CC Packet 2013 04 22A G E NDA
C H AN H A SSE N C I T Y C O UNC I L
M O NDAY , A P R I L 22, 2013
C H AN H A SSE N M UN I C I P A L B U I L D I N G , 7700 M AR K ET BO U LE VARD
5 :30 P .M . - C I T Y C O UNC I L W O R K SESS I O N , F O UN T A I N C O N F E R E NC E R OO M
N o t e: I f t h e Cit y C o un c il do e s n o t c o m p l e t e t h e w ork s e ss i o n it e m s i n t h e ti m e a ll o tt e d, t h e
r e m a i n i n g it e m s will b e c o n s i d e r e d a f t e r t h e r e g u l ar ag e n da.
A . 5 :30 p.m . - J o i n t M ee ti n g w it h t h e S e n i o r C o mmi ss i on.
B . 6 :00 p.m . – J o i n t M ee ti n g w it h t h e P ar k & R ecrea ti on C o mmi ss i on.
7 :00 P .M . – R E G U L AR M EET I N G , C I T Y C O UNC I L C H A M BE R S
CA LL TO O RD E R (P l e d g e o f A ll e g i a n ce)
P U BL I C ANN O UNC E M E N TS
C . I nv it a ti on t o Ar bo r D a y C e l e b ra ti on.
D . P re s e n t a ti on o f Ar bo r D a y P os t er C on t e s t W i nn er s.
E. P re s e n t a ti on o f Aw ar ds /C er ti f i ca t e s t o O u t g o i n g C o mmi ss i on er s :
C er ti f i ca t e s o f A pp rec i a ti on :
- W illi a m C o l opou l os, J r ., P l a nn i n g C o mmi ss i on
- P e t er A l d r itt , P ar k & R ecrea ti on C o mmi ss i on
- R ob er t K i rc h er , Env i r on m e n t a l C o mmi ss i on
M a p l e L eaf Aw ar ds :
- K a t h l ee n Tho m a s, P l a nn i n g C o mmi ss i on
- To m K e ll y , P ar k & R ecrea ti on C o mmi ss i on
C O N SE N T A G E NDA
A ll it e m s li s t e d und er t h e C ons e n t A g e nd a are c ons i d ere d t o b e r ou ti n e b y t h e c it y c oun c il a nd
w ill b e c ons i d ere d a s on e m o ti on. Th ere w ill b e no s e p ara t e d i s c uss i on o f t h e s e it e m s. I f
d i s c uss i on i s d e s i re d, t h a t it e m w ill b e re m ov e d fr o m t h e C ons e n t A g e nd a a nd c ons i d ere d
s e p ara t e l y . Cit y c oun c il ac ti on i s b a s e d on t h e s t aff rec o mm e nd a ti on f o r eac h it e m . R efer t o t h e
c oun c il p ac k e t f o r eac h s t aff re po r t .
1. a . A pp r ov a l o f M i nu t e s :
- Cit y C oun c il/P l a nn i n g C o m . S u mm ar y W o r k S e ss i on M i nu t e s d a t e d A p r il 2,
2013
- Cit y C oun c il W o r k S e ss i on M i nu t e s d a t e d A p r il 8, 2013
P D F c r ea t ed w i t h pd f F a c t o r y P r o t ri a l v e r s i on ww w .pd f f a c t o r y .c om 3
- Cit y C oun c il S u mm ar y M i nu t e s d a t e d A p r il 8, 2013
- Cit y C oun c il V er b a tim M i nu t e s d a t e d A p r il 8, 2013
R ece i v e C o mmi ss i on M i nu t e s :
- P l a nn i n g C o mmi ss i on S u mm ar y M i nu t e s d a t e d A p r il 16, 2013
- P l a nn i n g C o mmi ss i on V er b a tim M i nu t e s d a t e d A p r il 16, 2013
- P ar k & R ecrea ti on C o mmi ss i on S u mm ar y M i nu t e s d a t e d M arc h 26, 2013
- P ar k & R ecrea ti on C o mmi ss i on V er b a tim M i nu t e s d a t e d M arc h 26, 2013
b. A pp r ov e P u rc h a s e o f Ril e y Ri d g e P ar k P l a y g r ound Equ i p m e n t a nd P i c n i c S h e lt er .
c . A pp r ov e A m e nd m e n t t o Cit y C od e C on cer n i n g P ar k & R ecrea ti on C o mmi ss i on
M e m b er sh i p.
d. Aw ar d o f B i d, R e p l ace m e n t o f Cit y H a ll C op i er s.
e . I te m D e l ete d: A pp r ov a l o f E m a il Ar c h i v a l P o li c y .
f . A pp r ov e T H 5 S i g n a l P a i n ti n g Q uo t e .
g . A pp r ov a l o f R e so l u ti on P r o c l a imi n g Ar bo r D a y a s M a y 4, 2013.
h. A pp r ov a l o f F i rew o r ks D i sp l a y P er mit f o r L a k e M i nn e w a sh t a F i rew o r ks
C o mmitt ee , J u l y 4, 2013, A m er i ca n a F i rew o r ks D i sp l a y C o m p a n y .
i . A pp r ov e R e so l u ti on A cce p ti n g 2013 C o mm un it y Ev e n t s S ponso r sh i p D on a ti ons
fr o m Ar ea B us i n e ss e s.
V I S I TO R P R ESE N T A T I O NS
2. I te m M ov e d t o M ay 13: Tou r d e ‘Tonk a U pd a t e , T im L it f i n, M i nn e t onk a C o mm un it y
Edu ca ti on.
L A W E N F O RC E M E N T/F I R E D E P AR T M E N T U P DA TE
3. a . L t . J eff En e vo l d, C ar v er C oun t y S h er i ff’s Off i ce , I n c l ud i n g p re s e n t a ti on o f
S h er i ff’s Off i ce Citi z e n C o i n t o J ud y L ee F ra n e
b. C h i ef J ohn W o l ff , C h a nh a ss e n F i re D e p ar tm e nt
P U BL I C HE AR I N GS - N on e
UN F I N I S HE D B U S I N ESS - N one
P D F c r ea t ed w i t h pd f F a c t o r y P r o t ri a l v e r s i on ww w .pd f f a c t o r y .c om 4
N E W B U S I N ESS
4. C h a nh a ss e n A p ar tm e n t s, L o ca t e d on t h e N o r t h w e s t C o r n er o f H i g h w a y 5 a nd G a l p i n
B ou l e v ar d, A pp li ca n t: O pp i d a n, I n c ./Ow n er : A m er i ca n a C o mm un it y B a nk -C h a nh a ss e n :
a . R e qu e s t f o r R e z on i n g a pp r o x im a t e l y 14 acre s fr o m A g r i c u lt u ra l Es t a t e (A-2 ) t o
P l a nn e d U n it D e v e l op m e n t -R e s i d e n ti a l (P UD-R );
b. S it e P l a n R e v i e w w it h V ar i a n ce s f o r a 155 -un it A p ar tm e n t B u il d i n g ,
c . L a nd U s e M a p A m e nd m e n t fr o m R e s i d e n ti a l -L o w D e ns it y a nd Off i ce t o
R e s i d e n ti a l -L o w a nd H i g h D e ns it y a nd Off i ce a nd R e s i d e n ti a l -H i g h D e ns it y
P l a nn e d U n it D e v e l op m e n t (P UD)
5. T H 101 (L y m a n B ou l e v ar d t o P i on eer T ra il ) I m p r ov e m e n t P r o j ec t: A cce p t B i ds a nd
Aw ar d C ons t r u c ti on C on t rac t; A pp r ov e R e so l u ti on a nd P r o j ec t F und i n g A g ree m e n t
C on t rac t w it h Mn DO T.
C O UNC I L P R ESE N T A T I O NS
AD M I N I ST RA T I V E P R ESE N T A T I O NS
C O RR ES P O ND E NC E P AC K ET
AD J O URN M E NT
A c op y o f t h e s t aff re po r t a nd suppo r ti n g do c u m e n t a ti on b e i n g s e n t t o t h e c it y c oun c il w ill b e
a v a il a b l e af t er 2 :00 p.m . on Thu r sd a y . P l ea s e c on t ac t c it y h a ll a t 952 -227 -1100 t o v er i f y t h a t
y ou r it e m h a s no t b ee n d e l e t e d fr o m t h e a g e nd a a n y tim e af t er 2 :00 p.m . on Thu r sd a y .
GU I D E L I N E S F O R VI S I T O R P RE S E N T A T I ONS
W elc o m e t o t h e Ch a nh a ss e n C it y C o un cil M eeti ng . I n t h e i n te r e s t o f op e n c o mm un icati o n s , t h e Ch a nh a ss e n C it y
C o un cil w i s h e s t o pro v i d e a n oppor t un it y f or t h e p u b lic t o a ddr e ss t h e C it y C o un cil . T h at oppor t un it y i s pro v i d e d at
e v e r y r e gu la r C it y C o un cil m eeti ng d u r i ng V i s it o r P r e s ent a ti o n s .
1. A n y o n e i n d icati ng a d e s i r e t o s p ea k d u r i ng Vi s it or P r e s e n tati o n s w ill b e ac kn o w le d g e d b y t h e M a y or .
W h e n calle d u po n t o s p ea k , s tate y o u r n a m e , a ddr e ss , a n d t op ic . A ll r e m a r k s s h all b e a ddr e ss e d t o t h e C it y
C o un cil a s a w h o le , n o t t o a n y s p eci f ic m e m b e r(s ) or t o a n y p e r s o n w h o i s n o t a m e m b e r o f t h e C it y
C o un cil .
2. I f t h e r e a r e a nu m b e r o f i n d i v i d u al s pr e s e n t t o s p ea k o n t h e s a m e t op ic , p lea s e d e s i gn ate a s po k e s p e r s o n t h at
ca n s u mm a r ize t h e i ss u e .
3. L i m it y o u r c o mm e n t s t o f i v e m i nu te s . A dd iti o n al ti m e m a y b e g r a n te d at t h e d i s c r eti o n o f t h e M a y or . I f
y o u h a v e w r itte n c o mm e n t s , pro v i d e a c op y t o t h e C o un cil .
4. D u r i ng Vi s it or P r e s e n tati o n s , t h e C o un cil a n d s ta ff li s te n t o c o mm e n t s a n d w ill n o t e ng a g e i n d i s c u ss i o n .
C o un cil m e m b e r s or t h e C it y M a n a g e r m a y a s k q u e s ti o n s o f y o u i n ord e r t o g ai n a t h oro ugh un d e r s ta n d i ng
P D F c r ea t ed w i t h pd f F a c t o r y P r o t ri a l v e r s i on ww w .pd f f a c t o r y .c om 5
o f y o u r c o n ce r n , s ugg e s ti o n or r e q u e s t .
5. P lea s e b e a w a r e t h at d i s r e s p ect fu l c o mm e n t s or c o mm e n t s o f a p e r s o n al n at u r e , d i r ecte d at a n i n d i v i d u al
eit h e r b y n a m e or i nf e r e n ce , w ill n o t b e all o w e d . P e r s o nn el c o n ce r n s s h o u l d b e d i r ecte d t o t h e C it y
M a n a g e r.
M e m b e r s o f t h e Cit y C o un ci l a nd s o m e s ta ff m e m b e r s m a y g at h e r at Ho u l ihan ’s R e s tau r a nt & Ba r , 530 P o nd Pr o m e n a d e i n C h a nh a ss e n
i mm e di at el y a f t e r t h e m ee tin g f o r a pu r el y s o cia l e v e nt . A ll m e m b e r s o f t h e pub l ic a r e w el c o m e .
P D F c r ea t ed w i t h pd f F a c t o r y P r o t ri a l v e r s i on ww w .pd f f a c t o r y .c om 6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 16, 2013
Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Kim Tennyson, Lisa Hokkanen, Maryam
Yusuf, Stephen Withrow, and Steven Weick
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner;
Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner, and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Art Roberts 7762 Vasserman Place
Lance Erickson 7735 Vasserman Trail
Jim Boettcher 7476 Crocus Court
Paul Tucci, Oppidan 5125 C.R. 101, Suite 100, Minnetonka
Stan Valensky 7752 Vasserman Trail
Craig Stacey 7699 Ridgeview Way
Stephanie Klein 7710 Ridgeview Way
Sarah Thomas 2555 Longacres Drive
Cathy Meyer 7662 Ridgeview Way
Melissa Crow 7663 Ridgeview Way
Mike & Carolyn Shields 7759 Vasserman Trail
Steve Sheldon 7711 Ridgeview Way
Del Vanderploeg 7706 Vasserman Place
OATHS OF OFFICE: Oaths of office were read by Andrew Aller, Kim Tennyson, Steve Weick,
Maryam Yusuf, and Stephen Withrow.
ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS. Tennyson moved, Hokkanen seconded to
adopt the Planning Commission Bylaws as presente d. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR:
Undestad moved, Tennyson seconded to nominate Andr ew Aller as Chair. All voted in favor and
the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Hokkanen moved, Undestad seconded to nominate Ki m Tennyson as Vice-Chair. All voted in favor
and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
CHANHASSEN APARTMENTS: REQUEST FOR REZONING APPROXIMATELY 14 ACRES
FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE (A-2) TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-
RESIDENTIAL (PUD-R); SITE PLAN REVI EW 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 DENSITTY AND OFFICE
AND RESIDENTIAL-HIGH DENSITY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2013
2
BOULEVARD. APPLICANT: OPPIDAN, INC. OWNER: AMERICANA COMMUNITY
BANK-CHANHASSEN, PLANNING CASE 2013-07.
Kate Aanenson presented a power point presentation regarding this item.
Brandon Bourden: Hi, I’m Brandon Bourden with Kimley-Horn and Associates. Address is 2550
University Avenue West, Suite 238N, St. Paul. We r eally focus on about, a few topics that I want to do
an overview related to the proposed development. We’ll do a brief over regarding what is included,
which has already been addressed to some degree. Ta lk a little bit about how we do a traffic analysis for
really any development project of this type. Talk a little bit about the trip generation. Everybody’s
interested in how many trips is a facility anticipated to generate based on it’s size and characteristics.
Talk a little bit about what the results of the analysis show from a traffic operations perspective. We did
review a couple other items related to some multi-way stop warrants at Galpin and West 78 th so we’ll talk
about that and some recommended signal modifications at Trunk Highway 5 and Galpin related to some
left turn phasing, then we’ll hit the conclusions. The proposed development as we’ve discussed is located
on the northwest quadrant at Trunk Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard. It’s 155 unit apartment building
with a single access off of West 78 th Street. Toward the west of the median break on West 78 th . So this is
a similar site plan that was shown previously. So Arboretum Boulevard or Trunk Highway 5, a MnDOT
facility runs east/west on the south side of the site. Galpin Boulevard runs north/south on the east side of
the site. Then West 78 th serves somewhat to kind of, as a frontage to Trunk Highway 5 and serve the land
adjacent to that facility. As a part of the data co llection effort, traffic data was collected. MnDOT had
traffic counts at Trunk Highway 5 and Galpin but data was collected at Galpin and West 78 th as well as
the right-in/right-out access into the gas sta tion and drug store located between West 78 th and Trunk
Highway 5 and so we collected 2 hour counts, both durin g the a.m. and the p.m. peak periods so we could
look at both peak periods. We do that during the busi est period which is typically 7:00 to 9:00 in the
morning and 4:00 to 6:00 in the afternoon, or early even ing. I’ll do a little bit on some of the geometry.
Basically there’s only one signal within the study s ite. It’s located on the south side, right on Trunk
Highway 5 so that’s a signalized access operated by MnDOT. There’s a right-in/right-out access which
means traffic on the northbound direction of Galpin can turn right into the gas station or the drug store.
They can only leave and turn right because of the medi an break that runs along Galpin so it’s a right-
in/right-out. West 78 th Street is what we would call an unsigna lized intersection with side stop control on
the minor approaches, or the West 78 th Street approaches to Galpin, and then the proposed apartment
access would be a stop sign controlled just on the side st reet. In terms of some of the background growth,
one of the things that we want to do just in terms of the steps is we’ll collect th e existing data. We’ll then
determine what the facility is anticipated to generate in terms of trips, so we add that on to do an analysis.
We also look at background growths so in this period we looked at a 2013 opening day condition as well
as a 2033 condition to look way out into the future. And then we run with all of these trips added on
what, we model traffic basically as existing, opening day and 2033 and we look at it without the proposed
development and with it to get an idea if there’s an y mitigation measures required or what the impacts are
in traffic operations. In terms of background grow th, we looked at the Carver County Comprehensive
Plan and that was consistent with what the City of Chanhassen had for these facilities in the area.
Actually with some of the anticipated roadway connec tions north and south within the county, the traffic
along Trunk Highway 5 is anticipated to decrease ov er time between now and 2030 so there’s a 1%
decrease on Trunk Highway 5 to the west of the site and .75% decrease to the east of the site. Galpin is
anticipated to increase by about 2% per year, which is somewhat similar to what we would anticipate in a
community like Chanhassen based on it’s location and the fact that it’s not entirely developed. Trip
generation, basically when we look at trip generation there’s studies that look at various facilities so we
look at a data point. In this case the number of units th at are anticipated or planned to be built. This has
155 dwelling units and based on that we anticipate ther e’d be about 1,000 or 1,031 trips generated over
the day. We have an a.m. peak condition of about 79 trips and a p.m. generation of 96 trips. As you can
see in the table, the in’s in the a.m. are a lot less because everybody’s generally leaving in the morning so
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2013
3
there’s about 63 out trips. 16 trips entering the facilit y so the majority are leaving and then the p.m. the
majority are returning. About 62 are returning and 34 are existing the site. We looked at in terms of
where trips are going. We looked at existing traffic data. We look at some of the Comprehensive Plans
that have been done so this shows where the site, tra ffic is anticipated to travel . So the majority of the
traffic we would anticipate is going to travel to the east on Trunk Highway 5. About 55% are going to
come to or from the east on 5. About 10% is anticipat ed to travel to the south on Galpin south of Trunk
Highway 5. We would anticipate about 25% to travel to the west and then there is about 5% that would
travel west on West 78 th Street likely to take Trunk Highway 41 to the north and there’d be some amount
of traffic in the neighborhood of 2 1/2 percent that would go the east of Galpin on West 78 th Street and
would travel to the north of West 78 th on Galpin. When we do analysis we will talk a little bit about level
of service but we rate intersection operations in te rms of a letter grade just like you have in school, A
through F. Generally in MnDOT or really any en tity within the metropolitan area would say anything
operating at a level of service D or better is typically considered to be acceptable. Level of service E and
F are undesirable where F is really above capacity so when we’re at an unsignalized intersections people’s
tolerance is a little bit lower so anything above 50 sec onds per vehicle is level of service F. Anything
more in that acceptable range would be 35 seconds of de lay or less per vehicle. Signalized intersections,
as many are aware takes quite a bit longer. People ar e generally more comfortable waiting at a signalized
intersection. It typically takes 2 minutes just to go through a cycle at a signal at a minimum in the metro
so the numbers go higher. So level of service F woul d be greater than 80 seconds. E would be 50 to 80
seconds. Those would be undesirable. 55 or less would be D or better. When we looked at that analysis
or the level of service we looked at both the existi ng conditions, or the opening day conditions in 2013
without any traffic and then we looked at it with tra ffic and so we would anticipate very little change in
terms of operation from a level of service standpoint. Level of service at Galpin and Arboretum are
anticipated to be a level of service C both in the a.m. and the p.m. peak regardless if the traffic from the
site is added. There’s about a second of delay antic ipated to be an increase if the proposed site is
developed. In terms of unsignalized level of ser vice we would anticipate the overall intersections to
operate at level of service A, with or without the proposed development so the traffic operations are
anticipated to be relatively consistent. In 2033 wher e we start looking at some of the background growth.
We do anticipate that there’d be more deterioration on Trunk Highway 5. There’s certainly more side
street traffic that’s going to reach Trunk Highway 5 at Galpin so before we were talking about level of
service C for the intersection. We would anticipate the level of service would be more in the D range,
both with and without the project with one exception being in the p.m. peak it would operate at level of
service C and it crosses that 35 second threshold and just gets into a level of service D with the proposed
development. Both would be cons idered to be operating acceptably. For all of the other unsignalized
intersections, they’re all anticipated to operate at le vel of service A. And that would be the access road to
the site. West 78 th Street and Galpin as well as, and the access road I said was the right-in/right-out and
then the apartment access road off of West 78 th Street. We did look at West 78 th Street and Galpin to get
an understanding of how close we would be to sa tisfying any all way stop warrants or multi-way stop
warrants is what we more traditionally call them. When ever we do a change in intersection control be it a
traffic signal or a all way stop we look at what’s called warrants which are addressed in the Minnesota
Manual Uniform Traffic Control Devices which all of the governmental agencies, MnDOT, cities,
counties adhere to. When we look at volumes we need basically on the major approach of Galpin in this
case we would need over 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 h ours of the day, and at the same time we would
need the minor approaches, which would be the total of vehicles, pedestrians, as well as bike volumes to
be over 200 vehicles per hour for those same 8 hours so we need to satisfy that for 8 hours and we need at
least, during the busiest hour we need 30 seconds of delay per vehicle. And when we look at the
operations we’re not, we’re not in those realms but in terms of numerical analysis the major street warrant
in 2013, we would satisfy that for 5 hours but we don’t satisfy any of the minor warrants so we would
satisfy that condition for none of the hours. When we go to 2033 we would satisfy the major street
condition for, I think it’s about 10 hours and we would not satisfy the minor street, and really the issue
becomes, we can have a considerable amount of traffi c on the major street but if there’s not much on the
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2013
4
cross street to interact with it, it’s going to operate generally fine. Likewise if we have a lot of traffic on
the side street and less on the others, well we can have a problem there and so that’s why there’s the two
criteria that we look at. We did review some of the, there are some U turn movements as you go
northbound on Galpin out of the I believe it’s the gas station. I believe it’s a Kwik Trip there. You go
north and do a U turn to go back to the south. A lot of people use the right-in/right-out. They go north
and then go back to Trunk Highway 5 so we did look at those volumes. Those volumes in 2013 period
are in the 25 to 35 vehicle per hour range. We would antic ipate in 2033 it’d be more in the 45 to 55 so we
did look a little bit at are there other things that could be done and change an intersection control to
something like a round about just isn’t justified given the operations and the volume that are anticipated
to travel through that intersection. One thing that we did look at, there has been safety concerns cited at
Trunk Highway 5 and Galpin. The one that we’ve hear d most is related to some accidents related to
northbound and southbound traffic making a left turn and opposing traffic as many people know on that
intersection there’s a 5 indication head up for the left turn so you’ll have a protected phase where the left
turns can go protected. They have no opposing traffic and then they’ll be a green ball that comes up for a
portion of that phase where you have to yield. There w as an accident related to that and some concerns so
MnDOT and others, there’s been research that has in dicated there can be confusion related to this 5
section signal head so MnDOT’s in the process of actually changing the signal heads within the
metropolitan district at roughly 800 signals to a signal head that would have 4 sections, which some have
probably seen around town. There are quite a few now a nd what it changes, we still have the green arrow
when we have vehicles going on a protected left but when they have to yield to opposing traffic, instead
of having a green ball we have a yellow flashing arrow. It has been found to be a little more straight
forward with the traveling public. It also allows us to do some operational things that are a little more
convenience like run protected during part of the day and then have it permissive when it’s not busy so
there are things from an operation standpoint we like. There’s a solid yellow indication that would go
like normal before we get to the red phase and then obviously the red arrow so we do recommend that the
project or the developer fund half of what would be required on the minor approaches at this intersection,
and this would be somewhat timed when MnDOT would address the east and west bound approaches
because there was a total of 8 signal heads for 4 m ovements and so that’s a recommendation included in
the analysis. Overall the conclusions, there’s r eally based upon our review there’s not operational
concerns related to traffic from a volume standpoint or a delay standpoint. We don’t recommend any
outside roadway improvements. There’s obviously going to be some of the stop signs required but there’s
really no changes in pavement required. Multi-way stop, we did look at it just to make sure that
everybody was reviewed and the volumes are not going to warrant an all way stop at that location. Round
about was another thing that was looked at. Typical ly a round about wouldn’t be considered unless a
multi-way stop was warranted but we did look at it just from a geometric and based on that U turn and
just the infrastructure improvements required it just isn’t really justified and not recommended at this
time. And then we did look at the flashing yellow improvement and that is recommended and again
would be tied to some of the timing of when MnDOT anticipates improving their signals. They’ve got a
pretty big list.
Kate Aanenson continued with her presentation of the staff report.
Aller: Kate real quick we’ve been pr ovided with the updated recommendations.
Aanenson: Correct. There’s additional, correct.
Aller: And are those on the website as well already?
Aanenson: Yes, yes. Yes. And they’re also available here too.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2013
5
Aller: Questions? I guess one of the first questions I had with regard to the traffic. Even with the
grading that you have as an A, B, C, D, I wouldn’t want may kids coming home with a D and so I
understand in the realm of traffic that’s not necessaril y a bad thing based on the numbers, but can you just
review for me, if it’s going to be a D in 2033 and th ere’s for instance the warrant for the stop signs, if we
put it in now, could that harm the traffic pattern? Increase it and cause more problems than it fixes or
what’s the relationship there?
Brandon Bourden: Well I mean the level of service D is really anticipated to be tied to the Trunk
Highway 5/Galpin signal. It’s a signal so that’s alre ady a signal so we wouldn’t add anything there. The
unsignalized operation over at, let me grab that there. The unsignalized intersections all operate at level
of service A and so we wouldn’t recommend changing anything there really because it doesn’t meet the
warrants. You end up running into additional problems with the traveling public not adhering to the stop
sign and so you have a different, we generally find that we create a different concern and it’s usually a
safety concern related to non-compliance. So that’s why we generally try to follow the warrants. That
and we’re trying to find a balance between traffic flow throughout the area and the places that we have to
deal with traffic issues and safety and this is one wa y we’ve kind of found that balance within the realm
of traffic operations.
Aller: Okay, thank you. And then looking at this there’s one access point, and the prior plan had two.
Can you explain the difference why that would be better to have one as opposed to two?
Brandon Bourden: Well I mean typically over time we , the development patterns have changed for back
in the you know 50’s and 60’s, 70 ’s it was very common for almost any development to have multiple
access points located along almost an y roadway and that has changed to where if we have our accesses
isolated we generally are focusing our traffic and our conflict points, where traffic paths are crossing at
one location. So in general that results in better tr affic operations. Smoother traffic flow and it allows the
drivers on the main thoroughfare to not have to be lo oking for conflicts at every single small access. You
can also get pretty overwhelmed when you have a lot of accesses. At this particular location, I mean you
could probably do either way and things would operate fine. The volume on West 78 th just isn’t that high
but having it at one location I think keeps things relatively clean.
Aller: And from your explanation I would assume it’s a little bit safer then in this particular location?
Brandon Bourden: In theory it would be although I mean, in my professional judgment would be there
wouldn’t be a wild difference one way or the other. Really it ties also to your speeds and what’s going on
on West 78 th Street in terms of volume perspective but in theory it would be a little bit better.
Aller: Okay, thank you. Questions? Comments?
Hokkanen: I have a couple traffic questions. If we can go to that slide that shows the graph with the
vehicles per hour. It’s a whole bunch of numbers.
Brandon Bourden: Yep, we can do that. The one with kind of the warrants we talked about.
Hokkanen: Yes.
Brandon Bourden: This one?
Hokkanen: Okay. A couple questions. You sai d it doesn’t warrant a multi-way stop until there’s 300
vehicles per hour. Are we close on some of these?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2013
6
Brandon Bourden: There’s two conditions that ha ve to be satisfied. There’s the volume on the
northbound and southbound that are added together, whic h is vehicle volumes which have to be over 300.
So you’ll see there’s quite a few yeses identified in th e major columns which are the ones all the way on
the right, so we do meet, satisfy the over 300 vehicles on the major approaches for roughly 10 hours in
2033 and 5 hours in 2013. We are not on the minor approaches approaching that 200 vehicle threshold.
So are we close? We’re generally a little bit shy. In the neighborhood of typically 70. 70 vehicles short
during the worst hour in 2033. So I mean at this point we don’t anticipate that an all way stop would be
justified for some time.
Hokkanen: Right. Okay, and then to a U turn volume. I guess I live in that area and I drive there a lot
and I feel that it’s not an A all the time so I guess I’m trying to, at a U turn volume where, so 25 to 35
vehicles per hour now. What justified how many vehicl es per hour for the U turn would justify some type
of change in that traffic flow?
Aller: Yeah and if I can add to that, what kind of change would it be?
Hokkanen: Because there are a lot of U turns there.
Brandon Bourden: I mean when we’re looking at the volumes there we’re talking about 30 in an hour so
that’s 1 every 2 minutes.
Hokkanen: That’s a lot to me.
Brandon Bourden: There’s U turns so I would agree. There’s definitely a lot more U turns than you
would see at a normal intersection. In terms of looking at operations, there’s two th ings. We look at have
there been you know accidents associated with that moveme nt that are tied to other people? I mean at this
point it’s a free movement so there’s really nobody, nothing to delay that vehicle doing a U turn. So I
mean in terms of improvements the real only thing you would change is you could modify access into and
out of the right-in/right-out facility to the east so th at could become a right in only so the right out would
have to access on West 78 th to the east because that would get rid of the U turn. Now there’d be some
other comments and opinions from that particular, those pa rticular properties. The other thing that we did
look at is we looked at the U turn. We have a software that looks at the turning templates so the one thing
we wanted to check is okay when you’re making that U turn in a standard design vehicle, which is a
passenger vehicle but they’re designed more like a Suburban. I mean it’s 18-19 feet long so it’s a big one.
So we did a U turn there to see how that turn worked and geometrically people can make the turn without
traveling way out into the intersection so if that wasn’t the case, well then we’d be recommending some
sort of pavement modifications on the southbound appr oach to make the receiving lane a little bit better.
But other than that restricting what is creating the U turn or modifying it so that it was a round about, you
know there aren’t a lot of improvements there. And from a level of service perspective you know we’d
probably look to see have there been some accident history. Typically we look for accidents in the
neighborhood of 5, like for a signal we look at are ther e 5 accidents that are susceptible to correction that
a traffic signal would correct in a year. And in this area in terms, those are right angle crashes generally,
there just isn’t a high volume of those type of accidents.
Hokkanen: I guess when we add in all the people that would be moving in, this count seem low to me.
When was the study done?
Brandon Bourden: Within the last month. The data was collected within, certainly within the last 2
months. And the data was all new to the north of Tr unk Highway 5. The Trunk Highway 5 data I believe
was from MnDOT and that was probably in the 2010 era. April 9 th . It’s when the study was done.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2013
7
Aller: Anything? Any questions at this point?
Undestad: The access, I mean we’ve done a lot for the traffic and stuff here but as far as pedestrians, is
there any safety or fencing or anything that would be going along Highway 5 or on Arboretum there or
Galpin?
Aanenson: There are trails along Highway 5 in other pa rts of that segment so, and then we also have the
underpass. If we go back to, yeah.
Undestad: I like the underpass.
Aanenson: Yeah, to Bluff Creek and go back to.
Undestad: So my only question was the sidewalk that you’re maybe asking them to bring in from that
outdoor area straight out to the intersection.
Aanenson: Well I think that’s something that I think we’d like to talk, I don’t think the developer may
not want someone going right into the back of thei r building when it’s a secure d building but I think if
someone that lives there wants to cut through, that’s wh at I’m saying, we’d want to work with them to
provide the right application or the right location for th at. This shows the trails a little bit more. Kind of
where you’re going along here. Certainly the trail’s on West 78 th but I would agree, trying to get maybe
in the back door for security, we’d want to work with them. That’s someone that wouldn’t have to go all
the way up if they were a walker, go all the way up but try to figure that out what works best for their
needs.
Aller: Okay, anything else for traffic or staff at this point? Okay. Would the developer like to step
forward and make his presentation please?
Paul Tucci: Good evening Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Paul Tucci with Oppidan.
Thanks for having us back. I’m going to try to keep this relatively short because I’m guessing that the
folks behind me have a few comments they’d like to make . We started this process, as Kate said late last
year. We had a neighborhood meeting. We came th rough with a concept plan and we heard a lot of
comments but a couple of comments kept resonating. Density of the project. Size of the building.
Positioning of the building and traffic. I’m going to go right to traffic to start since we just had a good
conversation. I want to make a couple of statem ents. First off the traffic report that you saw was
commissioned by the City, not by us. We are paying for it but we were asked not to do it because it
wanted to bring in a broader scope so I want to make sure everyone understands, we did not have any
input in it and the recommendations we saw, geez I thi nk we saw them at the end of last week when they
came out and we had no input into you know we thought this, that or the other. We saw them when
everyone else saw them so we were pleased with th e results, what it showed. That the level of service
today, tomorrow. Today, when we’re finished a nd into 2013 all look acceptabl e. We can debate you
know U turning times and all of that. I happen to office over at the corner of 7 and 101. I see U turns at
that intersection constantly and you know I’d defer to the professionals but I think that to me is a bad
intersection. You know hopefully we’re not going to ha ve that. I wouldn’t, you know we’re not trying to
create that. But the one thing we did find, that they did find is that the only recommended improvement
was a flashing yellow at the intersection of Highway 5 and Galpin which you know just as a driver I’ve
been seeing those everywhere and they work. I tend to drive down Scenic Heig hts to County Road 4,
Eden Prairie Road. They put one up there and I think it’s the greatest thing ever so whoever came up with
that idea, my kudos to them. Couple of things that I’d like to point out, and I’m going to use this plan to
do it. That was my 2 minutes on traffic. On the building itself, positioning. One of the things that we
did, and this goes to the access point. The single access point that we now have here. We tried to pull
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2013
8
and maneuver the building, we used to have two, I’ll call them two separate buildings connected by a
center club area. We joined the building into on e and what we, in doing so we pulled the building
actually to the north and to the east so we could get a little more distan ce. We’re now approximately 600
feet from the nearest point over here and we’re about 407 feet from the nearest point of that house. By
pulling that around, we used to have an out access onl y there. That was only an out because of the
condition on the curve and in our estimation it was, it was easy to get rid of that in order for us to get the
building a little further away from the residents over in this area here. One of the things that we were
asked by staff to do when we did that was to, you see this horseshoe drive in so we have two access points
in and out of the underground parking stalls. Actually we were more than happy to do that. Almost an
oversight on our part to only have a single access point. That’s not a good design. So we made that
change. In the density of the building. You know of course we’d still like 225 units. We understood that
to be an issue. We’ve come back with a plan. We’ve talked to staff. We’ve talk to some other folks and
you know that 155 number, you know we’d like it higher but it’s a workable number for us. It gives us a
mix of about 100 or so one bedrooms and 55, actually I think we’re 101 and 54 two bedrooms so we’re
sticking with one’s and two’s. You know if we a dded a few more, one of the things we talked about
looking at is there a need for some three bedrooms out here. We don’t think studios in a suburban
location like this works. We talked about that but we did feel that this is a little less than what the market
study said we could do. However there was some talk, could you add some three bedrooms? We’ve
elected not to but you know if we added a few more that would be where we’d look is to add a handful of
three bedrooms into the building. We have some ar eas that we could do that in. We talked about the
parking. We are, and Kate and I debated the variance of one stall and you know we’ll defer either way on
that. We can fit it in. We designed it to have ev erything internal. We can kind of squeeze and push and
pull and get that one extra stall underneath the buildin g if we need to. We’re open to whatever the
direction of commission and council is on that. Height of the building. As Kate said we’re at the mid
point we’re at about 37 feet. That’s a three story building. We did talk about a flat roof. Not a lot of flat
roof designs out in suburban. You know we wanted it to blend in better with the area around us. If it
were a little, if we had a bunch of office buildings y ou know all around us then yeah, maybe you’d do a
flat roof. Even then I’m not sure you would in a su burban setting but we think keeping it how it is works.
We had the material board up earlier. Again you know it’s, we think it’s a fairly attractive building. I
can put the elevation back up so we can look at that. If we can pull out just a little bit. Again as Kate
pointed out it’s a predominance of the hardy board. There will be a masonry product on it. Decks for
everyone coming through. They’re in ternal to the building. There w ill be some community areas. There
will be exercise areas. Out in back, I’m going to, sorr y Kate to keep doing this to you. I’m going to put
this plan up. A couple of things that we’ve done. We’ve added a small playground area here. One of the
comments we heard was you know if there’s families moving in, where do the kids go? I wouldn’t want
my kids to walk across the street to the playground. There is a playground right across the street. There’s
a protected intersection to get to that playground. There’s a tunnel underneath to get to that playground.
You know we don’t, we’re not advocating unsafe travel fo r anybody. We thought that this is an amenity
that can keep them on site if they wish. They still have access through the various routes that were
pointed out earlier. Either at the intersection and across at the light or underneath at the tunnel so we did
that. We did when we did this, because we’re going to have less units, we thought about the pool and
liability and we’ve elected to not do a pool at this poin t. We still have room on there if we wanted to do
it. We know we’d have to come back but at this poi nt we don’t think it’s the proper thing. We are going
to have a protected patio area out there. May do a hot tub in that. Not sure yet but that’s another
gathering spot for the residents in you know if winter ever ends. One of the things I will comment on is
on the sidewalk connections, as Commissioner Undestad ju st talked about that connection. We can talk
about that. We’d prefer in our original plans we th ought about it and we took it out. We didn’t like the
direct access to the back of the building. We wanted to screen that a little more. We understand this one
to get out and around. If we’re going to have a somewh at protected patio for our residents, we don’t want
people walking right in if they’re having a party out th ere or whatever it is so still open to debate but that
would be our two cents on that. Ge nerally you know we’re still excited about trying to get this project
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2013
9
moving forward. We think we’ve tried to answer the questions and concerns of the residents as best we
can. We’ve made a huge concession on the number of units. We think that the design is there. We tried
to move the building to create a better positioning on the site and you know we think we’ve answered the
questions again as best we can so with that I can answer any questions that any of you have.
Aller: Anything? Anyone?
Hokkanen: I just have a couple questions on the dr awings and I know we’re just in concept but the
screening that you’re talking about. It looks heavy here. What type of screening are you thinking about
for?
Paul Tucci: Well we’re going to try and, as you heard fro m Kate at the very end, we’re going to try to
save some of the trees that are there. Where we can. We do, we were made aware that there are some ash
and the City informed us of that. We’ve talked to them, and I’m trying to find my landscape plan here
while we’re standing here so I can tell you what’s exactly wh ere. I have it here Kate, I just have to find it.
There we go.
Hokkanen: I mean the picture looks very dense so.
Paul Tucci: Yeah. You know there’s, you can see some of the existing, some of the existing, maybe I
can position that better. We’re going to stay out, you know we have some of the existing out here. We’re
adding a combination of pine trees and deciduous tr ees in there. Some shrubbery around. You know
we’re trying to make sure that one of the things we want to do is there will be people who have windows
on this elevation and one of the things that we don’t want to have is them looking directly out to the
highway so we’re going to try and create a screen for them. We’re also trying to add and continue to
buffer up in these areas, saving some trees up here. Th ere’ll be a little water feature right here. Creating
some larger, you know put some deciduous trees in here and some pines. See all the shrubbery around
there to just you know again try to just soften the whole thing. We don’t want somebody to drive up and
see the parking lot. You know the parking lot you notice is set back a fair amount and that was one of the
things when we downsized and repos itioned the building that it gave us the ability to do is again pull it
away from the road a little bit and again as was discus sed earlier on the 6 acre site on the north side we
are proposing, and I think everyone’s agreeing that it would be a conservation easement. If we’re more
than happy to deed it over to the City if that would be the preferred route. But we’re open to the
conservation easement too. Did that answer your question?
Hokkanen: (Yes).
Aller: Anything else? That’s it. Thank you so much. With that I’ll open the public hearing portion of
the meeting. This is a chance, an opportunity for an yone present to come forward. State your name and
address. Either for or against the project. Those thin gs you like. Those things that you don’t like so that
we can get a feel for what the commun ity still thinks of the project after th e modifications so with that I’ll
open it up. Please.
Art Roberts: Okay, I’ll start. I’d like to go back to square one.
Aller: And if you could just state your name and address for the record. I know you’ve been here before.
Art Roberts: Art Roberts, 7762 Vasserman Place.
Aller: Thank you Mr. Roberts.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2013
10
Art Roberts: What I’d like to share with you is a question and it seems in line with what Andrew was
talking about earlier. I’ll give everybody a copy, and th ere will not be a test at the end. So the question
really is what’s the impact if you in fact put low-family? What if you change the zoning from low-
family? Is that a wise move? I went over to Bluff Creek after last time, because I spoke last time and I
went over to Bluff Creek and I said look, what are you going to do with the kids coming to school and the
answer at Bluff Creek is, well Highway 5 is so dange rous that even though they can see the school right
across the street, we’re not going to let them come to school walking across. We’re going to send a bus
over. So there will be buses for the school trips for th e kids, and that includes both K-5 and also there’s
preschool over there. So I just did a what if down at the bottom and said what if you had 100 kids there,
you can pick your number but if you do 100 kids in the lower left hand corner of my sheet and say okay,
you know back and forth times a 180 school days, that’s 36,000 kids and you’re safe with those in line
with Andrew’s question earlier because you’re going to bus them because the school district says we
don’t dare let those kids walk across but the hooker is that you’ve got a Rec Center there and you’ve got
the attraction after school of all the athletics. Y ou know you’ve got baseball and football and hockey and
tennis and maybe dance classes you know and you’ve got pickleball and geez, all sorts of stuff going on
over there and there’s going to be an attraction after school to get over to those games. You know you
drive by and there’s just, how many 8 football team s and 8 hockey teams and a lot of people and that’s
really the danger and I just picked a number and said what if 25 people go back and forth 300 days a year,
well that’s 15,000 crossings. Now a question to the traffic man, your chart said 23,000 and 30,000 cars.
That’s during what time period? Is that a daily number on your sheet?
Brandon Bourdon: I’m trying to recall which one in particular we’re talking about.
Art Roberts: Well the point is, I just, the suggestion is this. Even though the kids are going to get bused,
would get bused to school, you’ve still got a lot of da nger there. And the darn underpass is so far down
that you know the kids are going to say heck, that’s right across the street. I’m going to go right across
the street. And have you ever looked at the light th ere? As I’ve commented here, it’s 120 seconds of red
but then it’s only about 30 seconds of green and you’ve got to haul your tail across that wide road to get
across in 30 seconds you know. It’s a dangerous situation and that’s all I want to suggest to you is I don’t
think we have any business putting multi-family residen tial across the street beca use there’s not going to
be valet service for the kids all night long. End of discussion. That’s all I want to point out.
Aller: Your point’s understood. I would like to give an opportunity for a response to your questions
though.
Brandon Bourden: I mean the traffic volume associated on, today’s volume is about 30,000 vehicles per
day on Trunk Highway 5 so.
Art Roberts: 30,000 per day.
Brandon Bourden: Per day.
Aller: And I guess one of the points that is being brou ght up is if there was a bus, would that figure into
your number of vehicles at all? Would it in fact potentially reduce the number of vehicles because you
wouldn’t have a parent carpooling individuals over because you have mu ltiple kids on one bus so it would
be one trip as opposed to 50? I don’t know the answ er to that. Is that something that you look at?
Brandon Bourden: I mean that’s probably a little more micro into the analysis but yeah, if there was
busing that took a group of people with a percentage of people that currently tend to drive their children,
it may have some impact but, I mean we, there is 30,000 vehicles on Trunk Highway 5. It’s a high speed
facility. There’s a lot of traffic on a variety of roads in the metro area and some of them are 50,000 a day.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2013
11
Some of them are 10,000 a day. Really when you lo ok at a daily volume on a daily basis, there’s quite a
bit of traffic with 3.5 million people you know trave ling throughout the metropolitan area. And in terms
of the signal operations, I mean the signal cycle, it is about 120 seconds. Those green times for pedestrian
crossings are adjusted based on hittin g a button so that changes some things but in terms of children
crossing an intersection, I mean I’ve got a son and in general I’d want to be crossing that particular
intersection with him at the same time until he’s of the appropriate age.
Art Roberts: Could I get one other fact? You just ha ve one spot per apartment unit, right? One parking
spot downstairs.
Aanenson: Underground.
Paul Tucci: We have more than one per unit above ground.
Art Roberts: Is your assumption that most of the peop le will be one car families so that if dad takes the
car to work, mom doesn’t have a car to drive the kids across the street?
Aanenson: Mr. Chair…I’d be happy to answer the question.
Aller: Okay, sure.
Aanenson: Yeah, no you can I just think it’s appropr iate that you address the chairman on the question.
Aller: And that’s fine and I still wa nt to make sure that your concerns are answered but the decorum of a
commission hearing is that you present it to us and th en we’ll ask of other people but we will make sure
that you get your answers.
Art Roberts: Good.
Aanenson: And I’d be happy to answer the question. The ordinance does require one stall. It’s based on
a bedroom ratio so at least every unit needs to have one underground, we’re short the one. We’re at 154
versus the 155 and they can, by ordinance they can ma ke it using a compact car ratio. It does meet all of
the visitor, then there’s additional parking surface require d. It does meet that and there’s guest parking.
It does meet that. So I also want to comment too on, go ahead I’m sorry.
Aller: Just want to break in a second, the reason th at it is under right now is because we’re allowing for,
and it would need approval but a variance would be needed. We’re allowing for that one space for
internal trash compaction.
Aanenson: Correct, and recycling.
Aller: And recycling.
Aanenson: And recycling. Internal recycling, correct . And then just to comment a little bit, I don’t’ want
to spend too much time antidotally on this but if we do studies all the times on numbers of kids in units
and single family homes has the highest number of kids. I’m not sure we’d get 100 kids in this project. If
you look at the typical demographics and I don’t have th at number in front of me but it’s, that’s single
family homes is our highest, where you have the mo st children typically and that would be in this
community too.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2013
12
Aller: And here’s talking one or two bedrooms whic h would lead me to believe that there will be less
kids.
Aanenson: Yeah, most of the units are going to be one bedroom but that doesn’t mean that there couldn’t
be some kids and some busing and I guess we look at antidotally now, do we see a lot of kids crossing at
that? No. There’s other kids in that neighborhood th at could cross, ride their bikes across so we don’t
anticipate that. Again we showed last time too where we have projects up against one county road,
excuse me Highway 101 across from the St. Hubert’s but they also have an underpass there and those are
adjacent to, and Lake Susan is also on Powers Boulevar d which is also a collector road too so, I think we
don’t anticipate people crossing at grade on Galpin.
Aller: Okay, and then just so we could specifica lly answer the question, how many units, how many
parking spots are there outside, guests included?
Aanenson: It’s in the staff report.
Paul Tucci: Right now we have 110 stalls proposed out side and we have a proof of parking area, if we
need to add another 30. So we have, we’ve met the requirement, we can meet the requirement and
actually exceed it.
Aller: Exceed it if you want.
Aanenson: Yes.
Aller: Okay, thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak, please step forward. State your name and
address for the record.
Craig Stacey: Craig Stacey, 7699 Ridgeview Way.
Aller: Welcome Mr. Stacey.
Craig Stacey: Thank you. Thank you fo r the opportunity and the very g ood dialogue. We appreciate it.
If we could go to Figure 4, it was the traffic with the percentages. I have a series of questions related to
that particular document.
Brandon Bourden: The site distribution?
Craig Stacey: Site distribution. It was percentages, 2 1/2 percent going.
Aanenson: Okay. I’m sorry, there you go.
Craig Stacey: So a couple of questions. What were the assumptions that were used to derive the
percentages? That’s the first question. The second question is, seemingly 100% of the cars have to get
out and 80% of them are going to be at poi nt 3. The intersection of Galpin and 78 th . What is the plan to
address 800 additional vehicles through there a day or trip s? Almost 300,000 a year. And also in that
particular section are they, are you concerned about ca rs stacking at peak times? That is not a very
spacious area. In particular between number 4 and nu mber 3, I could see in the morning in particular
when people are leaving for work or schools, cars stacking up there and creating an intersection issue
especially with the U turns that we know happen there, as well as cars stacking in that U turn area around
during peak times of returning back to work or returning from activities. So I know those were 3
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2013
13
questions related to traffic but I think they’re importa nt to understand a little bit more of the depth of the
study. I can repeat them if.
Aller: I think he’s got them.
Brandon Bourden: So there were 3 questions. I’ll start with the first one. Regarding assumptions and
where traffic is traveling to and from. Our site dist ribution on a study like this generally we look a lot at
the existing traffic patterns so if we look at the existing count data at Trunk Highway 5 and Galpin, I
mean we can look at those turning movements and ge t an indication of what the people from the north
and the south side are doing today. For the most part we’d anticipate somewhat similar use in terms of
people going to the east or going to the west. And there’s some judgment in some cases in terms of
looking at volumes and looking at the connectivity of the roadway. I mean we wouldn’t anticipate very
many people go to the north because it doesn’t serve as a very good route to Trunk Highway 7. People
generally go on the shortest path a nd so they would, if I’m going to 7 and I want to go to the west, I’d
generally go probably to 41 and go north and you kno w catch 7 to the north there. So that, it’s a
combination of two things. It’s looking at what th e existing patterns are and it’s also you know, if we
looked at the existing pattern, the volume may not be that high but we do assume some trips are going to
go on all the roadways. In terms of 800 trips per day, I mean we do analysis where we look at planning
level of traffic and from my standpoint, when I’m l ooking at operations daily traffic volumes don’t do a
lot. We’re generally getting to the peak hour opera tions. If we have traffic spread out over a day,
generally during the middle part of the day we still ga in a lot of our, a lot of our volume goes through it
but the true nature of it is, we ge nerally have between 8 and 12 percent of the daily trips actually hit the
intersection either during the a.m. or the p.m. peak so that’s why we look at the a.m. and p.m. peak and so
the 800 trips per day during those other hours we just , we don’t see a traffic operations issue during the
peak hours so we’re not going to see a traffic operations issue or we wouldn’t anticipate one during the
non-peak hours in terms of delay. In terms of que uing when we’re operating an intersection and we’re
looking at intersection delays in the neighborh ood of you know under 10 seconds, I mean the models
aren’t going to show that there’s going to be any qu euing that’s going to happe n because there just isn’t a
significant amount of delay. The U turn movement, yes. You’re going to have to yield to southbound
traffic and make your U turn so there could be some ca rs stacked there. I’d have to look at a report to see
but I mean there were no situations where we ha d people queuing a significant amount where we were
worried about adjacent operations at adjacent intersections because that’s something we look at routinely.
We could spill back into the signal. That would be a safety concern at Trunk Highway 5. Any time that
we’re spilling into a right-in/right-out, anything we’re spilling beyond an adjacent intersection, yeah
that’s a safety concern and those are things we look at when we do the analysis so if those stick out then
we identify it in the report and how do we mitigat e for that so we’re not anticipating that.
Craig Stacey: Thank you. And then one follow up ques tion. Has there been any marketing research with
respect to this particular location being right on to p of a high speed highway versus maybe an alternative
location or two? You know for example the one that’s at, you know the empty space at 101 and 212
that’s kind of by the Kwik Trip area there, to really get really consumer insights, are they going to be
willing to pay a rental fee given the site location versus some others that might be zoned for this particular
property?
Aller: I appreciate the question. I think that’s be yond really what we’re here for because an individual
that comes before the commission or before the coun cil requesting to do a development we assume is
taking the risk inherent in marketing and manufactu ring and so what we’re really looking at is the
concerns that you were addressing before. The traffi c. The impact on the community. The type of
project as opposed to whether it’s going to be, you know of course we’re all concerned and we want it to
succeed and that’s built into all the considerations and the questions but I don’t think an individual
marketing plan is something that we’re concerned with.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2013
14
Craig Stacey: Okay, thank you.
Melissa Crow: Hi, my name is Melissa Crow and I’m at 7663 Ridgeview Way.
Aller: Thank you.
Melissa Crow: So I also am in part of that Ridgeview development just northwest of the proposed site.
Two things. If you want to leave that up. That’s act ually the same one that I have two questions or a
question, concern. First of all the traffic traveli ng north on Galpin, I see an in crease of 2.5%. You had
mentioned with the traffic study that a majority of people head out 78 th Street west to get to 41 north to
get to 7. Now my husband drives every day to go 7 east and he takes Galpin Boulevard. Whenever I’m
heading out that direction I always take Galpin Boulevard. Neither of us go to 41 to 7 and then east on 7.
One part of 41, and the intersection of 41 and 7 is that backs up so even though it’s a right hand turn it
still in that morning, the morning rush hour time and afternoon rush hour time, because I drive it back
home, it’s always backed up so when I’m going out to 7 east, we always go out Galpin Boulevard. The
second concern I have is the pedestrian traffic in that number 3 spot. My children are very fearful of
crossing from 78 th , crossing Galpin to go over to Kwik Trip as it is right now. The traffic coming down
Galpin heading south comes down a hill, and they’r e traveling, you know Lisa that they’re traveling
pretty quick and all of a sudden they’re coming down a nd there’s little kids riding their bike across the
street because that’s where they want to go to get ice cream at 7:00 in the evening on you know a summer
day. There are a lot of kids that want to cross the road. I’m not talking about to go to school. I’m just
saying to cross the street or to go to Sugarbush Pa rk, which is the neighborhood park, there’s no sidewalk
on Galpin on the west side so in order to ge t to Sugarbush you have to cross Galpin on 78 th . Go down
Galpin and then cross again at a stop sign to get to Su garbush Park so that intersection at 3 is a concern as
it is now. We had our association meeting last year, l ast May, beginning of May and one of our neighbors
stood up and expressed concern and wanted to go thr ough the City about how do we get a traffic study
because our kids as of now are not safe crossing that road so those are the concerns I have. Thank you for
listening.
Aller: Thank you. And just as a follow up that sh e’s mentioned that presently her and her husband take
an alternate route, whether it be 41 out or on Galp in out to 7. Would those movements have been
considered in the study and they live there now, th ey’re taking those. My assumption would be that
they’re numbers that are in your study.
Brandon Bourden: Yeah, I mean we look at the turn ing movement so when we look at that particular
movement there’s roughly you know a little over 10% that would make that left. We would anticipate the
majority of people are still going to go to Trunk Highwa y 5 to go either into the metro or to the west.
There are some that might go to the north and that’s why we have that 2.5%. The 10% I mentioned, a
bunch of those would go west on 7 as well so I mean in terms of the methodology yeah, we’ve considered
that.
Aller: Thank you.
Brandon Bourden: And just to clarify, that 2.5%, th at’s not necessarily a growth. That’s actually of the
100% of the people that leave that apartment site, that ’s roughly the percentage leaving or coming to that
are going to come from Galpin so it isn’t really a grow th rate. It’s more what percentage coming to and
from from that particular roadway.
Aller: Thank you.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2013
15
Sarah Thomas: Thank you Mr. Chair, Planning Comm ission members. My name is Sarah Thomas. I
reside at 2555 Longacres Drive. I need to disclose that I have worked with Paul on some projects in the
city where I work as a land use planner as well. I refrained from speaking at the public hearing in
December. However due to the fact that my family lives in this area I felt it important to raise some
thoughts and concerns. To begin w ith, I’m looking at the big picture. Again as a professional land use
planner it perhaps is a hazard but I’m looking at so mething where I don’t see there’s a whole lot of talk
and it’s the land use. The overall land use. The Co mprehensive Plan that designates this property not as
what is being proposed and since December there’s b een a comment that’s continued to resonate which
was there’s no other land available in Chanhassen for this development and I s till don’t think there’s land
available in Chanhassen for this development. At least not at this site. It’s not, there needs to be a change
in the land use to allow what’s being proposed. Why can’t there be a change el sewhere in Chanhassen to
allow this as proposed? I’d also like to apologize. As a professional, full time mother of 4 children I was
flying from work to my son’s soccer practice tonight and I unfortunately missed the beginning of the
meeting so I apologize. Some of my questions may ha ve already been spoken to. I know you don’t like
that so I do need to apologize but I just don’t unders tand the proposed change. It seems very reactionary
to me and I don’t feel that that is fair to yourselv es. Those that were on the Planning Commission at the
time that the Comprehensive Plan was put into place. You spent a lot of long hours putting that plan
together as well as the residents that were involved in workshops, as well as residents that I know bought
property next to this site. I’d like to add I hope th at the fact that the room isn’t spilling out into the
hallway and overflow doesn’t sway you one way or a nother. I’ve heard from a number of residents who
feel that the City almost might need to fill a quota in relation to having develo pment. Wanting to raise
property taxes. A lot of residents had some concerns that their voices weren’t being heard last December
when this proposal came through and they’re scared to come forward, which as a government employee,
that’s unfortunate and it’s another reason why I felt that I had to speak for those who are afraid to come
forward. I think that I’ll say that Oppidan does a great job. I’m not concerned with the proposal. I just
don’t think this is the right site and it’s not bei ng NIMBY, which for the non-professional planners is not
in my backyard. I just if, I like more thought put into this and if the City really feels that this is the
location for high density residential, then I feel that we should look at that with the next Comprehensive
Plan update which believe me is going to be right around the corner. In looking at some of the
information in the staff report, I want to say it was page 5. Talks about resi dential high density and high
density is to be located on major transportation corri dors that include transit, commercial centers and
employment centers. To me that’s not the site. Th is site is neighborhoods. It’s neighborhood business.
Neighborhood commercial. Single family neighborhood and an elementary school. I know we have our
analysis. I know we have our statistics. I just think you need to listen to the residents who are in this area
every day. Just tonight driving to the Rec Center there was a near miss from an SUV traveling eastbound
on 5 who was trying to beat the light as the traffic li ghts turned and they’re starting to head north and
south. Shortly thereafter two kids who were on their bikes traveling northbound on Galpin, there’s
already the activity there that the traffic study, I don’t know, it just, it concerns me. I’m not a traffic
engineer. I can tell you it’s not right but depending on the color of the signal when I’m headed to work in
the morning, if it’s yellow, if it’s changed from the gr een arrow to just the green signal itself, I’ll take
West 78 th Street so I can beat the next light and not have to wait another 5 minutes and I’m following
traffic doing the same thing so alread y I think the existing traffic inform ation there is somewhat skewed.
I’m trying to go quickly here. Like I said I held b ack in December but after some of these items I felt I
had to come forward. Again one item may have been covered but the MnDOT letter stating that the site
isn’t compatible with residential a nd spoke to sound attenuation and the fact that the City would have to
pay for that, I may have misunderstood but as I was quickly going through the staff report I didn’t see
mention to that. And I guess two other quick things in relation to what I heard tonight. It was also
brought up back in December was the tunnel to the pa rk. My home, I’m lucky enough to be adjacent to a
totlot but I can tell you that my kids are always wa nting to go outside when they see the other kids out
there and even though we’ve had 9 months of winter this year, there have been people at that totlot 345
days this year. They like it because it’s accessible. That tunnel to the park over by the Rec Center isn’t
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2013
16
accessible. I’ve been keeping an eye on it this wint er. I would not want my kids going through that
tunnel. Lastly I’d like to go back to my comment about me meandering eastbound on West 78 th Street.
Part of the reason, as well as the stacking. It’s not uncommon to have 6 vehicles waiting there in the
morning and that’s already given ex isting conditions, not taking into account this additional development
which as housing is going to have competing interests. It’s not going to diversify the traffic counts as the
existing land use would being office so with that agai n I believe that Oppidan can do a great job. I’ve
seen it happen. I just have some real issues with this site and I think you need to look long term, again
professional hazard but you guys are all onboard there. With all of the density that’s proposed on West
78 th Street, while some of it might not be available fo r development today, we’re not looking at today.
We’re looking at the future. To keep Chanhassen as wonderful of a community tomorrow as it is today
and if we allow for apartment buildings, high density residential in some form or another all throughout
West 78th Street, I just see that as being very problematic so I thank you very much for your time.
Aller: Thank you. Anyone else?
Cathy Meyer: Cathy Meyer, 7662 Ridgeview Wa y in Chanhassen. Thank you again Chairman and
Planning Commission for hearing our comments. I was honestly hoping not to see you again but we’re
here so no disrespect to any of you. I had a couple specific questions so I, as we’ve gone through the
process I’ve learned that the City has some discreti on to change the Comprehensive Plan that was just
discussed and I understand that and understand there’s a return for the builder in that. What I’m
struggling with and would love some answers on are why do we need to have the transfer piece in this so
we have a north and a south parcel. Why can’t it just be limited to the south parcel so why do we need to
have a transfer? Why must that transfer be high density versus medium and low? So what’s driving that?
You know there were a lot of conversations at the first planning meeting and the City Council on while
this seemed maybe something acceptable was the size right and was the density appropriate and so it
seems like we’re not getting another alternative. While it’s great that the size has come down, there’s not
an alternative for medium or low. We’re still at the very high density. You know how would 32 units
truly fit on that north parcel? That’s what’s being transferred. I know 10 townhomes was originally one
of the proposals back in ’08 or something. Kate will get the right date so there’s a couple questions that I
would love to hear the answers to.
Aller: Thank you.
Aanenson: Do you want me to take those?
Aller: Please.
Aanenson: Those are great questions. When we looked at the density, I put that up on the, if I can find
the slide here. When I put the density up on the ne t. Let’s go back and talk about the Bluff Creek
Overlay District. As we looked even at Walnut Grove, some of those projects, we talked about Pulte
Homes where we transferred density and compressed it. When we’ve, thank you. That’s Bob’s job to
remind me. We did those projects, what we did when we put the Overlay District in place, this is one of
the first communities to actually kind of create that creek corridor throughout the whole city so the City
went through the exercise of saying if we wanted to bu y all that right-of-way, we put an Overlay District
in place and we said there’s two ways to get it. One, we look at each project as it came in or we would try
to buy it. Because not all property has sewer and water to it, there’s a huge differential in price in trying
to negotiate that whole process. The City Attorn ey really recommended that you know it’d just be
impossible to try to do that process so we said we’ll take it on a case by case basis. So could the council
say that they don’t want to transfer that many units? Yes they could. Could the Planning Commission
recommend that? There is discretion in that. We went back and looked at if we used the 16, and you can
see the 176 so we took the net developable. The Overla y District has buildable rights in it so you would
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2013
17
be a taking if you just said you can’t build on it so yes, it was an up-zone on that portion to get to the 155
to make that work so in looking at the 16 units an acre, that did allow for up to, with both parcels, 176 so
my point on that part was it didn’t capitalize on all of those units per acre so maybe it’s closer to, maybe
it’s closer to 10 or 12 units an acre as opposed to 16. If you looked at the true number of the 155 as
opposed to the 4 transferring over and I think too looking at that, what to make the project viable with you
know trying to put something over there, could you do that? Potentially yes but that’s part of the deal
with the Overlay District to break up a unit when you’re putting in elevators and trying to provide
amenities, trying to cross the street there for amenities on one side or the other, it makes sense, just as we
did with the other projects, Pulte and the like to co mpress them where all the features, the amenities of
those units are located in one central instead of crossing 41 for some of those units. This is the same kind
of rationale. But there is discretion in changing the land use.
Cathy Meyer: And then the 16 units per acre, again the rationale why not medium or low density? Why
does it have to be 16?
Aanenson: It doesn’t. So we showed that. It’s actually not, it’s not computing at 16 because you’re not
capitalizing on all that on that north side. So like I’m saying here, if you took that, it’s actually, you could
get 176 units. They’re not taking advantage of all that coming down to the 155. So it’s not being
calculated at that.
Cathy Meyer: But they’re still significantly higher th an 8 if you were medium density or if you were.
Aanenson: That’s correct.
Cathy Meyer: Or if you were low so I think there’s just a big difference on the quantity there. If you are
going to change the plan, given the other issues that have been addressed, I think it would have been nice
tonight to see an 8. You know a medium density opti on. That’s just for consideration. Thank you.
Aller: Thank you.
Stan Valensky: My name is Stan Valensky. My residence is 7752 Vasserman Place, Chanhassen. Don’t
need to bring any more issue up about the traffic. The c oncern I have really in this situation is the U turn.
It’s a problem now. Coming down 78 th Street when you’re going to cross or get onto Galpin, even right
now you’ve got to judge if that person is going to do a complete U’y or is he coming into that section? It
is a concern. I do have a concern with the children in that area and if someone says they’re not going to
be going to the stores, or not going to the program, to the playgrounds, I know what I did as a kid. That’s
where I would be running. The reason I moved to Chanhassen was for one reas on. The downtown area,
the uniqueness of the city is just char ming. My feeling is this is not charming. This is not what I bought
in this area for. When I bought in I looked at it and the thing said it’s going to be low density. Offices.
This is not what I bought here for. Okay. I’m not tryi ng to be a stick in the mud. The other thing is even
if it went through and Planning Commission does decide to go with it, I can’t believe I haven’t seen an
elevation from, where would it look like from that corner townhouse? What would it look like from that?
What would we see in that area? Haven’t seen that. I don’t know if that’s in his pile of information there
or not. I sure would love to have see it. That might put some of that at ease. That doesn’t fix the other
problems but I have no idea and then all of a sudden I look at it and say gosh, is that ugly? Is that what
I’m looking at and I don’t have an elevati on to make that judgment. Thank you.
Aller: Thank you.
Aanenson: Mr. Chair, I did do the calculations really quick on the north side. If you put 8 on the north
side it’s 6 less units on the project. Just that would be the impact.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2013
18
Aller: Thank you. Yes sir.
Del Vanderploeg: My name is Del Vande rploeg. I live at 7706 Vasserman Place.
Aller: Welcome.
Del Vanderploeg: That’s the development that’s to th e northwest of the proposed site. Question I have
for the traffic study. You mention sir that the study count was done on April 9 th .
Brandon Bourden: The analysis was completed on April 9 th . The report.
Del Vanderploeg: Okay. How many days was a count being taken?
Aller: Okay I’m going to interrupt here just real quick. I want a dialogue but I don’t want a cross
examination so what are all your questions and then we’ll get them addressed.
Del Vanderploeg: Okay. I just think that I saw a ca ble on the street on Galpin in front of the Kwik Trip
store for a very, very short time and I just wonder from the traffic study people how long a study did we
have? April 9 th , you know if it was April 9 th and the study was more than that, I just want to know how
long it took.
Aller: So that’s the big question is.
Del Vanderploeg: Yes.
Aller: You want to know just how much informa tion they gathered before they came up with their
conclusions?
Del Vanderploeg: Correct. Correct. Thank you.
Aller: Okay. Could you answer that please?
Brandon Bourden: There were no tube counts collected as a part of the study. The data was collected
using a video data collection so the tube would have probably been related to some other analysis. We
count a.m. and p.m. peak hour. Do a two hour count and we do both periods and it’s one day. We make
sure it’s not on a Monday and we make sure it’s not on a Friday or right before or after a holiday. In this
case when we have the Trunk Highway 5 traffic volumes at Galpin at a different time. I mean there’s
some balancing and cross checking you can do to make sure things haven’t change d dramatically but it’s
pretty uncommon and not really that feasible to collect data. I mean I’ve been doing this for 15 years so
we collect data generally one day.
Aller: Does that answer your question sir?
Mike Shields: My name is Mike Shields. I live at 7759 Vasserman Trail, Chanhassen.
Aller: Welcome.
Mike Shields: And if you look at that photo up ther e my deck is just a smooth 9 iron from the edge of
that property.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2013
19
Aller: Maybe your 9 iron.
Mike Shields: 130 yards roughly. I have just a couple of things regarding the traffic situation. The first
one, the gentleman mentioned that you wouldn’t, you do n’t have to swing out to the right to make a U
turn from northbound Galpin to southbound Galpin. Th at’s true you don’t have to but 80% of the people
do so they come out there, whether they have to or not, they do it. The second thing is, I think that I read
it correctly in the traffic study, did it state that the speed limit on 78 th is 30 miles per hour? It’s not. It’s
40 so if that fact is wrong how much else is wrong? My other comments have already been made so that
will do it. Thank you.
Aller: Thank you sir.
Lance Erickson: I just have a question myself. My name is Lance Erickson and I live at 7735 Vasserman
Trail.
Aller: Welcome Mr. Erickson.
Lance Erickson: Thank you. On the traffic study that was done, my question would be they did a lot of
work in terms of the increased traffic that would be on the roads involved in the area. Did that also
include how many of those people in that apartment bu ilding are going to be going into Kwik Trip and to
the CVS pharmacy as well? Each day to get their coffee and their newspaper and fill up with gas and
that type of thing.
Brandon Bourden: I guess in terms of a pass by trip we didn’t directly have those, that fraction of
vehicles turn in directly from that.
Lance Erickson: Okay so I’ve got a hunch that we ’ve got quite a few of the people in our neighborhood
that go to Kwik Trip every day so I wouldn’t be surpri sed if most of, a lot of the people in that apartment
complex there are going to go in and out of Kwik Trip and in and out of CVS. And then if the day ever
comes where the U turns are a problem, and the City is required to tell those businesses that you can only
have that one exit out the back side to West 78 th Street to come around, I don’t know what that effect’s
going to have. Has that ever been asked of those businesses if they would approve that?
Aanenson: Yes, they’ve been, that’s part of the long term looking at that, sure.
Lance Erickson: So they’re on the board with that if they have to?
Aanenson: We’re talking with them about that.
Lance Erickson: Oh, okay. So not quite on board.
Aanenson: Right. Well I guess I’d say, I guess the point we brought at the beginni ng too, if we looked at
this as an office park, I think office park that woul d be there would be doing the same turn movements
during the day and that goes back to the original concep t. We said this is an office park. People would go
there to get coffee on their way into work. They’d stop and get gas so I’m not, we’re trying to compare
apples to apples when we did the first concept review so I’m not sure that, but so we believe some of
those same background would be involved in that so.
Lance Erickson: Understandable. Thank you very much.
Aanenson: Yeah.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2013
20
Aller: Thank you sir.
Steve Sheldon: Hi. I’m Steve Sheldon. I live at 7711 Ridgeview Way. Just you know kind of northwest
of the property.
Aller: Welcome.
Steve Sheldon: Yeah I kind of, just make a couple other comments. I’m not really strongly opposed or
you know, I don’t know if I’m in favor of it either. I’m kind of apathetic but I will kind of say, it wasn’t
really addressed but that intersection with Galpin and 78 th and the pedestrian traffic, one thing I’m aware
of is, you know it’s easier for pedestrians to cross a wide road if there’s a center island and on the north
side of Galpin, or the Galpin on the north side of 78 th there’s no center island there. There is on the, all
the other you know corners there and unfortunately it ’s the north side that pedestrians cross on because
that’s where the sidewalk is and you know I don’t know, it would help. It would help if there was a
center island on that north side there I think for the pedest rians. It’d give them kind of a safe zone to step
up out of away from cars as an alternative. The only other comment that I would, you know if this were
to go forward as proposed and so on, I do appreciat e many of the changes that were made from the
concept . That was just way too bi g and it was going to cause a lot of problems but on that north side, it
would be nice if that was cleaned up a little bit. I mean it’s overgrown with burdock and other weeds and
it’d be nice if there was more trees there. If it was reforested type thing. That would make it a more
appealing conservation area and that’s I guess really my only comments. Thank you.
Aller: Great, thank you.
Aanenson: Can I comment on that one Chairman?
Aller: Yes, please.
Aanenson: Members of the Planning Commission. I think the City’s done other projects along Bluff
Creek, whether remandering. Kind of controlling volume. Erosion and those sort of things so I think we
would, by taking the easement over that property we woul d want to be the jurisdiction that would work to
put those plans in place and work on that but that wo uld certainly be our goal to improve the function and
value of that area. To make it more aesthetically pleasing. That is certainly the City’s long term goal in
that.
Aller: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come fo rward and speak for or against? I think we’ve hit
everyone. Great. Okay, we’ll close the public hearing portion of the meeting and we’re open for
commissioner comments. Any additional questions. Commissioner Hokkanen.
Hokkanen: I’m very concerned about the traffic still as it’s stated now a nd in the future. I appreciate the
project was scaled down. I think it’s much more manageable as it is now but the traffic I’m not
convinced is going to get much worst. I think it’s beco me an issue. You know it’s an issue with a lot of
the residents that we have to keep listening to them an d I’m just concerned. That’s my biggest thing right
now with the increased traffic.
Aller: Comments? Questions?
Weich: I guess I do. As it concerns that corner, whic h appears to be one of the major areas of concern. I
would assume, I guess I shouldn’t but, and I apologize if I’m out of line with my comments. Just stop me
but the City would bear some burden for the safety of that intersection, would it not? As well as the
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2013
21
businesses in that area if it became an issue in the future. Is that some thing that the City addresses? Or
does it have to be addressed with this project I guess is my question.
Aller: I think that’s probably more appropriate question for the city attorney to answer but my opinion
would be that it’s no different than any other inte rsection and that the laws that are out there are
applicable to a person driving and a person crossing the street or a person that has a child with them has
the welfare of the child in their custody a nd care are all going to be applicable.
Weich: Thank you. That’s all.
Aller: Comments? Questions?
Undestad: Yeah, I just have a comment. I know a lo t goes to traffic all the time but I think one of the
things to look at on this project, yeah they did a good job scaling this thing back but I think something to
keep in mind on this one is the number of one bedroom units overall compared to the two and three’s and
what was in there before. Just th e fact that there’s 101 one bedroom units is going to minimize I think
some of the personnel running around and you know about driving in and out of there and I think we just
had a meeting that they talked about who’s looking for these kinds of apartments now and you know the
younger couples here so, I think th e, personally I think you did a go od job scaling it down. Rearranging
on the site. Pulling things in and I’ll say you can, you can never go overboard with trees for screening out
some of that stuff. I think that sidewalk coming out of the back going right down to that intersection, you
know I can understand making an easy walking trip to CV S and things but I’d kind of look hard at that
sidewalk going right out to the intersection there. That’s all I’ve got.
Tennyson: I have more concerns about the traffic then I did the first time around maybe because there
was so much attention paid to it this time and last tim e it was just a given that it would work in my mind.
I like the way the project has been scaled. I agree that the unit mix, the large number of one bedrooms
versus the fewer two bedrooms means that there’s not goi ng to be a whole lot of larger families in this
project and probably not even as many people leaving just based on my own experience. Probably not as
many people leaving at the same time in the morn ing as there would be in a single family communities
where everybody’s going to work for a regular day. I ju st, I would be surprised if they were all leaving at
the same time and coming back at the same time but that doesn’t alleviate the problem I’m having with
the traffic and particularly that U turn which I tend to not do a U turn there. I think it’s a bad idea but
obviously a lot of people do it. Is that anything that can be addressed up front? I guess that’s my
question for staff. Is there any plan to make it a no U turn?
Aanenson: We’re working on that. Trying to solve th at. Again whether, I’m trying to say whether it’s
this project or another project there’s going to be U turns there or for no project so that’s something we
have to look at in a separate, and I think that was back to Steve’s question. That’s something that the City
needs to take some ownership of trying to solve th at problem which we are working on that. I’m not
saying we’re going to solve that toda y but that’s something we need to work on separate from site plan of
any project or any development on that property.
Tennyson: Sure, that makes sense. Thank you.
Aller: Anything else? I was unavailable for the presen tation that was made the other day before the City
Council and the Planning Commission but I did read the report and it indicated that we should be
reviewing programs and partnershi ps that support affordable work place and work force housing and I
think that this is just one of those projects. I look at the traffic and I said the last time, and that’s why I
focused a lot of my questions this time on the traffi c, I’m comfortable with the study that was done. I’m
comfortable with the numbers. I don’t think that th ere is a fix right now for people doing U turns based
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2013
22
on the way that intersection is and I don’t believe in looking at the project that the number of U turns is
going to necessarily increase because of individuals movi ng into the project. I think it’s going to be a
natural consequence of the number of trips on Galpin Boulevard increasing over time, which it’s going to
do as that whole interior area grows and so I think that that’s, that has to be addressed but I don’t think
it’s necessarily something that impacts this particular project enough for me to say that gee, I’m going to
turn down an entire project because th is U turn problem exists. I think it does exists. I know it exists.
I’ve heard from the individuals before us who are b est capable. They live there every day and see that
and so I certainly understand that it exists. I just d on’t think that this project is going to be something
that’s going to increase the risk there, nor do I think th at there is anything that we can do right now to take
it away in looking at this project but I do believe that the City Council and the planning department
should look at trying to resolve that intersection and the tr affic flow in that intersection in the near future.
As to the density, when I closed the hearing on this project last time that was my major concern was the
density and I think they scaled this back almost a third and I think that was a tremendous thing on their
part to do. That they worked with and continually worked with the public in having meetings. Obviously
used the process the way it was intended to be the l ast time where it was a process where we’re supposed
to listen to ideas. Give input that they can take b ack and make a decision on whether or not they want to
scale back and whether they want to change the projec t and then move forward a nd they’ve done that and
I think in looking at this project it will be a good project so I will be supporting it. Any further
comments?
Hokkanen: I agree with what you’re saying Chairman , and we need to address this traffic and I don’t
know how we can do it or ask the City to do it with or without this project. I see you know not tying this
to the project. I think the developer really listene d to the community with their concerns and addressed
most of them but we need to really remember and task the City to fix this traffic issue at that intersection
that will increase with, if this project moves forward so I just want to say that one more time and thank
the developer for making his changes.
Aller: Anything further? I’ll entertain any motions at this time?
Undestad: I’ll make a motion that the Chanh assen Planning Commission recommends the City Council
approves the rezoning of approximately 14 acres fro m Agricultural Estate (A-2) to Planned Unit
Development-Residential (PUD-R); Site Plan review with variances for 155 unit apartment building and a
Land Use Map Amendment from Residential Low Dens ity and Office to Residential Low Density and
High Density and Office; and Residential High De nsity Planned Unit Development (PUD) on property
located on the northwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard. Chanhassen Apartments and
adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation.
Aller: I have a motion. Any discussion? Second?
Tennyson: I’ll second.
Aller: Any discussion on the motion? Okay, I have a motion and a second.
Undestad moved, Tennyson seconded that the Ch anhassen Planning Commission recommends the
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 C ouncil determination of
consistency with system plan.”
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2013
23
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
“Undestad moved, Tennyson seconded that 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 Findin gs of Fact and Recommendation:
1. Adoption of the Chanhassen PUD Ordinance, whic h shall be created to govern the site and
design standards.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
“Undestad moved, Tennyson seconded that 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, whic h 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 st ormwater fee prior to the issuance of
a building permit.
5. Parcel A is provided to the City for mana gement 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 toge ther 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 tr ansferred 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 deve lopable acres of the site and wetland acreage.
8. The wetland delineation re port shall be finalized.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2013
24
9. All existing trees proposed to be saved must be protected with fenci ng during construction or
replaced after construction if damaged or dead.
10. The selections of Colorado spruce must be repl aced 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 re quired 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 revi sed landscape plan wi ll 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 in stalled 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 hour s prior to th e 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 satis factory 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 sepa ration is required between the private watermain and the
private storm sewer crossing.
17. The developer shall submit $5,000 w ith 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 Ch arge (Met SAC) are due with the building
permit at the rate in effect at that time and shall be based on the SA C unit determination per
the Met Council.
20. A “General Permit Authorization to Discharg e Stormwater Associated with Construction
Activity Under the National Pollution Discharg e Elimination” will be required for this
project. Proof of permission fr om the PCA must be provided to the City before grading can
commence.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2013
25
21. A Surface Water Management Plan is required a nd shall be submitted to the City for review
and comment. This plan shall incorporate the required elements of Parts III, IV and
Appendix A of the NPDES permit.
22. Both the Bluff Creek Total Maximum Daily Load Implementation Plan and the NPDES
Permit require that a portion of the Water Quality Volume is infiltrated on-site. The
Stormwater Management Study shall be modi fied to address this requirement and
incorporated into the SWPPP.
23. Because the site discharges to an impaired wa ter, the discharge rates for the one-year design
event must also be equal to or less than th e existing discharge rates. The Stormwater
Management Study shall be modifi ed 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 pr operty north of West 78 th Street is dedicated to the City and that this
density should be transferred to that portion south of West 78 th Street.
25. Sheet C-3 GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PL AN shall be amended to include the
following:
a. The swale draining into the proposed pond shall be stabilized for its en tirety as it is less
than 200 feet in length.
b. An appropriate perimeter BMP shall be s hown 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 th 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 Trans portation will need to review and approve the drainage plan.
27. The applicant shall revise the plans to incor porate sidewalk connections to existing trails.
28. The building plans must be prepared and signe d by design professionals licensed in the State
of Minnesota. A “Code Record” is required (C ode Record schematic plans may be same
scale as architectural). For “Code Record” information go to MN Dept. of Labor and
Industry: http://www.dli.mn.gov/CCLD /PlanConstruction.asp
29. The building(s) must be protected with automatic fire sprinkler systems.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2013
26
30. An accessible route must be provided to buildi ngs, parking facilities, public transportation
stops and all common use facilities.
31. All parking areas, including pa rking garages, must be prov ided 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 wi ll be required. Have
developer contact Fire Marshal fo r exact locations. MSFC Sec. 905.3.9.
35. “ No Parking Fire Lane “ signs will be required. Have develo per contact Fire Marshal for
exact locations. MSFD Sec. 505.3|
36. An additional on site fire hydrant will be required. Contact Fire Marshal for location.
37. A PIV ( post indicator va lve ) will be required.
38. A three-foot clear space must be mainta ined around fire hydrants. MSFC Sec 508.5.4.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Aller: And I would like to just take a moment to thank all the individuals present who came forward and
gave their opinions, both in December and today. I believe that the project was modified in such a
fashion and the changes that were made were a direct result of your input so thank you very much.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Hokkanen noted the verbatim and summary minut es of the Planning Commission meeting dated
March 5, 2013 and the summary minutes of the Pl anning Commission work session meeting dated
April 2, 2013 as presented.
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE.
Aanenson: Thank you Mr. Chair. You did mention, we had the opportunity to have the Urban Land
Institute come in and do the workshop on naviga ting the new normal and between the council and the
Planning Commission. I did include the summary comment s that were presented. I think there was some
good information on that. We are having a joint wo rk session with the City Council and I think we may
talk about a few of those things that were revealed in that meeting. I think it was very productive just
hearing outsiders, residential, commercial, industrial, some of the other leaders. Some of the other
leaders, what they think about their impressions of Chanhassen so I hope the Planning Commission found
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2013
27
it informative, and again just talking about what our strengths are. Kind of being true to ourselves. What
we see as our strengths and again that’s the commercia l core of the downtown, which we’re trying to still
fill in so I think that was very informative. I do have in your packet the City Council update so kind of
what’s going on. The Fretham Addition, the one on Chaska Road got approved. That was back in
February. We haven’t had a regular meeting for a while so on March 11 th we also had the, we modified,
made a change to clarification the Stipulation Ag reement for the Mustard Seed to Halla. We also
considered the non-conforming use performance standard s for Naomi Carlson. Those were approved.
We are continuing to working on the property main tenance. That’s still an ongoing issue for the
neighborhood up there so we are pursuing that. Crossroads was approved at the March 25 th meeting so
that we’ll see as soon as road restrictions, kind of the first part of May. We anticipate that they’ll be in for
a building permit on that. You did recommend approval of that. I think there was a crowd on that one
too. And then we are proceeding with the jurisdictio nal review on that. If I may Mr. Chair, we do just
have some items, kind of scheduling. Looking at the May 7 th , we did not have any applications come in
for that meeting. I was going to try to do a work session but I think we’ll just wait and hold off. We do
anticipate on the 21 st that we will have a couple items on. Most likely The Preserve at Rice Lake. That
was one we looked at. That’s another application of a PUD. Kind of a complex site. That’s got
shoreland regs. Just wetland issues. It’s very comple x so I think we found a way to make that a viable, a
viable site and that’s some of the heavy lifting is kind of on some of these properties now that are moving
forward. Yeah, so I think that’s going to go forward. And that’s a little bit smaller lot. That would be the
11,000 square foot lots. Something like that so come forward with that. And then the other one we may
see is another small lot subdivision on Highway 41. Tw o more lots on that one so we believe those will
both come in this Friday so that would be on for your next meeting. And then we’ve got the joint meeting
with the City Council. That would be May 28 th and that’s actually a Tuesday because the Monday before
is the holiday so I’ll give you some more informati on on that. Typically what we’ve done on that, some
of the things we’ll be working on, I think we’re kind of already in-house talking about a joint tour with
the Environmental and Park Commission again for our fa ll meeting. Try to have hot chocolate this time
so we’ve got a few ideas. One thing we have on ri ght now that we’re talking about is go down with, we
talked about in our work session, the new river crossi ng and that is just moving right along so what we
thought we’d go down and look at some of those properties down along, down County Road 61. Talking
about what’s going to happen down there with th e new river crossing and the Moon Valley site.
Interested in that. One of the other things we were thinking about is the Environmental Commission’s
kind of interested in looking at some of the planti ngs and some of the lakeshore scape along Lake Susan
so, and I know one of the topics they’ll be looking at he re is the shoreland regs and so some of that, so I
think it’d be a good education to kind of go out and look at some of that stuff too so there are a couple
other projects. We put on your items that they’re kind of in different stages of review. We did anticipate
another senior housing project. It was deficient in a few areas so we actually withdrew, asked the
applicant to withdrew that and kind of work through that but we do anticipate a couple of things yet to
come through so with that, the only other thing for business, I did give our new commissioners, not that
the existing commissioners can’t go forward. The gove rnment training service so I was going to go ahead
if they’re interested in rolling that out. I’ll catch you afterwards but we’ll sign those up. I think that’s
another great opportunity to get some training so that’s all I had chairman.
Aller: Just as a side comment on that training. I did it when I first came onto the commission and I
believe several other commissioners were there as well and that’s always helpful so if you can do it and
you intend on doing it, it’s nice if you pick the same session and go as a group and you can discuss the
process.
Aanenson: Yeah, I think they’re talking about a carpool so I think that’d be great if the 3 of them can go
so yeah.
Aller: Great. Anything further? Motion to adjourn?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2013
28
Undestad moved, Tennyson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Th e Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at
9:05 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317