if they are over 8,500 sq. ft. in floor area. For the purposes of this requirement property lines do not constitute separate buildings and the area of basements and garages is included in the floor area threshold. 13. The buildings will be required to be designed by an architect and engineer as determined by the Building Official. 14. A final grading plan and soils report must be to the Inspections Division before building permits can be issued. 15. Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire -resistive construction. 16. Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services. 17. The developer and or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 18. A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be maintained around Wetland 3. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. All structures shall maintain a setback of at least 40 feet from the wetland buffer edge. Galpin Crossing Twinhomes Planning Case 06-13 May 2, 2006 Page 16 of 19 19. The grading plan shall be revised to eliminate grading within the first 20 feet of the setback from the primary corridor. All structures shall maintain a minimum 40 -foot setback from the primary corridor. The plans shall be revised to show that the structure on Lot 12, Block 1 meets the required 40 -foot primary corridor setback. 20.Outlot A shall be protected in perpetuity through the dedication of the outlot to the City of Chanhassen or by the recording of a conservation easement, to be approved by the City, over the entire Oudot A. 21. All perimeter controls and inlet protections shall remain in place until 70% of the area is permanently protected by vegetative cover. 22. All area disturbed within 200 feet of Bluff Creek shall be stabilized within 3 days. 23. The plans shall be revised to show all areas with 3:1 slopes or steeper that will be blanketed. 24. A stable emergency overflow (EOF) for the ponds shall be provided. The EOF could consist of riprap and geotextile fabric or a turf re -enforcement mat (a permanent erosion control blanket). A typical detail shall be included in the plan. 25. Energy dissipation shall be provided for all inlets and outlets within 24 hours of installation 26. Wimco-type or other comparable inlet controls shall be used and installed within 24 hours of installation of the inlets. 27. Typical building lot controls shall be shown on the plan in a typical detail. These controls should include perimeter controls (silt fence), rock driveways, street sweeping, inlet control and temporary mulch after final grade and prior to issuing the Certificate of Occupancy (CO). 28. The proposed storm water ponds shall be used as a temporary sediment basin during mass grading. The pond shall be excavated prior to disturbing up -gradient areas. Plans shall show how the water will be diverted to the temporary basin. Berms and/or ditches may be needed to divert water to the pond, and temporary pond outlets are needed. The outlet could be a temporary perforated standpipe and rock cone. The plans shall be revised to include a detail for the temporary pond outlet. 29. An adequate easement for pond access for maintenance purposes is needed and shall be shown on the plan. 30. The proposed silt fence along Wetland 3 sball be Type 2 silt fence, as specified in Chanhassen Standard Detail Plate 5300. Type 1 silt fence may be used for the remainder of the site. The grading plan shall be revised to show the proposed silt fence following the grading limits for the site, including the 20 -foot grading setback from the primary corridor. The perimeter controls shall be inspected by the city and the SWCD prior to grading. Galpin Crossing Twinhomes Planning Case 06-13 May 2, 2006 Page 17 of 19 31. The grading plan shall be revised to show the location of the proposed rock construction entrance. 32. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as -needed - 33. The estimated total SWMP fee based on 2006 fees, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $28,670. 34. The owner/operator of the proposed development shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase H Construction Site Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Department of Health) and comply with their conditions of approval. 35. At least one tree is required in each front yard. 36. A landscape plan denoting areas of sod shall be submitted to the city. Common areas must be sodded and provided with irrigation. 37. Native plantings will be required along the northern edge of the development parallel to the wetland and Bluff Creek. These plantings shall be species selected from the Bluff Creek Management Plan planting list. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted prior to final plat approval to the city for approval. 38. Applicant shall increase understory plantings with the bufferyard areas to meet the minimum number of plantings required." 39. The developer must obtain permission from MNDOT before performing any work within the MNDOT easement. 40. The developer must obtain permission from Metropolitan Council to perform the proposed grading within the sanitary sewer interceptor easement. 41. Prior to final plat consideration, the developer must show the overhead utility easement on the plans. 42. The building footprint must not he within the overhead utility easement. 43. The developer must comply with any setback requirements the overhead utility company imposes. 44. The lowest floor elevations for Lots 1 through 4 must be raised to a minimum elevation of 963.1'. This condition may require a different housing type (SE, LO, R). 45. The lowest floor elevations for Lots 5 through 12 must be raised to a minimum elevation of 958.5'. Developer must modify 100 -year elevation for Bluff Creek. Galpin Crossing Twinhomes Planning Case 06-13 May 2, 2006 Page 18 of 19 46. The final grading plan must identify an emergency overflow location and elevation for the proposed pond. 47. The grading plan must be adjusted so that soil grades are minimum 2%. 48. The proposed grading north and west of Lot 12 must be adjusted so that the drainage swale will not direct runoff toward the backs of Lots I I and 12. 49. The six foot high berm on the east side of the private drive must be shifted to the east to provide minimum five feet of boulevard space. 50. The developer must ensure that the final grading plan does not include driveways sloping towards the homes on Lots 11 and 12. 51. Driveway grades must be between 1.5% and 10% at any point within the driveway. 52. The developer must submit existing and proposed drainage maps. 53. Hydraulic calculations must be submitted with the final plat submittals and must include storm sewer inlet capacity analysis to verify that 100% of the runoff from a 10 -year event can be captured. 54. Prior to utility installation the developer must obtain a permit from Metropolitan Council to connect to the interceptor sewer. 55. The storm sewer installed with this project shall be privately owned and maintained since it does not serve public property. 56. Advanced warning and traffic control measures required during the watermain connection must comply with the latest addition of the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 57. The developer must submit a financial security with the final plat to ensure the restoration of West 78' Street and the bituminous trail. 58. Each new lot is subject to the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. These fees are collected with the building permit and are based on the rates in effect at the time of building permit application. The party applying for the building permit is responsible for payment of these fees. 59. The lowest floor elevation of each unit must be shown on the utility plan. 60. Snow removal from the private drive must not encroach into the public right of way. 61. Storm sewer manhole at west driveway entrance should include a 3' sump. 62. The developer shall pay full park fees in effect at the time of final plat recording." Galpin Crossing Twinhomes Planning Case 06-13 May 2, 2006 Page 19 of 19 C. "The Chanhassen City Council approves a Conditional Use Permit to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District subject to the following conditions: The grading plan shall be revised to eliminate grading within the first 20 feet of the setback from the primary corridor. All structures shall maintain a minimum 40 -foot setback from the primary corridor. The plans shall be revised to show that the structure on Lot 12, Block 1 meets the required 40 -foot primary corridor setback. 2. Outlot A shall be protected in perpetuity through the dedication of the outlot to the City of Chanhassen or by the recording of a conservation easement, to be approved by the City, over the entire Outlot A." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Recommendation. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Reduced Copy Existing Conditions. 4. Reduced Copy Preliminary Plat. 5. Reduced Copy Preliminary Grading and SWPPP Plan. 6. Reduced Copy Preliminary Site and Utility Plan. 7. Reduced Copy Preliminary Tree Inventory/Landscape Plan. 8. Reduced Copy Preliminary Buffer Yard Planting Plan. 9. Email from Larry Martin to Bob Generous dated April 25, 2006. 10. Email from Lance Erickson to Bob Generous dated April 26, 2006 11. Affidavit of Mailing Notice. gAplan\2006 planning cases\06-13 galpin crossing twinhomes\staff report.doc 0 RIDS RYAN 84d493*9i, : 6 3 PARCEL A e\ 4\ OR D 9lfl Ynxa M,x)Y/u BW FFcqE \ EK 9 VAST 78 i x Msror w x elsrar w aslr u11rs. KOIY/MR fox 4 t GIVERAL WORMTX% PAPOC. N PROIOxD T16Mpl9 AT 11 gVA01e IA.LCLd T Q'1 A1VKIaeS 1 STOQRT024'-b' NB6M) PARCEL A roma cote. cBAMvaeel zw6x6 awowMicc GL/byIILATIQ6 IfY - laY CEmMY ISS. D'110105Ep LOT ARA. 601 ACIICS (IAwOLL A) 6ee1Al runs rwarDSeD Tnlslae5 s66lrw TO PT1oPe11Y TO TK Yl3T EOM DCNlIT' Llw/ACR PARCEL E rCMw cooecar+aAeeel rags aaD.IM1ce LLASdIILATIOR er aane% N:weoioaoD RPCP%[p LOT ARA. lD3 AGIlS RM1(b a e,LpW %R. 1YOeeIT. RMl%R. IMWN6 SeiaACll1%R. SIDleR. RAR%R. PARKIMb pxEdOle. Mla 1'-01N1'4' APAG ]6'G eAY62'O' 6eE4N. XOfeSSPeCIAL OxeFRIDIM6 91Ie1' xleAcc A6Mmr Rdoernuur PINIel1C ram N561e0RIN6 See rCMxe cone 5ecxe�s.. DletVaJS 9NPAC6 MSA Y. W.IN MT 6T. 6fBNKV3 •JIIPALl. ]]50'e (NRI PARKIIG DX SIS! Rall®F9l GLEE PRWIDm axlK 5000 W. b STM.Ls 020 SFJ 2MD Stt, pP 3/ SJ'. "STALLS 1S/IOC>7 NJ 271 STALLS ORIC N 10000 St. SD STALLS eACY.V SPJ OFFICE h 10000 Sy. SO STM I'<'l Sri alMce A UAW u. w STA s P/IOoo "i OPFlCl M 314005?.– W STALLS Iv'\lCV SJJ 126 STM1S TOTAL N000 Sf.I 525 STALLS I9f1 STMJ�' 611055 MOCR MSA RATW . N000 / M.W • MM u \ /1 LEGEND \Oq`r 1°11 p a,D.1a Egmm tMISM S ilaf S,wY —G— SWTMY SEwt —�— HYD. w/vALSE f Nro. wNM-YE STD SEMER —CC— S'iOeY SEIM M F� 0' W. 12V IW' R�n Bring LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 434 Lake Street 1=zeeWw, 6N 55331 (952) 3803000 m.wolyl.�Moca6 np1 v Piwtl «s. inCw wT •1a .c E1*r. r 6a I aw . 6h 9g 0 Ep�n1. M IeY a M ua. a Yi.xwll. GALPIN CROSSING Chalmsswr MN for IF L Proacl Na D,la DrewnD Abns p5tae1p6iRYyW-lba Dro,n By tlA a.aw By P6n ObN iDlaAa RIMYTS DSI Dat6 FIJW Review a5Y15w Concept Plan P6a6 CP -1