Public Comments Minnewashta ApartmentsFrom:
To:DL Projects Public Comments
Subject:Comments/Opposition to Proposed Minnewashta Apartment Building
Date:Tuesday, September 16, 2025 2:40:21 PM
I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed Minnewashta apartment building at 6440
Hazeltine Boulevard.
As a resident of the Melody Hill neighborhood (directly across Hwy 41 from the
proposed development site) and a mother to children attending the neighboring
middle school MMW, I have experienced the pitfalls of a heavily overcrowded
intersection and adjoining streets. Because of the increase in housing options near
the proposed site, as well as the recently added nursing home, the streets in this area
are incredibly overcrowded and congested. Additionally, access and enrty to the
middle school magnifies this problem exponentially.
Residents in our neighborhood have continually complained to the city and the police
department about the car, foot, and parking traffic in our neighborhood that occurs
every day before and after school and any time there is a middle school event. The
safety issues are already highly problematic as cars park on the street, and
sometimes even blocking the streets and intersections, while waiting for their children.
There have been so many close calls of cars almost hitting each other or hitting a
child and we all fear that it is only a matter of time before something tragic happens in
this area due to the intense congestion we are already seeing.
There have been days when it can take up to 10 mintues to gain access to Highway
41 and often cars default to illegal U-turns or entry points onto the busy highway.
These are just some of the reasons for the roundabout that was planned at this
intersection. That roundabout has since been cancelled so this problem will now
continue to increase.
The school has an ever increasing enrollement of out of district students that don't
ride busses and need to be dropped off by their parents. Additionally, there continues
to be additional housing built within the neighborhood. These factors already make
this area far too congested- an additional APARTMENT BUILDING would
absolutely push these streets and this area over the edge of what is already a highly
problematic area.
PLEASE do not allow this development to go forward in an area that is already overly
congested. It will have dire consequences for the students walking and driving to this
school as well as the familiies living in this neighborhood.
Thank you,
--
Jessica Tobin
Ph.D. Education Policy & Administration
From:
To:DL Projects Public Comments
Cc:Arsenault, Rachel
Subject:Request to Continue Minnewashta Apartments Hearing (Case 25-11)
Date:Tuesday, September 16, 2025 12:51:54 PM
Dear Planning Commission,
I respectfully request that the September 16 public hearing for the Minnewashta Apartments
(Case 25-11) be continued to a later date.
When the August 12 hearing was postponed, the City’s notice stated that additional traffic data
would be collected and interim traffic solutions identified with MnDOT prior to the
rescheduled meeting. To date, no updated traffic study, new analysis, or interim plan has been
made available to the public in the project file.
Holding the hearing without this information leaves residents and the Commission unable to
meaningfully review or comment on the project’s most critical safety issue: school-hour traffic
at Hazeltine Boulevard and the Middle School entrance.
Respectfully, I ask that the Commission delay action until:
The promised additional traffic data is collected and posted,
Interim traffic solutions are presented for public review, and
Residents are given adequate time to review these materials before a new hearing.
Thank you for considering this request to ensure that the review process is transparent and
complete.
Sincerely,
Aleksey Kerbel
From:
To:DL Projects Public Comments
Subject:Proposed Apartments across from MMW
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2025 4:11:50 PM
I am not in favor of the proposed apartment project at 6440 Hazeltine Blvd. As a parent
of several MMW students, it is already a traffic nightmare to get in and out of MMW all
daytime hours.
Thank you!
Kiirsten Rakers
Get Outlook for iOS
From:
To:DL Projects Public Comments
Subject:Public Comment – Minnewashta Apartments 6440 Hazeltine Blvd
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2025 10:37:46 AM
Dear Planning Commission Members,
I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed Minnewashta Apartments project at
6440 Hazeltine Blvd (Hwy 41), directly next to Minnetonka Middle School West.
My primary concern is that a high-turnover, 44-unit apartment complex in this location
will bring residents who are far less likely to be long-term, vested members of our
community. Our neighborhood is built on relationships, shared investment in schools,
parks, and safety, and the stability of property ownership. This project, as proposed,
undermines that stability.
Aesthetics and neighborhood fit are also a major issue. Placing a large, multi-story
rental complex along a prominent stretch of Hwy 41 so close to the school will
significantly alter the visual character of the area. It will also set a precedent for more
high-density projects on this corridor. The current RSF zoning exists for a reason, and
this rezoning to R-8 high-density is not compatible with the surrounding single-family
homes, the school, and the senior care facility.
Beyond these primary concerns, there are procedural and planning gaps that should
prevent approval at this stage:
1.
Incomplete and inaccessible public documents – Several pre-application
materials have been unavailable online due to “technical errors” since June 11.
Minnesota law requires meaningful public access before a hearing. This hearing
should be continued until all files are posted and the public has had a full review
period.
2.
Traffic, parking, and access conflicts – The only access point for the project
is directly opposite the middle school driveway at a new roundabout. The traffic
memo provided is not a full impact study and fails to assess school drop-off and
pick-up congestion, pedestrian safety, and cumulative impacts from current road
work detours. The middle school already experiences major congestion at
dismissal, with vehicles often lined up along Chaska Road. While this project
may not directly increase congestion on Chaska Road itself, it will add
significant traffic into the complex’s entrance during peak school times. With
only 88 garage stalls for 44 units and limited visitor parking, overflow is likely to
spill into nearby lots, including the memory care facility. This increases the
potential for conflict between school traffic and apartment traffic at the
roundabout and shared approach.
3.
Wetland and environmental review – The application acknowledges wetlands
on the site, yet no current delineation or functional assessment is provided. The
existing wetland decision is from 2017 and is outdated for 2025 permitting. A
new delineation and agency concurrence are required before approval.
4.
Stormwater and groundwater risks – The stormwater plan relies heavily on a
single surface basin with unclear freeboard and discharge point compliance.
Geotechnical borings indicate possible groundwater interaction and unstable
soils, yet the current geotechnical report is incomplete and lacks seasonal data.
Given the lack of complete information, the incompatibility with existing neighborhood
character, and the long-term risk to community cohesion, I urge the Planning
Commission to deny the rezoning request or at minimum continue the hearing until:
All application materials are accessible for public review for the required notice
period.
A full, independent traffic study is conducted during school-year peak hours.
A current wetland delineation, environmental review, and updated geotechnical
report are submitted and reviewed.
A detailed parking and overflow management plan is provided.
Approving a high-density rental complex at this sensitive location without resolving
these issues would be premature and contrary to the long-term interests of
Chanhassen residents.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Luke Steck
6239 Chaska Rd
From:
To:DL Projects Public Comments
Subject:Minnewashta apartments
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2025 9:08:37 AM
Good morning,
I’m writing about the proposed Minnewashta Apartment complex across from MMW. This is
already a ridiculously congested intersection and the increased traffic will only make it worse
and more dangerous. As a Chanhassen resident, this is a very unwelcome development in our
community.
Regardless of what happens, I hope you’ll also consider replacing the cross walk lights near
MMW to be something significantly more noticeable. Those tiny lights that are there now
rarely get drivers’ attention early enough- I’ve seen many close calls with e-bikers, bikers
walkers trying to cross there.
Thanks for your consideration,
Melanie Winters
Asset 23.png
From:
To:von Oven, Mark; Kimber, Josh; McDonald, Jerry; Schubert, Haley; Ryan, Elise; DL City Council; DL Projects Public
Comments
Subject:Proposed 44 unit bldg on HWY 41!
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2025 7:58:07 AM
Hello!
I am writing as a resident Washta Bay Road on Highway seven just a half mile west of Highway 41. I have major
concerns about the proposed four units building going in off of Highway 41 directly across from Minnetonka middle
school West.
As a mom of four children, three of them which will be in middle school this year this is a horrible idea to build
another structure on that 2 lane road that's already traffic ridden.
The construction to put in new piping at the end of the school year last year caused major difficulties getting in and
out of the school parking lot, it was extremely dangerous for the children to be walking to school as many of them
do from surrounding neighborhoods. What usually is approximately a 10 minute round-trip for me to drive them
from home drop them at school and get back home was sometimes taking 35 minutes and multiple days at the end of
the school year. We were late due to the amount of traffic we faced, trying to turn onto 41 and then off of 41 into the
middle school parking lot With a large building being built. I can only imagine there would be many more traffic
challenges during the building process.
Beyond that on a normal day, driving to middle school or walking to middle school traffic during your typical rush-
hour period is increasingly getting worse as 41 is very congested. We cannot handle the traffic of other vehicles
coming in and out of a potential shared lot with the memory care facility. School takes up a solid nine months out of
the year, so this isn't a small issue for a small bit of time each year.
Furthermore, there are plans to shut down a decent portion of Highway five and a lot of that traffic will be pushed
on the highway 41 to then go west on Highway seven. This summer there was a substantial accident just outside of
the Arboretum on Highway five closing it down during rush-hour in the evening. The time it took me from Highway
five and 41 to get down to Highway seven and 41 was 33 minutes, 33 minutes for that short stretch of road. We
simply cannot handle the traffic on 41 and on highway seven in the first place as is there's no way those roads and
the people around it want to deal with that kind of traffic on a daily basis during the construction process and added
traffic, it will bring after.
For multiple reasons, I am highly opposed to this building going up. Something needs to be done about these
roadways. We were told there would be a roundabout and are now told there won't be because the city doesn't have
the budget for it. Trying to add this building so that some investor will give you the money to build that roundabout
null and voids the roundabout with the additional traffic.
Jessica Dronen
2851 Washta Bay Rd., Excelsior 55331
Sent from my iPhone
From:
To:DL Projects Public Comments
Subject:Public Comment – Minnewashta Apartments 6440 Hazeltine Blvd
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2025 7:46:23 AM
Dear Planning Commission Members,
I am writing to formally request that no approvals for the proposed Minnewashta
Apartments at 6440 Hazeltine Blvd move forward until critical concerns are addressed.
This project is directly across from Minnetonka Middle School West and next to a Memory
Care facility. The intersection is already congested during school drop-off and pick-up.
Adding a 44-unit apartment building with only 88 parking stalls will inevitably lead to
overflow parking on nearby private lots and along Hazeltine Blvd, creating safety risks for
students and residents. A full independent traffic study that accounts for current detours
and real school-year traffic patterns must be completed and made public.
The site also contains a wetland. As the stormwater report confirms, altering this wetland
will permanently remove its flood control, water quality, and habitat benefits. Once a
wetland is disturbed, these protections cannot be restored. The public deserves a
transparent and thorough environmental review, not just a developer-funded report.
Some pre-application city documents tied to this project, specifically 250522 SD and 25006
Headwaters Chanhassen Apartments 250204 (3), have been posted since June 11 but
remain inaccessible online due to a “technical error.” These are supposed to be public
records, yet residents have not had the required time to review them.
I urge the Planning Commission to delay any approvals until:
1.
All project documents are made accessible and residents have adequate time to
review them.
2.
A traffic study by an independent firm is completed and considers actual school-year
traffic.
3.
A full environmental review is conducted, with public input, on the wetland impacts
and stormwater plan.
Given the number of unresolved issues, I do not understand how this proposal has
progressed to this stage. I strongly urge the Commission to require these steps before any
further action.
Sincerely, Aleksey Kerbel, Chanhassen, MN
From:
To:DL Projects Public Comments
Subject:Apartment Complex
Date:Monday, August 11, 2025 8:56:02 PM
Hello,
I won’t be able to attend but I am not in favor of the apartment complex near the middle school.
I’m not in favor of the project because it will bring high-density traffic, strain local infrastructure, and change the
small-town character of the community.
Kind regards,
Martim Quayat
Sent from my iPhone
From:
To:DL Projects Public Comments
Subject:Minnewashta Apartments
Date:Thursday, August 7, 2025 7:25:08 PM
I won't be able to attend the public hearing but would like to submit a comment:
As someone who lives in Chanhassen near Hwy 41, it's plain to see that this road has become
overloaded to the point of being useless and at times dangerous. Any further development along this
road- especially an apartment complex- would be irresponsible without first fixing the current traffic
situation.
-Charlie Marshik
From:
To:DL Projects Public Comments
Subject:NO TO PROPOSAL TO BUILD APARTMENTS ON HWY 41!!!!!
Date:Wednesday, August 6, 2025 12:14:52 PM
I just saw the sign on Hwy 41 across from the Middle School concerning the proposed building
of an apartment complex. I AM TOTALLY AGAINST THIS IDEA!!!! WHO THINKS ADDING MORE
TRAFFIC TO AN ALREADY DANGEROUS ROAD WITH CARS TURNING IN TO THE SCHOOL AND
KIDS WALKING ACROSS THE HIGHWAY IS A GOOD IDEA?????
THIS IS A TERRIBLE IDEA. My daughter's family lives in the cul-du-sac behind that property and
adding all of these units will make the neighborhood much busier and unsafe for the young
kids. Is this low-income housing? If so, I am completely dumbfounded by this.
I never received information on the meetings regarding this project but have added August 12
to my calendar. I will speak out AGAINST THIS INSANE IDEA.
Whoever is in charge of this project needs to respond to my concerns and explain the
ridiculous proposal. Keep this land OPEN!!!!!
Paula Evanich
From: Katie Fisher <
Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2025 8:18:57 AM
To: von Oven, Mark <mvonoven@chanhassenmn.gov>; Kimber, Josh <jkimber@chanhassenmn.gov>;
Ryan, Elise <eryan@chanhassenmn.gov>; McDonald, Jerry <jmcdonald@chanhassenmn.gov>; Schubert,
Haley <hschubert@chanhassenmn.gov>
Subject: Opposition to Proposed Apartment Building Adjacent to My Home
Dear City of Chanhassen,
I hope you're doing well.
I'm writing to formally express my opposition to the proposed construction of an apartment
building next to my home at 6461 Oriole Ave. While I understand the need for responsible
development, I have deep concerns about the potential impact this project wi ll have on our
neighborhood and local environment.
This type of development raises a number of serious issues, including:
• Environmental impact – The construction and long-term operation of a large
apartment building could disrupt local ecosystems, reduce green space, and
increase pollution and runoff in the area.
• Wildlife disruption – The area around my home is home to various species of birds
and small wildlife. Increased construction and human activity may displace or
endanger these animals.
• School crowding – Our local schools are already operating near or at capacity. A
large influx of new residents could place additional strain on the school system,
affecting class sizes and resource availability.
• Increased taxes – New developments often lead to rising property taxes and
infrastructure costs, which would unfairly burden current residents.
• Quality of life – The increase in traffic, noise, and population density would
significantly alter the quiet, residential character of our neighborhood and reduce
privacy for nearby homeowners.
For all these reasons, I respectfully ask that this project be reconsidered or relocated to a
more suitable area. I also ask to be kept informed of any public hearings or meetings
regarding this development so I may participate and make my voice heard.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Kathrine Fisher
6461 Oriole Ave, Excelsior, MN 55331
--
Katie Fisher
KaJo Inscriptions
From:
To:DL Projects Public Comments; von Oven, Mark; Kimber, Josh; McDonald, Jerry; Schubert, Haley; Ryan, Elise
Subject:Fw: Opposition to Proposed 44-Unit Apartment Development Near School and Residential Area at 6440 Hazeltine
Boulevard
Date:Tuesday, August 5, 2025 1:17:54 PM
Members of the City Council;
With the intent to reduce the amount of input to read through, I wanted to share that I
concur with all of the concerns/details in the email below. We have resided at this address
(2444 W 64th Street) for 22 years and are neighbors of the sender below , We also have
concerns about the impact this project will have on our neighborhood and local environment
if implemented.
The proposed development raises serious concerns as described in the below email. Local
ecosystems will be impacted; green space will be reduced and this proposed development
would increase environmental pollution and runoff. Displacement and endangerment of
wildlife will also be impacted due to increased human presence, consumption & crowding.
Local schools are already strained and this will further impact resources and class sizes.
Property taxes and infrastructure costs would burden current residents.
Traffic, which is already insanely busy and reckless, and the road infrastructure overwhelmed
as it is, the proposed location of this development would highly impact the school zone which
with vehicle and foot traffic putting our children at (greater) risk when leaving the school
grounds.
We respectfully request consideration of a more suitable area for the proposed development.
Kelly & Wayne Peterson
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Carrie Miller <>
Date: Tue, Aug 5, 2025, 10:48
Subject: Opposition to Proposed 44-Unit Apartment Development Near School and
Residential Area at 6440 Hazeltine Boulevard
To: <projectcomments@chanhassenmn.gov>, <mvonoven@chanhassenmn.gov>,
<jkimber@chanhassenmn.gov>, <jmcdonald@chanhassenmn.gov>,
<hschubert@chanhassenmn.gov>, <eryan@chanhassenmn.gov>
To the Honorable Members of the City Council:
I am writing as a concerned resident of 2445 W 64th St, regarding the proposed construction
of a 44-unit apartment building near Minnetonka Middle School West, directly adjacent to a
heavily trafficked and already dangerous intersection. I respectfully urge you to reconsider or
halt this development for the following reasons:
1. Traffic Congestion and Safety Risks
The proposed site is located near an intersection that is already known to be busy and
hazardous, especially during school drop-off and pick-up hours. The addition of potentially 88
or more vehicles (assuming two per unit) will drastically increase congestion. This poses a
serious risk to children walking or biking to school, as well as to school buses and local traffic
navigating tight or poorly controlled turns.
Traffic at this intersection already exceeds safe levels during peak hours.
Emergency vehicle access could also be impeded, compromising public safety.
2. Incompatibility with Rural and Residential Character
The proposed development sits directly beside a quiet, single-family residential neighborhood
and is entirely out of scale with the area’s rural charm and low-density character. The
introduction of high-density housing:
Undermines the planning integrity of this neighborhood.
Sets a precedent for further high-density development in areas that are not zoned or prepared
for it.
Disrupts the peaceful quality of life that current residents have invested in and expect to
maintain.
3. Environmental and Infrastructure Strain
High-density developments place increased strain on local infrastructure, including:
Water, sewage, and stormwater management systems, which may not be adequately equipped
to support such an influx.
Public services, such as waste collection, snow removal, and utility maintenance, which will
face new burdens without corresponding funding or expansion.
4. School Capacity and Child Safety Concerns
An influx of new residents will likely increase enrollment pressure on nearby schools, which
are already operating at capacity.
Additionally:
Increased vehicle traffic during school hours heightens the risk of accidents.
Limited crosswalks, signage, and patrols near the school will not suffice to protect the larger
number of children expected in the area.
5. Lack of Community Input
Many residents feel this project has moved forward without adequate community engagement
or transparency. Large-scale changes to a neighborhood should not be made without
thoroughly considering and addressing local voices.
We ask that a full traffic impact study, environmental impact assessment, and community
hearing be conducted before any approval is granted.
Conclusion
We are not against responsible development. However, this particular project is inappropriate
for the location proposed and would fundamentally alter the safety, character, and livability of
our community.
We urge the council to:
Deny or pause approval of this project.
Reevaluate zoning in this area.
Require further studies and community consultation.
Thank you for your time and dedication to our community. We trust that you will prioritize the
safety, integrity, and well-being of the families who live here.
Sincerely,
Justin and Carrie Miller
2445 W 64th St, Excelsior, MN 55331
On behalf of concerned residents of the local neighborhood near W 64th St and Oriole Ave
without nearby apartment buildings. That decision was based on past experience. We
previously lived in a neighborhood that welcomed apartment complexes with high rent—and I
watched that area change dramatically. It became unsafe for kids to play outside. I found
children from the apartments having sex in my yard while waiting for the school bus. I
witnessed drug use, physical fights, and a sharp rise in theft and car break-ins. My own son
was threatened with violence while playing in our front yard.
This isn’t speculation, it’s reality. Data clearly shows that higher density and renter-occupied
housing is associated with increased rates of property and violent crime.
What are the benefits of this apartment complex to our community—especially to our
students?
There is a well-documented difference between owner-occupied and renter-occupied
neighborhoods. Renter-heavy areas tend to have higher turnover, weaker community ties,
and less resident investment. This undermines the kind of supervision and neighborhood
stability that’s essential for our children’s development.
Studies show:
Renters are less likely to attend PTA meetings, vote in local elections, or engage in long-
term community improvement efforts.
Children in owner-occupied homes have higher test scores, better attendance, fewer
behavioral problems, and lower dropout and teen birth rates.
Owner-occupied neighborhoods tend to have stronger social cohesion, leading to lower
crime and better youth behavior outcomes.
These aren’t just studies—they reflect the real-world consequences of neighborhood design
on families, schools, and child well-being.
I have some direct questions that deserve answers:
1. Would you approve an apartment complex in your own backyard?
2. Would you feel comfortable with increased traffic where your own children walk to
and from school?
3. What specific actions are you taking to address the additional traffic and safety
issues this project will create?
This area already experiences heavy traffic during school drop-off and pickup, as well as after-
school sports and evening/weekend events. Adding this dense residential complex will only
make an already dangerous situation worse for pedestrians and student drivers.
I’m extremely disappointed that this project is even being considered and I ask that you revisit
this decision with full transparency and a genuine commitment to the long-term safety and
character of our community.
Please use this land for something that will enhance and not harm our neighborhood. I
strongly urge you to say no to renter-occupied apartments and reconsider the location of this
building, especially given the safety risks associated with high-turnover, renter-dominated
housing near a middle school.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Jessica Johnson
2742 Piper Ridge Ln
Parent of a student at MMW
From: Hokkanen, Laurie <lhokkanen@chanhassenmn.gov>
Sent: Monday, August 4, 2025 7:57 AM
To: Maass, Eric <emaass@chanhassenmn.gov>; Arsenault, Rachel <rarsenault@chanhassenmn.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Planning Commission Meeting- Aug 12th- Minnewashta Apartments
Begin forwarded message:
From: Keri Burton
Date: August 4, 2025 at 7:40:14 AM CDT
To: "von Oven, Mark" <mvonoven@chanhassenmn.gov>, "Kimber, Josh"
<jkimber@chanhassenmn.gov>, "McDonald, Jerry"
<jmcdonald@chanhassenmn.gov>, "Schubert, Haley"
<hschubert@chanhassenmn.gov>, "Ryan, Elise"
<eryan@chanhassenmn.gov>, DL City Council
<Council@chanhassenmn.gov>
Subject: Re: Planning Commission Meeting- Aug 12th- Minnewashta
Apartments
Hello Mayor Ryan and Members of the Chanhassen City Council,
I wanted to reach out regarding concerns about recently hearing of the
possibility of a 44 unit apartment building going in across from MMW. I live in
Chanhassen, in Minnewashta Manor, behind North Coop.
As a fellow business owner, I am all for businesses and know of the need we
have for housing, but as a neighbor to the area, and mom to kids at MMW, I
have the following concerns:
1) It is already well known, and well documented, that traffic is a problem
in and around MMW, how would adding more traffic to the area help the
students to be safer?
2) In an email update from Mayor Ryan on May 23rd it was communicated
that the roundabout bid came in higher than expected and there was a
funding gap.
In the "Neighborhood Open House" hosted by Headwaters Development on
July 30th (barely 2 months later) and just 3 days ago, it was communicated to
neighbors present that the roundabout would be going in, but not until 2028,
and that the roundabout would make the traffic issue better for students. My
main question to Headwaters Development- If in fact the roundabout had
now been approved, you are going off of subjective study and data that the
roundabout would help. Plans can not account for all variables. If you are so
confident it will help, build your apartment AFTER the roundabout goes in
because the safety of students is at stake. It was communicated to parents
that the new parking lot at MMW was going to significantly improve traffic
and what, $1.5 million later, how much has been improved?
You have a tough job of keeping students safe at MMW with the traffic as it
already is....but help me to understand how this apartment, whether the
roundabout goes in or not, would help the students to be safer?
3) As a mentioned above, I am all for business! I love growth and I know the
need for housing. At that intersection we have 2 groups of vulnerable people,
a memory care center and a school with children who walk that road all the
time. How will adding an apartment building to this site help both of these
groups of people be safer than they already are with the horrible traffic
patterns?
4) Headwaters Development stated that based on their research the busy
traffic patterns of AM drop off at MMW and afternoon pick up of MMW will not
be affected by their building, because the traffic patterns of their residents
are different than the school times. Have you ever tried to pick up a student
in the spring after track and tennis practice is done? Or tried to get out of the
parking lot after Open House, or a choir concert, or some other MMW event
where the lot is full? Or when the lot is full due to soccer events and
tournaments on the weekends? I appreciate data and research, but it's just
that, data on a paper there is no way to feel confident the data is correct and
will truly be accurate in keeping students safer?
5) Finally, Headwaters Development, mentioned all the road construction
going on around the area in the upcoming years and how traffic would be re-
routed to Hwy 41. And with all the construction traffic from the apartment
development too in the next 1-2 years, how is this all going to keep students
more safe??? You probably don't have a lot of control over the re-routing of
construction traffic, but you do have control over the approval of this
apartment building.
In closing, I propose that at a minimum the approval of this building is
postponed for a few years, until as a city council, you are convinced that our
students will be safer with the addition of the roundabout that Headwaters
Development mentioned has been approved.
Thank you,
Keri Burton
2701 Piper Ridge Lane, Excelsior
1
Arsenault, Rachel
From:Josh McKinney <jmckinney@measuregrp.com>
Sent:Tuesday, July 22, 2025 2:10 PM
To:Arsenault, Rachel; Maass, Eric
Subject:Fwd: 6440 Hazeltine apartment complex
FYI. Resident communication/response.
To help p otect you p vacy M c osoft Offce p evented automatc download of th s pictu e f om the Inte net
Josh McKinney, PLA
Principal
Phone: 612-440-0934
Mobile: 605-310-9766
jmckinney@measuregrp.com
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Kathleen H <>
Date: Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: 6440 Hazeltine apartment complex
To: Josh McKinney <jmckinney@measuregrp.com>
That all makes sense! I think it’s great to study the worst case scenario—I was surprised how quickly the
roundabout project was deferred this year after years of work and studies, etc. Thanks so much for all of
your communication and information and good luck moving forward!
Kathleen
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 22, 2025, at 1:34 PM, Josh McKinney <jmckinney@measuregrp.com> wrote:
Kathleen-
You're very welcome!
The last I had heard, and what the council has heard at a recent work session, is that
the grants and state funding are secured (I believe I heard through 2029) and would be
2
available for the roundabout project. There may also be other sources of funding that
become available between now and then.
We believe there will ultimately be a permanent intersection improvement at 41 and the
Middle School. Our traffic consultant is studying the "worst case scenario" of a no-build
condition and what our impacts are to the road network if no improvements are
constructed. The results of that study, in coordination with the City engineering staff,
will ultimately determine if the project is feasible without the roundabout.
I hope that answered your question, please let me know if you have any others that
come up.
Thanks,
-Josh
To help p otect you p vacy M c osoft Offce p evented automatc download of th s pictu e f om the Inte net
Josh McKinney, PLA
Principal
Phone: 612-440-0934
Mobile: 605-310-9766
jmckinney@measuregrp.com
On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 1:04 PM Kathleen H <> wrote:
Thanks for your reply! I was hoping maybe the addition of an apartment complex would
help contribute to a solution in this area. Is the city saying a roundabout is slated for
construction in 2028 now? I would be very curious about how they will be funding that
since the school funding and grant money they were going to use in addition to their own
contribution may or may not be available by that time. I know the grant was set to expire
and I’m sure the school has their own process for approving something like that again and
new budget constraints. I can always connect with the city if that’s outside of your scope.
I’m assuming that the project would move forward with or without the roundabout at that
intersection?
Thanks again,
Kathleen Heimermann
Sent from my iPhone
3
On Jul 22, 2025, at 11:49 AM, Josh McKinney
<jmckinney@measuregrp.com> wrote:
Hi Kathleen-
Thank you very much for your message.
The project team is aware of the challenges with the traffic in that area
and have been working with the City to mitigate our impact to the
existing condition while planning for the future roundabout, now slated
for construction in 2028.
To specifically answer your question, our project is proposing to improve
the western leg of the future roundabout, along with install ponding
which will benefit nearly 5 acres of off-site drainage, including the
roundabout and parts of the school. Those two design features, along
with some other improvements, will help the City close the funding gap
experienced this spring.
We understand a traffic issue exists during peak times at the Middle
School. A few things to consider:
The peak usage times for the school and peak usage times for our
project do not overlap.
The proposed project will not be fully occupied until late
spring/summer of 2027 at the earliest.
We would like to construct the project prior to the roundabout
completion in 2028 to avoid the potential of damaging the new
pavement and curbs with heavy machinery
We can communicate with our residents the traffic constraints
through the summer of 2028. While working & living in an area of
active construction is not ideal, the overlap of those activities is
small relative to the commitment of being a part of the community
for the long term.
As mentioned, our project ultimately helps facilitate the
roundabout improvements via cost sharing for items otherwise
paid for by the money allocated for the roundabout.
I am happy to share the meeting materials with you and update you after
next Wednesday, along with any sort of consensus that area residents
provide if that would be of interest to you.
Thanks again for reaching out!
Josh
4
To help p otect you p ivacy M c osoft Offce p evented au omatc download of this pic u e f om the Inte net
Josh McKinney, PLA
Principal
Phone: 612-440-0934
Mobile: 605-310-9766
jmckinney@measuregrp.com
On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 8:51 AM Kathleen H
<> wrote:
We live in the area of a proposed apartment complex and our children
attend the middle school there.
Unable to attend the meeting, but wondering if there’s anything you’ll be
doing to help contribute to the traffic and pedestrian in that area? A
roundabout was suppose to go at that intersection. The chanhassen
city council has recently voted not to pursue it because of a funding
shortfall after the bid came in. You can read about that
here. https://www.chanhassenmn.gov/government/projects/state-
highway-projects/th41-minnetonka-middle-school-west-intersection-
improvements
MNDOT will not allow a traffic light there.
It’s nearly impossible to turn out of the middle school already at peak
traffic times Even in the summer the traffic down Hwy 41 backs up quite a
ways. Will your entrance/exit be Hwy 41? You will have a lot of complaints
from your residents in the complex who try to exit.
Thanks for any insight you can share on this issue.
Kathleen Heimermann
Sent from my iPhone
1
John A. Dragseth – 6480 Oriole Avenue, Chanhassen, MN 55331
August 9, 2025
Via e-mail @ emaass@chanhassenmn.gov (published contact for Planning Commission)
RE: Comments on Proposed Minnewashta Apartments Development
Dear Members of the Chanhassen Planning Commission:
I own property just off the Northwest corner of the proposed “Minnewashta Apartments” development
(“the Development”) that you are scheduled to consider at your August 12 mee/ng. I write because the
Development is inconsistent with proper zoning, and Developer’s applica/on contains a fundamental
misrepresenta/on. The only proper approach for the Commission/Council is to deny the applica/on and
permit the Developer to apply for R-4 zoning. That would provide the Developer with a zoning increase
from single-family residen/al (SFR) to R-4, which is fully consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. It
would avoid unreasonably and illegally jumping the zoning of the property mul/ple levels (from SFR to R-
8) and would avoid the SuperMax approach the Developer has taken within R-8, which pushes to the
maximum (and beyond) every relevant project parameter, i.e., number of units, water use, steepness of
slope, structure height, and traffic danger.
Just one example (discussed in more detail below) shows a view from behind a 6-foot man facing East
and standing at the lot line between Herman Field Park and the SuperMax project, looking up the ~43-
foot-high hill at the ~45-foot-high (four-story) West wall of the building:
2
The Developer wants you to put this giant beast on a property that is currently zoned single-family
residen/al. It is a property that abuts single-family lots that the current owners purchased before the
Comprehensive Plan opened any possibility of higher zoning. I and other neighbors do not demand that
the property be kept single-family residen/al, but we fairly expect a reasonable middle ground, and
there is no legal reason for the Commission to accept the Developer’s SuperMax approach. There are, in
contrast, many reasons Developer’s applica/on should be, and must be, rejected under the law.
I address par/cular problems with the Developer’s proposal next.
Developer Gives Only a False Premise for R-8, so the Commission Cannot Go R-8
An applicant that seeks to obtain a property right from the government, at the expense of others, bears
the burden of providing evidence and reasoning for why it should be given such a privilege. Here,
Developer’s request is a rezoning from SFR, up mul/ple levels, to R-8. From my review of Developer’s
filings with the city, I see a single explana/on, and that is that the Developer asserts it has the “right” to
44 units. Specifically, Developer states, in its “Minnewashta Apartments SubmiEal Narra/ve”:
The Residen/al Medium Density guidance allows up to 44 units by right.
Developer’s asseron is crically and demonstrably false . And it is the central reason the applica/on
must be denied (not merely should be denied).
A simple review of the city’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan shows this. Specifically, the Plan explicitly says
that the various “Residen/al – Medium Density” areas on the plan map (which is what the map marks
the Development property as) can be R-4, RLM, R-8, or PUD-R. It is up to the City Council to iden/fy
which of these is proper in each area, not for a Developer to dictate which. Developer can get 44 units
only by presen/ng evidence and reasoning that R-8 is the proper zoning, and by the City Council
accep/ng that. Developer has provided only its one-sentence asser/on, which is false. Developer has
provided no evidence, discussion, or reasoning to get an R-8. The city cannot back-fill evidence or
argument for Developer, so the applica/on must be denied because Developer’s only reason is a faulty
reason.1
The wording of Developer’s asser/on implies that it could take legal ac/on if it is not given its “right” to a
44-unit SuperMax apartment. Just the opposite. On the current record, the Commission and City Council
cannot legally give Developer R-8 zoning, and doing so would open the city to legal liability.
I discuss in the next sec/on why R-4 is the only proper choice here for upward re-zoning, but the
Commission need not and cannot get there because Developer chose only a terse legally-improper
ground for its R-8 SuperMax approach. A semi-judicial administra/ve body like a City Council (or a
1 More generally, to my understanding, a Comprehensive Plan cannot compel anything. It is instead a document
that discusses goals, and it is then up to a city council to amend its City Code to codify any goals it deems
sufficiently important. See Zoning Guide for Ci/es, at 2-4 (League of Minnesota Ci/es July 26, 2024) (available at
hEps://www.lmc.org/wp-content/uploads/documents/Zoning-Guide-for-Ci/es.pdf). Cf. Chanhassen City Code Sec.
20-110. Developer has not cited the Chanhassen City Code on Zoning or provided any reason from that code that it
has a “right” to R-8 and 44 units, and its applica/on must be denied as a maEer of law for that reason also.
3
Planning Commission suppor/ng a City Council) cannot sua sponte provide evidence and ra/onale for a
zoning selec/on that an applicant never provided.
R-8 is the Wrong Zoning Even Apart from Developer’s Failure of Proof
A neighbor is not required to prove the proper zoning when a Developer fails to do so. But to help the
Commission, I’ll try. In par/cular, the 2040 Comprehensive Plan hammers home that R-8 is a wrong
zoning for this property:
It Jumps Mul1ple Levels, and Doesn’t Transi1on: The Comprehensive Plan’s “Land Use” sec/on
emphasizes: “Transi/ons should be created between different land uses. The more incompa/ble
the land uses, the more important the transi/on zone.” A SuperMax R-8 solu/on is not a
“transi/on” at all from SFR—it is an at-least-two-step jump in zoning that is surrounded by
quieter/lesser uses. Even worse, it is a maximized (SuperMax) use of R-8. It s/cks out; it does not
transi/on.
It’s inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s Defini1on for Medium Density Proper1es: In
the Comprehensive Plan’s defini/on of “Residen/al—Medium Density” (at page 32), the Plan
states: “Medium density areas ae used to create transi/onal zones between [a] low-density
residen/al and [b] commercial, office, or high-density residen/al areas.” The Development here
is surrounded by (a) single-family on the North and East, (b) single-story school on East, (c) parks
on the South and West, and (d) the single-story Trouvaille Memory Care on the North. The
Development is a much, much higher-intensity use than any of its neighbors—contrary to the
Comprehensive Plan’s requirement that it by a transion between single-family and a higher
use.
It’s Unprecedented: I’ve pored over the Chanhassen Zoning map and cannot find another
loca/on where SFR jumps to R-8, let alone where an R-8 was created from an exis/ng SFR
zoning. Historically, R-8 zoning appears to have been used for single-story senior homes—i.e.,
the BeeHive/Trouvaille memory care next to the Development and Elysian Senior Homes in the
SW part of the city. And even Elysian is single-story, next to apartments rather than SFR, and
buffered by lots of trees:
And cri/cally, such dense apartment housing is not seen outside the city’s Central Business
District. This makes perfect sense from a planning perspec/ve, because zoning types should
4
change gradually, such that one level of zoning does not offend its neighbor by being too
different.
It Violates the Comprehensive Plan’s Requirement to Maintain the Aesthe1c of Single-Family
Areas: In Sec/on 1.7.1 on “Land Use,” the 2040 Comprehensive Plan list the goals of: “Support
low-density residen/al development in appropriate areas of the community in such a manner as
to maintain the aesthe/c exis/ng single-family areas, and to create new neighborhoods of
similar character and quality. Designate sufficient land to provide for a wide spectrum of
housing. Adequate land should be set aside for medium and high-density land uses.” Taken
together, these goals point to not having this property be mul/ple zoning steps above its
residen/al neighbors (R-8), but something that fits with the residen/al (R-4).
It Violates the Comprehensive Plan’s Requirement to “Preserve Natural Slopes,” to the Harm
of Neighboring Single-Family Proper1es: Under “Natural Resources” in the Comprehensive Plan,
the first policy is to “Preserve natural slopes wherever possible.” Directly contrary to this policy,
the SuperMax nature of the Development radically increases slopes in the NW corner of the
property to maximum values (33.3%), and that is where private neighbors are located downhill
from the Development (which I discuss in more detail below).
It’s An Extreme Change Without Buffer: Sec/on 2.13.1 of the Comprehensive Plan, on “Buffer
Yard Concept,” states that buffers should be used between areas of different usage. The
SuperMax apartment towers over the Dog Park, and Herman Field Park, and is not buffered at all
(see below).
It’s Inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s Transit Goals: The 2040 Comprehensive Plan
notes that developments will be reviewed based on their ability to make use of mass transit
resources. No one in this apartment building is going to use transit—i.e., Metro Transit’s own
map shows it is in a mass transit desert (with the Developed in red/yellow) and mass transit
miles away at the very top, very boEom, and very East edge of the map:
That simply highlights that a large apartment building is out-of-place in this loca/on, and belongs
in or near a commercial/urban area.
It’s Inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s Traffic Plan: The 2040 Comprehensive Plan, in
Sec/on 1.7.5 on “Transporta/on,” notes the importance of discouraging development in
roadway corridors, especially principal arterials. That is because it’s dangerous for cars to just
pull onto a principal arterial. (For example, that is why interstate highways have only long entry
ramps.) But highway 41 is one of the few roads in Chanhassen designated as a “principal
5
arterial,” see Chanhassen City Code, so indiscriminately adding 44 units that would pull right
onto it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
It’s Inconsistent With Site History: When the city council permiEed the next-door memory care
facility a decade ago (Bee Hive, née Trouvaille), it re-zoned only that par/cular memory care part
of the property. Presumably, it did so to maintain control over what happened on the rest of the
property—i.e., to make sure a developer would not take advantage of the higher zoning and
then boldly announce that it had a “right” to the super-maximum of 44 units. If the Council had
gone R-8 all the way at that /me, perhaps Developer would have the “right” that it now says it
does. But the Council did not. Therefore, the Commission and Council should con/nue their
careful stewardship of the public good now and require a reasonable proposal, not a SuperMax
plan.
It’s Inconsistent with the Larger Context: If you step back and look at the 2040 Comprehensive
Plan and zoning map more generally, you’ll see apartments, hotels, commercial, retail and other
“higher” uses generally arrayed in the center of the city—along highways 5 and 212. Such
heavier development falls as you move away from 5/212—with the excep/on of a handful of
senior homes (which really are not “heavy” uses in reality). That is the sort of development that
makes sense on this property, and is consistent with the broader plan for the city. The city
certainly needs a mix of housing types, but it needs them in the right loca/ons.
Indeed, the property is named “Lot 2, Block 1, Beehive Home 2nd Addi/on”—where “Beehive” was the
original name of the memory care center, and the first Beehive lot was to have a sister building. That was
the plan, and it was a good plan. Something’s changed, and now they are going SuperMax.
Congratula/ons to them from a business perspec/ve if they can get away with it, but they shouldn’t get
away with it. (I don’t see that they are even having to plant any great number of trees or make any other
nod to the neighborhood, and are in fact sneaking in a liEle trail to the Dog Park—which is otherwise
fenced and inaccessible for security—to further take advantage without giving anything back.)
In sum, Staff told me at the public mee/ng that they had not addressed the issue of whether R-4 or R-8
is the right change in zoning, and the Commission need not and should not reach the issue. But if it does,
the evidence in the /mely-filed record reflects only the points above, which all show why R-8 SuperMax
is wrong for this loca/on.
The SuperMax Project Creates Water Problems for Private and Public Neighbors
The SuperMax project violates both city prac/ce and the 2040 Comprehensive Plan in terms of run-off.
Specifically, I have been told by city staff that property owners are not allowed to change their land such
that they push addi/onal water to a neighbor or block drainage of a neighbor. More importantly, the
2040 Comprehensive Plan states, as its top Policy under its top “Natural Resources” Goal (Sec/on 1.7.3):
“Preserve natural slopes wherever possible.”
Developer’s plan wholly fails on this requirement because it re-directs substan/al water flow onto
neighboring land to the North and Northwest, when that run-off currently goes to the Southwest corner
of the lot. For current water flow, Developer’s July 11, 2025, leEer to the Watershed District confirms
that all current drainage to the North is only toward the Trouvaille Memory Care Facility, and the
remainder is to the Southwest corner of the property—i.e., no run-off occurs to the other neighboring
6
proper/es. But as to future flow, a large por/on of run-off will be pushed onto single-family proper/es
to the North and Northwest. The first image below shows such flow as red arrows in a satellite view, to
beEer see the Development in context with the neighbors. The second image shows the same red flow
arrows superimposed over Developer’s topographic map to beEer show the steep slopes. It’s a lot of
water.
The steeply-sloped storm pond is the main cause of this problem. Its walls rise as much as 20 feet higher
than the Northern property border (from 975’ to 995’), and you can see the steepness on the downslope
surrounding the pond by how densely-packed the topographic lines are. Those steep walls push run-off
to the North and Northwest, directly toward the neighboring proper/es. They do this at an extreme
grade of 33.3% (in viola/on of the explicit city requirement to “preserve natural slopes wherever
possible”), thus giving that run-off maximum velocity directed to the North and Northwest. That water
7
moving North on the side of the pond then redirects the West-flowing water in the swale toward the
North as soon as the swale ends, and the combined water pushes onto 2461 W 64th Street and 6480
Oriole Avenue (the property to the Northwest, which I own).
The changes in slope also violate Chanhassen City Code Sec. 20-110, which requires “preserva/on of the
site in its natural state to the extent prac/cable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade
changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed or developing areas.”
There are no corresponding super-steep slopes in the neighboring areas, and so this aspect of the
Development violates both the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and City Code.
I have found nothing in Developer’s applica/on that addresses this problem.2 Developer’s maps simply
show one Southwest-facing arrow near the spillway area for the pond, and ignore the Northern part of
the topography.
It is not a de minimus problem either, because the captured area is significant, and the land con/nues to
drop 20 or more ver/cal feet (where the long red arrow points). That is my property. It will be eroded,
and will be where all of this run-off eventually pools on 6480 Oriole Ave aVer a hard rain. It is
inappropriate, and the law prevents the Commission from allowing it.
This problem exists if everything goes perfectly. But there are bigger problems if the pond overflows or
fails. Developer’s submission appears to calculate a size for the pond, and I’ve not had /me to review
that. But rainfall is becoming more unpredictable with climate change, the 6” depression for a spillway
on the Southwest side of the pond won’t keep up in a downpour, and the pond will spill even more run-
off toward the neighboring proper/es at 2461 W 64th Street and 6480 Oriole Avenue. I suppose at that
point, I could complain to the apartment manager and/or the city—but you know that won’t get me
anywhere. And I should not be forced to take on the cost of suing, which will quickly equal the flood-
diminished value of my property. Rather, the Commission and the City Council should recognize this
proposal as a problem now—taking any of the many routes I’ve provided—and force a reasonable
development.
I’ve not seen much of anything in Developer’s submission about the design of the pond (as opposed to
its sizing). My brief study has raised two par/cular problems there. First, a well-designed stormwater
pond—especially one that just dumps over its top edge when it overflows—should have a “forebay”
where ini/al seEling can occur. See Minnesota Stormwater Manual Wiki: Design criteria for stormwater
ponds (available at
hEps://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Design criteria for stormwater ponds ). For the
Development, my concern is that a substan/al por/on of the run-off is going to come from a parking lot,
where cars sit for days and drip oil and other such fluids. Oil floats, so it will float on the top of the pond.
And the pond releases via overflow from its top (where the oil would be floa/ng as a sheen), down into
the wetland. I see nothing in the applica/on materials that address this problem.
2 At the public mee/ng, Developer suggested that there was some sort of swale on the downhill side of the pond
wall. I don’t think that is accurate, because all the topo numbers where my red arrows cross are descending in
height, so straight hill and no swale or trough.
8
Second, a pond needs to be surrounded by impermeable material like clay that is not only placed on
exis/ng ground, but that extends into and is carefully packed into a “core trench” in exis/ng clay or
similar material:
“Ponds—Planning, Design, and Construc/on,” USDA, Agriculture Handbook 590, p. 1 (available at
hEps://nrcspad.sc.egov.usda.gov/distribu/oncenter/pdf.aspx?productID=115 ).
This is par/cularly true for any side of a pond that are on a downhill side of the pond, as is the case here.
The use of clay or similar impervious material throughout decreases the chances that the pond will leak
through its walls (seepage). And the use of a properly-constructed core trench (e.g., made of clay and
surrounded by clay) lessens the chance that the wall of the pond will simply slip over the exis/ng soil
due to pressure of the water pushing out and down, and lessens the chance that water will leak through
the interface between old and new soil. I don’t see anything in the applica/on about this, and I don’t see
core samples having been taken in the loca/on where the cri/cal core trench would need to go.
As the owner of land that is 20 feet or more lower than the boEom of the pond and downhill from it,
just 20 feet from the Development’s NW corner—and who will bear the brunt of any leakage or failure—
this is an important issue to me. I don’t see it addressed in the applica/on. More fundamentally, no one
should be allowed to build a retaining pond above another person’s property, where it could flood that
property. Applicant avoids this concern by never discussing or even showing 6480 Oriole Avenue, even
though it’s about 20 feet from the Development’s NW corner, and severely downhill.
Apart from my personal run-off and flooding concerns, there should be a great public concern over this
project—especially for lovers of Lake Minnewashta. The run-off for this project is not just directly into
some random wetland. Rather, it passes into the wetland’s SE corner then out its nearby SW corner into
a stream directly into Lake Minnewashta.
9
To me, the fundamental problem is that the pond will pick up oil and other petrochemicals because it is
mainly catching water from streets and parking lots. Those chemicals float on top of water, and the pond
emp/es over its top edge. So an oily film will wash from the paved areas, will float on top of the pond,
will slide down the hill onto the surface of the wetland, and will flow through the stream to the surface
of Lake Minnewashta. Developer may have experts, but they don’t address any of that, to my
understanding.
There is addi/onally the problem of the soon-to-come (or maybe not) pond for the Highway 41 traffic
circle. Developer’s plan leaves liEle room or flexibility for that pond, which is years away, and whose
design may be affected by any number of seen or unforeseen changes in the coming years. In short,
allowing construc/on of a parking lot right up to that pond will handcuff what the city can do in the
future. And even if the traffic circle designers are confident that their design is set, they were no doubt
equally confident just a few months ago that the traffic circle would be under construc/on right now.
This is just another in the long line of reasons that Developer’s applica/on should and must be denied.
There is one more detailed, but very important, water problem with the submission. Specifically, the
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) by Braun Intertec is five years old—incredibly out-dated.
On this one, I’ll rely on Google AI, which explains that there is no set /me for expira/on of an ESA, but
gives 6-18 months as a typical /me frame:
10
Even if there is some flexibility in that number, five years is way, way longer than 6-18 months. That is
especially so for a property like Developer’s property, which has been vacant land next to a busy highway
that whole /me. So there is maximum access for any member of the public to see the land and put
pollutants on it. And there is effec/vely no ability for the absent owner to observe such ac/on. Perhaps
most cri/cally, I see nothing in the applica/on indica/ng that Braun Intertec (and its E&O carrier) is s/ll
willing to stand by the report aVer all this /me. So this is an area (vouching for the 5-year-old ESA) where
the Developer is missing an expert, but where an expert is needed.
The SuperMax Project is a Four-Story Building That Exceeds Even R-8 Limits
Even if Developer gets R-8 re-zoning (and it should plainly not, for all the reasons discussed above), such
zoning is limited to buildings whose primary façade is three stories or less. Some/mes the
determina/on of a primary façade is easy, and some/mes it is complex. Here, it is complex, and
Developer has simply assumed the issue away without ever addressing it. If the primary façade is at any
other direc/on than East, the applica/on must be denied because every other façade is plainly 3+ stories
(and I don’t think even Developer would dispute that). And even if the primary façade is East-only, the
applica/on should be denied because the building is more than 3-stories even from the East.
Here is the analysis:
Developer picked the proper view of the building when making its rendering, and what you see should
be considered the primary façade (excluding the roof and ground, of course):
Why is this (the NE façade) the appropriate primary façade?
It provides the most complete and contextual view of the building, which presumably is why
Developer picked it.
It views the building from the Northeast (facing SW), and that is the angle that people will view it
as they enter the property at its NE corner. It is also the angle Southbound drivers will see from
Highway 41 as they look from their vehicles. (Hopefully, drivers only look over at a 45-degree
angle and not a 90-degree angle—and Northbound drivers will see liEle of the building because
it will be blocked by Minneswastha Park trees and berming.)
This façade shows the longest face of the building, which is the North face. The building is longer
and of much greater area (because its average height is greater) when viewed from the North as
11
compared to when it is viewed from the East. So the North face is the dominant face in terms of
size.
This view shows the door—the parking garage door—that is the most visually-dominant
entrance to the building and is where the bulk of the entry will be made into the building.
Specifically, every unit in the building will have at least one car because there is no mass transit
op/on within miles of the building. Residents with a single car will park that car, naturally, in the
protected underground parking, and will use the garage door on the North face to enter and
leave the building. Residents with two cars will park their primary car in the garage, and the
majority of their trips will be with that primary car through the comfort of the garage and garage
door. Even secondary cars and all visitors will enter the parking lots from the North side of the
building, while seeing primarily the North face of the building. So the vast majority of the
coming/goings will be through the North face of the building. Even arrivals that don’t enter the
garage will be aimed at the North face of the building as they arrive, and the East face has just a
walk-in entry, though one is hard-pressed even to see that entry when looking at the building, so
its role is both secondary in usage and secondary in visual importance.
Every relevant factor thus points to a Northeast façade being the proper primary façade of the building,
and the building is over 3-stories when measured along that façade.
If one insists that only the North face or the East face can be the primary façade, then the right answer is
the North face for the reasons just discussed, e.g.: (a) the North face is where the bulk of the
coming/going will occur; (b) it is the longest and much-largest face of the building; (c) it has the largest
and most visually-dominant entry; and (d) it beEer reflects the other faces of the building because it
shows the garage surface and materials that are visible from the surrounding parks, and thus should also
be considered relevant façades of the building (even though they are not primary façades).
The fact that Highway 41 is toward the East of the building changes nothing, and certainly cannot control
the analysis. Specifically, the loca/on of nearby roads is only one factor and is essen/ally a non-factor in
the present context. Even if the Commission gives full weight to Highway 41, it is only a single factor and
is overcome by all the factors just discussed. The building here is set back far from the highway, and will
further be blocked by the collec/on pond for the traffic circle. Moreover, Easter views of the building will
be flee/ng at best because there is no sidewalk or other path by which slower movers (like pedestrians
and cyclists) will pass that side of the building. In short, this is not a typical house that fronts on a street
and sidewalk, but is instead an L-shaped building who greatest size and dominant visual features face
North, not East. The proper façade is North, and the building is too tall even for R-8.
Even viewed solely from the East, the building exceeds three stories, as shown in red circle-ish area
below:
12
Even if one were to give Developer R-8 (which would be wrong); even if one allowed Developer to ignore
the proper primary and dominant façade (which would be wrong); and even if one were to allow
Developer to go SuperMax on all of this (which also would be wrong)—the Commission s/ll does not
have power under R-8 zoning to go over three stories, and thus, Developer’s applica/on must be
rejected as a maEer of law. Three stories is a hard limit; there is no “close enough.”
But regardless of what face is selected as the primary façade, the above exercise shows why this
SuperMax approach is the wrong approach. At its extreme edge, it could sneak in as almost a 3-story
building, but it is primarily a 4-story building and should be viewed as such whether one considers R-4 or
R-8 to be the relevant zoning. And more generally, it’s the wrong building for this site.
The SuperMax Project Creates Traffic Dangers
You will no doubt hear from others about how dangerous traffic is in this par/cular loca/on of Highway
41. I will try to s/ck with points I don’t an/cipate others to make.
For a start, Developer’s single-page from its supposed traffic expert does not move the ball at all—for
many reasons. First, it pulls a number from the ITE Trip Genera/on Manual, and although I can’t pay
$499 to get a copy of that manual, it appears this was nothing more than a number that pops out of “3-
story building with 44 units” lookup—with no more context than that. So the Manual would pop out the
same number for people entering/leaving a site by car as (a) a building in ManhaEen with no on-site
parking and a subway sta/on next door, (b) a building in a suburb that has only 44 parking spaces instead
of 88, or (c) an apartment building in the most rural town you can imagine. Now, I’m not an expert, but
super-experts have cri/cized the ITE Manual for lacking such context. For example, well-known UCLA
urban planning professor Donald Shoup in Access Magazine centers on ITE data hiding lack of accuracy
by presen/ng data with high levels of supposed precision even though it lacks context:
ITE’s stamp of authority relieves planners from the obliga/on to think for themselves—
the answers are right there in the book. ITE offers a precise number without raising
difficult public policy ques/ons, although it does warn, “Users of this report should
exercise extreme cau/on when u/lizing data that is based on a small number of studies.”
…. To unsophis/cated users, the precise rates look like constants, similar to the boiing
13
point of water or the speed of light. Many planners treat parking and trip genera/on like
physical laws and the reported rates like scien/fic observa/ons. But parking and trip
genera/on are poorly understood phenomena.
Shoup, Roughly Right or Precisely Wrong, Access Magazine at 20-25 (Spring 2002). In other words, this is
not a simple plug-and-chug issue, as Developer’s submission would imply. Others have noted that much
of the ITE data is 20 or more years old, and thus unreliable (especially with lifestyle changes caused by
Covid).
Moreover, apart from pulling a number and sta/ng the result “is an/cipated to be minimal,” the “expert”
does absolutely no analysis. He certainly is able to do an analysis, because he appears to have done so
for the Santa Vera Apartments project that you will also review Tuesday night. And in any event, an
expert cannot simply say “I’m an expert” and state a conclusion—he must explain himself. Here, he does
not men/on the school, does not men/on studying its traffic or anything related to it, does not men/on
when the peak traffic /mes from the Development are and how they relate to school peak /mes (or how
he determined what each of those peak /mes were), he does not men/on the unique situa/on of an
apartment entering onto a 55 mph highway across from a school doing the same, or any other relevant
factor. We’re just supposed to take his word.
My ul/mate point is that every site is unique, and Developer’s submission ignores the important context
of this site. I’ve not seen anyone studying the area recently, and I have a personal exper/se for the area
because it is along my regular walking path. Its uniquely dangerous features include:
Cars leaving the Development dump right onto a highway, not a city street. The speed limit is 55
mph for Southbound traffic and effec/vely 55 mph for Northbound traffic, because only a small
percent of Northbound vehicles slow to the 45 mph limit. (I oVen check the electronic road-side
speed sign on my walks, and typically 6 to 12 cars exceed the limit before even one meets it—
i.e., speed compliance is about 10% for Northbound traffic.)
It is a uniquely dangerous area, as the city, parents, and school have recognized—owing to a
combina/on of mul/ple problems. The primary problem is traffic coming South from Westbound
7. There are two lanes of traffic turning leV off 7, they get impa/ent at the red arrow, and they
come off that turn like NASCAR racers. They are then faced with the problem of merging as they
accelerate, and simultaneously dealing with cars going into and out of the
Speedy/Caribou/NorthCoop area. So there is speeding, accelera/ng, merging, jostling, and
informa/on overload. Way too frequently, they don’t merge at all, and they cruise illegally down
the cross-hatched part of the road—and that is today a huge risk to kids in the pedestrian
crosswalk. If you approve this plan, a mul/plied risk when entering traffic from the Development
will amp the chaos up even further. A secondary problem is that Northbound traffic comes in
steaming hot, well over the 45 mph limit.
And I haven’t even added the problem of school traffic yet. As others will tell you, traffic backs
up in the Southbound leV turn lane (right in front of the Development) and complicates things
for everyone during both pick-up and drop-off and other /mes, and pedestrian traffic is high
(and will create issues even aVer the traffic circle is complete).
The traffic has increased greatly since Covid, and its aggression has increased also. For example,
a larger number of people prefer to keep driving in the illegal cross-hatched area rather than
14
merge before the crosswalk. Adding more complica/on to that area will not help anything, and
the complica/on cannot just be waived away whether one is an “expert” or not.
Highway 41 is also a thoroughfare for heavy, mul/-axle dump trucks that pick of gravel and
similar products in the pits near the South end of Highway 41, because it is the straightest path
for distribu/on and development along highway 7. The same is true of other traffic from
Highway 212 going onto Highway 7. Sit at the pedestrian crosswalk for an hour some/me. It’s
craaaazy.
It is also definitely not enough to say that the problems will be fixed by a round-about. That project is
years away, so its uncertainty is a magnitude more than when Staff believed this Spring that it would be
a “go,” and wasn’t. Cri/cally, experts and economists expect tariffs to increase infla/on for road
construc/on considerably, such that a project years out cannot be viewed with any confidence. For
example, the Senior Managing Editor of Roads & Bridges Magazine recently explained how Kansas’
secretary of transporta/on noted, “If tariffs go up, if prices con/nue to go up, if revenues go down, if
more money is transferred away, then there are projects that will likely have to be sacrificed.” Gavin
Jenkins, “Trump’s Tariffs and the Cost of Construc/on,” Roads & Bridges (Apr. 3, 2025) (available at
hEps://www.roadsbridges.com/road-construc/on/news/55279591/trumps-tariffs-and-the-cost-of-
construc/on). Similar reports are legion. E.g., Sebas/an Orbando, “Sweeping New Tariffs Put Future
Construc/on Jobs at Risk,” Construc/on Dive (Apr. 3, 2025) (available at
hEps://www.construc/ondive.com/news/trump-tariffs-construc/on-risk-libera/on-day/744334/ ). So it’s
not enough to fill the overage from the recent bidding, but one would need to add substan/ally more to
the budget to have any confidence at all.
Moreover, the traffic circle will be only a par/al fix that helps cars, but not the young pedestrians we
should care most about. If you’ve used a traffic circle like the one by Costco on Highway 41, you’ll know it
really smooths vehicle traffic. But you’ll also know that your aEen/on as a driver is filled up with
whether cars from the leV will hit you, and whether cars from the right will yield to you. The problem is
that you don’t see the pedestrians—who have the right-of-way—at the loca/on where you exit the
circle. That’s fine for a circle like the Costco one, where there are few pedestrians. But it’s a problem
where there are more pedestrians. A traffic engineer might point out that traffic circles have fewer
fatali/es, but if you dig deeper, you learn that is because traffic circles push pedestrians to yield to cars
(even though the pedestrians have the right-of-away). But this doesn’t work as well with young
pedestrians—especially those on e-bikes—who are less likely to stop when they know the cars are
supposed to stop. In any event, a glib answer of “it will be alright when the traffic circle is in,” is no
answer at all—but that’s what Developer provides.
In sum, Developer is much too flippant about a traffic problem it doesn’t live around and that it has
failed to even study—hiding behind a naked asser/on that its addi/on to the problem is too small to
maEer.
The SuperMax Project Creates Visual Problems for Neighbors
The Developer’s submissions lack informa/on about surrounding proper/es that would provide context
showing that the SuperMax proposal is wrong for the site visually—both in crea/ng light pollu/on that is
15
wholly at odds with the surrounding SFR zoning, and for being much too large and imposing because of
how big it is and how it is sited.
First, the project will create unreasonable light pollu/on for the houses to the North—light pollu/on that
the owners of those houses never expected and that they should not have to endure. For example, the
image below shows how these neighbors have a direct line-of-sight (indicated by yellow arrows) out all
their back or side windows toward the five parking lot lights (indicated by red dots). These are the back
rooms of a house (typically, living room and bedrooms) where one least expects to look out and have
bright dots of light burning away:
The following image roughly shows how the neighbors will be looking up at the lights, and how fencing
will not fix the problem of the parking lot lights:
This image also provides a disturbing idea of how badly the SuperMax project will violate their privacy.
This is par/cularly troublesome because these houses are on a cul-de-sac and were thus built to be back-
yard-oriented. Specifically, cul de sac houses naturally have a wedge shape, and thus a smaller front yard
and larger back yard—so focus occurs for the back yard (which will now face a huge apartment building).
Imagine si‘ng down any /me aVer 5 p.m. in the Winter to read or watch TV, and mul/ple bright, yellow
16
dots are burning back at you through your back windows (perhaps accompanied in the Summer with
some boom-boom from the outdoor party deck).3
Staring out at parking lot lights may be okay if you’re staying at a Residence Inn for one night, and it may
be funny in Na/onal Lampoon’s Christmas vaca/on…
But it’s not okay for people who moved to an edge area of Chanhassen and who reasonably expected
something else. The residents of the cul de sac—vo/ng and tax-paying residents of Chanhassen—did not
buy into that, were not in any way warned about it, and should not have it thrust on them by the
Commission or the City Council. R-8 zoning is not the Developer’s right, and a brightly-lit parking lot is
not the Developer’s right.
“But….but…the trees will cover for this problem.” Wrong. First, to the extent there are trees between the
lights and the houses next door, they are not trees on Developer’s property. As far as I can see, the
Northwest side of the Development is naked—because of the holding pond that the SuperMax approach
has required. The neighboring residents should not be required to maintain tree cover to address
Developer’s light pollu/on. Second, most of the trees in this area are dead or dying ash trees, and the
rest are threatened. The building will be there 80 years, but the trees likely will not be. As just one
example of tree death, Developer’s plans show major tree canopy coverage along the West border of its
property, but I took this picture (from just West of the property’s NW corner—from the NE corner of
Herman Field Park) last week, showing that all the actual trees are 100% dead, and all that is leV is low-
lying sumac and buckthorn weeds.
3 To the extent Developer tries to focus on the cone of light thrown down by the lights, the point is not that these
houses are outside that par/cular cone. Rather, the point is that these residents—who purchased in a single-family
residen/al area with single-family residen/al behind them, will now have to see these high, bright lights any /me
they look out the backs of their houses.
17
Further on the depressing dying tree phenomenon, the Commission members might also be aware that
the Minnewashta Dog Park immediately adjacent to the Development had a full crew spends 6 weeks
this Spring cu‘ng down and chopping up dead ash and other trees. The trees are thinning to-the-
extreme. Third, and perhaps most important, the light pollu/on will occur mostly in the Winter, when
darkness predominates, and when the trees have no leaves to block the light pollu/on.
Aside from light pollu/on, the SuperMax project will also visually pollute the users of nearby parks—
both because of how tall (about 45 feet) and otherwise massive the building is, but also because (a) it is
sited high on a hill (about 43 feet tall) that towers over Herman Field Park, and (b) it almost touches the
Dog Park trail (about 40 feet away) and towers over it.
As for Herman field park, the first image below shows a view from behind a 6-foot adult (you have to
strain to see him because the Development is so massive) looking at the West face of the Development
from the East edge of Herman Field Park. The second image shows a map view so you can beEer
understand where this person is standing and where they are looking:
18
This is horrible. Really. How could anyone think it is not? Par/cularly on a lot that has never been zoned
higher than single-family residen/al. It calls to mind the enormous mansions of Newport, Rhode Island,
except those look nice. It also calls to mind Joseph Welch’s famous ques/on of Senator McCarthy: “Have
you no sense of decency?” Developer is not en/tled to R-8, its SuperMax approach abuses the idea of R-
8 zoning, and the Development is simply too massive and urban/commercial of a building for this rural-
like se‘ng.
The building is just as problema/c when viewed from the Lake Minnewashta Dog Park that sits to the
South. For those unfamiliar, that dog park is not just an open area of grass, but a beau/ful meandering
nature trail through the woods. And although Developer’s applica/on does not show it, Carver County
public records show the dog trail located right by the property line:
With the apartment building set back from the South property line by only 40 feet, the following image
shows the effect of the building on anyone using the dog park.
19
Notably, the apartment’s open party deck towers over the dog park, and will provide visual annoyance to
users of the park, and also likely loud music that could disturb both the dogs and their owners.
To summarize, the building, again, is massive, and wholly out of context with the area. This is not a
downtown Chanhassen dog park; it is, by its feel, a rural dog park, and that is why it is so in demand. I
am also not aware if the Minnewashta Regional Park Board has had a chance to understand what
Chanhassen is doing 40 feet away. Even if Minnewashta Park has no direct legal say in this construc/on,
it certainly seems prudent for the city, as a good municipal neighbor, to give that Park Board a full
opportunity to hear from its stakeholders and provide input to the city.
The Architectural Style is Inconsistent with the Area, and is Instead Cut-and-
Paste from Urban and Commercial Architecture
The design of the SuperMax building does not fit with the neighborhood, as the City requires. The
neighborhood is a mix of classic styles, with angled/shingled roofs, lap and stucco siding, dormers, and
the like. One need merely look next door to the memory care facility to see a building that is large, but
that reflects the neighborhood style and is a good neighbor.
20
In contrast, Developer’s proposed building is a cut-and-paste of hundreds of other apartment buildings
in urban/commercial areas—a style called “MinecraVism” and “Simcityism.” The “style” is a flat-roofed
box, with a mélange of randomly earth-tone-colored rectangles.
Below are just a few examples from the same architects in commercial/urban areas—though the
Commission members have surely seen this same apartment design in many other commercial/urban
areas. My point is that, even if you like this style, it is an urban/commercial style, and has not been
designed to fit into our area one whit.
The Morrison Apartments (by Kaas Wilson) in a commercial district in Rosemount:
Axle Apartments (by Kaas Wilson), at a major intersec1on in Fridley:
21
The Exchange Apartments (by Kaas Wilson), in a commercial area in New Brighton:
Sonder Point (by Kaas Wilson), in a Brooklyn Center office park and commercial district:
Chanhassen does not have a high architectural hurdle, but it does require some minimal sensi/vity to
the site and surroundings.
22
Whatever the design’s merits or demerits, it is urban/commercial and is not adapted to its mostly-
residen/al environment. The exis/ng memory care shows proper design; in contrast, the proposed
SuperMax building shows inten/onally-blind design. Developer has made no explana/on about how this
design fits in any way with the largely-residen/al neighborhood.
Conclusion
The one-story memory care center next door is a logical use of the land and is what we were told would
be the use of the vacant remainder (Beehive phase 2). Developer is trying to change that and maximize
its profits by maximizing every parameter of the Development. This is a building in size and design that
should be in an urban or commercial area (e.g., in or near the Central Business District and transit)—
both as a general maEer and as to how Chanhassen is otherwise arranged. Developer’s effort to push a
giant structure in a residen/al area should be rejected and must be rejected. Let them come back with
something reasonable, like they had been planning in 2017 and 2020.
Best Regards,
John Dragseth
John Dragseth