The URL can be used to link to this page

4. Chanhassen Apartments0 CITY OF CAANAASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 7901 Park Place Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Community Development Director DATE: April 22, 2013 SUBJ: Approval of City Code Amendment, Rezoning, Site Plan with Variances and a Land Use Map Amendment for Chanhassen Apartments Planning Case #2013 -07 PROPOSED MOTION "The Chanhassen City Council approves an Amendment to the City Code, Rezoning, Site Plan with Variances, and a Land Use Map Amendment for the Chanhassen Apartments subject to the conditions in the staff report and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation." City Council approval requires a majority vote of City Council present. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a 155 -unit apartment building. In December of 2012 the City Council made the following comments on the Concept PUD for the Chanhassen Apartments: • number of units was too high • need to address traffic and pedestrian safety • environmental protection • density transfer Based on the comments from the conceptual PUD review the applicant has made changes to the project including the number of units. To approve this project a land use amendment to high density residential, site plan with a parking variance and rezoning to PUD is required. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 16, 2013 to review the proposed development. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the project. The April 16, 2013 Planning Commission meeting minutes are item 1 a of the April 22, 2013 City Council packet. 4 Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow Todd Gerhardt Chanhassen Apartments — Planning Case 2013 -07 April 22, 2013 Page 2 Comments made at the public hearing included: • Traffic and safe pedestrian crossing • The number of U -turns needs to be addressed • Don't change the land use, the city should wait until the next comprehensive plan update • The number of units being proposed for the density transfer is too high • A number of questions focused on the methodology of the traffic study RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of an Amendment to the City Code defining a conservation area, Rezoning of approximately 14 acres from Agricultural Estate (A -2) to Planned Unit Development- Residential (PUD -R); approval of a Site Plan Review for a 155 -unit Apartment Building with Variances to reduce interior parking by one stall; approval of a Land Use Map Amendment from Residential -Low Density and Office, to Residential -Low and High Density and Office and Residential -High Density Planned Unit Development (PUD); and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Report Dated April 16, 2013. 2. Email from Lynn/Velma Wilder dated April 12, 2013 3. Highway 5 Accidents Summary. gAplan\2013 planning cases\2013 -07 chanhassen apartments \executive summary.doc PC DATE: April 16, 2013 4 CC DATE: April 22, 2013 REVIEW DEADLINE: May 14, 2013 CASE #: 2013 -07 BY: KA PROPOSED MOTION: "The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approves Rezoning approximately 14 acres from Agricultural Estate (A -2) to Planned Unit Development- Residential (PUD -R); Site Plan Review with Variances for a 155 -unit Apartment Building; and a Land Use Map Amendment from Residential-Low Density and Office, to Residential -Low and High Density and Office and Residential-High Density Planned Unit Development (PUD), on property located at the northwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard — Chanhassen Apartments; and Adoption of the Attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation." PROPOSAL: 1. Rezoning of approximately 14 acres from Agricultural Estate (A -2) to Planned Unit OLD' Development - Residential (PUD -R); 2. Site Plan Review for a 155 -unit Apartment Building; with 3. Variances to reduce interior parking by one stall; and 4. Land Use Map Amendment from Residential -Low Density and Office, to Residential -Low and High Density and Office and Residential -High Density Planned Unit Development (PUD) on property located at the northwest 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&oppidan.com ZONING: A2 Agricultural Estate District Americana Community Bank 600 Market Street, Suite 100 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Jim Swiontek 952- 937 -9596 j imsgamericanfinancial. com 2030 LAND USE PLAN: Office on the southern parcel; Residential Low Density (1.2 -4 units /acre) on the northern parcel. ACREAGE: Approximately 14 acres CITY OF CHANHASSEN LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION MAKING: The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving or denying a rezoning because the City is acting in its legislative or policy - making capacity. A PUD must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 2 of 31 The City's discretion in approving or denying a site plan is limited to whether or not the proposed project complies with Zoning Ordinance requirements. If it meets these standards, the City must then approve the site plan. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. PROPOSAL /SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a 155 -unit apartment building. Additionally, the applicant is proposing the transfer of the development from the northern parcel to the southern parcel with the northern parcel then becoming permanent open space. The site is currently zoned Agricultural Estate (A2). With the adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan in 2008, the City Council guided the southern parcel to office. The request for a Planned Unit Development plan allows the applicant to seek relief from the standards of the conventional zoning districts by creating a unique zoning district rather than asking for variances. Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the city has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more - sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the other, more standard zoning districts. It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be realized as evaluated against nine criteria. BACKGROUND In December of 2012 the City Council made the following comments on the Concept PUD for the Chanhassen Apartments: • number of units was too high • need to address traffic and pedestrian safety • environmental protection • density transfer The applicant has made the following changes to the Site Plan: The number of units has been reduced by 69 to a new proposed total of 155 units (a reduction of 31 %). Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 3 of 31 • The building has been relocated farther to the northeast portion of the lot and is approximately 400 feet from the nearest home at Vasserman Ridge and 600 feet from the nearest home on the northeast side of the site. • The site has been modified to include only one access point. The access point was moved farther west in an attempt to allow for additional stacking at the intersection if required in the future. The internal circulation still allows for garage entrances on both ends of the building. • The building elevation has remained similar to the elevation presented at the Concept Stage. • The main material of the building is a cement board siding. The accents include glass, CMU, brick and stone. The upper level units are designed to incorporate balconies for the units with atypical rail and maintenance -free materials for the flooring. • The building remains designed with a three -story footprint and a gabled roof. The midpoint of the gabled roof is at 37'7" (approximately) with the peak areas at approximately 46 feet. They have made a request for the PUD Design Standards permitting this building height. The 2008 Comprehensive Plan update changed the land use guiding the southern eight acres of property to Office. In May of 2006, the Chanhassen City Council approved the concept planned unit development for a10 -unit twinhome development on the north side of West 78 Street, and a two -story office building development including a bank with drive -thru facilities with approximately 66,000 square feet of floor area on the south side of West 78 Street. On October 13, 2003, the Chanhassen City Council approved the Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) review for development of a recreational center or office on the eight (8) acres south of West 78 Street. The land north of West 78 Street, which was proposed for townhouse. development, was not approved as part of the concept planned unit development. In 2000 and 2001, West 78 Street was constructed through the property, bisecting it into six and eight -acre parcels. Additionally, the city extended sanitary sewer for the BC -7 and BC -8 sanitary sewer subdistricts across the northern portion of the property. APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Chapter 20: Article II, Division 3, Variances Article II, Division 6, Site Plan Review Article VI, Wetland Protection Article VIII, Planned Unit Development District, Article XXIII, Division 9, Design Standards for Multifamily Developments Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 4 of 31 EXISTING CONDITIONS K y } I p m 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 78` Street. The property to the east is zoned PUD and guided commercial and includes a gas station and pharmacy. The property to the north is guided Residential Low Density. It includes a farm and could be subdivided or developed in the future. The property to the west is zoned R4 Mixed Low Density Residential District including twin and single - family homes. South of the site across Highway 5 is Autumn Ridge, a townhouse development. Bluff Creek Elementary School is southeast of the site across Highway 5. The project proposes 155 units including 104 one - bedroom and 51 two - bedroom units. Building materials are cement board and brick. The building is three stories with underground parking. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The city has a lot of discretion in amending the comprehensive plan. The site currently has a low - density residential as well as office designation. The intent of the office /institutional district is to provide for public or quasi - public non - profit uses and professional businesses and administrative offices. The following elements of the comprehensive plan discuss land use policies that should be evaluated in changing the land use. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 5 of 31 Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 6 of 31 2.10 Office Land Use The amount of Office Land use has increased since the last comprehensive plan was completed. In addition, the City has identified other property for this land use. In the 2020 Comprehensive Plan, less than 1% of the City was guided Office. This has increased to 2.3% in the 2030 plan. With the increase in the number of dwelling units, the City has seen an increase in the number of "office" uses including medical uses and corporate headquarters. The City has given a dual land use designation for the 160 acres at the southeast corner of Powers and Lyman Boulevards. Should a lifestyle center not be feasible, then an office development or corporate headquarters site would be appropriate. The zoning district for the land is OI (Office Institutional District) or Planned Unit Development. Chapter 4 Housing Element In March of 2007, Maxfield Research Inc. completed a Comprehensive Housing Needs Assessment for Carver County Community Development agency for the years 2005 -2015 and 2015 -2030. A significant portion of the data comes from this study as well as from the U.S. Census, Metropolitan Council and the City of Chanhassen. 4.2 Housing Element Communities in eastern Carver County will see a greater percentage of seniors, young adults, and older adults. These increases will be due to the aging of the existing population, young adults and adults seeking rental housing near employment centers, and older adults with greater means purchasing more expensive housing. Chapter 7 Transportation 7.6 5 Major Collectors Major collectors are designed to serve shorter trips that occur entirely within the city and to provide access from neighbor hoods to the arterial system. These roads supplement the arterial system in the sense that they emphasize mobility over land access, but they are expected, because of their locations, to carry less traffic than arterial roads. The following roadways are classified as Major Collectors in Chanhassen: West 78th Street: This east/west route connects TH 41 to TH 101. It parallels TH 5 and provides local access to the properties adjacent to TH 5. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 7 of 31 jo 1_ �x t _ P Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 4.6 Housing Goals and Policies Goals: Provide housing opportunities for all residents, consistent with the identified community goals: • A variety of housing types for all people in all stages of the life cycle. • A community of well- maintained housing and neighborhoods, including ownership and rental housing. • Housing development that respects the natural environment of the community while striving to accommodate the need for a variety of housing types and costs. • The availability of a full range of services and facilities for its residents, and the improvement of access to a linkage between housing and employment. • Housing development methods such as PUD's, cluster development, and innovative site plans and building types should be encouraged to help conserve energy and resources for housing. • While density is given by a range in the comprehensive plan, the City shall encourage development at the upper end of the density range. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 8 of 31 SITE PLAN REVIEW 1 ax � r r l MUM a The structure is proposed to be located on the northwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard. The building has a pronounced entrance, utilizes durable exterior materials, and exhibits articulation. The building maintains all required setbacks. LIGHTING /SIGNAGE Lighting The applicant prepared a lighting plan and includes photometrics. The plan meets city ordinance which requires that light levels for site lighting shall be no more than one -half foot candle at the project perimeter property line. The applicant has not submitted a light fixture design. City ordinances require that light be cut off at a 90- degree angle. The plan is consistent with the city code requiring all fixtures be shielded. Decorative fixtures a maximum of 25 feet tall shall be required. Signage One monument sign is proposed to be located along West 78 Street. The sign shall be limited in size to 24 square feet, maximum of 5 feet high, set back a minimum of 10 feet from the Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 9 of 31 property line, and outside of sight lines. The sign must comply with the sign ordinance. The letters shall be backlit and use individual dimension letters at least one -half inch deep. The sign materials shall be compatible with the building. The applicant must apply for a sign permit. Parking The ordinance requires one covered parking space for each unit resulting in 155 spaces in the parking garage; however, only 154 are provided. A parking variance is required for a one -stall reduction in covered parking. An additional 110 surface spaces are required and provided. The site can accommodate an additional 39 surface parking spaces, which are shown in the proof of parking. VARIANCE Sec. 20 -58. - General conditions for granting. A variance may be granted if all of the following criteria are met: (1) Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The project could meet the parking standards by incorporating compact parking. This project does meet the city's requirements for the use of compact parking; however, staff believes the use of standard parking stalls is preferred. (2) When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding. Because the recycling and the trash facilities for this project are located in the garage level, they are one stall short one of the required parking standard. The project is enhanced by having the trash and recycling incorporated in the building. (3) That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding. The developer could meet the standard, but would give up desired site enhancements. (4) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding. The reason for the request is to permit the trash and recycling inside the building. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 10 of 31 (5) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: Because there will be outdoor surface parking it should not alter the character of the area (6) Variances shall be granted for earth - sheltered construction> as defined in M.S. § 216C.06, subd. 14, when in harmony with this chapter. Finding. Not applicable. ARCHITECTURAL COMPLIANCE Design Standards for Multifamily Developments Article XXIII Sec. 20 -1088. - Architectural style. (1) Architectural style shall not be restricted. Evaluation of the appearance of a project shall be based on the quality of its design and in relationship to its surroundings, guided by the provisions of this section. Site characteristics to be evaluated for this purpose include building and landscaping, colors, textures, shapes, massing of rhythms of building components and detail, height of roof line, setback and orientation. Designs that are incompatible with their surroundings or intentionally bizarre or exotic are not acceptable. (2) Monotony of design, both within projects and between adjacent projects and its surroundings, is prohibited. Variation in detail, form, and siting shall provide visual interest. Site characteristics that may be used for this purpose include building and landscaping, colors, textures, shapes, massing of rhythms of building components and detail, height of roof line, setback and orientation. (3) All building shall have a minimum of 20 percent of accent material. Accent material may include brick, stone cut face block or shakes. The use of any EFIS shall not be on the first story of any building or one story in height. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 11 of 31 Sec. 20 -1089. - Land use. All development shall create a unified design of internal order that provides desirable environments for site uses, visitors and the community. The following design elements shall be incorporated into a project: (1) The project shall create a unique neighborhood identity. (2) Creation of interconnecting neighborhoods in collaboration with adjoining landowners (street, walkways, preservation of natural features, parks and gathering places). (3) Each neighborhood has a focal point or gathering place including parks, greens, squares, entrance monuments, historic structures (silos/barns) or public furniture (gazebos, benches, pergolas). (4) Recreation facilities (playgrounds, tot lots, swimming pools and gardens). (5) Diversity of product type and design to accommodate different age groups and individuals in different socio- economic circumstances. (6) Broad variety of housing choices —twin homes, row houses, town homes, flats above garages, apartments over shops, garden apartments, senior living opportunities and condominiums. Sec. 20 -1090. - Curb appeal. To encourage roadway image or curb appeal projects shall create a variety of building orientation along the roadways; attractive streetscape and architectural detail. All projects shall incorporate two or more of the following design elements: (1) Orientation to the street or access road: (a) Setbacks (b) Spacing between buildings and view sheds. (2) Architectural detail /decorative features. (a) Windows. (b) Flower boxes. (c) Porches, balconies, private spaces. (d) Location and treatment of entryway. (e) Surface materials, finish and texture. (f) Roof pitch. (g) Building height and orientation. (3) Location of garages. (4) Landscaping including fencing and berming. (5) Street lighting. (6) Screening of parking, especially in apartment and condominium developments. (7) Variations /differentiations in units including, but not limited to, color, material, articulation etc. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 12 of 31 See. 20 -1091. - Transportation diversity. All developments shall be incorporate multi -modal transportation including two or more of the following elements: (1) Streets with trails incorporated. (2) Off road trials and bike paths. (3) Provisions for mass transit with bus stops and shelters incorporated into the developments. (4) Sidewalk connecting internal developments. (a) Undulating sidewalks. Use of pavers or stamped concrete. (b) On- street parking and use of roundabouts. (c) Landscaped boulevards or medians. Sec. 20 -1092. - Integration of parks, open space, natural historic or cultural resources. (1) Integrate nature and wildlife with urban environment. (a) Trails and sidewalks. (b) Vistas. (c) Historic features. (d) Preservation of natural features that support wildlife and native plants (slopes, trees, wetlands). Architectural Compliance Findings The buildings are highly articulated and have a mixture of details in the use of materials and color. The buildings are connected to the neighboring properties through sidewalks. The internal orientation faces Bluff Creek and the preserved parcel to the north. The apartments have an indoor community room as well as a fitness center. There is an outdoor gazebo as well as an outdoor lav area. / 'S vc „ , � _ rm s, • \ / T f - -i - i �}-j- �- '�,(\ iAKF \ v .. 5 CH "�.'•,�� L •r _ �!F y _ - 1_M mob-' y0-� �-1 BC �i-1 -B(: j �_y...X � '-�'`' /` / Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 13 of 31 The building height permitted in the R -16 District is 35 feet, measured at the midpoint of the roof. The proposed building is 37.5 feet, measured at the midpoint of the roof. A flat roof could be utilized to meet ordinance. Staff believes a pitched roof has a more - residential character and enhances the architecture and recommend the PUD Ordinance permit a 38 -foot building height. Streets and Traffic The site is located south of West 78th Street (a city collector street), west of Galpin Boulevard (a county road) and north of Trunk Highway 5 (a state highway). The existing street widths and right -of -way widths are adequate. Proposed access to the site is from West 78th Street, approximately 430 feet east of Vasserman Trail and approximately 550 feet west of Galpin Boulevard. The proposed access meets the minimum requirements. The sight distance at this location is acceptable. Staff recommends that the curb radius at the driveway access be increased to facilitate the turning movements of larger vehicles. At the public hearing for the concept plan, residents raised concerns about traffic impacts. The City's consultant has prepared a traffic study to identify potential impacts associated with the proposed development immediately after project build -out (2013) and in year 2033. The study findings are summarized below: Traffic Volume • It is estimated that the proposed 155 -unit apartment building will generate an additional 1,031 trips per day. • The estimated increase in morning peak traffic is 16 vehicles in and 63 vehicles out. • The afternoon peak traffic is estimated to increase by 62 vehicles in and 34 vehicles out. • Delays are not expected on West 78th Street at Galpin Boulevard or at the apartment building intersection. • Delay at the Galpin Boulevard/Highway 5 intersection is forecasted to increase by 10 seconds but will remain within the acceptable range. • Turn lanes to /from the apartment building are not warranted. Galpin Boulevard/West 78th Street Intersection • Between 2010 and 2012 there were four, zero and two accidents, respectively. There were no injuries resulting from any of the accidents. Based on the accident history a four -way stop is not warranted. The existing and projected traffic volumes do not warrant a four -way stop. U -turn movements (northbound to southbound) on Galpin Boulevard at West 78th Street were analyzed. Improvements based on this turning movement are not warranted. Flashing yellow passive - permissive signals have been installed at various locations throughout the metro; this is a flashing yellow left turn arrow to allow left turn lanes to proceed with caution at specific times during the day. Staff will work with MnDOT and Carver County to have the existing signals at TH 5 and Galpin Boulevard modified to include the flashing yellow passive- Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 14 of 31 permissive. The developer shall submit $5,000 with the site plan agreement to cover half of the cost of the signal modification. The City's consultant will attend the public hearing to answer specific questions regarding the study. Utilities City water is available to the site. The developer proposes to extend an 8 -inch private watermain from the existing 18 -inch trunk watermain within West 78th Street. The location of the connection is such that West 78th Street between Galpin Boulevard and Vasserman Trail would be closed for approximately one day while the watermain connection is made. Appropriate signage must be installed 10 days prior to and for the duration of the work within West 78th Street. The developer must coordinate the street closure with the Engineering Department a minimum of 72 hours prior to the closure. A $10,000 escrow must be provided to ensure that West 78th Street is properly restored. Once the street has been restored to satisfactory condition, 50% of the escrow will be released; the remaining 50% will be released if the patch is in satisfactory condition after one freeze -thaw cycle. Minimum 18 -inch vertical separation is required between the private watermain and the private storm sewer crossing. An 8 -inch sanitary sewer is stubbed to the northeast corner of the site. The invert elevation of the sanitary sewer was not noted on the as -built utility plan. Based on the proposed grading plan the sanitary sewer stub should be deep enough to provide gravity service to the proposed building. In 2001 the property was assessed for the sanitary sewer and watermain laterals installed with City Project 97 -6. This assessment has been paid. Based on the total amount assessed with City Project 97 -6 and the cost to install the utilities, the lateral sanitary sewer and water connection charges are waived. City trunk sanitary sewer hookup fees (City SAC), City trunk watermain hookup fees (City WAC) and the Metropolitan Council Sanitary Access Charge (Met SAC) are due with the building permit at the rate in effect at that time and shall be based on the SAC unit determination per the Metropolitan Council. Wetlands Three wetlands were identified on the property identified from south to north as Basins 1 through 3. The boundaries were delineated by Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company on October 22, 2012 and the findings and application for review were submitted to the City on November 26, 2012. The City, as the LGU responsible for administration of the Wetland Conservation Act, noticed approval of the delineated boundaries on January 23, 2013 after modifications were made to the most southerly wetland basin. The delineation did not extend along the flood plain for Bluff Creek but this additional area was not pursued as there is no proposed development on the parcel north of West 78 Street. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 15 of 31 Basin 2 and Basin 3 are considered one basin in the City's Wetland Protection Plan and is classified as a Manage 2 wetland. Basin 1 is not identified in the plan but, based upon the isolation from the corridor and the lack of a diverse plant community, it is anticipated that this basin would be a Manage 3. City staff, or should the applicant prefer, a consultant of their choosing, shall perform a MN Routine Assessment Methodology and verify the manage class. The applicant is not proposing any wetland impacts, either direct or indirect, in conjunction with this project. The drainage boundaries remain relatively unchanged and the stormwater will be treated prior discharge into Basin 1. Basin 1 feeds into the more northerly wetlands before discharging into Bluff Creek. Shoreland Overlay District Bluff Creek flows along the northern property boundary. The majority of that portion north of West 78 Street is within the shoreland overlay for Bluff Creek while that portion south of West 78 is predominantly outside of the shoreland overlay. The proposed development appears consistent with shoreland requirements. Bluff Creek Overlay District The Bluff Creek Watershed Natural resources / Management Plan was completed by Chanhassen in E n t 1996. This plan set forth a number of goals for the management of Bluff Creek. In summary, the intent Figure 2. Bluff Creek and the applicable overlays was to protect, restore and enhance the natural resources within the corridor to provide for a continuous greenway from the source to the confluence with the Minnesota River. This corridor would provide recreational, educational, and habitat opportunities for the community. It would also provide erosion, sediment and water quality benefits for Bluff Creek and the downstream receiving waters. This overlay district is also an important tool for meeting the waste load allocation calculated as part of the Bluff Creek Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Plan. The method for meeting this goal was to create a primary zone, where no development was to occur, and a secondary zone to provide a buffer to the primary zone. While much of the parcel north of West 78 Street is encumbered by the Bluff Creek Overlay District, the entire area south of West 78 Street is unencumbered by the overlay district. Because of the need to balance the goals of the Bluff Creek Management Plan, the Bluff Creek TMDL and economic development, this site is an n`; Figure 1. Delineated WeU Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 16 of 31 excellent candidate for the transfer of density from the northern parcel to the southern parcel. It would be staff s recommendation that the northern parcel be dedicated to the city for the previously mentioned objectives. Grading and Erosion Control Bluff Creek is impaired as defined by the Federal Clean Water Act. There are two listed impairments: turbidity and fish indices of biological integrity. The turbidity standard for a water body of this type is 15 nephritic turbidity units (NTU). Any erosion and sediment control plan must consider this as it is designed. Further, as this site will disturb greater than one (1) acre, a "General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity Under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination" ( NPDES construction permit) will be required and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be developed. This SWPPP must incorporate the required elements from Part III, Part IV and Appendix A of the NPDES construction permit. Because Bluff Creek is impaired, the SWPPP must incorporate the requirements listed in Appendix A, Part C of the permit. The applicant must provide a SWPPP to the city for review and comment. The SWPPP must be a stand -alone document and must include those elements listed in Part III. C. including: 1. Location and type of all temporary and permanent erosion prevention and sediment control BMPS. a. It must also discuss protocol for establishing additional or alternate BMPs as site conditions change. b. Standard plates and specifications for the BMPs used must be incorporated into the final plans and specs. c. Although no single drainage area exceeds five (5) acres, a temporary sediment pond should be constructed where the permanent pond is to be located. Upon completion of construction, this pond shall be dewatered and excavated to the original design conditions. An as -built survey shall be provided to the city for confirmation. d. This shall also include a description of any phasing of activities on -site including the installation of all BMPs and any intermediate BMPs. 2. Estimated quantities for erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs in the SWPPP. This should also include seed quantities and any materials for anticipated dewatering. Discharged water should never exceed 15 NTU. 3. The total area disturbed as well as the number of acres of impervious surface pre- and post - construction. 4. A site map showing the following: a. Existing and final grades; b. Drainage area boundaries and flow directions within the project limits. Additional areas may be needed to account for all drainage to the storm sewer system. c. Impervious surfaces and soil types. 5. Location of any areas to remain undisturbed. This should also show any methods used to prevent disturbance during construction. 6. Location of areas where construction will be phased, if any, to minimize the duration of exposed soil areas. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 17 of 31 7. All surface waters receiving drainage from the site within one (1) mile. a. This must identify Bluff Creek as an impaired water, indicate the pollutants identified in the TMDL and identify the area of the site which discharges to it. b. The SWPPP must include BMPs identified in the TMDL and any other implementation activities identified. 8. Methods to be used for final stabilization. The stormwater management plan must include a discussion of Part III. §B and §C of the NPDES Construction Permit. It must include a discussion of water quality volume requirements of the permit. In particular, 1 -inch of the runoff from the new impervious surface created by this project must be treated and at least 1 /2 inch of the water quality volume must be infiltrated if site conditions allow. The permit is specific about when it is not necessary as volume is an identified stressor in the TMDL. As such, it is necessary to reduce volume discharging directly to Bluff Creek. Staff has reviewed the grading and erosion plan. Staff will reserve most comments specific to the erosion control plan until an updated plan is submitted with the SWPPP which incorporates the requirements of the NPDES Construction Permit. Until then, the following items shall be incorporated into the existing plan. 1. The swale draining into the proposed pond shall be stabilized for its entirety as it is less than 200 feet in length. 2. An appropriate perimeter BMP shall be shown and installed around the proposed outlet modification for the southern wetland. 3. Silt fence or another acceptable BMP shall be installed on the north end of the culvert under West 78 Street. 4. The EOF from the pond to the wetland shall be permanently stabilized. A turf reinforcement mat or other acceptable practice should be used. Landscauin� Minimum requirements for landscaping include 4,396 square feet of landscaped area around the parking lot, 9 landscape islands or peninsulas, 17 trees for the parking lot, and bufferyard plantings along the property lines. The applicant's proposed as compared to the requirements for landscape area and parking lot trees is shown in the following table. Applicant meets minimum requirements for trees and landscaping in the parking lot area. Bufferyard requirements: Required Proposed Vehicular use landscape area 4,396 square feet 8,414 square feet Trees/ parking lot 17 trees 20 trees Islands or peninsulas/ parking lot 9 islands/ peninsulas 9 islands/ peninsulas Applicant meets minimum requirements for trees and landscaping in the parking lot area. Bufferyard requirements: Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 18 of 31 The applicant meets minimum requirements for buffer plantings. All existing trees proposed to be saved must be protected with fencing during construction or replaced after construction. The applicant is proposing to save parts of an established tree line along Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard. The city supports this proposal, but also wants to note that the majority of trees are green ash, a species that is under threat from an invasive pest. These trees are vulnerable to becoming infected and subsequently dying if not chemically protected indefinitely. Before building permit approval for the project, the applicant will need to determine future management for the trees. If preserved, the applicant will be required to treat or, if infested, remove and replace the trees. If the applicant decides to remove and replace the trees at this time, a revised landscape plan will be required. PARK AND RECREATION Parks There are multiple existing parks in the area: Sugarbush Park and Lake Ann Park are situated north of Highway 5, and The Chanhassen Recreation Center/Bluff Creek Elementary School and the Chanhassen Nature Preserve South of Highway 5. No additional parkland dedication is recommended as a condition of approval for this proposal but park fees still apply at the 50% rate (1/2 of $3,800 per unit or $1,900 per unit). Trails Sidewalk connections between the site and the intersection of West 78 Street and Galpin Boulevard and the intersection of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard should be provided to facilitate pedestrian trips between the apartment and adjoining trails and commercial areas. SITE PLAN FINDINGS In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the City shall consider the development's compliance with the following: Required plantings Proposed plantings Bufferyard B — south prop. Line, 420' 8 Overstory trees 31 Overstory trees 16 Understory trees 11 Understory trees 24 Shrubs 24 Shrubs Bufferyard B — east prop. Line, 420' 8 Overstory trees 19 Overstory trees 16 Understory trees 7 Understory trees 24 Shrubs 24 Shrubs Bufferyard B — north prop. Line, 620' 12 Overstory trees 14 Overstory trees 24 Understory trees 24 Understory trees 36 Shrubs Shrubs The applicant meets minimum requirements for buffer plantings. All existing trees proposed to be saved must be protected with fencing during construction or replaced after construction. The applicant is proposing to save parts of an established tree line along Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard. The city supports this proposal, but also wants to note that the majority of trees are green ash, a species that is under threat from an invasive pest. These trees are vulnerable to becoming infected and subsequently dying if not chemically protected indefinitely. Before building permit approval for the project, the applicant will need to determine future management for the trees. If preserved, the applicant will be required to treat or, if infested, remove and replace the trees. If the applicant decides to remove and replace the trees at this time, a revised landscape plan will be required. PARK AND RECREATION Parks There are multiple existing parks in the area: Sugarbush Park and Lake Ann Park are situated north of Highway 5, and The Chanhassen Recreation Center/Bluff Creek Elementary School and the Chanhassen Nature Preserve South of Highway 5. No additional parkland dedication is recommended as a condition of approval for this proposal but park fees still apply at the 50% rate (1/2 of $3,800 per unit or $1,900 per unit). Trails Sidewalk connections between the site and the intersection of West 78 Street and Galpin Boulevard and the intersection of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard should be provided to facilitate pedestrian trips between the apartment and adjoining trails and commercial areas. SITE PLAN FINDINGS In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the City shall consider the development's compliance with the following: Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 19 of 31 (1) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; (2) Consistency with this division; (3) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing areas; (4) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; (5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping; c. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. (6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. Finding The proposed development is consistent with the City's design requirements, the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, the design standards, and the site plan review requirements. Staff is recommending approval of the request with conditions. The site design is compatible with the surrounding developments. It is functional and harmonious with the area. Staff regards the project as a reasonable use of the land. The overall design is sensitive to the City's image. Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending approval of the site plan with conditions outlined in the staff report. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 20 of 31 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT INTENT Sec. 20 -501. Intent. Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the city has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the other, more standard zoning districts. It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be realized as evaluated against the following criteria. Planned unit developments are to encourage the following: 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. In addition, the city will require donation or a conservation easement over the northern parcel to ensure preservation. 2. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels. Analysis The developer proposes a transfer of development to the southern property creating a development that provides its own amenities while preserving the more - sensitive parcel. Development adjacent to Highway 5 could provide a buffer to the properties to the north. 3. High quality design and design compatibility with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. Analysis The building will be of high - quality design and materials including cement board and brick as well as a landscaping and planting plan that provides a buffer and screening. 4. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city will be encouraged. Analysis The apartments will provide a transitional use between Highway 5 to the south, the commercial area to the east and the low - density residential to the west. 5. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis Currently, a portion of the site is guided for Office. A land use amendment to High Density Residential would be required to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 21 of 31 Municipal services are available to the site. The project furthers several goals and policies of the City's comprehensive plan including the land use and housing elements. 6. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city. Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and overall trail plan. Analysis There are neighborhood and community parks as well as city trails adjacent to the subject site. The development proposes an exterior playground and gazebo area. The proposed development would preserve the Bluff Creek Corridor as permanent open space. Improving the creek by remeandering may be considered. 7. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD. Analysis Not applicable with this application. This project will be market rate. 8. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and siting and the clustering of buildings and land uses. Analysis The building adjacent to Highway 5 will provide noise and light attenuation to the neighboring residential low density lands to the north and northwest. 9. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate. Analysis A traffic analysis was done comparing the current proposal with the Galpin Crossings proposal. The study found that the am and pm peak trips would be less, but there would be an increase in overall trips. A more - detailed traffic study would need to be completed to study the function of the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and West 78` Street. Sec. 20 -502. - Allowed uses. Specific uses and performance standards for each PUD shall be delineated in a development plan. (1) Each PUD shall only be used for the use or uses for which the site is designated in the comprehensive plan. Specific uses and performance standards for each PUD shall be delineated in a PUD development plan. Finding PUD design standards have been created that will control the development of the project. Sec. 20 -503. - District size and location. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 22 of 31 Each PUD shall have a minimum area of five acres except the regional/lifestyle center commercial PUD, which must be a minimum of 30 acres, unless the applicant can demonstrate the existence of one of the following: (1) Unusual physical features of the property itself or of the surrounding neighborhood such that development as a PUD will conserve a physical or topographic feature of importance to the neighborhood or community. (2) The property is directly adjacent to or across a right -of -way from property which has been developed previously as a PUD or planned unit residential development and will be perceived as and will function as an extension of that previously approved development. (3) The property is located in a transitional area between different land use categories or on a collector, minor or principal arterial as defined in the comprehensive plan. 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. 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. (b) The applicant shall demonstrate that the PUD plan offers the city higher quality architectural and site design, landscaping, protection of wetlands, creeks and mature trees Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 23 of 31 and buffering for adjoining properties that represent improvements over normal ordinance standards. 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 has calculated the net developable acres of the site and wetland acreage. The project proposes using the net developable acreage at] 6 units an acre. The site could be 176 units; however, the developer is proposing 155. (d) The city may utilize incentives to encourage the construction of projects which are consistent with the city's housing goals. Incentives may include modification of density and other standards for developments providing low and moderate cost housing. Incentives may be approved by the city contingent upon the developer and the city entering into an agreement ensuring that the housing will be available to low and moderate income persons for a specific period of time. Finding Not applicable with this request. The project will be market rate. (e) Hard surface coverage shall be limited as follows: Comprehensive Plan Designation Hard Surface Coverage ( %) High density residential 50 Individual lots within PUD may exceed these standards as long as the average meets these standards. Finding The development has a hard surface coverage of 34% for Parcel B and 20% for the entire project. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 24 of 31 (f) Building and parking setbacks from public streets shall be determined by the city based on characteristics of the specific PUD. Parking lots and driving lanes shall be set back at least 20 feet from all exterior lot lines of a PUD. Where industrial uses abut developed platted or planned single - family lots outside the PUD, greater exterior building and parking setbacks, between 50 and 100 feet, shall be required in order to provide effective screening. The city council shall make a determination regarding the adequacy of screening proposed by the applicant. Screening may include the use of natural topography or earth berming, existing and proposed plantings and other features such as roadways and wetlands which provide separation of uses. PUD's must be developed in compliance with buffer yard requirements established by the comprehensive plan and chapter 20, article XXV, of the Chanhassen City Code. Finding The project exceeds the 50 foot perimeter building setback. The apartments placed on the southeast corner of the site will provide a visual and sound barrier from Highway 5. The development will be held to these standards. MnDOT requires that all projects meet noise standards. This will be accomplished through design and construction. (g) More than one building may be placed on one platted or recorded lot in a PUD. Finding The project proposes one apartment building on one parcel. The property will not be subdivided. Stormwater and park and trail fees are collected with a subdivision. Because there is no platting, the city is requesting payment of 50 percent of these fees in force at the time of building permit. Currently, stormwater fees are $116,560. 00 and park and trail fees are $294,500. 00 (h) At the time PUD approval is sought from the city, all property to be included within a PUD shall be under unified ownership or control or subject to such legal restrictions or covenants as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the approved master development plan and final site and building plan. After approval, parcels may be sold to other parties without restriction; however, all parcels will remain subject to the PUD development contract that will be recorded in each chain -of- title. 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 5 feet high. More than one sign per entrance may be erected, provided that the total sign area does not exceed 24 square feet. Any such sign or monument shall be designed with low - maintenance, high - quality materials. The adjacent Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 25 of 31 property owner or a homeowners association shall be responsible for maintenance of the 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 XXIII (Design Standards for Multifamily Buildings) and XXV (Landscaping and Tree Removal) of this chapter may be applied by the city as it deems appropriate. Finding The project meets the city's design standards and landscaping, tree removal and buffering requirements. (k) The uniqueness of each PUD required that specifications and standards for streets, utilities, public facilities and subdivisions may be subject to modification from the city ordinances ordinarily governing them. The city council may therefore approve streets, utilities, public facilities and land subdivisions which are not in compliance with usual specifications or ordinance requirements if it finds that strict adherence to such standards or requirements is not required to meet the intent of this [article] or to protect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the PUD, the surrounding area or the city as a whole. Finding The project will create public sidewalks. (1) No building or other permit shall be issued for any work on property included within a proposed or approved PUD, nor shall any work occur unless such work is in compliance with the proposed or approved PUD. Finding A site plan permit will be executed and recorded to ensure the project is developed as proposed. (m) Buffer yards. (1) The city comprehensive plan establishes a requirement for buffer yards. ...in areas indicated on the plan where higher intensity uses interface with low density uses and shall comply with chapter 20, article XXV, of the Chanhassen City Code. (2) The buffer yard is not an additional setback requirement. The full obligation to provide the buffer yard shall be placed on the parcel containing the higher intensity use. (3) The buffer yard is intended to provide physical separation and screening for the higher intensity use. As such, they will be required to be provided with a combination of berming, landscaping and/or tree preservation to maximize the buffering potential. To the extent deemed feasible by the city, new plantings shall be designed to require the minimum of maintenance, however, such maintenance as may be required to maintain consistency with the approved plan, shall be the obligation of the property owner. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 26 of 31 Finding The northern parcel is proposed for density transfer, thus maintaining the natural buffer by preserving this area as permanent open space. Buffer planting can be placed in the building setback area around the perimeter of the building as specified in city code. Sec. 20 -508. - Standards and guidelines for single - family attached or cluster -home PUDs. (a) Generally. Single - family attached, cluster, zero lot line, townhouses and similar type dwelling types may be allowed on sites designed for low, medium or high density residential uses by the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan. (b) Minimum lot sizes. There shall be no minimum lot size; however, in no case shall net density exceed guidelines established by the city comprehensive plan. (c) Setback standards /structures and parking: (1) PUD exterior: 50 feet. (2) Interior public right -of -way: 30 feet.* *The 30 foot front yard setback may be waived by the city council when it is demonstrated that environmental protection will be enhanced. In these instances, a minimum front yard setback of 20 feet shall be maintained. (3) Other setbacks: Established by PUD agreement. Finding With a land use amendment to high density residential and the rezoning of the property, the standard would be met. The perimeter setbacks have been modified to exceed the minimum 50 foot setback from property perimeter. The building is 81 feet from Highway S at the closest point. Along Galpin Boulevard the building setback is 60 to 65 feet. On west 78th street the setback of the building is 58 feet. (d) Protection and preservation of natural features. The applicant must demonstrate that the flexibility provided by the PUD is used to protect and preserve natural features such as tree stands, wetlands, ponds and scenic views. These areas are to be permanently protected as public or private tracts or protected by permanently recorded easements. 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. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 27 of 31 (2) Exterior landscaping and double fronted lots. Landscaped berms shall be provided to buffer the site and lots from major roadways, railroads, and more intensive uses. Similar measures shall be provided for double - fronted lots. Where necessary to accommodate this landscaping, additional lot depth may be required. (3) Foundation and yard plantings. A minimum budget for foundation plants shall be established and approved by the city. As each parcel is developed in the PUD, the builder shall be required to install plant materials meeting or exceeding the required budget prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy or provide financial guarantees acceptable to the city. (4) Tree preservation. Tree preservation is a primary goal of the PUD. A detailed tree survey should be prepared during the design of the PUD and the plans should be developed to maximize tree preservation. Finding The project meets the landscaping requirements. (f) Architectural standards. The applicant should demonstrate that the PUD will provide for a high level of architectural design and building materials. While this requirement is not intended to minimize design flexibility, a set of architectural standards should be prepared for city approval. The primary purpose of this section is to assure the city that high quality design will be employed and that home construction can take place without variances or impact to adjoining lots. The PUD agreement should include the following: (1) Standards for exterior architectural treatments. Finding The building meets the Design Standards for Multifamily Developments Article XXIII. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the following three motions: A. LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT "The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve a Land Use Map Amendment from Residential-Low Density and Office, to Residential -Low and High Density and Office and Residential-High Density Planned Unit Development (PUD) subject to the following condition: 1. Approval of the Land Use Amendment subject to the Metropolitan Council determination of consistency with system plan." Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 28 of 31 B. REZONING "The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve Rezoning of approximately 14 acres from Agricultural Estate (A -2) to Planned Unit Development- Residential (PUD -R) subject to the following condition and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation: 1. Adoption of the Chanhassen PUD Ordinance, which shall be created to govern the site and design standards." C. SITE PLAN WITH VARIANCE "The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve a Site Plan for a 155 -unit Apartment Building with a Variance for parking subject to the following conditions, and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation: 1. Approval of the Land Use Amendment subject the Metropolitan. Council determination of consistency with system plan. 2. Adoption of the Chanhassen PUD Ordinance, which shall be created to govern the site and design standards. 3. Execution of the Site Plan Permit. 4. Payment of $294,500 park and trail fee and $116,500 stormwater fee prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. Parcel A shall be dedicated to the City, or have a conservation easement placed on it, for management consistent with the Bluff Creek Management Plan, the Bluff Creek TMDL and the 2 nd Generation Surface Water Management Plan.. 6. The applicant and the City should work together to develop an appropriate mitigation scenario. 7. Any portion of the wetland presumed to be impacted under an alternate development scenario, which would require the use of Parcel A and is subsequently transferred to Parcel B for density calculations, be mitigated for at a 1:1 ratio. This mitigation should occur within the Bluff Creek Overlay District but does need to be in the form of wetland. The developer must calculate the net developable acres of the site and wetland acreage. 8. The wetland delineation report shall be finalized. 9. All existing trees proposed to be saved must be protected with fencing during construction or replaced after construction if damaged or dead. I Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 29 of 31 10. The selections of Colorado spruce must be replaced by a different evergreen species in the plant schedule. 11. Before final approval for the project, the applicant will need to determine future management plans for the existing ash trees. If preserved, the applicant will be required to chemically protect or, if infested, remove and replace the trees. If the applicant decides to remove and replace the trees at this time, a revised landscape plan will be required. 12. Staff recommends that the curb radius at the driveway access be increased to facilitate the turning movements of larger vehicles. 13. Appropriate signage must be installed 10 days prior to and for the duration of the work within West 78th Street. 14. The developer must coordinate the closure of West 78th Street with the Engineering Department minimum 72 hours prior to the closure. 15. A $10,000 escrow must be provided to ensure that West 78th Street is properly restored. Once the street has been restored to satisfactory condition, 50% of the escrow will be released; the remaining 50% will be released if the patch is in satisfactory condition after one freeze -thaw cycle. 16. Minimum 18 -inch vertical separation is required between the private watermain and the private storm sewer crossing. 17. The developer shall submit $5,000 with the site plan agreement to cover half of the cost of the signal modification at TH 5 and Galpin Boulevard to accommodate a flashing yellow passive - permissive signal. 18. The developer shall pay one -half the cost of the traffic study. 19. City trunk sanitary sewer hookup fees (City SAC), City trunk watermain hookup fees (City WAC) and the Met Council Sanitary Access Charge (Met SAC) are due with the building permit at the rate in effect at that time and shall be based on the SAC unit determination per the Met Council. 20. A "General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity Under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination" will be required for this project. Proof of permission from the PCA must be provided to the City before grading can commence. 21. A Surface Water Management Plan is required and shall be submitted to the City for review and comment. This plan shall incorporate the required elements of Parts III, IV and Appendix A of the NPDES permit. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 30 of 31 22. Both the Bluff Creek Total Maximum Daily Load Implementation Plan and the NPDES Permit require that a portion of the Water Quality Volume is infiltrated on -site. The Stormwater Management Study shall be modified to address this requirement and incorporated into the SWPPP. 23. Because the site discharges to an impaired water, the discharge rates for the one -year design event must also be equal to or less than the existing discharge rates. The Stormwater Management Study shall be modified to address this requirement and shall be incorporated into the SWPPP. 24. In order to protect Bluff Creek, meet the goals of the Bluff Creek Natural Resources Management Plan and the Bluff Creek TMDL Implementation Plan, staff is recommending that the portion of the property north of West 78 Street is dedicated to the City and that this density should be transferred to that portion south of West 78 Street. 25. Sheet C -3 GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN shall be amended to include the following: a. The swale draining into the proposed pond shall be stabilized for its entirety as it is less than 200 feet in length. b. An appropriate perimeter BMP shall be shown and installed around the proposed outlet modification for the southern wetland. c. Silt fence or another acceptable BMP shall be installed on the north end of the culvert under West 78 Street. d. The EOF from the pond to the wetland shall be permanently stabilized. This is addressed in the Drainage Report but is not included in the Grading and Erosion Plan. A turf reinforcement mat is an acceptable practice as is called out in the drainage report. 26. Minnesota Department of Transportation will need to review and approve the drainage plan. 27. The applicant shall revise the plans to incorporate sidewalk connections to existing trails. 28. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. A "Code Record" is required (Code Record schematic plans may be same scale as architectural). For "Code Record" information go to MN Dept. of Labor and Industry: http:// www. dli. mn .jzov /CCLD /PlanConstruction.asp 29. The building(s) must be protected with automatic fire sprinkler systems. 30. An accessible route must be provided to buildings, parking facilities, public transportation stops and all common use facilities. Planning Commission Chanhassen Apartments Planned Unit Development April 16, 2013 Page 31 of 31 31. All parking areas, including parking garages, must be provided with accessible parking spaces dispersed among the various building entrances. 32. Accessible dwelling units must be provided in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. 33. The building owner and/or their representatives should meet with the Inspections Division to discuss plan review and permit procedures (in particular, type of construction and allowable area issues must be addressed). 34. Due to the large size of this building, class III Fire Dept, standpipes will be required. Have developer contact Fire Marshal for exact locations. MSFC Sec. 905.3.9. 35. " No Parking Fire Lane " signs will be required. Have developer contact Fire Marshal for exact locations. MSFD Sec. 505.31 36. An additional on site fire hydrant will be required. Contact Fire Marshal for location. 37. A PIV ( post indicator valve ) will be required. 38. A three -foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. MSFC Sec 508.5.4." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Recommendation. 2. Planned Unit Development Ordinance. 3. Development Review Application. 4. Reduced Copy Site Plan. 5. Traffic Study dated April 9, 2013. 6. Letter from MnDOT dated April 4, 2013. 7. Affidavit of Mailing. gAplan\2013 planning cases\2013 -07 chanhassen apartmentAstaff report pc.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION Fin=' Application of Oppidan, Inc. to Rezone approximately 14 acres from Agricultural Estate (A -2) to Planned Unit Development - Residential (PUD -R); Site Plan Review with Variances for a 155 - unit Apartment Building; and a Land Use Map Amendment from Residential -Low Density and Office, to Residential -Low and High Density and Office and Residential -High Density. On April 16, 2013, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Oppidan, Inc. to rezone approximately 14 acres from Agricultural Estate (A -2) to Planned Unit Development - Residential (PUD -R); Site Plan Review with Variances for a 155 -unit Apartment Building; and a Land Use Map Amendment from Residential -Low Density and Office, to Residential -Low and High Density and Office and Residential -High Density. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed rezoning preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District, A -2. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential -Low Density and Office. 3. The legal description of the property is: That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116, Range 23 and the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of said Section 10; thence on as assumed bearing of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West along the West line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1026.89 feet; thence South 79 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 177.77 feet; thence South 86 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 100.40 feet; thence South 78 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 194.14 feet; thence South 74 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 150.00 feet; thence South 47 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 75.43 feet; thence North 82 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds East, a distance of 74.98 feet; thence South 58 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 84.58 feet; thence South 89 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 164.63 feet; thence South 18 degrees 17 minutes 40 seconds West, a distance of 824.19 feet to the northerly right of way line of Trunk Highway 5; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 33.08 feet; thence South 56 degrees 40 minutes 55 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 158.95 feet; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 518.22 feet to the west line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23; thence North 1 degree 37 minutes 50 seconds West along said west line of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 9.12 feet to the point of beginning. This tract contains 18.1 acres of land, more or less, and is subject to right of way in existing county road and subject to any and all easements of record. 4. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are: a) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. b) The proposed use is or will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. C) The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. d) The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. e) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. f) Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. 5. Site Plan Review a) The proposed site plan is consistent with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; b) The proposed development is consistent with the site plan review requirements of city code; c) The proposed site plan preserves the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal, preserving as permanent open space the land north of 78 Street West and designing the site in keeping with the general appearance of the; d) The proposed site plan creates a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; e) The proposed site plan creates a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: 2 1) An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; 2) The amount and location of open space and landscaping; 3) Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and 4) Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. f) The proposed site plan protects adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. 6. Variance Findings — Section 20 -58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a) Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The granting of the variance is in keeping with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. The reduction of one internal parking stall due to locating trash and recycling inside provides enhanced site design. While the parking could be met through the use of compact parking stalls, the use of standard size stalls is preferred. b) When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: The practical difficulty with the parking standard is that while it could be provided, it would necessitate the use of exterior trash and recycling locations or require the use of compact parking stalls which are not preferred. 3 c) That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The purpose of the variance is not based upon economic considerations, but is to permit the development to provide interior trash and recycling facilities. d) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The reason for the request is to permit the trash and recycling inside the building. e) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The reduction of one interior parking stall will not alter the essential character of the area. The site provides adequate surface parking to accommodate required site parking. f) Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 7. The planning report #2013 -07 dated April 16, 2013, prepared by Kate Aanenson, et al, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the project. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 16 day of April, 2013. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION Its Chairman 4 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 1 AND 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE, BY REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: SECTION 1 . Section 1 -2 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding the following definition: Conservation Area an area of land that remains in a natural state by means of preservation of existing features and vegetation as well as by means of city- approved restoration of selected species and targeted features. No buildings or structures are allowed except essential services and public improvements. SECTION 2 . Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code, the City's Zoning Ordinance, is hereby amended by rezoning the following described property from Agricultural Estate District, A- 2, to Planned Unit Development Residential, PUD -R: That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116, Range 23 and the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of said Section 10; thence on an assumed bearing of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West along the West line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1026.89 feet; thence South 79 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 177.77 feet; thence South 86 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 100.40 feet; thence South 78 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 194.14 feet; thence South 74 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 150.00 feet; thence South 47 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 75.43 feet; thence North 82 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds East, a distance of 74.98 feet; thence South 58 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 84.58 feet; thence south 89 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 164.63 feet; thence South 18 degrees 17 minutes 40 seconds West, a distance of 824.19 feet to the northerly right of way line of Trunk Highway 5; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 33.08 feet; thence South 56 degrees 40 minutes 55 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 158.95 feet; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 518.22 feet to the west line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23; thence North 1 degree 37 minutes 50 seconds West along said west line of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 9.12 feet to the point of beginning. This tract contains 18.1 acres of land, more or less, and is subject to right of way in existing county road and subject to any and all easements of record. Doc. #I 69929v. I RNK: 4/22/2013 SECTION 3 . Intent. The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD for the Chanhassen Apartments. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. Ancillary uses may be permitted as listed below once a primary use has occupied the site. Except as modified by the Chanhassen Apartments PUD ordinance, the development shall comply with the requirements of the R16 District. SECTION 4 . Permitted Uses. The permitted uses in this zone shall be residential and their ancillary uses. The type of uses to be provided on common areas shall be outdoor play area and outdoor patio. Parcel A (description attached) Conservation Area Parcel B (description attached) 155 Apartments, including surface parking SECTION 5 . Lot Requirements and Setbacks. The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The following table displays those setbacks: SECTION 6 . Signage. Signage shall comply with city standards for R12 Zoning District 20- 1301(2) Agricultural and Residential Districts. SECTION 7 . Landscaping. Landscaping shall comply with the landscaping plan prepared by Mark Kronbeck, ASLA, dated March 15, 2013. SECTION 8 . The zoning map of the City of Chanhassen shall not be republished to show the aforesaid zoning, but the Clerk shall appropriately mark the zoning map on file in the Clerk's Office for the purpose of indicating the rezoning hereinabove provided for in this ordinance, and all of the notations, references, and other information shown thereon are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this ordinance. SECTION 9 . This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. Doc. # 169929v.1 2 RNK: 4/22/2013 Setback Standards Highway 5 50 feet (Perimeter) Lot Line 50 feet Collector Road, etc. 50 feet (Perimeter) Lot Line 50 feet Hard Surface Coverage 50 % over 14 acres Height 38 feet Parking setback for perimeter property line 1 25 feet Wetland and Buffer Setback Parcel B 1 31.5 feet SECTION 6 . Signage. Signage shall comply with city standards for R12 Zoning District 20- 1301(2) Agricultural and Residential Districts. SECTION 7 . Landscaping. Landscaping shall comply with the landscaping plan prepared by Mark Kronbeck, ASLA, dated March 15, 2013. SECTION 8 . The zoning map of the City of Chanhassen shall not be republished to show the aforesaid zoning, but the Clerk shall appropriately mark the zoning map on file in the Clerk's Office for the purpose of indicating the rezoning hereinabove provided for in this ordinance, and all of the notations, references, and other information shown thereon are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this ordinance. SECTION 9 . This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. Doc. # 169929v.1 2 RNK: 4/22/2013 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22 day of April, 2013, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on Doc. # 169929v.1 RNK: 4/22/2013 PARCEL A Conservation Area That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116, Range 23 and the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest comer of said Section 10; thence on as assumed bearing of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West along the West line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1023.08 feet, to a point on said west line distant 1668.88 feet south of the west quarter corner of said Section 10; thence South 79 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 177.77 feet; thence South 86 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 100.40 feet; thence South 78 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 194.14 feet; thence South 74 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 150.00 feet; thence South 47 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 75.43 feet; thence North 82 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds East, a distance of 74.98 feet; thence South 58 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 84.58 feet; thence South 89 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 163.25 feet; thence South 18 degrees 17 minutes 40 seconds West, a distance of 820.19 feet to the northerly tight of way line of Trunk Highway 5; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 33.08 feet; thence South 56 degrees 40 minutes 55 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 158.95 feet; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 518.22 feet to the west line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23; thence North 1 degree 37 minutes 50 seconds West along said west line of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 9.12 feet to the point of beginning. Which lies northwesterly of that particular northwesterly right -of -way line of Parcel 216, as shown on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10 -08, recorded as Document No. 265755 and as amended on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-14, recorded as Document No. 279658, described as follows: Commencing at the southwest comer of said Section 10; thence on an assumed bearing of North I degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West, along the west line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 10, a distance of 401.19 feet, to a particular right -of -way line of said Parcel 216 and the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 47 degrees 18 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 175.14 feet, to an angle point in said right -of -way line; thence North 47 degrees 18 minutes 19 seconds East a distance of 22.71 feet, to a point of curvature in said right - of -way line; thence easterly a distance of 662.60 feet, along a non - tangential curve concave to the south having a radius of 633.04 feet and a central angle of 59 degrees 58 minutes 14 seconds and having a chord of 632.76 feet which bears North 77 degrees 17 minutes 27 seconds East to an angle point in said right -of -way line; thence North 56 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds East, not tangent to said curve a distance of 114.28 feet, to an angle point in said right -of -way line; thence North 22 degrees 13 minutes 10 seconds East, along said right -of -way line, a distance of 116.13 feet and said line there terminating. Doc. # 169929v. l RNK: 4/22/2013 PARCEL B 155 Apartments, including surface parking That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116, Range 23 and the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, _ Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest comer of said Section 10; thence on as assumed bearing of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West along the West line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1026.89 feet; thence South 79 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 177.77 feet; thence South 86 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 100.40 feet; thence South 78 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 194.14 feet; thence South 74 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 150.00 feet; thence South 47 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 75.43 feet; thence North 82 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds East, a distance of 74.98 feet; thence South 58 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 84.58 feet; thence South 89 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 164.63 feet; thence South 18 degrees 17 minutes 40 seconds West, a distance of 824.19 feet to the northerly right of way line of Trunk Highway 5; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 33.08 feet; thence South 56 degrees 40 minutes 55 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 158.95 feet; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 518.22 feet to the west line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23; thence North 1 degree 37 minutes 50 seconds West along said west line of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 9.12 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPT that part of the above described property which lies northwesterly of that particular northwesterly right -of -way line of Parcel 216, as shown on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-08, recorded as Document No. 265755 and as amended on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10 -14, recorded as Document No. 279658, described as follows: Commencing at the southwest comer of said Section 10; thence on an assumed bearing of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West, along the west line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 10, a distance of 401.19 feet, to a particular right -of -way line of said Parcel 216 and the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 47 degrees 18 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 175.14 feet, to an angle point in said right -of -way line; thence North 47 degrees 18 minutes 19 seconds East a distance of 22.71 feet, to a point of curvature in said right - of -way line; thence easterly a distance of 662.60 feet, along a non - tangential curve concave to the south having a radius of 633.04 feet and a central angle of 59 degrees 58 minutes 14 seconds and having a chord of 632.76 feet which bears North 77 degrees 17 minutes 27 seconds East to an angle point in said right -of -way line; thence North 56 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds East, not tangent to said curve a distance of 114.28 feet, to an angle point in said right -of -way line; thence North 22 degrees 13 minutes 10 seconds East, along said right -of -way line, a distance of 116.13 feet and said line there terminating. Also EXCEPT said Parcel 216 Doc. # 169929v. l RNK: 4/22/2013 Planning Case No. ,A613 — O �] CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227 -1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION MAR 15 2013 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT PLEASE PRINT Applicant Name a d Address: Pin n � Contact: _FAw / Tyc<.' Phone: 03 3Fax: Asa- ��y -ois Email: Doo /P oDD.�a.z. c NOTE Consultation with City staff is required plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Lee Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non - conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development* -- 2mbrr 0+4a f �Q�v�dteslr� Rezoning U Sign Permits Sign Plan Review 21 Site Plan Review (SPR)* ffiSOb } (4-70 , 6t l B obo - 4) 3 ICwIS = 14l , S79 Property Owner Name and Address: Contact: din 5; rvAo 4e Ph0lq: - 23 ��Z/2 Fax: I, including review of development -S Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right -of- Way /Easements (VAC) (Additional recording fees may apply) Variance (VAR) a 0 Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment 01L Notification Sign - $2e()- (City to install and remove) X Escrow for F' ' Fees/ orney Cost ** lop - $50 CUP/ P /AC AR AP /Metes &Bounds - $450 Minor SUB TOTAL FEE Subdivision* An additional fee of $ #0 pe 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' /z" 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. CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED SCANNED See. A Lso C o t a- - t S- r` cM c e P4 �kk v\/ PROJECT NAME: r�ll��se n I Ir -me-V A LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: , �57 - 0 10 15300 a.S 0%0 TOTAL ACREAGE: 14 W WETLANDS PRESENT: _ YES NO PRESENT ZONING: REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: _V_ 'CL REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: 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 Cl 1e V Signature of Fee Owner Date Date ®PPIDAN" Builder of towns. Creator of value. 5125 CouNTY ROAD 101 , #100 • M INNETONKA, MN 55345 • `PHONE: 952/294 -0.353 • Fax: 952/294 -0151 • - W EB: www.oppidan.com CITY OF CHANHASSEN March "14, 2013 RECEIVED Kathryn Aanenson, AICP, Community Development Director MAR 1 2 013 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment, PUD Site Plan Review Application New, Apartment Development NWC Highway 5 & Galpin Blvd Chanhassen, MN Dear Kate: This letter is designed to serve -as a narrative for'proposed apartment development at Galpin Boulevard and Highway 5. The highlights of the plans are as follow: • Total site area is approximately 14 acres; -with 6 acres lying north of West 78' Street and � Acres lying south. • There is approximately 1.:7 acres of wetland on the northern portion of the lot and approximately .25 acres on the south side leaving approximately 12 acres developable. • Current zoning allows for medium density residential on the north side and office /light industrial on the south side • A new, market rate apartment building, containing 155 total units. This is a density of 13 units per acre (approximate) well below the 16 units per' acre' maximum allowed for under the High Density Residential distri cts, • The target'mix ofunit is currently being finalized. The unit mix is 104 One Bedroom Units (ranging in size from 624 s.£ to 765 s.£) and 51 Two ,Bedroom Units (ranging in size from 933 s:f. to 1;132 s.f.). • Parking meets City requirements, including one underground stall for each unit. • The building will be 3levels plus an underground level for parking: • Each unit will have a full appliance package, including washer /dryer and microwave, and some units will be designed "to have the potential for a fireplace. •' The building exterior will be a materials including brick/block, glass and cement board siding. •- Balconies will be provided for the majority of the units. • There will be a Clubhouse with community room and exercise facilities. Also" looking of - the potential for a small business center for residents (may not need it with the proximity, of Kinko's to the site). • An exterior patio and outdoor gathering area is planned on the southeast corner of the : site. This will be appropriately fences and landscaped. • Outside sitting/park areas are provided and trail/walks will be provided to connect to the existing walkway system.. SCANNED SITE PLAN: The sight plan has beenmodified to address concerns heard at the Concept Plan review stage for. the project. The most notable comments were directed toward the number of units and the proximity to the adiacent:housing, especially the homes in the Vasserman Ridge development. We have reduced the number of unit by 69 to a new proposed total of 155 units. This is a reduction of 31 % from the previous plan-presented. Also, because of the reduction in number, the building could be located differently on the plan. The building is now pulled further to.the northeast portion of the lot'and is .approximately 400 feet from the nearest home: at Vasserman Ridge and .600 feet to the nearest home on the northeast side of the site. Last, .access.to the site has been modified to include only one access point. That - access point was moved further west in an attempt to allow for additional stacking at the.intersection, if that were required in the future. The internal circulation still allows for garage entrances on,both' ends of the building: . ELEVATION: The building ;elevation has remained similar to the. elevation presented at the Concept Stage. The main element of the, building is a cement board aiding The accents include glass,, decorative . 'MU, brick and stone. The upper level units are designed to incorporate balconies for the units, with a typicatrail and maintenance free materials for the flooring. The.building remains designed with a three story footprint and a gabled roof. The midpoint of - the'- gabled'roof is at 37 (approximately) with the peak areas at approximately 46.feet. We have made asequest for a variance in height.4o allow the 46 - foot dimension. LANDSCAPING & LIGHTING: The northern 6 acres of the sight will be covered with a Conservation Easement in favor of the City of Chanhassen (or another type of document, as. determined by City) with the intent of preserving that acreage as open space and a buffer between- thesirgle'family :and multi - family developments.. This is similar to the buffer maintained north of the CV S/Kwik- Trip site on the north side of West 78`x. On the south side of the site, the existing boulevard trees will be maintain except for the tree(s) required to be removed for the new access point. In addition. there are numerous new trees I and shrubs being planted to provide additional screening/buffering to boththe properties to the north and to the highway. Shrubs are planted in multiple locations at the building base to _enhance the look of the building to guest and residents coming in and to the public, using the adjoining streets and pathways: 9CANNEQ Qverall we fell that we have listened to'the comments, from the neighbors; Planning Commission and City, Council and have address issues brought forth while still allowing for a quality project to C H A NHA S S E N A PA R T ME N T S COMP PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING & SITE PLAN REVIEW CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA I. I � TRUNK y O Q N r l� VICINITY MAP FT SHEET INDEX C-0 COVER SHEET C -1 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN C-2 SITE PLAN C -3 GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN C4 UTILITY PLAN C. LIGHTING PLAN L -1 LANDSCAPE PLAN AHNI-A GARAGE LEVEL PLAN AIIK�H GARAGELEVEL PLAN Ai01 -A FIRSTFLOORPLAN AI01 -B FIRST FLOOR PLAN A102 -A TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN A IO2-B TYPICALFLOORPLAH A ELEVATIONS A261 ELEVATIONS OWNER /DEVELOPER PAUI. TUCCI OPPIDAN 5125 COUNTY ROAD 101, SUITE 100 MINNETONKA, MN 55345 PH 952 -29 "353 FX 952- 29 "1 -1 ARCHITECT PETE KEELY, ALI, LEED AP COLLAGE ARCHITECTS 705 RAYMOND AVENUE ST. PAUL, MN 55114 1`11651-072-0051 CIVIL ENGINEER CLARK WICKLUND, P.E. ALLIANT ENGINEMNIG, INC. 233 PARK AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 300 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415 PH 612- 75&3080 FX 612- 758 -3099 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MARK KRONBECK, ASLA ALLI ENGINEERING, INC. 233 PARK AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 300 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415 PH 612- 759.30RO FX 612 -759 -3099 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED MAR 15 2013 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT OPPIDAN M ALLUNT III z W Q � 6 O a ` z Q iN W 2 H �I 5 s Q < a ¢ S « O O U vu O O a w:m,� e5 n o C —O m,d vm I of 15 3�znr � TRUNK y O Q N r l� VICINITY MAP FT SHEET INDEX C-0 COVER SHEET C -1 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN C-2 SITE PLAN C -3 GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN C4 UTILITY PLAN C. LIGHTING PLAN L -1 LANDSCAPE PLAN AHNI-A GARAGE LEVEL PLAN AIIK�H GARAGELEVEL PLAN Ai01 -A FIRSTFLOORPLAN AI01 -B FIRST FLOOR PLAN A102 -A TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN A IO2-B TYPICALFLOORPLAH A ELEVATIONS A261 ELEVATIONS OWNER /DEVELOPER PAUI. TUCCI OPPIDAN 5125 COUNTY ROAD 101, SUITE 100 MINNETONKA, MN 55345 PH 952 -29 "353 FX 952- 29 "1 -1 ARCHITECT PETE KEELY, ALI, LEED AP COLLAGE ARCHITECTS 705 RAYMOND AVENUE ST. PAUL, MN 55114 1`11651-072-0051 CIVIL ENGINEER CLARK WICKLUND, P.E. ALLIANT ENGINEMNIG, INC. 233 PARK AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 300 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415 PH 612- 75&3080 FX 612- 758 -3099 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MARK KRONBECK, ASLA ALLI ENGINEERING, INC. 233 PARK AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 300 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415 PH 612- 759.30RO FX 612 -759 -3099 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED MAR 15 2013 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT OPPIDAN M ALLUNT III z W Q � 6 O a ` z Q iN W 2 H �I 5 s Q < a ¢ S « O O U vu O O a w:m,� e5 n o C —O m,d vm I of 15 0 P ME PIDA N LEGEND zzi: z. . SITE BENCHMARK 14.1=1 ;1 ..... " T I d cdpN 01,tbi— Yb,l —y by 0— 1-10-02 ORIGINAL LEGAL DESCRIPTION we sd lat. =2 =:b -1- —.1. -1 X1 dlr ll m =,2'E �7 E o 71.1 6 1 3 .t= d 1 d 1=1 T21t 0-y 5: ft -' .. y Z: aoz7�aa `s 11=2 Pgi �7 N— .1 SURVEY I NFORMATION FRO SURVEY DATED 8_5_04 BY SCHOELL & MADSON. INC. N 11 10 77 ALLLANT 11 1111 An z Z C 2 o f 15 m s _ 1- I r . Jd fl - -- -EDGE ay E OF WETLA �D 2 A PROP CRTY . . ....... . ... -TJAA/ A V TRUNK HIC JNJO � ID SITE PLAN NOTES: A=—= I ml I T, I wm - =47 A y PT = 1. k kl QMF nATA PARKING DATA wri— "' SITE LEGEND: N m OPPICIAN ja ALLIANT FN- R W z W z z C-2 3 of 15 rl"MMM "Wr M PARKING DATA wri— "' SITE LEGEND: N m OPPICIAN ja ALLIANT FN- R W z W z z C-2 3 of 15 WAY 4 , 5 GRADING N �SV.ra S µo .um .,aE wr ro E.cEEa aox 4— " a usmucrcN, ra mxiacroa sxu ec TMc wow woss znrE ro eE �.a /m w.'san. EROSION CONTROL NOTES: �aex1 s� eE ,w— ohv .rmam sao .—E ..0 . � w � Rio sc saa rzs'"`orsn»�c`c GRADING LEGEND rte« u.c — •.• — nPorosm 51oFU SEMA �2�x oixcrox d' --E v � aFOrzC1Yw.' N V� II t D � ro. >PPIDAN O ALLIANf <i =uro�� xv W z rS a ? J 2 O Z O U W Z Z W O O Z O a O N F Z Q 5 z 'W a = 2 « O ¢ U vv U O C -3 um 4 of 15 U N 7 -K RIGHV�7Ay N UTILMY NOTES: ir UTILMYLEGEND: KOR 0 m PPIDA N M ALLLANT p z LU rz Z LU z M z IL a m z� 0 g C-4 5 of 15 . .. .... .... ... . . ... . ...... ... ..... .... WETL M OPPIDAN ja ALLLANT z Z Z 0 0 N C-5 6 of 15 7 rH 8 8 9 EET 7 ri P , `:/ � um Sales Associates Li ghting and Controls 52.o . .. ... S�kp.., 55379 1 M INH j UNI. IN V R; i w t Pv RZ M OPPIDAN ja ALLLANT z Z Z 0 0 N C-5 6 of 15 �� I r •� wu� �� \\ � ..\ PLANTING NOTES: I � I Sou �\ "'� •' __ .'- \ > .Y"`"' �m.su°."°m z n"'°mo. � � m r� � xxamo u.0 av n,m •'? - EDGE OF WETLAND — <'= t - r ti oaerw.co arxwuuc -z -z 1 a ^; a i T I 6 z SEED PLANTING NOTES: o d [x'04 9 S W .58 . h. 9 . O ":Y I :`.w ...: " / Yi,� - r , •_ :, ., .• • .. - •••••••.- y a8' - ` , wvarr oo¢�nxorcrrt xram vncm um m,m m>suw�. is m gz, — m.'Ow..w =W .nm.r �...n ®.c ..�.. C / J• i ex L LANDSCAPE REOUIREMENTS: Ewa Tf r i / / / /� �P�� "'�i a'�i,: / !i/ - xe ' �- l ; ..,°•,..o..�m,�.��m��.. x....•.�,�e.....« y �- / j j /' - / {' y \��l • 4 r /i /, :-sbo'.' ax ` LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE "� ;� I , % /� � �/ j� / i./ e - � ° cx n ur :-�ano: •. . > �mwoat a � l A� 2-1 L T i s ,~ i / - i i / -/f, C,., $... ' -"° ,,,•, a,esr • 3 Y� £ j �/ �/ / / % � % % % % // / / _, -_ - 1, _. / m l �X /// //, jij!. ..= Val ®� • :-! f \ �� .m.s. +.w. °" a14t sv OPPIDAN ALLIANT f W z W y f i z z Z =W a g a W 4 z W N o a a c 1 <= z U C g M. w.. M= — L -1 7 of 15 0 o CHANHASSEN -All . .. . .................. . . ............... . . ....... ....... ..... . .... ... ..... . .. . . .. .... GARAGE LEVEL - 49,822 GSF SET TITLE IS GARAGE LEVEL PLAN 1 GARAGE LEVEL PLAN 14 AIOD-A GARAGE LEVEL - 49,822 GSF Collate <AU�J <pm ,g k CHANHASSEN \ � b aAtswuwaYaxwA- CIIAIINAflBl, YN k� �/ k4 /�/ `\ J� / 13 a nv u,n a m mn wnunoxwaawr lo 8 `\\ b t IMIE: OS.tJ101J SET TITLE " , g 9° - 3 �3 GARAGE LEVEL PLAN 0 1 GARAGE LEVEL PLAN A100 -B FIRST FLOOR - 49,024 G3F MWWA C W WA 0.4 4� O • j;q k W-W o "A 4 (2 CHANHASSEN CXRNIWSlQI, MN con I ,rtNtaa unm SET TITLE FIRST FLOOR PLAN A101-B TYPICAL PLAN 48,930 GSF colis�� y ...«. r b CHANHASSEN ° �"auw�wasw�Mx nr3 GENERAL �� PLAN NOTES ,1 R mnwe..ceasvenr �t� en �i'Zi , i i / uam ,rte J zvr 4 0-3 SET TITLE c TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN b 7 TYPICA FLOOR PLAN, PARTS' A102 -B r ❑ Fj Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. April 9, 2013 Mr. Paul Oehme, P.E. Director of Public Works /City Engineer 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Chanhassen Apartments Traffic Impact Analysis 160511030 Dear Mr. Paul Oehme: ■ Suite 238N 2550 University Avenue West St Paul, Minnesota 55114 Kimley -Horn and Associates was retained by the City of Chanhassen to perform a traffic analysis to assess the traffic impacts of a 155 -unit apartment building. The site is located within the City of Chanhassen and would be located north of Arboretum Boulevard (TH 5), west of Galpin Boulevard (CR 117), and to the south of West 78th Street. Figure 1 illustrates the site location. It is anticipated that the proposed Chanhassen Apartments will open in 2013. This report has been prepared to evaluate Year 2013 traffic conditions and projected Year 2033 traffic conditions with the proposed Chanhassen Apartments. STUDY AREA The study area for this analysis includes the following roadways and intersections: Roadways: • Arboretum Boulevard (TH 5) • West 78th Street • RIRO (right -in, right -out) Access Road (east -west road south of W 78th Street) • Galpin Boulevard (CR 117) • Apartment Access Road Intersections: • Galpin Boulevard / Arboretum Boulevard • Galpin Boulevard / RIRO Access Road • Galpin Boulevard / West 78th Street • Apartment Access Road / W 78th Street Klmley -Horn Chanhassen Apartments TIA and Associates, Ina Mr, Paul Oehme, April 9, 2013 Arboretum Boulevard (TH 5), a MnDOT trunk highway, is a four -lane arterial that has an east -west orientation. This section of Arboretum Boulevard (TH 5) has speed limit of 55 miles per hour. West 78th Street, a city of Chanhassen street, is a two -lane collector with an east -west orientation. West78th Street runs parallel to the north -side of Arboretum Boulevard and has a speed limit of 30 miles per hour. Galpin Boulevard (CR 117), a Carver county road, is two -lane collector with a north -south orientation. The speed limit is 40 miles per hour. RIRO (right -in, right -out) Access Road is a two lane access road to the pharmacy and gas station. Vehicle travel speeds were assumed to be 15 miles per hour. Apartment Access Road is a proposed two -lane road providing access to and from the proposed project. The road would be located west of Galpin Boulevard and connect north to W 78th Street. Vehicle travel speeds were assumed to be 15 miles per hour. Existing Conditions and Traffic Galpin Boulevard & Arboretum Boulevard aH S) Galpin Boulevard & Arboretum Boulevard (TH 5) is a signalized intersection with following lane geometry: Galpin Boulevard • Northbound — One exclusive left turn lane, one through lane, and one shared through -right lane. • Southbound — One exclusive left turn lane, one through lane, and one shared through -right lane. Arboretum Boulevard (TH S) • Eastbound — One exclusive left turn lane, two through lanes, and one channelized right turn lane. • Westbound — One exclusive left turn lane, two through lanes, and one channelized right turn lane. The existing left -turn phasing for northbound and southbound left - turning vehicles at TH 5 operate with protected/permissive left - turns. The current signal indications are 5- section signal heads that include a green ball, green left- arrow, yellow ball, yellow left -arrow and red ball. There have been citizen concerns related to safety for northbound and southbound left - turning vehicles at this intersection. There has been research completed that shows that there can be driver confusion primarily when the green ball is displayed in the 5- section left -turn signal head. Not all drivers understand that they can proceed but need to yield to opposing thru traffic. Research documented in NCHRP 493 titled, Evaluation of Traffic Signal Displays for Protected /Permissive Left -Turn Control by the Transportation Research Board in 2003 studied a variety of alternative protected/permissive left -turn indication and operation methods. This study found that the flashing yellow indication was well- understood and provides operational benefits. The flashing yellow indication is incorporated into a 4- section head with a red - arrow, yellow - arrow, flashing yellow -arrow and green ball. During the C�I1 Klmley -Horn Chanhassen ApartmentsTlA and Associates, Inc. Mr. Paul Oahme, Apr# 9, 2013 permissive phase of left -turn operations the left -turn signal indication displays a yellow - flashing arrow rather than a green ball indication. This study showed that there were some situations where the flashing yellow indication appeared to operate safer than other forms of protected/permissive left -turn control. MnDOT is in the process of converting the protected/permissive left -turn indications at the 700 hundred signals they operate in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area to flashing- yellow arrow indications. MnDOT will only fund these improvements on the intersection approaches that serve MnDOT facilities. Conversion of these signal indications are recommended at the intersection of TH 5 and Galpin Boulevard as a part of this project given the increase in southbound left - turning vehicles at this intersection. Galpin Boulevard & RIRO Access Road The Galpin Boulevard and RIRO Access Road form a side - street stop controlled T- intersection. Galpin Boulevard nuns uncontrolled in the north -south direction while RIRO Access Road is stop controlled and forms the westbound leg of the intersection. Galpin Boulevard • Northbound — One through lane and one shared through -right lane. • Southbound — One through lane. RIRO Access Road • Westbound — One right turn lane. Galpin Boulevard & W 78th Street The Galpin Boulevard & W 78th Street intersection is two -way stop controlled intersection. Galpin Boulevard runs free north and south while W. 78th Street is stop controlled. Galpin Boulevard • Northbound — Exclusive left -turn lane, one through lane, and a shared through -right lane. • Southbound — Exclusive left -turn lane and one shared through -right lane. W 78th Street • Eastbound — Exclusive left -turn lane and one shared through -right lane. • Westbound — Exclusive left -turn lane and one shared through -right lane. Apartment Access Road & W 781h Street This intersection does not yet exist. The intersection is anticipated to operate as a side - street stop controlled T- intersection, where the Apartment Access Road is stop - controlled and provides the northbound leg. The current and proposed lane geometry is listed below. Apartment Access Road • Northbound — One shared left- through -right lane [proposed]. C � ^ Kimley -Horn Chanhassen ApartmeMTIA E I \ and Associates, Inc. Mr. Paul Oehme, Apd 9, 2013 W 78th Street • Eastbound —One through lane [current]. One shared through -right lane [proposed]. • Westbound — One through lane [current]. One shared through -left lane [proposed]. Existing site traffic was determined from traffic counts collected by Alliant Engineering, Inc. on Thursday, March 7, 2013. The existing roadway lane geometry is presented on Figure 2 and Year 2013 AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes are shown on Figure 3. TRIP GENERATION Trip generation for the proposed Chanhassen Apartment was based on the rates provided in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (91h Edition). Using the land use classification, "Apartment" (ITE land use code 220), peak AM and PM trip generation was calculated. Based on 155 dwelling units, the proposed project was expected to generate 79 AM peak - hour trips (16 in, 63 out), 96 PM peak -hour trips (62 in, 34 out), and 1,031 total daily trips. Table 1 summarizes the estimated traffic generation for the proposed project. TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT The directional distribution and assignment of trips generated by the proposed project was assumed based on a review of existing traffic volumes and access to the site. The following is the projected inbound and outbound distributions: • 25% to/from Arboretum Boulevard (TH 5) west of Galpin Boulevard • 55% to /from Arboretum Boulevard (TH 5) east of Galpin Boulevard • 10% to /from Galpin Boulevard south of Arboretum Boulevard (TH 5) • 2.5% to /from Galpin Boulevard north of W 78th Street • 5% to /from W 78th Street west of the proposed Apartment Access Road • 2.5% to /from W 78th Street east of Galpin Boulevard Site traffic distribution is illustrated in Figure 4. Based on the project trip distribution, morning and afternoon project trips were assigned to the local roadway network and through the study intersections. Figure 5 shows the project's trip assignment at the study intersections. PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES Historic Traffic Growth According to the Carver County 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the study area is projected to experience minor increases in traffic by 2030. Using the 2013 count data and the 2030 AADT map of Carver County with base scenario improvements (which matches 2030 volumes in the City's Comprehensive Plan), annual compounding growth rates were calculated for links east of Galpin Boulevard (- 0.73 %), west of Galpin Boulevard (- 1.06 %), and along Galpin Boulevard (2.19 %). 4 Kimley -Horn Chanhassen Apartments TIA C and Associates, Inc. Mr. Paul 0ehme, Aprt 9, 2013 Total Traffic To obtain Year 2033 traffic volumes, the calculated annual growth rates were applied to the 2013 traffic counts. The following growth factors, based on 20 year compounded growth, were applied to the 2013 traffic counts to obtain 2033 traffic volumes: 0.81 for links west of Galpin Boulevard, 0.86 for links east of Galpin Boulevard, and 1.54 for volumes on Galpin Boulevard. Figure 6 illustrates the resulting Year 2033 traffic volumes. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS The purpose of the traffic analysis is to identify potential traffic impacts associated with the proposed apartment. Capacity analyses for the intersections within the study area were performed for morning and afternoon peak periods for Year 2013 and Year 2033 conditions. Figure 7 and Figure 8 present the traffic volumes with project trips for Year 2013 and Year 2033, respectively. Level of Service (LOS) Level of Service (LOS) analyses were performed using Synchro 8 and SimTrafc software. Both programs utilize methodologies contained in the Highway Capacity Manual to determine the operating characteristics of a roadway network. Capacity is defined as the maximum number of vehicles that can pass over a particular road segment or through a particular intersection within a specified period under prevailing roadway, traffic, and control conditions. Level of Service is defined as a qualitative measure that describes operational conditions and motorist's perception within a traffic stream. The Highway Capacity Manual defines six levels of service, LOS A through LOS F, with LOS A representing free -flow conditions and LOS F representing roadway failure. LOS D is typically recognized by Mn/DOT and other agencies as the minimum threshold value for satisfactory level of service. The Highway Capacity Manual defines delay as "the additional travel time experienced by a driver, passenger, or pedestrian ", whereas control delay is defined as "the component of delay that results when a control signal causes a lane group to reduce speed or stop; it is measured by comparison with the uncontrolled condition". Control delay is the principal service measure for evaluating LOS at signalized intersections and unsignalized intersections. Note that LOS for both signalized and unsignalized intersections are measured in seconds of delay per vehicle traveling through the intersection. Table 2 and Table 3 list the level of service thresholds for signalized and unsignalized intersections, respectively. Based on an average of five SimTra)Tic simulation runs, Table 4 and Table 5 shows the overall average intersection delay and associated LOS for the base and with Project conditions in Year 2013 and Year 2033. For the Year 2013 scenario, the proposed land use was not projected to cause any significant traffic impacts to the four study intersections based on average intersection delay. The signalized intersection at Galpin Boulevard & Arboretum Boulevard (TH 5) is projected to operate at LOS C for both baseline and with Project conditions. All non - signalized intersections were projected to operate at LOS A for both baseline and with Project conditions. 5 Kimley -Horn Chanhassen Apaitneits TM and Associates, Inc. Mr. Paul 0ehme, Aprt 9, 2013 In the Year 2033 conditions, the proposed project was not projected to cause any significant traffic impacts at the study intersections. The Galpin Boulevard & Arboretum Boulevard (TH 5) intersection was projected to operate at LOS D or better for both baseline and with Project conditions. The remaining intersections were projected to operate at LOS A for both baseline and with Project conditions. INTERSECTION CONTROL CONSIDERATIONS Alternative intersection control methods were reviewed due to anticipated traffic increases through the Galpin Boulevard & W 78th Street intersection. Warrants, crash history and operations are the primary factors that are reviewed to determine the recommended type of intersection control. These items are discussed further below: Safety Crash data available from the Minnesota Crash Mapping Analysis Tool (MnCMAT) was reviewed to determine if there were a significant number of crashes that are susceptible to correction by changing intersection control (i.e. right -angle crashes). Crashes for the last three years, where a full year of data was available, were reviewed, and there were four, zero, and two crashes in 2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively that were susceptible to correction through a change in intersection control. All these crashes did not result any injuries. Because there were no more than five crashes susceptible to correction in a single year, there is no justification to change intersection control based on crash history. Warrants The multi -way stop warrant was reviewed to determine if an all -way stop was justified based on the anticipated increase in traffic volumes with and without the proposed project. To satisfy the multi - way stop warrants as documented in the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control (MnMUTCD) the vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches must exceed 300 vehicles per hour and the combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the intersection from the minor street approaches must exceed 200 units per hours for the same eight hours. Table 7 summarizes the results. The minor street volumes do not exceed 200 units per hour during any of the hours analyzed so a multi -way stop installation is not recommended. Operations An alternative form of intersection control is a roundabout. To allow for comparison Synchro was used to analyze two -way stop control and RODEL was used to model a roundabout intersection. A conceptual layout of a roundabout is shown in Exhibit 1 and the traffic volumes used to complete the analysis are shown in Figure 9. The roundabout was tested for geometric sensitivity by running the analysis at an 85% confidence interval. This was done to see if significant changes in delay occurred, which could indicate that predicted operations are approaching capacity of the roundabout. The comparative analysis showing intersection and approach delays are reported in Table 8. The results show that under both two -way stop control and roundabout control the individual approaches and overall intersection LOS are all at LOS B or better under either type of intersection control whether or not the proposed project is constructed. 6 C � ^ Kimley -Horn Chanhassen ApWinents TIA I 1 and Associates, Inc. Mr. Paul 0ehme, Apr# 9, 2013 CONCLUSIONS No significant traffic impacts were found as a result of the proposed apartment building. Study intersections near the project site are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during Year 2013 and Year 2033 conditions. The addition of project traffic was not observed to impact intersection LOS; the intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS. As an alternative form of intersection control the feasibility of a roundabout was reviewed at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard & W 78` Street. This was reviewed in part because there are several vehicles that enter from the gas station and pharmacy at the southeast corner of the intersection that turn north onto Galpin Boulevard from RIRO Access Road and complete a U -turn at the intersection with West 78th Street. These vehicles are not anticipated to experience or cause significant delays and a review of the turning - template for a passenger vehicle design vehicle shows that these vehicles can make a u -turn at the existing intersection. Given the cost of the roundabout improvements and that the intersection is anticipate to operate adequately under two -way stop control, a roundabout is not recommended. The existing left -turn phasing for northbound and southbound left - turning vehicles at TH 5 operate with protected/permissive left - turns. There have been citizen concerns related to safety for northbound and southbound left - turning vehicles at this intersection. There has been research completed that shows that there can be driver confusion primarily when the green ball is displayed in the 5- section left -turn signal head. Research has found that the flashing yellow indication is well - understood and provides operational benefits. This research also indicated that there were some situations where the flashing yellow indication appears to operate safer than other forms of protected/permissive left -turn control. Conversion of these signal indications are recommended at the intersection of TH 5 and Galpin Boulevard as a part of this project given the increase in southbound left - turning vehicles at this intersection. Sincerely, KIMLEY -HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. r. i �M Brandon J. Bourdon, P.E. Project Engineer 7 Chanhassen Apartments V � -Q) o� Qj m Eed Intersection lized Intersection �� Kimley -Horn and Associates, Ina (: R NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 1 Project Site Plan Chanhassen Boulevard Galpin Boulevard/ Arboretum Blvd (TH -5) Galpin Boulevard/ Access Road Galpin Boulevard/ W 78th Street Apartment Access Rd/ W 78th Street 1 0 © © O [proposed] V � a o� m C� Chanhassen Aoartments 1 2 3 NOT TO SCALE 4 o ry v ^ v �° a 2/21 rn 3 0 45/86 ° co 0 0/8 520/1357 N N a a 16/53 a 751155 A h 68/68 n a o a 29/40 Arboretum BIM ps RIRO Aeo Rd W TMh p w 7M st (TH6) 30/51 P J 4 P 4 P 11121 P J 4 a 1321 /826 a 45/37 a 82/76 a 111 144 4 Lo u O o m N 26/18 m rV f+ n m m ll] V m Lea J X /Y =AM /PM PEAK HOUR TURN74G VOLUMES NOT TO SCALE ❑ =❑ Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. FIGURE 3 Year 2013 Peak -Hour Traffic Volumes Chanhassen Apartments E nal ize d Intersection signalized Intersection Proposed Apartment Access Road 55% (:R NOT TO SCALE E M" Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. FIGURE 4 Project Trip Distribution Chanhassen Aoartments 1 2 3 NOT TO SCALE 4 :o `O 'D ` � a 9 / 34 ` � a ° ` a 3 O/2 15159 Arboretum B Wd (TR -5) RIRO Access Rd IN 78th St IN 78th St 4/16 4 2/1 O O - 211 a co u 57131 9 N 1/3 ❑ w io Lec ren XX 1YY =AM IPM PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES NOT TO SCALE ❑i♦❑ Kimley -Horn FIGURE 5 and Associates, Inc. Project Trip Assignment - Study Intersections KIYO TPT011eG_- GWm.en AOrTmn��F.uiV I. T— 1 1 �e Chanhassen Apartments 1 2 3 NOT TO SCAL.F 4 rn r N a 2/18 t 3 39/74 N cC, N a 0/5 N N c3 �, 449 /1173 m p 14 / 46 105 ! 203 o R n o 59/59 b o b a a 25/35 Arborew Blvd (TH -5) RIRO Access Rd W 7Mh M IN 78th St 24/41 P J 4 P v o 9117 O J 4 O 1068/668 a 36/30 a 66/61 a 90/36 0 N o m o N ° �_ 21/15 o N a IN � m m o w IN m Lea I YY = AM7 PM PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES NOT TO SCAL.F ❑_Fj Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. FIGURE 6 Year 2033 Baseline Peak -Hour Traffic Volumes Chanhassen Apartments 1 0 2 m 3 n 4 n O\ N m m > m A m n HISS N 3 0 45/86 O1 m 3 016 520 /1351 '� `� a 16/55 a 75/155 -- - 68/68 b .. 29/40 a 15/59 Arboretum 81vd (TH -S) RIRO Access Rd W 78th St W 78th St 34167 1� a 4� 4 13/22 1321/826 a 47/38 -. 82/76 a 111/44 ❑ °_ rn _N 83/49 w m °_ _N _° 1/3 ❑ N m avwo Chanhassen Apartments 1 2 3 4 o a e iD 0 11/52 '� 3 - 39 / 74 co N � 4 0/5 'd a 449 / 1173 tO 0 a 14 / 48 .. 105/203 A n 59/59 d o n n o 25/35 15/59 Arboretum Blvd (TH -5) RIRO Access Rd W 711101 at W 78th 8t 28/57 P J 9 o p a 11/18 P J Q a 1068 / 668 a 38/31 r, 66/61 ° o 0 v `� 90136 b v 78/46 9 N 1/ 3 N ni m m c+> U N M N a�D m v Chanhassen Boulevard 2013 Volumes with Chanhassen Apartment Trips r\ N - M �- 0/6 x° 16/55 rN M o 29 / 40 I I U 0/0 0/0 t 7 -- X00 -- 0 X14/48 13/22 tiw�ti rvMLno 00 o K) 4 7/38 —+ c:;. 0/ 0 83/49 rn Nw� 0/0 t a v 0 CIO c Z_ a W 78th Street 2033 Volumes with Chanhassen Apartment Trips r\ N 00 0/5 7 -- X00 -- 0 X14/48 M m rn rvMLno 25/35 .� 1 �► U c:;. 0/ 0 W 78th Street 0/0 t 11 /18 w w 38/31 ^j rj 78/46 rj rn N W .A a v CI m c E gnalized Intersection ID PM Volumes NOT TO SCALE Kimley -Horn FIGURE 9 C � and Associates, Inc. Galpin Blvd & W 78th St Traffic Vo l u mes TABLE 1 TRIP GENERAT /ON SUMMARY land Use Land Use as listed in ITE Units Trip Rate' DaL Tri AM Peak -Hour PM Peak -Hour % of ADT' In:Out Ratio I Out Total % of ADT' In:Out Ratio' In Out Total Driveway Trips 3 Proposed C hanhassen Apartments Apartment 155 du 6.65 / du 1,031 8% 020 - . 0.80 16 63 79 9 % 0.65 0.35 62 34 96 NET TRIP GENERATION = 1,031 16 63 79 62 34 % Note: I. DU = DweWng Unit . Trip rates refererces from ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition. . Drivewa tri s are the total number of tri enerated by a she. Table 2: Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections LOS Criteria for Signalized Intersections LOS Control Delay per Vehicle (s /veh) A <10 B > 10 -20 C > 20 -35 D > 35 -55 E > 55 -80 F > 80 Highway Capacity Manual 2010; s /veh = seconds per vehicle Table 3: Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections LOS Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections LOS Control Delay per Vehicle (s /veh) A <10 B > 10 -15 C > 15 -25 D > 25 -35 E > 35 -50 F >50 Highway Capacity Manual 2010; s /veh = seconds per vehicle TABLE 4 YEAR 2013 CONDITIONS PEAK -HOUR INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMAR Y YEAR 2013 BASELINE PEAK YEAR 2013 BASELINE PLUS PROJECT DELAY a LOS b DELAY a LOS b A (c) SIGNIFICANT? INTERSECTION HOUR 1 Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH -5) Performance by movement AM 27.5 C 28.2 C 0.7 NO PM 23.1 C 23.8 C 0.7 NO 2 Galpin Blvd & Access Road Performance by movement AM 1.0 A 1.0 A 0.0 NO PM 1.4 A 1.7 A 0.3 NO 3 Galpin Blvd & W 78th St Performance by movement AM 2.1 A 2.4 A 0.3 NO PM 2.6 A 3.1 A 0.5 NO 4 Apartment Access Road & W 78th St Performance by movement AM - - 1.1 A - NO PM - - 1.5 A - NO Notes: a) Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection, measured in seconds per vehicle. b) LOS calculations are based on the methodology outlined in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual and performed using Synchro 8. c) Change in delay due to addition of project traffic TABLE S YEAR 2033 CONDITIONS PEAK-HOUR INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY YEAR 2033 BASELINE PEAK YEAR 2033 BASELINE PLUS PROJECT DELAY (a7)LOS b DELAY a LOS b A (c) SIGNIFICANT? INTERSECTION HOUR 1 Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH -5) Performance by movement AM 35.8 D 39.0 D 3.2 NO PM 32.7 C 36.8 D 4.1 NO 2 Galpin Blvd & Access Road Performance by movement AM 0.9 A 2.6 A 1.7 NO PM 1.3 A 1.6 A 0.3 NO 3 Galpin Blvd & W 78th St Performance by movement AM 2.1 A 3.2 A 1.1 NO PM 2.7 A 3.0 A 0.3 NO 4 Apartment Access Road & W 78th St Performance by movement AM - - 1.1 A - NO PM - - 1.5 A - NO otes: a) Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection, measured in seconds per vehicle. b) LOS calculations are based on the methodology outlined in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual and perfonned using Synchro 8. c) Change in delay due to addition of project traffic TABLE 6 YEAR 2013 AND YEAR 2033 CONDITIONS PEAK -HOUR INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY Intersection 3: Gal in Boulevard & W 78th Street Year 2013 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBTJ WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Existing AM 6.1 A 8.3 A 3.8 A 7.3 A 7.6 A 0 A 2.8 A 0.3 A 0.3 A 1.6 A 0.3 A 0 A with Project AM 7.6 A 8.6 A 4.3 A 7.5 A 7.3 A 0 A 3 A 0.2 A 0.1 A 1.8 A 0.3 A 0.1 A Existing PM 7.1 A 9 A 3.9 A 8.1 A 8.4 A 2.9 A 2.5 A 0.3 A 0.2 A 2.7 A 0.5 A 0.3 A with Project JPM 1 9.3 1 A 1 10,51 B 1 3.8 1 A 1 9.7 A 9 A 1 4.3 1 A 1 2.7 A 1 0.3 1 A 1 0.2 1 A 1 3 1 A 1 0.7 1 A 0.5 1 A Intersection 3: Galpin Boulevard & W 78th Street Year 2033 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Existing AM 11.3 B 10.4 B 4.7 A 10.2 B 9.7 A 0 A 3.1 A 0.4 A 0.3 A 2.2 A 0.4 A 0.1 A with Project AM 11.7 B 12 B 8.6 A 11.5 B 10.4 B 0 A 4.1 A 0.3 A 0.3 A 2.1 A 1.2 A 0.5 A Existinq PM 10.1 B 12.3 B 4.8 A 11.8 B 10.7 B 3.4 A 2.9 A 0.4 A 0.4 A 3.7 A 0.7 A 0.5 A ith Project PM 11.7 B 13.6 B 4.6 A 13.8 B 13.1 B 3.8 A 3.4 A 0.4 A 0.3 A 3.3 A 0.9 A 0.6 A TABLE 7 YEAR 2013 AND YEAR 2033 MUL TI-WA YSTOP WARRANT EVALUA TION SUMMAR Y YEAR 2013 YEAR 2033 MEETS WARRANT? MEETS WARRANT? WB' EB' TOTAL SB 2 NB 2 TOTAL MINOR 1 MAJOR ° WB' EB' TOTAL SB 2 NB 2 TOTAL MINOR' MAJOR 06:00 21 48 69 94 46 140 NO NO 06:00 19 39 58 146 71 217 NO NO 07:00 33 75 108 274 105 379 NO YES 07:00 29 61 90 423 163 586 NO YES 08:00 56 59 115 171 99 270 NO NO 08:00 49 48 97 264 153 417 NO YES 09:00 38 54 92 133 124 257 NO NO 09:00 33 44 77 206 192 398 NO YES 10:00 1 37 46 1 83 74 100 174 NO NO 10:00 1 32 38 70 115 155 270 NO NO 11:00 36 62 98 87 142 229 NO NO 11:00 32 51 83 135 220 355 NO YES 12:00 53 82 135 94 173 267 NO NO 12:00 46 67 113 146 267 413 NO YES 13:00 46 62 108 89 147 236 NO NO 13 :00 40 51 91 138 227 365 NO YES 14:00 48 57 105 90 143 233 NO NO 14:00 42 47 89 139 221 360 NO YES 15:00 41 67 108 139 257 396 NO YES 15:00 36 55 91 215 397 1 612 NO YES 16:00 1 66 1 72 1 138 191 285 1 476 NO YES 16:00 1 58 1 59 117 295 440 735 NO YES 17:00 90 68 158 163 314 477 NO YES 17:00 78 55 133 252 485 737 NO YES 18:00 26 81 107 136 1 240 376 NO YES 18:00 1 23 66 89 210 371 581 NO YES N otes: Volumes include vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian counts. Volumes include only vehicle counts. Minor street warrant is met if total vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian volumes exceed 200 for 8 hours and the hiqhest delay per vehicle in peak hour exceeds 30 seconds. Major street warrant is met rf total vehicle volumes exceed 300 for 8 hours. TABLE 8 YEAR 2013 AND YEAR 2033 CONDITIONS UNSIGNALIZED AND ROUNDABOUT LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY Intersection 3: Galpin Boulevard & W 78th Street - Two -Way Stop Year 2013 Year 2033 EB WB NB SB Overall Overall Overall Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Existing AM 6.5 A 7.4 A 1.0 A 0.5 A 2.1 A with Project AM 6.1 A 7.4 A 1.1 A 0.5 A 2.4 A Existing PM 7.3 A 8.0 A 0.9 A 0.9 A 2.6 A with Project PM 7.3 A 9.0 A 1.2 A 1.1 A 3.1 A Intersection 3: Galpin Boulevard & W 78th Street - Roundabout Year 2013 Year 2033 EB WB NB SB Overall Overall Overall Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Existing AM 3.2 A 2.9 A 3.0 A 3.4 A 3.2 A with Project AM 3.4 A 2.9 A 3.1 A 3.4 A 3.3 A Existing PM 3.1 A 3.3 A 3.6 A 3.3 A 3.4 A with Project PM 1 32 A 3.5 B 1 3.8 A 3.4 A 3.6 A Intersection 3: Galpin Boulevard & W 78th Street - Two -Way Stop Year 2033 Year 2033 EB WB NB NB SB Overall Overall Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Existing AM 9.0 A 10.0 B 1.2 A 0.6 A 2.1 A with Project AM 9.8 A 11.0 B 1.6 A 1.3 A 3.2 A Existing PM 10.1 A 10.7 B 1.1 A 0.8 A 2.7 A with Project PM 1 8.5 A 12.7 B 1.5 A 1.3 A 1 3.0 A Intersection 3: Galpin Boulevard & W 78th Street - Roundabout Year 2033 EB WB NB SB Overall Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Existing AM 3.5 A 3.0 A 3.3 A 4.0 A 3.2 A with Project AM 3.7 A 3.0 A 3.3 A 4.1 A 3.8 A Existing PM 3.3 A 3.7 A 4.5 A 3.7 A 3.4 A with Project PM 3.4 A 1 3.8 A 4.8 A 3.9 A 4.3 A R -1A5' �. Existing R/W / / / \ _ R=135'--N R =125' _ _ \ ` R -115' I _ R =130' `Existing /R /� R =125 / Existing R/W � Apron I � / `Barrier Curb \ R =130 \ gy p 14. \ \ R= 115'�� e �ST R =12 � R =135' \ ` Mountable Curb R =125' / Existing R/W 0 25 50 SCALE IN FEET K�u�iooa W .n 0 " 00 - «0 n GALPIN BLVD & 78TH ST ROUNDABOUT IMPROVEMENTS EXHIBIT I Chanhassen Apartments Year 2013 AM Peak 1: Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH -5) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied DelNeh (s) 2.5 0.3 2.2 3.2 0.1 3.0 3.7 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del /Veh (s) 86.5 18.8 6.7 84.6 10.7 5.1 62.1 85.5 39.6 65.3 63.7 29.7 Vehicles Entered 31 1328 103 71 512 2 33 73 84 136 142 19 Vehicles Exited 30 1323 104 71 509 2 33 73 83 136 142 19 Hourly Exit Rate 30 1323 104 71 509 2 33 73 83 136 142 19 Input Volume 30 1321 111 68 520 2 34 72 86 136 142 20 % of Volume 100 100 93 104 98 100 97 101 96 100 100 96 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1: Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH -5) Performance by movement Movement All Denied DelNeh (s) 0.5 Total Del /Veh (s) 27.5 Vehicles Entered 2534 Vehicles Exited 2525 Hourly Exit Rate 2525 Input Volume 2542 % of Volume 99 Denied Entry Before 0 2: Galpin Blvd & Access Road Performance by movement Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All Denied DelNeh (s) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del /Veh (s) 2.7 1.7 1.9 0.3 1.0 Vehicles Entered 50 90 51 297 488 Vehicles Exited 50 90 51 297 488 Hourly Exit Rate 50 90 51 297 488 Input Volume 45 93 52 298 488 % of Volume 110 97 99 100 100 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 3: Galpin Blvd & W 78th St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied DelNeh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Total Del /Veh (s) 6.1 8.3 3.8 7.3 7.6 2.8 0.3 0.3 1.6 0.3 0.0 2.1 Vehicles Entered 11 45 28 27 13 39 97 3 36 219 18 536 Vehicles Exited 10 46 28 26 13 38 97 3 36 219 18 534 Hourly Exit Rate 10 46 28 26 13 38 97 3 36 219 18 534 Input Volume 11 45 26 29 16 44 92 2 38 219 15 538 % of Volume 89 102 109 90 80 86 106 150 95 100 118 99 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 KHA SimTraffic Report SimTraffic Performance Report Page 1 Chanhassen Apartments Year 2013 AM Peak Total Network Performance Denied DelNeh (s) 0.5 Total DelNeh (s) 28.7 Vehicles Entered 2743 Vehicles Exited 2740 Hourly Exit Rate 2740 Input Volume 7232 % of Volume 38 Denied Entry Before 0 KHA SimTraffic Report SimTraffic Performance Report Page 2 Chanhassen Apartments Year 2013 with Project AM Peak 1: Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH -5) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.2 0.3 2.4 3.2 0.1 2.8 3.8 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del /Veh (s) 90.5 18.5 6.0 97.7 11.5 4.0 54.9 81.1 43.0 69.4 63.8 29.0 Vehicles Entered 28 1322 97 77 542 11 30 65 85 174 132 31 Vehicles Exited 29 1321 98 79 543 12 29 65 85 174 133 32 Hourly Exit Rate 29 1321 98 79 543 12 29 65 85 174 133 32 Input Volume 34 1321 111 68 520 11 34 74 86 171 148 36 % of Volume 85 100 88 116 104 107 85 88 99 102 90 89 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1: Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH -5) Performance by movement Movement All Denied DelNeh (s) 0.5 Total Del /Veh (s) 28.2 Vehicles Entered 2594 Vehicles Exited 2600 Hourly Exit Rate 2600 Input Volume 2615 % of Volume 99 Denied Entry Before 0 2: Galpin Blvd & Access Road Performance by movement Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All Denied DelNeh (s) 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Total Del /Veh (s) 2.7 1.9 2.0 0.4 1.0 Vehicles Entered 44 95 52 338 529 Vehicles Exited 44 95 52 338 529 Hourly Exit Rate 44 95 52 338 529 Input Volume 45 107 52 355 559 % of Volume 97 89 100 95 95 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 3: Galpin Blvd & W 78th St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied DelNeh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Total Del /Veh (s) 7.6 8.6 4.3 7.5 7.3 3.0 0.2 0.1 1.8 0.3 0.1 2.4 Vehicles Entered 16 43 72 25 18 46 91 1 32 218 17 579 Vehicles Exited 16 42 72 26 18 47 91 1 32 217 17 579 Hourly Exit Rate 16 42 72 26 18 47 91 1 32 217 17 579 Input Volume 13 47 83 29 16 58 92 2 38 219 15 614 % of Volume 121 89 86 90 111 81 98 50 84 99 111 94 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 KHA SimTraffic Report SimTraffic Performance Report Page 1 Chanhassen Apartments Year 2013 with Project AM Peak 4: Apartment Access Road & W 78th St Performance by movement Mov 0.5 - WBL WBT NBL Nom" Vehicles Exited Denied DelNeh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del /Veh (s) 0.1 0.0 2.6 0.8 4.6 2.6 1.1 Vehicles Entered 76 1 11 72 3 53 216 Vehicles Exited 76 1 11 72 3 53 216 Hourly Exit Rate 76 1 11 72 3 53 216 Input Volume 82 1 15 75 3 60 236 % of Volume 92 100 72 96 100 89 91 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Network P KHA SimTraffic Report SimTraffic Performance Report Page 2 0.5 Denied DelNeh (s) Total Del /Veh (s) 29.5 Vehicles Entered 2810 Vehicles Exited 2810 Hourly Exit Rate 2810 Input Volume 7776 % of Volume 36 Denied Entry Before 0 KHA SimTraffic Report SimTraffic Performance Report Page 2 Chanhassen Apartments Year 2013 PM Peak 1: Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH -5) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.8 0.2 2.6 2.2 0.3 1.9 3.7 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del /Veh (s) 69.3 11.1 4.4 77.8 15.4 5.7 66.8 67.2 29.4 61.9 64.0 32.2 Vehicles Entered 50 811 46 62 1358 21 98 103 67 53 91 56 Vehicles Exited 51 811 47 60 1358 21 95 101 65 53 89 56 Hourly Exit Rate 51 811 47 60 1358 21 95 101 65 53 89 56 Input Volume 51 826 44 68 1357 21 105 105 65 58 98 57 % of Volume 100 98 106 88 100 101 90 96 100 92 91 99 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1: Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH -5) Performance by movement Movement All Denied DelNeh (s) 0.5 Total Del /Veh (s) 23.1 Vehicles Entered 2816 Vehicles Exited 2807 Hourly Exit Rate 2807 Input Volume 2855 % of Volume 98 Denied Entry Before 0 2: Galpin Blvd & Access Road Performance by movement Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All Denied DelNeh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 Total Del /Veh (s) 3.2 1.6 1.5 0.3 1.4 Vehicles Entered 84 240 72 201 597 Vehicles Exited 83 239 72 201 595 Hourly Exit Rate 83 239 72 201 595 Input Volume 86 243 71 212 612 % of Volume 96 98 101 95 97 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 KHA SimTraffic Report SimTraffic Performance Report Page 1 Chanhassen Apartments Year 2013 PM Peak 3: Galpin Blvd & W 78th St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied DelNeh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.2 0.2 Total DelNeh (s) 7.1 9.0 3.9 8.1 8.4 2.9 2.5 0.3 0.2 2.7 0.5 0.3 Vehicles Entered 21 33 16 37 56 6 89 220 14 28 134 10 Vehicles Exited 21 33 16 37 55 6 89 218 14 29 134 10 Hourly Exit Rate 21 33 16 37 55 6 89 218 14 29 134 10 Input Volume 21 37 18 40 53 6 92 224 14 31 137 10 % of Volume 101 89 90 92 104 96 97 97 98 94 98 98 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3: Galpin Blvd & W 78th St Performance by movement Movement All Denied DelNeh (s) 0.5 Total Del /Veh (s) 2.6 Vehicles Entered 664 Vehicles Exited 662 Hourly Exit Rate 662 Input Volume 683 of Volume 97 Denied Entry Before 0 Total Network Performance Denied DelNeh (s) 0.5 Total Del /Veh (s) 23.4 Vehicles Entered 3195 Vehicles Exited 3207 Hourly Exit Rate 3207 Input Volume 7615 % of Volume 42 Denied Entry Before 0 KHA SimTraffic Report SimTraffic Performance Report Page 2 Chanhassen Apartments Year 2013 with Project PM Peak 1: Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH -5) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.7 0.2 2.6 2.2 0.3 2.0 3.6 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del /Veh (s) 71.5 11.8 4.5 76.4 15.8 5.5 65.8 66.5 27.0 55.4 64.0 35.5 Vehicles Entered 60 857 49 68 1357 51 100 107 60 69 101 66 Vehicles Exited 62 851 49 67 1345 52 103 108 60 71 103 68 Hourly Exit Rate 62 851 49 67 1345 52 103 108 60 71 103 68 Input Volume 67 826 44 68 1357 55 105 111 65 77 100 66 % of Volume 93 103 111 99 99 95 98 97 92 92 103 103 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1: Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH -5) Performance by movement Movement All Denied DelNeh (s) 0.5 Total Del /Veh (s) 23.8 Vehicles Entered 2945 Vehicles Exited 2939 Hourly Exit Rate 2939 Input Volume 2942 % of Volume 100 Denied Entry Before 0 2: Galpin Blvd & Access Road Performance by movement Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All Denied DelNeh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 Total Del /Veh (s) 3.4 2.1 1.8 0.4 1.7 Vehicles Entered 86 297 74 237 694 Vehicles Exited 86 294 74 237 691 Hourly Exit Rate 86 294 74 237 691 Input Volume 86 299 71 243 699 % of Volume 100 98 104 98 99 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 KHA SimTraffic Report SimTraffrc Performance Report Page 1 Chanhassen Apartments Year 2013 with Project PM Peak 3: Galpin Blvd & W 78th St Performance by movement Movement llor Denied DelNeh (s) � WBL 3.1 Vehicles Entered NEIL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied DelNeh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.2 0.2 Total Del /Veh (s) 9.3 10.5 3.8 9.7 9.0 4.3 2.7 0.3 0.2 3.0 0.7 0.5 Vehicles Entered 19 38 48 41 55 7 150 220 12 33 134 11 Vehicles Exited 19 38 47 40 56 7 149 220 12 33 133 11 Hourly Exit Rate 19 38 47 40 56 7 149 220 12 33 133 11 Input Volume 22 38 49 40 55 6 148 224 14 31 137 12 % of Volume 87 99 95 100 102 112 101 98 84 106 97 90 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3: Galpin Blvd & W 78th St Performance by movement � Alf Denied DelNeh (s) 0.4 Total Del /Veh (s) 3.1 Vehicles Entered 768 Vehicles Exited 765 Hourly Exit Rate 765 Input Volume 777 % of Volume 98 Denied Entry Before 0 4: Apartment Access Road & W 78th St Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied DelNeh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del /Veh (s) 0.2 0.0 2.9 1.4 6.2 2.5 1.5 Vehicles Entered 77 4 56 160 2 27 326 Vehicles Exited 77 4 56 159 2 27 325 Hourly Exit Rate 77 4 56 159 2 27 325 Input Volume 76 3 59 156 2 32 328 % of Volume 101 133 95 102 100 84 99 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Network Performance Denied DelNeh (s) 0.6 Total Del /Veh (s) 24.3 Vehicles Entered 3353 Vehicles Exited 3355 Hourly Exit Rate 3355 Input Volume 8316 % of Volume 40 Denied Entry Before 0 KHA SimTraffic Report SimTraffic Performance Report Page 2 Chanhassen Apartments All Year 2033 Base Growth Denied DelNeh (s) 0.4 AM Peak 1: Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH -5) Performance by movement Total Del /Veh (s) 35.8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.2 0.2 2.6 3.3 0.1 4.3 3.7 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del /Veh (s) 947 20.0 5.8 863 12.4 3.9 59.2 912 77.5 72.3 61.2 30.8 Vehicles Entered 22 1082 82 59 443 1 53 105 133 215 219 28 Vehicles Exited 22 1085 83 58 446 1 53 106 135 212 218 28 Hourly Exit Rate 22 1085 83 58 446 1 53 106 135 212 218 28 Input Volume 24 1068 90 59 449 2 52 111 133 210 220 31 % of Volume 93 102 92 99 99 50 102 95 102 101 99 90 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1: Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH -5) Performance by movement jement All Denied DelNeh (s) 0.4 Total Del /Veh (s) 35.8 Vehicles Entered 2442 Vehicles Exited 2447 Hourly Exit Rate 2447 Input Volume 2448 % of Volume 100 Denied Entry Before 0 2: Galpin Blvd & Access Road Performance by movement Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All Denied DelNeh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 01 Total Del /Veh (s) 2.7 1.4 1.8 0.5 0.9 Vehicles Entered 41 137 80 463 721 Vehicles Exited 41 137 81 462 721 Hourly Exit Rate 41 137 81 462 721 Input Volume 39 143 80 460 722 % of Volume 105 96 101 100 100 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 3: Galpin Blvd & W 78th St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied DelNeh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Total Del /Veh (s) 11.3 10.4 4.7 10.2 9.7 3.1 0.4 0.3 2.2 0.4 0.1 2.1 Vehicles Entered 10 41 20 27 16 60 142 3 56 341 23 739 Vehicles Exited 10 41 20 27 15 60 142 3 56 341 22 737 Hourly Exit Rate 10 41 20 27 15 60 142 3 56 341 22 737 Input Volume 9 36 21 25 14 68 142 3 59 338 23 737 % of Volume 108 114 96 109 105 88 100 100 95 101 97 100 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 KHA SimTraffic Report SimTraffic Performance Report Page 1 Chanhassen Apartments Year 2033 Base Growth AM Peak Total Network Performance Denied DelNeh (s) 0.5 Total Del /Veh (s) 35.1 Vehicles Entered 2742 Vehicles Exited 2747 Hourly Exit Rate 2747 Input Volume 7964 % of Volume 34 Denied Entry Before 0 KHA SimTraffic Report SimTraffic Performance Report Page 2 Chanhassen Apartments Year 2033 Base Growth with Project AM P eak 1: Galoin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH -5) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.5 0.3 2.4 3.3 0.1 3.7 3.5 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del /Veh (s) 81.4 19.6 5.5 75.3 12.7 4.5 62.8 88.6 78.0 99.2 65.5 39.9 Vehicles Entered 25 1056 91 54 442 10 53 120 129 239 221 53 Vehicles Exited 26 1052 91 53 443 10 52 120 130 240 222 53 Hourly Exit Rate 26 1052 91 53 443 10 52 120 130 240 222 53 Input Volume 28 1068 90 59 449 11 52 113 133 245 225 47 % of Volume 94 99 101 90 99 89 100 106 98 98 99 112 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1: Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH -5) Performance by movement Movement All Denied DelNeh (s) 0.4 Total Del /Veh (s) 39.0 Vehicles Entered 2493 Vehicles Exited 2492 Hourly Exit Rate 2492 Input Volume 2520 of Volume 99 Denied Entry Before 0 2: Galpin Blvd & Access Road Performance by movement Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All Denied DelNeh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.2 Total Del /Veh (s) 2.8 1.9 1.9 2.9 2.6 Vehicles Entered 37 159 77 513 786 Vehicles Exited 38 159 77 513 787 Hourly Exit Rate 38 159 77 513 787 Input Volume 39 157 80 517 793 of Volume 97 101 96 99 99 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 3: Galpin Blvd & W 78th St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied DelNeh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del /Veh (s) 11.7 12.0 8.6 11.5 10.4 4.1 0.3 0.3 2.1 1.2 0.5 3.2 Vehicles Entered 10 37 80 21 15 79 145 3 55 340 25 810 Vehicles Exited 10 36 80 21 15 79 144 4 54 340 25 808 Hourly Exit Rate 10 36 80 21 15 79 144 4 54 340 25 808 Input Volume 11 38 78 25 14 82 142 3 59 338 23 813 % of Volume 89 95 102 85 105 96 101 133 92 101 110 99 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 KHA SimTraffic Report SimTraffic Performance Report Page 1 Chanhassen Apartments Year 2033 Base Growth with Project AM Peak 4:. Apartment Access Road & W 78th St Performance by movement Total Network Performance Denied DelNeh (s) 0.5 Total Del /Veh (s) 38.8 Vehicles Entered Denied DelNeh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 Total Del /Veh (s) 01 0.0 2.7 0.8 4.5 2.4 1.1 Vehicles Entered 66 2 16 104 4 59 251 Vehicles Exited 66 2 15 104 4 59 250 Hourly Exit Rate 66 2 15 104 4 59 250 Input Volume 66 1 15 105 3 60 250 % of Volume 100 200 98 99 133 99 100 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Network Performance KHA SimTraffic Report SimTraffic Performance Report Page 2 Denied DelNeh (s) 0.5 Total Del /Veh (s) 38.8 Vehicles Entered 2791 Vehicles Exited 2788 Hourly Exit Rate 2788 Input Volume 8520 % of Volume 33 Denied Entry Before 0 KHA SimTraffic Report SimTraffic Performance Report Page 2 Chanhassen Apartments Year 2033 Base Growth PM PEAK 1: Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH -5) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.9 0.2 2.9 2.2 0.2 2.3 3.4 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del /Veh (s) 73.6 12.5 4.4 75.8 15.4 5.3 112.6 74.2 49.6 59.7 66.5 44.1 Vehicles Entered 39 659 35 64 1201 16 171 163 99 84 149 90 Vehicles Exited 40 655 35 63 1191 16 169 161 98 85 149 90 Hourly Exit Rate 40 655 35 63 1191 16 169 161 98 85 149 90 Input Volume 41 668 36 59 1173 18 162 162 100 89 152 88 % of Volume 97 98 97 107 102 90 104 100 98 96 98 103 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1: Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH -5) Performance by movement Movement All Denied DelNeh (s) 0.5 Total Del /Veh (s) 32.7 Vehicles Entered 2770 Vehicles Exited 2752 Hourly Exit Rate 2752 Input Volume 2747 % of Volume 100 Denied Entry Before 0 2: Galpin Blvd & Access Road Performance by movement Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All Denied DelNeh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 01 Total Del /Veh (s) 3.5 1.6 1.8 0.4 1.3 Vehicles Entered 67 374 106 322 869 Vehicles Exited 67 370 104 321 862 Hourly Exit Rate 67 370 104 321 862 Input Volume 74 375 110 327 886 % of Volume 91 99 94 98 97 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 KHA SimTraffic Report SimTraffic Performance Report Page 1 Chanhassen Apartments Year 2033 Base Growth PM PEAK 3: Galpin Blvd & W 78th St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied DelNeh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.3 0.4 Total Del /Veh (s) 10.1 12.3 4.8 11.8 10.7 3.4 2.9 0.4 0.4 3.7 0.7 0.5 Vehicles Entered 13 36 15 36 43 5 140 328 21 47 208 14 Vehicles Exited 13 35 15 36 43 5 140 327 22 47 209 14 Hourly Exit Rate 13 35 15 36 43 5 140 327 22 47 209 14 Input Volume 17 30 15 35 46 5 142 344 22 48 211 15 % of Volume 75 117 98 103 93 100 99 95 101 97 99 92 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3: Galpin Blvd & W 78th St Performance by movement Movement All Denied DelNeh (s) 0.5 Total Del /Veh (s) 2.7 Vehicles Entered 906 Vehicles Exited 906 Hourly Exit Rate 906 Input Volume 931 % of Volume 97 Denied Entry Before 0 Total Network Performance Denied DelNeh (s) 0.6 Total Del /Veh (s) 30.3 Vehicles Entered 3307 Vehicles Exited 3302 Hourly Exit Rate 3302 Input Volume 8135 % of Volume 41 Denied Entry Before 0 KHA SimTraffic Report SimTraffic Performance Report Page 2 Chanhassen Apartments Year 2033 Base Growth with Project PM Peak 1: Galpin Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH -5) Performance by movement M m 0.6 EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied DelNeh (s) 3.0 0.2 3.0 2.2 0.3 2.2 3.4 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del /Veh (s) 70.6 12.9 4.1 79.4 16.4 4.9 150.9 88.5 65.9 57.4 65.9 40.9 Vehicles Entered 54 680 37 60 1181 54 167 170 107 102 157 97 Vehicles Exited 55 675 37 60 1171 54 163 171 106 105 158 97 Hourly Exit Rate 55 675 37 60 1171 54 163 171 106 105 158 97 Input Volume 57 668 36 59 1173 52 162 168 100 108 154 97 % of Volume 97 101 103 102 100 104 101 102 106 97 103 100 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1: Gali)in Blvd & Arboretum Blvd (TH -5) Performance by movement Movement All Denied DelNeh (s) 0.6 Total Del /Veh (s) 36.8 Vehicles Entered 2866 Vehicles Exited 2852 Hourly Exit Rate 2852 Input Volume 2832 % of Volume 101 Denied Entry Before 0 2: Galpin Blvd & Access Road Performance by movement Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All Denied DelNeh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total Del /Veh (s) 3.9 2.0 2.2 0.4 1.6 Vehicles Entered 69 430 115 357 971 Vehicles Exited 69 427 115 357 968 Hourly Exit Rate 69 427 115 357 968 Input Volume 74 431 110 358 974 % of Volume 93 99 104 100 99 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 KHA SimTraffic Report SimTraffic Performance Report Page 1 Chanhassen Apartments Year 2033 Base Growth with Project PM Peak 3: Galpin Blvd & W 78th St Performance by movement went qnkWW Total Del /Veh (s) EBR Vehicles Entered 1008 BR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied DelNeh (s) 0.1 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.3 0.4 Total Del /Veh (s) 11.7 13.6 4.6 13.8 13.1 3.8 3.4 0.4 0.3 3.3 0.9 0.6 Vehicles Entered 16 28 51 31 44 6 200 337 22 45 212 16 Vehicles Exited 16 28 50 31 44 6 200 336 22 44 212 16 Hourly Exit Rate 16 28 50 31 44 6 200 336 22 44 212 16 Input Volume 18 31 46 35 48 5 198 344 22 48 211 17 % of Volume 90 90 108 89 91 120 101 98 101 91 100 93 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3: Galpin Blvd & W 78th St Performance by movement ement Denied DelNeh (s) 0.4 Total Del /Veh (s) 3.0 Vehicles Entered 1008 Vehicles Exited 1005 Hourly Exit Rate 1005 Input Volume 1023 % of Volume 98 Denied Entry Before 0 4: Apartment Access Road & W 78th St Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied DelNeh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del /Veh (s) 0.1 0.0 2.9 1.3 10.0 2.3 1.5 Vehicles Entered 56 4 62 198 1 36 357 Vehicles Exited 56 4 62 197 1 36 356 Hourly Exit Rate 56 4 62 197 1 36 356 Input Volume 61 3 59 204 2 32 361 % of Volume 92 133 106 96 50 112 99 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Network Performance Denied DelNeh (s) 0.6 Total Del /Veh (s) 34.1 Vehicles Entered 3426 Vehicles Exited 3412 Hourly Exit Rate 3412 Input Volume 8860 % of Volume 39 Denied Entry Before 0 KHA SimTraffic Report SimTraffic Performance Report Page 2 0 Minnesota Department of Transportation Will Metropolitan District IF/ Waters Edge Building O F"` 1500 County Road B2 West Roseville, MN 55113 April 4, 2013 (RECEIVED APR 8 - 2013 Ms. Kate Aanenson, AICP CITY OF CHANHASSEN Community Development Director 7700 Market Blvd. PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 SUBJECT: Chanhassen Apartments Mn/DOT Review # S 12 -052A Northwest Corner of TH 5 and CR 117 (Galpin Blvd.) Chanhassen, Carver County Control Section 1002 Dear Ms. Aanenson: Thank you for the opportunity to review the site plan for the proposed Chanhassen Apartments. Before any further development, please address the following issues: Noise: MnDOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities are responsible for taking all reasonable measures to prevent land use activities listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification (NAC) where the establishment of the land use would result in violations of established noise standards. Without any noise information provided, it is unclear if the City is in conformance with MN. Rule 7030.0030. MnDOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The project proposer should assess the noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any highway noise. If you have any questions regarding MnDOT's noise policy please contact Peter Wasko in our Design section at (651) 234- 7681. Right -of -Way: Please note that 78 St. W. reverted to the City of Chanhassen under Release No. 1332 dated 11- 01 -05. Also, a portion of CR 117 (Galpin Blvd.) reverted to Carver County under Release No. 1331 dated 11- 01 -05. Map 180 -46A, B78 covers the review area. For questions concerning these comments, please contact Dale Matti (651- 234 -7549) in MnDOT Metro District's Right -of -Way section. Permits: Any use of or work within or affecting MnDOT right of way requires a permit. Permit forms are available from MnDOT's utility website at hftp://www.dot.state.nm.us/util include one 11 x 17 plan set and one full size plan set with each permit application. Please direct any questions regarding permit requirements to Buck Craig (651- 234 -7911) of MnDOT's Metro Permits Section. Review Submittal Options: Mn/DOT's goal is to complete the review of plans within 30 days. Submittals sent in electronically can usually be turned around faster. There are four submittal options. Please submit either: 1. One (1) electronic pdf. version of the plans. Mn/DOT can accept the plans via e -mail at metrodevreviews.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: Mn/DOT — Metro District Planning Section Development Reviews Coordinator 1500 West County Road B -2 Roseville, MN 55113 3. One (1) compact disk. 4. Plans can also be submitted to Mn/DOT's External FTP Site. Please send files to: ftp: / /ftp2. dot. state.mn.us / pub / incoming /MetroWatersEdgre/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 (65 1) 234 -7794. Sincerely, Tod Sherman Planning Supervisor Copy sent via E -Mail: Buck Craig, Permits Nancy Jacobson, Design Hailu Shekur, Water Resources Dale Matti, Right -of -Way Diane Langenbach, Area Engineer Merlin Kent, Traffic David Sheen, Traffic Pete Wasko, Noise and Air Kate Aanenson, AICP, kaanenson(aci.chanhassen.mn.us Ann Braden, Metropolitan Council CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on April 4, 2013, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for Chanhassen Apartments — Planning Case 2013 -07 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A ", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Karen J. E ge ardt, D6&ty Clerk Subsc ibed and sw to before me this day of (i� , 2013. Notary Publ c ° . EUWISEN blic - Minnesota y CommiExpires Jan 31, 2016 Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Plannina Commission Meetina Date & Time: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for Rezoning approximately 14 acres of property from Agricultural Estate (A -2) to Planned Unit Development - Residential Proposal: (PUD -R); Site Plan Review with Variances for a 155 -unit Apartment Building; and a Land Use Map Amendment from Residential -Low Density and Office, to Residential -Low and High Density and Office and Residential-High Densit Applicant: Oppidan, Inc. Property 7750 Galpin Boulevard (northwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Location: Boulevard) A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What public hearing through the following steps: Happens at 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. the Meeting: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the p roject. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us /2013 -07 If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate Aanenson by Questions & email at kaanenson(o)-ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at 952 Comments: 227-1139. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, 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 Staff person named on the notification. Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planninq Commission Meetinq Date & Time: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for Rezoning approximately 14 acres of property from Agricultural Estate (A -2) to Planned Unit Development - Residential Proposal: (PUD -R); Site Plan Review with Variances for a 155 -unit Apartment Building; and a Land Use Map Amendment from Residential -Low Density and Office, to Residential -Low and High Density and Office and Residential-High Densit Applicant: O pidan, Inc. Property 7750 Galpin Boulevard (northwest corner of Highway 5 and Location: Galpin Boulevard) A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What public hearing through the following steps: Happens at 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. the Meeting: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the p roject. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us /2013 -07 If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate Aanenson by Questions & email at kaanensonCa�_ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at 952 - Comments: 227-1139. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, 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 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 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 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 -1919 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8444 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4506 LYNN D & VELMA M WILDER MARILYN G LEBLANC MARK C GOODMAN 7754 VASSERMAN TRL 2376 HARVEST WAY 2370 HARVEST WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4506 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8444 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8444 MARYANN TOMPKINS MATTHEW S BLEWETT MICHAEL L & CAROLYN L SHIELDS 7724 VASSERMAN TRL 2396 HARVEST WAY 7759 VASSERMAN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4506 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8444 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4506 MUOI TAM NGU NICHOLAS J SCHULIST PATRICIA S DEZIEL 2050 WATERLEAF LN W 2372 HARVEST WAY 2382 HARVEST WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8342 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8444 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8444 RICHARD A OLSON ROBERT L GRIFFITH ROBERT M & PATRICIA L PETERSON 5081 SAINT ALBANS BAY RD 7739 VASSERMAN TRL 2398 HARVEST WAY EXCELSIOR MN 55331 -8632 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4506 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8444 RUTH H MITAL SERLIN PROPERTIES LLC STACY ANN BENNETT 7750 VASSERMAN TRL 1 CVS DR 2388 HARVEST WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4506 WOONSOCKET RI 02895 -6146 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8444 STANLEY W VALENSKY STEVEN GUY LEDBETTER THEODORE F & MARLENE M BENTZ 7752 VASSERMAN PL 7756 VASSERMAN PLACE 7300 GALPIN BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4536 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4536 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 -8011 THOMAS E & HELEN E ERNST THOMAS S BLUSTIN THOMAS W & SHARON D KRAUS 7749 VASSERMAN TRL 2394 HARVEST WAY 7744 VASSERMAN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4506 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8444 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4506 TIMOTHY DESAULNIERS VASSERMAN RIDGE MASTER VICKIE S KLINE 7845 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE ASSOC 2384 HARVEST WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8451 16305 36TH AVE N SUITE 600 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8444 PLYMOUTH MN 55446 -4270 WESTON VOGDS PAUL TUCCI - OPPIDAN INC 7842 HARVEST LN 5125 COUNTY ROAD 101 STE 100 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8453 MINNETONKA MN 55345 Aanenson, Kate From: LynnNelma Wilder [lynnvelma @gmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 2:41 PM To: Tom Furlong (Mayor); City Council; Aanenson, Kate Subject: Fwd: Galpin 225 Apartments Proposal Respectfully submitted to Chanhassen Mayor, Council and *Planning, ( *Planning via Kate: Please forward to Planning members) This addendum to my attached /forwarded "225 Galpin Apts" email of 12/9/12 reflects the new 155 proposal. I'm still completely snowed with tax prep, so my input is based on only a cursory glance at the Oppidan 155 letter. I apologize for the rushed cryptic and crude composition of this input. In my quick review of what I've written, this is far excessive in length especially for busy people like you. I don't have time to rewrite, so I've used highlighting to better allow skimming very rapidly of Major Concerns in bold type, and underlining for more deliberate detail skimming. I'm also unhappy with my tone, as some reads pushy, "indelicate" and brusque, and might give the erroneous impression of disrespect. With my tax deadline looming, I can't take time to refine. I assure you that I admire every one of you dedicated public servants, who often deal with complex contentious challenges. THE 225 TO 155 CHANGE is a 30% unit reduction, which might be ball - parked as LEAVING ABOUT 70% OF THE PROBLEMS THE STRONGLY COMMUNITY - SUPPORTED PRESERVE CHAN 225 PETITION POINTED OUT THE CONCERNS WITH THE MAGNITUDE OF THE 225 APTS AND TRAFFIC SAFETY Of special concern are the DRASTIC ZONING DEPARTURES FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN that specifies 1 -2 story residential and business offices. I had been hoping, if there was a revised proposal, for a 2 -story proposal, not the original 3- story. The 46' HEIGHT variance IS ROUGHLY EQUAL TO 4 -5 STORY FLAT - ROOFED BUILDINGS and further emphasizes the HUGE size and appearance of the complex. This is an unwelcome, totally out -of- character visual impact in the roughly one mile radius community of 1 -2 story houses and businesses (as zoned). That area obviously excludes the commercial area south of Hwy 5, between Century Blvd and Hwy 41. My 1 st email gave the 189 UNIT POWERS RIDGE APTS AS A GOOD COMPARISON FOR THE VISUAL IMPACT OF A MASSIVE COMPLEX WITH NO OTHER LARGE BUILDINGS IN SIGHT, like the Galpin -W78 St. Apts location. To compare to the old 225 apts proposal, you had to add another 41 unit 1341 West Lake St building to get a 224 unit complex for comparison. To compare to the new 155 Apts proposal, you'd subtract the existing 41 unit 1341. building to get a 148 unit comparison. I urge you to drive by /through that complex south of Hwy 5, south on Powers Blvd to the SW corner of West Lake St and Powers. SCREENING LANDSCAPING: In my extremely brief review of the Oppidan letter, I only saw shrubs mentioned as screening If the City persists in supporting the developer, THE 1.55 PROPOSAL SHOULD INCLUDE EXTENSIVE TREE PLANTINGS FOR SCREENING. Actually the effectiveness of screening the 46' tall building will be token at best, but at lease might soften the visual impact somewhat. Many large evergreens and scattered tall deciduous trees should be quantified and specified for the proposal. CONCLUSION: It's disappointing, frustrating and seemly inappropriate that the Planning Commission currently has a_very strong bias to excessively support development (with limited regard to the petitioned impact on the Citizens in the surrounding community). The maior zoning deviations from the valid Comprehensive Plan allows an unacceptable incompatibility with the surrounding 1 -2 story community with a HUGE (4 -5 story appearing) complex. Increased traffic safety issues at the already dangerous W 78 St and Galpin intersection needs a thorough design study completed and approved before the Apt Proposal is pursued further. Despite any traffic theoretic studies, I strongly believe any significant additional traffic will add considerable risks, especially with the speeds on Galpin and the north -to -south U -Turns to reach Hwy 5. I'm through that intersection often, and it takes extreme caution to watch fast Galpin traffic both ways, and also judge whether someone from the South is going to U -Turn or full -left turn. Both type of left turns require the same confusing left turn signals, which some turning drivers may not even use and adds more confusion. I'd greatly appreciate your consideration of my concerns, which I'm sure are typical of the surrounding community. I'm sorry that I have not had the time to double check that all details are 100% accurate. Thanks (especially if you took valuable time to read this long input), (Mr) Lynn Wilder (and Velma Wilder) FORWARD: GALPIN 225 APARTMENTS PROPOSAL (12/9/12 input) On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Lynn/Velma Wilder < lynnvelma cr,gmail.com wrote: Respected Council Members, (Plus the same email was sent separately to the Planning Commissioners) My wife and I live at 7754 Vasserman Trail just west of the proposed GALPIN "APTS ". We are biased as we will be directly impacted by the MASSIVE complex close to and directly out from our front yard. The "APTS" will severely reduce enjoyment of our property, and greatly decrease our resale value. The residents in the surrounding areas will also be impacted visually by the out -of— character size of the MASSIVE APTSin the middle of areas comprised by 1 or 2 -story townhouses and 1 -story retail at Galpin and Century Blvds. The APTS' added traffic will greatly aggravate the unsafe Galpin and W78th St intersection, and add more Bluff Creek students crossing risky Galpin and Hwy 5. The Lake Susan Apts with 162 units have been referenced in prior inputs. The visual size affect is lost by the encircled configuration of their buildings, and other large buildings in the general area. A_ much better visual comparison is the POWERS RIDGE APTS with 189 units, which are in a more open area and lined up in an "L" arrangement. Their location is south of Hwy 5 and west at West Lake St, with building street numbers of 1321 (100units), 1331 (42 units) and 1341 (41 units). This complex looks HUGE in its open setting and GALPIN APTS WOULD BE 25% LARGER. The Galpin Apts would be equal to adding another 1341 building (41 units to the 183 unit complex = 224 units. I urge you to drive through the Powers Ridge Apts complex and visualize the addition of another west/1341 building, and then visualize the total in 2 huge buildings arranged more in a line as the Galpin Apts. I believe you would agree such a complex would look MASSIVE when in an z How Many Hwy. 5 Accidents Will Occur if You Rezone to Multi - Family Residential The Result: You would expose residents to the Dangers of about 15,000 crossings per year of Highway 5 with its high traffic high and high risks to reach their recreation center after school. Nine Aspects of the Dangers /Risks Residents and Their Children Would be Exposed to 1) So many Crossings: 2) So many Vehicles: 3) High vehicle Speeds: 4) Long wait red lights: 5) Brief green lights: 6) Wide Hwy. 5 Road: 7) Wait on turn arrows: 8) Hwy. 5, then Galpin: 9) Underpass no good: 15,000 crossings per year (see derivation below) 1,000s per day (daylight hours) [how many 1,000s /yr. ?] Posted speed limit on Hwy. 5 is 55 miles per hour Full 120 seconds Hwy. 5 greens, to keep cars moving Only 30 seconds of green lights to cross Highway 5 Full 20 seconds needed to traverse the 50 ft. width Must not walk when 30 seconds of turn arrows are on After Hwy. 5, must cross Galpin (watch out! cars turn) It's muddy, 1/4 mile away, adds 15 minutes of walking Pedestrians Who'd Cross Highway 5 (annual estimates) If 100 Kids go to School* x 2 (go, then return) x 180 sch ool days /year = 36,000 crossings /year Should be bussed over If 25 go to Rec. Center ** x 2 (go, then return) x 300 days per year = 15,000 crossings /year Walkers at risk (no bus) Notes: * Assumes 100 kids from the proposed 155 apartment units ** For baseball, football, hockey, tennis, dance, classes, etc.