The URL can be used to link to this page

CAS-38_GALPIN CROSSING (TWIN HOME/OFFICE DEVELOPMENT)c , S � � :: �. � I �cF �/ � ,� - a: + �arq'Re\. .`boh'\�\ • F l a r p 6 6IE Q C { § §! � pH , ! @>�4l� • �( " I � I w y U • $S w " w a � i to s Ra M1 `L\ a �.�• � N ^I z c� � _ � ke•.. .. a (ate E3 - '.° Z I U s pg a I z • Y ..f�°s 6 � n d N � � S i 2 in I I i •• T j - i`a$ '^� EYii e' � xjjj g � x r & ty6 B m - - ps��g EmgE. QI g OY E na €€ 5 a `I= OR �a zo Flit !E � th gsIIF:?Fis �..isY: ' I IIIIIIII�i'-VIII d U =o OJO� u ¢ O O vai ` e wee. c m •��=xxLL^ N Nm p Q #1 (i I I P 4 m� I Im o; O 'ace w a'ns/3z• 8 O m m� m fer �ti .e" o esm o ° o X n � B•y O m m ded 00 B 5 •z� 3.1 O OX z I II ¢mw 6 O 0IB 0 0® eP s¢ u 4 \ 0 0 zi O p, O az D O 034 ° oa ua v < O 00 X y ¢ sw z¢ O O La y u u 7 OO 0 Qa s X D O m £u 8 X a S= d m n -mm�4w m o Q_ L 0 % w Z6,S� 00" syad'�.a m u ieti� 0 o U O _m O N e 9I2 'Ybd '3'1 O + 912 'tltld '3'1 w o N r DI U a v s - Com .'t "' W . 22�D' f )P% i r; w i T ,� ra rr- c rr, 100 50 0 100 Feet i Q1 a L' 2005 RYAN ENGINEERING, B��FF CREEK Z SE TSACK UNfSt wFR EASEMENT "' � \ N PARCEL A > ( 2(6.097 Acres) ) . (6.097 Acres) I MANENT MNa TJ I / � ` ORA1 ASEM T 10\PERMANENT MNpOT� a GENERAL INFORMATION L — -- _— — -- —_ /� / _ pR EA MEN Q SgNilgRY 2 PARCEL A: PROPOSED TININHOME5 AT 11 DU/ACRE m� \ fA ENr ho PARCEL B: PROPOSED OFFICES AND BANK U5E5 �—� 2 STORY CONSTRUCTION (24'-26' HEIGHT) 3 2 m LEGEND Sanitary Sewer WATER HYD. W/VALVE STORM SEWER [7:Z0]:Zoby0s] SANITARY SEWER —4 WATER — I HYD. W/VALVE —1—«} STORM SEWER —N � I S�SePUK r 206.78 `ORIGINAL BOUNDARY PER DESCRIPTION 3 N 81'57' 45.38 W .�„ ,. 1B N Ban a07 W av,. G CVS PHARMLC'' 01 2 1 rvRTH UNE OF THE NW 1/4 THE NW 1/4 Or SEC 15 TRUIWC SWAY NO. 5 —_- CON`:ENEI=4CE STORE PARCEL A ZONING CODE: CHANHASSEN ZONING ORDINANCE CLA551FICATION: RSF - LOW DENSITY RES. (PROP05ED) LOT AREA: 6.09 ACRES (PARCEL A) GENERAL NOTES: PROPOSED TAINHOME5 51MILAR TO PROPERTY TO THE WEST LOA DENSITY 1.1 DU / ACRE PARCEL B ZONING CODE: CLA551FICATION: LOT AREA: BUILDING SETBACKS: PARKING 5ET13ACK5: PARKING DIMENSIONS: CHANHA55EN ZONING ORDINANCE BN BUSINESS NEIGHBORHOOD (PROPOSED) 1.85 ACRES (PARCEL B) FRONT 35 FT. 51DE 15 FT, REAR 35 FT, FRONT 35 FT. SIDE 15 FT REAR 55 FT. STAI-Lo AISLE: 26-0" 1 BAY: 62'-O" GENERAL NOTES: SPECIAL OVER-RIDING "BUFFER" SETBACK AGAINST RESIDENTIALLY ZONED NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. SEE ZONING CODE 5EC.20-645e. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: LOT AREA SF: 342,168 EST. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: 2230015 (65%) PARKING USE 51ZE REQUIRED PER CODE PROVIDED BANK 2ND STY. OFF 5,000 S.F. 5,000 S.F. 20 STALLS (1/250 S.Fd 25 5TALL-5 (5/1000 5.F) 211 STALLS OFFICE #1 10,000 S.F. 50 STALLS (5/IOOO 5.F.) OFFICE #2 10,000 S.F. 50 STALLS (5/1000 5.F.) OFFICE #3 12,000 S.F. 60 STALLS (5/1000 5.F.) OFFICE #4 24,000 S.F. 120 STALLS (5/1000 5.F.) 126 STALLS TOTAL 66,000 S.F. 525 STALLS 341 STALLS 6R055 FLOOR AREA RATIO = 66,000 / 342,168 = 19.3% !U tied n • 0' 60' 120' 180 Ryan Engineerinc LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVIC 434 Lake Street Excelsior, MN 55331 (952) 380-5000 www.ryanengineering.com I hereby certify that this plan, specificat or report was prepared by me or under direct supervision and that I am a duly registered Engineer under the lows of th State of Minnesota. 1-ignoture Registration No. Date GALPIN CROSSING Chanhassen, MN for MEPIC DEVELOPMENT, LL( Project No. Digital Drawing Name gslpin-prelim-layout-1dwg Drown Sy GLG Checked By n, rF PMR 10/6/05 Issued For Date Schematic Design Design Development Preliminary Review _ Final Review Bidding _ Construction Concept P I QDF CHANHASSEN jtECEWED OCT 1 7 2005 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Page CP -1 2005 RYAN ENGINEERING, IW' �� BLUFF CREEK SETBACK LINE EWER SE=ENT PARCEL A 265.595 Sq. Ft. \ (6.097 Acres) I L _ _ I J 7 9 10 J 4 S MEME. 2 / 1 JP i 2 -STY ri OFFICE +I 5,000 5F / FLR. g yo e .F B \ 4 { Sq. Ft. - \ � 8 Acres)) , 0 1 � PATIO FOUNTAIN LEGEND Sanitary Sewer SANITARY SEWER —4 WATER WATER — I HYD. W/VALVE HYD. W/VALVE STORM SEWER STORM SEWER —N 2-5TY OFFICE 02 5,000 5F / FLR. Q � \ / ORA MANENTN'p TJ \ PERMANENT NT� b- ^ pR EASEMENT 0 SghiTgRy \ =nT SFWE-R `\ \ egSf Xely \,"a WEST 78 s7p� �. -_ 'v 87'57'07" W 45.38 N E .. . . • 7'41" 740.35 35' SETBACK pgAN[^Moor,_ 12 2 -STY OFFICE 04 12,000 5F I FLR LL5 28 5UTATA ( Z b C/ 8 2 -STY OFFICE $5 6,000 5F / FLR. '3'35'S�"r �L =� 206.78 \ \ ORIGINAL BOUNDARY PER DESCRIPTION 268.22 J .pv y0 .\03' TRUING fft4ftY No. 5 /r r \�ORiH LWE OF F.� GENERAL INFORMATIONg PARCEL A: PROPOSED TWINHOME5 AT 1.7 DU/ACRE PARCEL 8: PROPOSED OFFICES AND BANK USES 2 STORY CONSTRUCTION (24'-26HEIGHT) PARCEL A ZONING CODE: CHANHASSEN ZONIN6 ORDINANCE CLA551FICATION: RSF - LOW DENSITY RE5. (PROPOSED) LOT AREA: b.Oq ACRES (PARCEL A) GENERAL NOTES: PROPOSED TWINHOME5 SIMILAR 1 BAY: TO PROPERTY TO THE WE5T 10,000 S.F. LOW DENSITY OFFICE #2 1.7 DU / ACRE PARCEL B ZONING CODE: CLASSIFICATION: LOT AREA: BUILDING SETBACKS: PARKING SETBACKS: PARKIN& DIMENSIONS: CHANHASSEN ZONIN6 ORDINANCE BN BUSINESS NEI6HBORHOOD (PROPOSED) 1.85 ACRES (PARCEL B) FRONT 35 FT. SIDE 15 FT. REAR 35 FT. FRONT 35 FT. SIDE 15 FT. REAR 35 FT. STALL: I'-O"xIa'-O" A15LE: 26'-0" 1 BAY: GENERAL NOTES: SPECIAL OVER-RIDING "BUFFER" SETBACK A&AIN5T RESIDENTIALLY ZONED NEIGHBORING PROPERTIE5. SEE ZONING CODE SEC.20-64!5e. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: LOT AREA 5F: 342,768 EST. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: 223,8415 (65%) PARKING USE 51ZE REQUIRED PER CODE PROVIDED BANK 2ND STY. OFF 5,000 S.F. 5,000 5.F. 20 STALLS (1/250 5.F) 25 5TALL5 (5/1000 S.F.) 271 STALLS OFFICE #I 10,000 S.F. 50 STALLS (5/1000 5.F.) OFFICE #2 10,000 S.F. 50 STALLS (5/1000 S.F.) OFFICE #3 12,000 S.F. 60 STALLS (5/1000 S.F.) OFFICE #4 24,000 S.F. 120 STALLS (5/1000 S.F.) 126 STALLS TOTAL 66,000 5.F. 325 STALLS 3q-1 STALLS &ROSS FLOOR AREA RATIO = 66,000 / 342,768 = Iq.3% 0' 60 120' 180' R7 anr Engineerin( LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICI 434 Lake Street Excelsior, MN 55331 (952) 380-5000 www.ryanongineering.com I hereby certify that this plan, specificat or report was prepared by me or under direct supervision and that I am a duly registered Engineer under the laws of th State of Minnesota, Signature Registration No. Date GALPIN CROSSING Chanhassen, MN for MEPIC DEVELOPMENT, LLC Project No Digital Drawing Nome galpin-preGm-layout-1.dwg Drown By GLG Checked By PMR Dote 10/6/05 Re wstons Issued For: _ Date: Schematic Design Design Development . Preliminary Review Final Review Bidding Construction Concept Plan CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED OCT 1 7 2005 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Page CP Building Inspections Phone: 952.227 1180 The applicant, Epic Development, has prepared a concept PUD for a ten -unit twin • • home development on the north side of West 78th Street and five, two-story office Engineering buildings development, including a bank with drive-thru facilities, with Phone: 952227.1160 MEMORANDUM Fax: 952.227 1170 TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager CITY OF FROM: Bob Generous, Senior Planner CHANHASSEN the site. Park It Recreation Staff recommends adoption of the motion as specified on pages 9-12 in the staff DATE: December 12, 2005 V p 7780 Market Boulevard k P8 Box 147 SUBJ: Concept PUD Approval — Galpin Crossing Chanhassen, MN 55317 PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY Planning Case #05-38 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952227.1110 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Building Inspections Phone: 952.227 1180 The applicant, Epic Development, has prepared a concept PUD for a ten -unit twin Fax: 952.227.1190 home development on the north side of West 78th Street and five, two-story office Engineering buildings development, including a bank with drive-thru facilities, with Phone: 952227.1160 approximately 66,000 square feet of floor area. Staff is recommending that we Fax: 952.227 1170 add a condition requiring the applicant to wait to submit for the next phase of Finance review until the Retail Market Study being initiated by the City is complete. The Phone: 952.227.1140 recommendations of the study should be incorporated into any future rezoning of Fax: 952.227.1110 the site. Park It Recreation Staff recommends adoption of the motion as specified on pages 9-12 in the staff Phone: 952.227.1120 ACTION REQUIRED Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center City Council approval requires a 4/5`s vote of the entire City Council. 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY Planning a The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 15, 2005, to review Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 the proposed development. The Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 to approve the Fax 952.227.1110 proposed PUD concept for the project with the list of issues specified in the staff report. The verbatim and summary minutes of the November 15, 2005 Planning Public works 1591 Park Road Commission are item la of the December 12, 2005 City Council packet. Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 RECOMMENDATION Senior Center Phone: 952.2271125 Staff recommends adoption of the motion as specified on pages 9-12 in the staff Fax 952227.1110 report dated November 15, 2005. Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Dave and Lori Moser to Bob Generous dated 11/12/05. 2. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated November 15, 2005. gAplan\2005 planning cases\05-38 galpin cro sing\executive sunuuary.dw The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A geat place to live, work, and play. 0 11-12-05 To; Bob Generous, Senior Planner, City of Chanhassen, MN From; Dave and Lori Moser, 7632 Ridgeview Way, Chanhassen, MN Subject; Galpin Crossing, Planning file 05-38 Bob; Thanks for taking the time earlier this week to review the proposed concept plan of Galpin Crossing. I am traveling on business next week and unable to attend the November 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission meeting, however I would like to have our thoughts on the proposal read at the meeting. Our family moved to Chanhassen in May 2004 based on the recommendations of family, friends, and Real Estate professionals. Our decision was based on the school system, services, along with the unique character and esthetics of the community. We are in support of intelligent planned smart growth and appreciate the opportunity to participate in the process to build and preserve the uniqueness of the Chanhassen community. Our interests in this, and all future projects in the area include; - Maintain the existing natural flow and distribution of water in the Bluff Creek wetlands. o This basin has filled twice in the past year during heavy rains, overtopping the pedestrian path - Attract businesses that fulfill the needs and esthetics of the community o We seem to have a sufficient number of banks and office space, the though of an urgent care center seems appropriate given the proximity to Bluff Creek Elementary - Preserve and maintain the unique wildlife refuge provided by the wetlands o We see deer, fox, and pheasants on a regular basis - Support property values o Our decision to purchase our lot at a premium was based on privacy, view of wetlands, and knowledge that no future development can take place in the wetlands o Any future development that may be allowed adjacent to the wetlands should consider landscaping and berms to minimize any visual impact to the wetlands panorama Smooth traffic patterns o We have a current traffic hazard from people exiting from the convenience/CVS store onto Gapin northbound, then U turning onto Galpin southbound at W 780' St. Manage the ratio of tax base revenue to services required o Attract higher value single family homeowners We and other concerned neighbors look forward to supporting a plan that accommodates these issues, and also to hear about the plans listed on the future planning commission agenda for the Bentz property. 11 CITY OF CHANHASSEN STAFF REPORT PC DW 11/15/05 [2] CC DATE: 12/12/05 REVIEW DEADLINE: December 16, 2005 CASE #: 05-38 BY: RG, LH, ML, AM, JS, ST PROPOSAL: Request for Concept Planned Unit Development approval for a 10 -unit twin home project and a 66,000 square -foot office development - GALPIN CROSSING. LOCATION: Northwest corner of the intersection of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard APPLICANT: Epic Development John Przymus 9820 Skylane 12174 176th Avenue Eden Prairie, MN 55347 Villard, MN 56385 (612) 730-2814 PRESENT ZONING: Agricultural Estate District, A2 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential — Low Density ACREAGE: 13.94 acres DENSITY: 1.64 units/acre gross; F. A. R. 0.19 SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant in proposing a Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a 10 -unit twin home project and a 66,000 square -foot office development. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving PUD's because the City is acting in its legislative or policy making capacity. A rezoning or PUD, and amendment thereto, must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 0 Location Map Galpin Crossing Concept PUD Planning Case No. 05-38 NW Corner Highway 5 & Galpin Blvd. City of Chanhassen SUBJECT PROPERTY If g 5 Arboretum go vV 78-r S— ee ulevard SCANNED Galpin Crossing • Planning Case No. 05-38 November 15, 2005 Page 2 of 12 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant, Epic Development, has prepared a concept PUD for a 10 -unit twin home development on the north side of West 78`s Street and five, two-story office building development including a bank with drive-thru facilities with approximately 66,000 square feet of floor area. Development of the southern parcel with anything other than low density residential uses will require a comprehensive plan amendment. The northern site (Parcel A) has a gross area of 6.09 acres. The southern site (Parcel B) has a gross area of 7.85 acres. Approval of the concept plan shall not obligate the city to approve the final plan or any part thereof, or to rezone the property to a planned unit development district. Rather, it provides a general framework to precede with the preliminary development plans on the project. The conditions identify specific areas of investigation that must be undertaken in furtherance of the project. Staff is recommending that the concept plan be approved subject to the recommendations contained in the staff report. BACKGROUND On October 13, 2003, the Chanhassen City Council approved the Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) review for development of a recreational center or office on the eight (8) acres south of West 78`s Street. The land north of West 78"' Street, which was proposed for townhouse development, was not approved as part of the concept planned unit development. In 2000 and 2001, West 78`s Street was constructed through the property, bisecting it into six and eight - acre parcels. Additionally, the city extended sanitary sewer for the BC -7 and BC -8 sanitary sewer subdistricts across the northern portion of the property. December 12, 1998, the Chanhassen City Council adopts the Bluff Creek Overlay District. December 1996, Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan is completed. 1996, City Council adopts the Land Uses for the North 1995 Study Area, guiding this property for residential — low density use. In August 1995, the Highway 5 Corridor Land Use Design Study was completed. The bulk of the area was recommended for single-family residential. A portion of the Mills property (Arboretum Village site) was recommended for neighborhood convenience retail center, but only ancillary to office, institutional or multi -family residential. Highway 5 Corridor Design Standards adopted July 11, 1994. As part of the 1991 Comprehensive Plan, this property was included as part of the 1995 study area for determination of the land use of the property. Galpin Crossing Planning Case No. 05-38 November 15, 2005 Page 3 of 12 On February 12, 1990, the Chanhassen City Council approved a zoning ordinance amendment making golf driving ranges interim uses in the A2 district. On November 16, 1987, the Chanhassen City Council approved a zoning ordinance amendment to permit golf driving ranges as a conditional use in the A2 zoning district and a conditional use permit for John Przymus for a golf driving range and miniature golf course at the subject property. On November 4, 1985, the Chanhassen City Council revoked the conditional use permit for a golf driving range at the northwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard due to non-compliance with the conditions of the conditional use permit. On December 19, 1983, the Chanhassen City Council approved a conditional use permit for a golf driving range at the northwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Blvd. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 18 Subdivisions Chapter 20, Article D, Division 2, Amendments Chapter 20, Article II, Division 6, Site Plan Review Chapter 20, Article IV, Conditional Use Permits Chapter 20, Article VI, Wetland Protection Chapter 20, Article VII, Shoreline Management Chapter 20, Article VIII, Planned Unit Development District Chapter 20, Article XXIH, Division 7, Design Standards for Commercial, Industrial and Office Development District Chapter 20, Article XXIX, Highway Corridor District Chapter 20, Article XXXI, Bluff Creek Overlay District PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT The applicant is requesting concept PUD for a 10 -unit twin home development and a 66,000 square - foot, five -building office complex. Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD in this instance is to create an office complex development and a twin -home development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the City has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the other more standard zoning districts. The proposed development provides a compatible development with the surrounding development, provides a transition of uses from the highway to the residential development to the north and preserves the Bluff Creek corridor. The proposed concept PUD assists in the furtherance of the following land use policies of the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan: Galpin Crossing • Planning Case No. 05-38 November 15, 2005 Page 4 of 12 • Chanhassen will strive for a mixture of development which will assure its financial well being. • Development will be encouraged within the MUSA line. • Encourage low density residential development in appropriate areas of the community in a manner that reinforces the character and integrity of existing single-family neighborhoods (the proposed twin homes would continue the development of twin homes in the southeast corner of the Vasserman Ridge development to the west of the site). • The plan should seek to establish sufficient land to provide a full range of housing opportunities. • The city will seek opportunities to provide transitions between different uses of different types. • The city will encourage the development of neighborhood service centers where appropriate. These will be developed as part of a mixed used development or a PUD. • Development should be phased in accordance with the ability of the city to provide services. The proposed concept PUD assists in the furtherance of the following housing policies of the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan: • A balanced housing supply with housing available for people of all income levels. • A variety of housing types for people in all stages of the life cycle. • Housing development that respects the natural environment of the community while striving to accommodate the need for a variety of housing types and costs. DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS As part of the preliminary development stage of the project, development design standards will be developed. This will include such items as uses, setbacks, building heights, building orientation, signage, landscaping and site furnishing, etc The following building and parking setbacks will be incorporated in the design standards: 70 feet from Highway 5, 50 feet from West 78"' Street and Galpin Boulevard, 20 feet from private street easements, 40 feet from the Bluff Creek primary zone boundary and wetland buffer edge and 30 feet from the western project perimeter. Hard surface coverage for the twin homes would be limited to 30 percent per lot. Hard coverage for the office sites is being proposed at 65 percent. Hard coverage for the office sites can be averaged over all of Parcel B. �. Galpin Crossing 0 Planning Case No. 05-38 November 15, 2005 Page 5 of 12 The city is undertaking a market study to determine the need for additional commercial and office development within the community. This study will evaluate if there is additional need for commercial uses and the appropriate location for such uses. Initially, staff believes that if the concept plan is approved, the uses in this development shall be limited to banks with drive-through, medical offices and/or clinics, and offices. However, retail commercial uses are not appropriate for this location. The proposed development will ultimately require subdivision review. At the next stage of development review, a preliminary plat for the project will need to be prepared in compliance with Chapter 18 of the Chanhassen City Code. All of the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone should be included as an Outlot. STREETS AND ACCESS Access to the office site is proposed via a right-in/right-out on Galpin Boulevard and full access via West 78'" Street. It appears that internal access to both the twin homes and office development would be via private streets. Private street easements are 30 feet with a 20 -foot pavement width for the twin homes and 40 feet with a 26 -foot pavement width for the offices. Staff recommends that a traffic study be completed for the proposed development should the Planning Commission and City Council support the proposed office/bank uses on the south side of West 78"' Street. The study must address the right-in/right-out access at Galpin, particularly if traffic exiting the site getting in the left turn lane at the Highway 5 intersection will conflict with vehicles entering the right turn lane to the Highway 5 intersection. The study must also address internal traffic circulation and provide recommendations for the minimum stacking distances from the common drive for access to the individual building sites. The Fire Marshall shall determine if the proposed cul-de-sac north of West 78`s Street must be a minimum 91 feet in diameter to accommodate the turning movement of a fire truck UTILITIES City sewer and water is available to the site. A preliminary utility plan would be required as part of any future development review. GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL A preliminary grading, drainage and erosion control plan must be prepared. The plan does not identify any ponds within the development. The developer indicated that they would like to expand MNDOT's pond to the west to accommodate water quality and quantity requirements for the site. Staff recommends that the developer contact MNDOT as soon as possible to discuss this possibility before proceeding with the preliminary plans. Epic Development should be aware that MNDOT rejected another developer's proposal to expand a MNDOT pond in the 212 corridor. Galpin Crossing • Planning Case No. 05-38 November 15, 2005 Page 6 of 12 Storm Water Management No storm water management facilities are currently proposed on-site. The proposed development is required to maintain existing runoff rates and meet National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. Storm water calculations should be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water pond is sized adequately for the proposed development. Easements Drainage and utility easements (minimum 20 feet in width) should be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas and storm water ponds. Erosion and Sediment Control Erosion and sediment control measures will be required in accordance with Chanhassen City Code and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's (MPCA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Construction Permit. The contractor must secure an NPDES Phase II Construction Permit prior to beginning work on the project. Surface Water Management Fees This project will be subject to Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) connection charges for water quality and water quantity. These charges are a function of the proposed land use as well as the size of the property in acres. Water quality credit is available for providing on-site water quality treatment of storm water. Other Agencies The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley - Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase ll Construction Site Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Army Corps of Engineers, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Department of Health) and comply with their conditions of approval. WETLANDS Existing Wetlands Three ag/urban wetlands exist on-site. Schoell & Madson, Inc. delineated the wetlands in June 2003. Basin I is a Type 2 wetland located in the west -central portion of the property south of West 78t' Street. The wetland is dominated by reed canary grass and narrow leaf cattail. Basin 2 is a Type 2 wetland located in the west -central portion of the property, north of West 78h Street. The wetland is dominated by reed canary grass and smartweed. Galpin Crossing • • Planning Case No. 05-38 November 15, 2005 Page 7 of 12 Basin 3 is a Type 2 wetland located in the northern portion of the property. The wetland is dominated by reed canary grass, smartweed, trembling aspen and box elder. On August 29, 2003, City staff issued a Notice of Wetland Conservation Act Decision for a wetland exemption for Basins 1 and 2. Aerial photography was reviewed by the City and the wetland basins on either side of West 78th Street were not present prior to the construction of West 78t' Street. The wetlands were found to be a result of blockage of drainage along the south side of West 78th Street and concentration of runoff on the downstream (north) end of the culvert under West 78th Street. Wetland Replacement If non-exempt wetland impact is proposed, wetland replacement must occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The City must approve a wetland replacement plan prior to wetland impacts occurring. A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) must be maintained around Wetland 3 and any required wetland mitigation areas. Wetland buffer areas should be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant must install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign. All structures must maintain a setback of at least 40 feet from the wetland buffer edge. BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT The City of Chanhassen established the Bluff Creek Overlay District by ordinance in 1998 to protect the Bluff Creek Corridor, wetlands, bluffs and significant stands of mature trees through the use of careful site design and other low -impact practices. This parcel is partially encumbered by the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The primary and secondary corridor boundaries and the 40 -foot setback from the primary corridor are not shown on the plans. The plans should be revised to show the primary and secondary corridors and the setback. No alterations are allowed within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet of the setback from the primary corridor. The grading plan should be revised to eliminate alterations within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet of the setback from the primary corridor. All structures must meet the 40 -foot setback from the primary corridor. The plans should be revised to show the ordinary high water level (OHW) for Bluff Creek, as well as the required 50 -foot setback from the OHW. The goals set forth in the Bluff Creek Watershed Resources Management Plan (BCWNRMP) for the Lowlands Region are to be incorporated in the further development of the plan. Due to the location of the site in areas of wet soils, soil borings should be taken to determine the suitability of the site for development. Galpin Crossing • • Planning Case No. 05-38 November 15, 2005 Page 8 of 12 LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION The following landscape and tree preservation issues are applicable to the Galpin Crossings site: Parcel A • Show Bluff Creek Primary Zone and setbacks. • Habitat restoration/enhancement around wetland and Bluff Creek. • Tree preservation calculations and landscape plan including reforestation and bufferyard plantings. • Show existing trees outside of Primary Zone on landscape plan. Parcel B • No overstory trees allowed under overhead utility lines. • Show overhead utility lines on landscape plan. • Tree preservation calculations and landscape plan including reforestation and bufferyard plantings. • Meet parking lot landscape requirements. • Meet bufferyard landscape requirements. Show existing boulevard trees along West 78th Street on landscape plan. PARKS AND RECREATION PARKS The property is situated within the park service areas of Sugarbush Neighborhood Park and the Chanhassen Recreation Center, a community park facility. No additional parkland dedication is required as a part of the Galpin Crossing proposal. TRAILS Two segments of the city's comprehensive trail plan are adjacent to and service the proposed development area—the West 78 Street trail and Galpin Boulevard trail. Internal sidewalk and trail connectors leading to these existing amenities should be made a condition of the approval of Galpin Crossing. In the absence of parkland dedication, it is recommended that Galpin Crossing pay full park dedication fees at the rate in force upon final platting. At today's rates, these fees would total $118,500 (10 units @ $4,000 each plus 7.85 acres @ $10,000 each). GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE The development will need to comply with the development design standards to be developed as part of the preliminary and final development plan for the Galpin Crossing Planned Unit Development. It appears that the development proposes limiting building heights to two stories. Galpin Crossing Planning Case No. 05-38 November 15, 2005 Page 9 of 12 Staff is concerned that the applicant is proposing the use of five office buildings. Building square footages should be consolidated in a maximum of three building pads. This should permit additional pedestrian and green space to be incorporated within the project. The development should also provide pedestrian connections from the interior of the project to the trail system on West 78`s Street and Galpin Boulevard. The applicant has proposed the use of interconnections between the building sites' parking areas. Staff supports this type of parking lot design. Cross access easements and cross parking agreements will be required of the development sites. The concept plan over -parks the proposed development by approximately 70 parking spaces. Staff recommends that the developer look at providing an opportunity for creating shared parking, through the appropriate selection of site users, to reduce the amount of parking within the development. MISCELLANEOUS The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss property line issues as well as plan review and permit procedures. The location of property lines will have an impact on the code requirements for the proposed buildings, including but not limited to, allowable size and fire -resistive construction. The plans as submitted do not have the information necessary to determine compliance at this time. The commercial buildings are required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. A demolition permit must be obtained before beginning demolition of any existing structures. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning Commission recommends that the City adopt the following motion and adoption of the attached findings of fact and recommendation: "The ChanhassenCity Council approves the concept planned unit development egpr®val for a twin home and office development project located at the northwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard subject to addressing the following issues as part of the next phase of development review: 1. Development will require a land use amendment from residential to office for the southern eight acres, conditional use permit for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District, preliminary Planned Unit Development, site plan review, and subdivision review with a variance for the private street. 2. The development needs to comply with the design standards for commercial, industrial and office institutional developments. Additional building detail needs to be provided to ascertain the quality of the proposed development. 3. Planned Unit Developments require that development design standards be developed for the project. Galpin Crossing • • Planning Case No. 05-38 November 15, 2005 Page 10 of 12 4. The following building and parking setbacks will be incorporated in the design standards: 70 feet from Highway 5, 50 feet from West 78th Street and Galpin Boulevard, 25 feet from private streets, 30 feet from the western property line, 50 feet from Bluff Creek, 40 feet from the Bluff Creek Overlay district primary zone boundary and 40 feet from the wetland buffer edge. 5. Reduce the number of building sites proposed on parcel B. 6. Verify that all buildings would comply with the proposed and required setbacks. 7. The goals set forth in the Bluff Creek Watershed Resources Management Plan (BCWNRMP) for the Lowlands Region are to be incorporated in the further development of the plan. 8. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds. 9. A preliminary grading plan must be prepared. 10. A preliminary utility plan must be prepared. 11. The applicant must provide storm water calculations for any proposed subdivision. The development will need to provide storm water ponding on site for treatment prior to discharge into the wetlands or creek. The development must meet pre -development runoff rates for the 10 year and 100 year storm. On site storm water ponding must be sufficient to meet all city water quality and quantity standards. 12. Erosion and sediment control measures will be required in accordance with Chanhassen City Code and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's (MPCA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase H Construction Permit. Type H silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all wetland fill areas, areas to be preserved as buffer or if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge. 13. This project will be subject to Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) connection charges for water quality and water quantity. 14. A MnDOT and Carver County permit will be required for access to the site. 15. The applicant will need to submit a survey showing existing trees and woodlands along with canopy coverage calculations and proposed reforestation. 16. The applicant will be required to pay park fees pursuant to city ordinance. 17. The applicant will need to provide pedestrian connections internally between the buildings and from the site to adjacent trails and sidewalks. Galpin Crossing • • Planning Case No. 05-38 November 15, 2005 Page 11 of 12 18. A wetland buffer 16.5 feet in width must be maintained around the wetland basin. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the city's wetland ordinance. The applicant must install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of city staff, before construction begins and must pay the city $20 per sign. All structures shall maintain a 40 foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. The grading and erosion control plan shall show the actual wetland buffer widths proposed to meet the minimum average buffer width requirements as well as the 40 foot wetland buffer setback. 19. The Bluff Creek corridor primary zone boundary and required buffer and setback will need to be incorporated on the plans. 20. All of the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone should be included as an Outlot. 21. The Bluff Creek corridor primary zone boundary and the required setback shall be indicated on the grading plan. 22. The development will require a landscaping plan. Staff recommends that significant landscape screening and berming be incorporated along Highway 5 as well as West 78th Street. 23. The developer will need to locate all significant trees on the site and provide a calculation of existing canopy coverage as well as proposed tree removal. 24. The following landscape and tree preservation issues are applicable to the Galpin Crossings site: Parcel A • Show Bluff Creek Primary Zone and setbacks. • Habitat restoration/enhancement around wetland and Bluff Creek. • Tree preservation calculations and landscape plan including reforestation and bufferyard plantings. • Show existing trees outside of Primary Zone on landscape plan. Parcel B • No overstory trees allowed under overhead utility lines. • Show overhead utility lines on landscape plan. • Tree preservation calculations and landscape plan including reforestation and bufferyard plantings. Meet parking lot landscape requirements. • Meet bufferyard landscape requirements. Show existing boulevard trees along West 78th Street on landscape plan. 25. Galpin Crossing shall pay full park dedication fees at the rate in force upon final platting. 26. The commercial buildings are required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. 27. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. Galpin Crossing • Planning Case No. 05-38 November 15, 2005 Page 12 of 12 28. A demolition permit must be obtained before beginning demolition of any existing structures. 29. The location of property lines will have an impact on the code requirements for the proposed buildings, including but not limited to; allowable size and fire -resistive construction. The plans as submitted do not have the information necessary to determine compliance at this time. 30. The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss property line issues as well as plan review and permit procedures. 31. The developer shall have soil borings made to determine the suitability of the site for development. 32. A traffic study shall be completed for the proposed development. 33. The applicant shall not submit for preliminary review until the Retail Market Study has been completed by the City. " ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Recommendation. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Reduced Copy Concept Plan. 4. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List. gAplan\2005 planning cases\05-38 galpin crossing\staff report concept pud.doc 0 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of Epic Development for Concept Planned Unit Development approval — Planning Case No. 05-38. On November 15, 2005, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Epic Development for Concept Planned Unit Development approval for a 10 -unit twin home project and a 66,000 square -foot office development property located at the northwest comer of Galpin Boulevard and Highway 5. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed Planned Unit Development preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential — Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: (see attached Exhibit A for Parcels A and B) 4. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed PUD. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are: a) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. b) The proposed use is or will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. c) The proposed use will conform with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. d) The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. e) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. 0 0 f) Traffic generation by the proposed use must be determined to be within capabilities of streets serving the property. 5. The planning report #05-38 dated November 15, 2005, prepared by Robert Generous, et al, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Concept Planned Unit Development. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 15`s day of November, 2005. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION VW Its Chairman g:Ap1an\2005 planning ca \05-38 galpin crossing\findings of factdoc 0 PARCEL A: 0 That part of the southwest Quarter of the southwest Quarter of section 10, Township 116, Range 23 and the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of scction 15, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of said section 10; thence on as assumed bearing of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds west along the West line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1026.89 feet; thence south 79 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 177.77 feet; thence south 86 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 100.40 feet; thence south 78 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 194.14 feet; thence south 74 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 150.00 feet; thence south 47 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 75.43 feet; thence North 82 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds East, a distance of 74.98 feet; thence south 58 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 84.58 feet; thence south 89 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 164.63 feet; thence south 18 degrees 17 minutes 40 seconds west, a distance of 824.19 feet to the northerly right of way line of Trunk Highway 5; thence North -85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 33.08 feet; thence south 56 degrees 40 minutes 55 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 158.95 feet; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 518.22 feet to the west line of the Northwest Quarter of section 15, Township 116, Range 23; thence North 1 degree 37 minutes 50 seconds West along said west line of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 9.12 feet to the point of beginning. which lies northwesterly of that particular northwesterly right-of-way line of Parcel 216, as shown on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-08, recorded as Document No. 265755 and as amended on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-14, recorded as Document NO. 279658, described as follows: commencing at the southwest corner of said section 10; thence on an assumed bearing of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds west, along the west line of the Southwest Quarter of said section 10, a distance of 401.19 feet, to a particular right-of-way line of said parcel 216 and the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 47 degrees 18 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 175.14 feet, to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 47 degrees 18 minutes 19 seconds East a distance of 22.71 feet, to a point of curvature in said right-of-way line; thence easterly a distance of 662.60 feet, along a non-tangential curve concave to the south having a radius of 633.04 feet and a central angle of 59 degrees 58 minutes 14 seconds and having a chord of 632.76 feet which bears North 77 degrees 17 minutes 27 seconds East to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 56 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds East, not tangent to said curve a distance of 114.28 feet, to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 22 degrees 13 minutes 10 seconds East, along said right-of-way line, a distance of 116.13 feet and said line there terminating. 91 0 PARCEL B: 0 That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of section 10, Township 116, Range 23 and the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest comer of said section 10; thence on as assumed bearing of North I degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West along the West line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1026.89 feet; thence south 79 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 177.77 feet; thence South 86 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 100.40 feet; thence south 78 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 194.14 feet; thence South 74 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 150.00 feet; thence south 47 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 75.43 feet; thence North 82 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds East, a distance of 74.98 feet; thence South 58 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 84.58 feet; thence south 89 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 164.63 feet; thence south 18 degrees 17 minutes 40 seconds West, a distance of 824.19 feet to the northerly right of way line of Trunk Highway 5; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 33.08 feet; thence South 56 degrees 40 minutes 55 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 158.95 feet; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 518.22 feet to the west line of the Northwest Quarter of section 15, Township 116, Range 23; thence North 1 degree 37 minutes 50 seconds West along said west line of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 9.12 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPT that part of the above described property which lies northwesterly of that particular northwesterly right-of-way line of Parcel 216, as shown on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-08, recorded as Document No. 265755 and as amended on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-14, recorded as Document NO. 279658, described as follows: commencing at the southwest corner of said section 10; thence on an assumed bearing of North 1 de9ree 56 minutes 40 seconds West, along the west line of the Southwest Quarter of sald section 10, a distance of 401.19 feet, to a particular right-of-way line of said Parcel 216 and the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 47 degrees 18 mintues 16 seconds East a distance of 175.14 feet, to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 47 degrees 18 minutes 19 seconds East a distance of 22.71 feet, to a point of curvature in said right-of-way line; thence easterly a distance of 662.60 feet, along a non-tangential curve concave to the south having a radius of 633.04 feet and a central angle of 59 degrees 58 minutes 14 seconds and having a chord of 632.76 feet which bears North 77 degrees 17 mintues 27 seconds East to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 56 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds East, not tangent to said curve a distance of 114.28 feet, to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 22 degrees 13 minutes 10 seconds East, along said right-of-way line, a distance of 116.13 feet and said line there terminating. Also EXCEPT said Parcel 216. 4 10/14/2005 FRI 10:08 RAI • FROM : 10/13/2003 THU 14:37 FAA Email: r RX NO. : 321d7E,22c 55 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 191 8002/003 Oct. 13 2025 07:42PM P1 ZMM DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION and Address: _- Comprohonsive Plan Amendment Conditional Usc Permit Interim Use Permit Non -conforming ure Pernit _4 Planned Unit Development - Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Pian Review Site Plan Review- Subdivision - Planning Case N0.05--3v1 n0 ✓ --3v CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED OCT 1 7 2005 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT TeFlgerY. g,5j ^- Temporary Sates permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Eaeemente _ Variance Wetland Allanition Permit Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment NotifIC01tion $lpn" - $75 + $100 Damage Deposit x Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Coal"- - $50 CUP/SPR/VAC/VARM/AP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUR TOTAL FEE $_g26;&) W An additional fee of $5.00 per addross within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to tho public hearing. " Twenty-six(26) fuilalze lnldetl napie aMng min a r of file plane must be submitted. Including an aw X 11" reduced copy for each plan aheat dinitat co.ppyy in TIFF•c roue 4 ('.at) tnrmat. " APpllcant to obtain nouficoilan agfn from City of Chaamnaaon Public We" at 1091 Perk Rood and install upon submittal of Completed application. $100 damage deposit 10 ba refunded 10 applicant when sign Is returned following City Council approval. •^ Cscraw wil! be required for other Wlicationa through the develapmen( Coniraci. Building matafiel samples must be aubmittcd with $)to plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. SCANNED _ 0/14/ZM PHI IUM NAA • FROM : 10/13/2005 M 14:38 FAX PROJECT N LOCATION: F'RX No. :3207622255 Oct. 13 2005 07:42PM lguu3iuu3 P2 X003/003 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: :ice TOTAL ACREAGE: WETLANDS PRESENT! YES PRESENT ZONING: REQUESTED ZONIN PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: REASON FOR REQUEST: A;-<— f'/,a�t/NG—jl .P/l Jf- V� /i n irme I 0,0 z e— n This applieation must be completed in full and be typewlitten or Clearly printed and must be accompanied by all Information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Bwfora filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requlremcme, applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the appllcadon shelf be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deflcloncies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that f am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application Should be processed In my name and I am the party wham the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to thla application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownomhip (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I writ keep myself Informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further undorstand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility Studies. etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to pronged with the stupy. The documents and Information I have submitted are true and correct to the bast of my knowledge.. / ] RMvhw Applic:w 1M,00C hL O / • ps' Date Rov. 40 SCANNED � e rn EY 3saE lF, (10 0 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on November 3, 2005, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for Galpin Crossing Concept PUD — Planning Case No. 05-38 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Subscribed and sworn to before me this a(_ day of 1�I r,4l—m bgr- -.,2005. 1 Notary P blit Karo J. Eng lh dt, De Clerk JWN 'Nlic-Minnesota :Zr:CommiasWri Expires Jan 31.2010 6CANNED Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday,November 15, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for Concept Planned Unit Development approval for Proposal: a 10 -unit twin home project and a 66,000 square -foot office development — GALPIN CROSSING Planning File: 05-38 Applicant: Epic Development Property Northwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard. Location: A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: at Happens at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob Generous at 952-227-1131 or Questions & e-mail baenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to Comments: submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available online at http://206.10.76.6/weblink7 the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Review Procedure: visions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, zonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding Its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be Included in the report, lease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for Concept Planned Unit Development approval for Proposal: a 10 -unit twin home project and a 66,000 square -foot office development — GALPIN CROSSING Plannln File: 05-38 Applicant: Epic Development Property Northwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard. Location: A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob Generous at 952-227-1131 or Questions & e-mail boenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to Comments: submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online at http://206.10.76.6/weblink7 the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezgnings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercialrndustrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighbothood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included In the report, lease contact the Planninq Staff person named on the notification. This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is nm intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, infomNtion and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that Me Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this Map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring erecting measuremnt of distance or direction or probe. in Me depiction of geographic features. n errors or discrepancies are found please correct 952-227.1107. The preceding declaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Stables §666.03, Subd. 21 (2000), will Me user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be Fade for any damages, and expressly waves all plains, and agrees to defend. inderni and hdtl harMess the City from any and all claim brought by User, its employees or agents. or third parties which arse out of Me users access or use of data prodded. This mp is rather a laga y recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as ate. This map is a compilation of records, infommtion and data located in various city, county, state and federal otfices and other sources regarding Me sea shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that Me Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this Map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, Mi or any other purpose requiring erecting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depicoon of geographic featuresti errors or discrepancies arra found please commit 952-227-1107. The preceding disclairrer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §666.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user ot this map acknowledges that Me City shall not be liable for any carriages, and expressly waives all dares, and agrees to defend, inden iTy. and hold handless the City from any and all claims brought by User. es enptoyses or spend, or Mird pates which arse as ot the users access or use of data provided. 0 dNAMEU «NAME2)) «ADDU «ADD2)) aCITY» « STATE» (,ZIP)) «Next Recordn(NAME1 n NAME2)) ADDt» «ADD2)) (ICITY)) «STATE» «ZIP» 0 0 Public Hearing Notification Area (500 feet) Galpin Crossing Concept PUD Planning Case No. 05-38 NW Corner Highway 5 & Galpin Blvd. City of Chanhassen SUBJECT PROPERTY U nTrTn ff c m z 5 Arboretum Bouleva tlBTH Street 0 JUSTIN C ANDERSON STACY ANN BENNET LINDA D BENSON 7848 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE 2388 HARVEST WAY 2409 HARVEST WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THEODORE F & MARLENE M BENTZ GUY W & JUNE M BLESSING THOMAS S BLUSTIN 7300 GALPIN BLVD 7844 HARVEST LN 2394 HARVEST WAY EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ELDEN E & GLORIA A BOTT THOMAS R BREKKE JARED M BROGHAMER 7626 PRAIRIE FLOWER BLVD 2400 HARVEST WAY 7856 HARVEST LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN B BUJARSKI & CARVER COUNTY HRA CENTEX HOMES SHARON L KING 705 WALNUT STN 12701 WHITEWATER DR 2376 HARVEST WAY SUITE 300 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHASKA MN 55318 HOPKINS MN 55343 HANG CHAN &CHECHANHASSEN DEVELOPMENT LLC DAVID J & TASIA M CLOUTIER 2201 BA AI CHONGNEBERRY WAY W 1434 SALEM LN SW 2406 HARVEST WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROCHESTER MN 55902 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN CNBI LLC CONVENIENCE STORE BRAD L & ELAINE N DALAGER C/O CHAD EICHTEN INVESTMENTS 7847 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE 4930 OLIVE LN N PO BOX 2107 PLYMOUTH MN 55446 LACROSSE WI 54602 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PATRICIA S DEZIEL RODNEY DORSCHNER DENNIS E & ELISSA K ELLEFSON 2382 HARVEST WAY 2396 HARVEST WAY 2194 BANEBERRY WAY W CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THEODORE A & ANGELA M DIANNE JANICE ERICKSON ELLEFSON TRUSTEE OF TRUST SUSAN M ERI 7609 WALNUT CRV 7735 VASSERMAN TRL 2198 BANEBERRYRY WAY W CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS E & HELEN E ERNST JEFFREY GIBBS MICHAEL J GLIGOR 7749 VASSERMAN TRL 2402 HARVEST WAY 7859 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARK C GOODMAN ROBERT L GRIFFITH & LARRY S & TERESA M HANSON 2370 HARVEST WAY GABRIELLE GRIFFITH 7734 VASSERMAN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 7739 VASSERMAN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 0 DAVID J & SUSAN A HAPPE 7850 HARVEST LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAWN N HUEBERT 2372 HARVEST WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHERYLAJOHNSON 7861 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BARBARA L KERN 2407 HARVEST WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LINDA A KOENIG 7851 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARTIN J & JUDITH C LEFF 7745 VASSERMAN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARK I & MAUREEN E MAGNUSON 7715 VASSERMAN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RUTH H MITAL 7750 VASSERMAN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN OBREMSKI & GERALD F OBREMSKI 7851 HARVEST LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL HEIEN 7832 HARVEST LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 IND SCHOOL DIST 112 & CITY OF CHANHASSEN 11 PEAVEY RD CHASKA MN 55318 LONNIE G & JAN M JOHNSON 6706 PROMONTORY DR EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 CAROLYN M KLECKER 7863 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KATHERINE M KORPI & JOANNE R SCHMIEG 7845 HARVEST LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LUNDGREN BROS CONSTRUCTION 935 WAYZATA BLVD E WAYZATA MN 55391 CARLOS J MEJIA & MARIA C MONTEALEGRE 7853 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MODEL HOMES LLC 1997 TOPAZ DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KAREN ANN OLSON 7850 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 0 MELISSA A HEIN 2193 BANEBERRY WAY W CHANHASSEN MN 55317 J P'S LINKS INC -JOHN PRZYMUS 12174 176TH AVE VILLARD MN 56385 DIANE JULSON 7740 VASSERMAN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KLINGELHUTZ DEVELOPMENT CO 350 HWY 212 E PO BOX 89 CHASKA MN 55318 THOMAS W & SHARON D KRAUS 7744 VASSERMAN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SALLY LYMAN 7730 VASSERMAN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SHERI MELANDER-SMITH 2403 HARVEST WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PAUL A & KIMBERLY MONSEN 2384 HARVEST WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MATTHEW S OLSON & BRUCE R OLSON 2405 HARVEST WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RALPH H PAMPERIN & AMY M PEITZ JOHN T & DIANE M PERRY BARBARA J 7846 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE 1380 THRUSH CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 VASSERRMANMAN T TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHA 171 ROBERT M & PATRICIA L PETERSON 2398 HARVEST WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TERRA L SAXE 7845 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL L & CAROLYN L SHIELDS 7759 VASSERMAN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARK A & SARAH L PLETTS 7517 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KIMBERLY A SCHABLIN 7857 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BRIAN D SMITH 2197 BANEBERRY WAY W CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DANIEL M RYAN & KAREN L THARALDSON-RYAN 13573 96TH PL N MAPLE GROVE MN 55369 BLAINE D SHANSTROM 7828 HARVEST LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KATHRYN T STODDART 7305 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 VASSERMAN RIDGE MASTER VASSERMAN RIDGE PROMENADE SRIRAM VISWANATHAN & ASSOC INC GAYATHRI SAMBASIVAN C/O LUNDGREN BROS CONST INC C/O LUNDGREN BROS CONST INC 7614 RIDGEVIEW WAY 935 WAYZATA BLVD E 935 WAYZATA BLVD E WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WALNUT GROVE HOMEOWNERS ASSN JEFFREY M & TIFFANY M WEYANDT CHRISTOPHER A WILLADSEN C/O GITTLEM MGMT CORP 7626 RIDGEVIEW WAY 2386 HARVEST WAY SUITE 211 1801E 79TH STT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BLOOMINGTON MN 55425 JOHN D WILSON JULIA A WOLTER DENEEN D YOUNG 2392 HARVEST WAY 7849 HARVEST LN 7852 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 • 0 cs- � Affidavit of Publication Southwest Suburban Publishing State of Minnesota) )SS. County of Carver ) CITY OF CHANHASSEN Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly sworn, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized CARVER & HENNEPIN agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 8 ger la and has full knowledge of the facts herein slated as follows: PLANNING CASE NO. 05-38 NOTICEISHEREBYGIVENthat (A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal the Chanhassen Planning newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as Commission will hold a public amended. hearing on Tuesday, November 15, 2005, at 7:00 P.M. in the Council C/ 119 (B) ne notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. 7S Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, printed public was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said 700Mazket Blvd. The purpose of his h hearing is to consider a request for Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of Concept Planned Unit DevelopmentPe the newspaper s cified. Printed below is a co of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both PY P approvalforalC-unittwin homeproject inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition and a 66,000 square -foot office and publication of the Notice: corner of Highway 5 and Galpm Blvd. abcdefghijltlmnopgrstuvwxyz -GALPINCROSSING. Applicant: Epic Development. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular business Laurie A. Hartmann hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing andexpresstheiropuiions with respect to this proposal. Subscribed and swom before me on Bob Generous, Senior Planner Email: bgenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227- 1131 this` day of //U .2005 '^r""""V"'""e' (Published intheChanhassen Villager GWEN M. RAD<:ENZ on Thursday, November 3, 2005; No. 4547) _ NOTARY PUB&-0NESOTA My Cammss m Eq M JxL 31, 2010 Notary Public RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $22.00 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................ $22.00 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter ............................................... $11.18 per column inch SCANNED CITY OF CIIANIIASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952 227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web She www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us 0 January 12, 2006 Mr. Rich Ragatz Epic Development, LLC 9820 Sky Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55347 0 Re: Development Notification Sign Escrow Refund Galpin Crossing - Case No. 05-38 Dear Mr. Ragatz, Enclosed please find a check in the amount of $100 which represents a refund of the development notification sign escrow for the above -referenced project. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 952-227-1107 or by email at kmeuwissen@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Sincerely, Kim T. Meuwissen Planning Secretary KTM:ms Enclosure SCANNED The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a chasing downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A gnat place to live, work, and play. 0 Vendor: Epic Development LLC Vendor No: EpiDev Vendor Acct No: Invoice Number Date Description DW6686 01/06/2006 Retum-sign escrow - 0 Check Date: 01/12/2006 Check Amount: $100.00 Invoice Amount 100.00 CITY OF CHANHASSEN M&I MARSHALL & ILSLEY BANK 7700 MARKET BLVD., P.O. BOX 147 127957 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 I'-115DI (952)227-1140 Pay: ***One hundred dollars and Zero Cents To the order of: Epic Development LLC Date 01/12/2006 Amount $100.00 THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS DOCUMENT INCLUDES AN ARTIFICIAL WATERMARK -HOLO AT AN ANOLP TD VIEW CITY'OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Payee: EPIC DEVELOPMENT LLC Date: 10/17/2005 Time: 3:05pm Receipt Number: DW / 6686 Clerk: DANIELLE GALPIN CROSSING 05-38 CONCEPT PUD ITEM REFERENCE AMOUNT ------------------------------------------- DEVAP GALPIN CROSSING 05-38 CON PUD USE & VARIANCE 750.00 SIGN RENT 75.00 SIGN ESCROW 100.00 --------------- Total: 925.00 Check 5080 Change: 925.00 --------------- 0.00 THANK YOU FOR YOUR PAYMENT! Return Check to Kim for mailing with letter. OK to return sign escrow. 1. Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Date City Council Meeting — January 9, 2006 0 05- 38 GALPIN CROSSING. NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF AND A 66,000 SO. FT. OFFICE DEVELOPMENT. Roger Knutson: There's two ways you can do it. I mean it's one, formally until you move to reconsider there's nothing to discuss. So if you want to have a discussion, you could. Mayor Furlong: We could have an informational discussion. Roger Knutson: You could, I think the normal way you would do it is, is ask for presentation and then ask if there's a vote to reconsider. And you get to there, a vote to reconsider brings it back in front of you for action. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Lundquist: Do you need a 4/5 vote on reconsideration like we needed to approve? Roger Knutson: No, not to reconsider, no. To reconsider it's a simple majority vote. The action on the main item still requires a simple majority. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Ms. Aanenson, why don't you give us an update on the request and the applicant is here, we'll certainly provide him time as well to address the council. Kate Aanenson: As you stated this item appeared at your last City Council meeting. The staff at that time was going for conceptual PUD. Staff recommended conceptual PUD with a couple of caveats, that the applicant, Epic Development is requesting reconsideration, specifically the reconsideration of the setback for a neighborhood business district and the number of pads, and that development not be proceed until the retail study, retail market study comes back. We have started the retail market study process. It's our goal to have that done in April, but again the reason we did that is this property is guided residential and we have a lot of requests to build commercial and we're very careful about the consideration of where we place that and we want to do our due diligence too and make sure that it's appropriately located. Clearly the way it's located we believe is some smaller kind of more typical box that we really try to discourage along the Highway 5 frontage, so we want to get additional input through the retail study on what needs may be out there and look at some of our options as far as if we were to rezone some other sites, based on traffic and those sort of things, where would those best, those sites be best suited. So with that we stand by our original recommendation of the conditions of approval. So I'd be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Furlong: Okay, any questions at this point for staff. No? Okay. Is Mr. Ragatz here this evening? Good evening. Would you like to address the council? Rich Ragatz: Yes please. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. sem"D City Council Meeting — Jan 9, 2006 • v Rich Ragatz: Mr. Mayor, members of the council, my name is Rich Ragatz, Epic Development, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. I was here last time and when it was tabled I ended up leaving. You guys voted on, that's why I'd like you reconsider these three points. I guess the first one, I just think the setbacks for neighborhood business are more appropriate than what you're looking at. 15 and 35 feet instead of the 50 and 75 feet from Highway 5 and Galpin. I think we could work things, move things around to make those other additional setbacks work if need be. Secondly the number of buildings, I think our market research is telling us that people want to have their own identity. Have smaller buildings. Their own building if possible and so we think, we hope that you'll see the same thing. Thirdly, the market study. We just think ideally we'd like to move forward with our preliminary plat before the market study is completed. We're looking to do office, mostly office and office service on the site and there's been two sites that have been taken out of the office industrial zoning, the Madsen piece and the Bernardi piece and we're only looking to rezone 8 acres versus about 200 acres that's been taken out of that zoning designation. So we think that's appropriate for us to get that rezoned hopefully through our preliminary plat process. If you don't see it that way, maybe we could look at it with just the preliminary information so it doesn't set us back several months, additional months. And just I'm here for comments. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. I guess a question, couple questions. Being raised here. With regard to the setbacks, I'm just going back and looking at our staff report from the prior time. This was a concept PUD that was approved. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: So that is, is here's what we'd like to do. Yeah, we give some feedback and look at it but ultimately when the preliminary comes forward is the issue. I'm trying to understand here or take a look for sure. What was the, under the concept plan, what was the proposed rezoning? It's residential right now. What was it? Just a PUD -R? Kate Aanenson: PUD -R, yeah. And the use on it was neighborhood commercial, although... and actually industrial was what we were looking at. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Just to kind of step back and typically how we've done rezoning, if someone comes in for a significant rezoning for example, when you did look at the Bernardi piece which is now Town and Country, you had a project in front of you. Typically to get a rezoning this city has a history of looking at a project to say, that makes sense as a use. We don't have that. That's again the question... to say well maybe we need to see a little bit more. We're replacing industrial land. To us it looks very typical. We have other people look at that, that that's really a typical retail layout so we just have some concerns about that, so if it's going to be retail, we'd like to have a grouping. If you look, what we spent a lot of time doing on the north side of West 78s' between Powers and going down to Kerber, you know we've really got some nice layout there. Kind of mutifying all those projects and that's where, if were to do something like that and I think we're just premature. Kill 'Irl V ;Z), City Council Meeting — January 9, 2006 • Mayor Furlong: The issue of a number of smaller buildings versus fewer larger buildings. Is that an issue that we've dealt with before and give us some history there? Kate Aanenson: Well I think you know... function. You set yourself up for certain expectation of a use and that's our concern and I think we've learned the history of that when we've had opportunities to subdivide into smaller lots or we've lost an opportunity to land a larger use and if we're trying to get industrial, typically those are a little bit bigger footprint. So if it's office, again I'm not sure who that would be because we've been working, we know who all the office people are looking so a lot of them, so we're just kind of concerned about what that would be too. Again, when someone comes in on this kind of a project to look at a rezoning, typically there's a lead. You've got a use that's ready to go. I believe there is one. The rest I think may be a little bit more, we don't know and that's a concern. I think it's, we have to be careful about what we've done to our core which is why we've done the retail study. Looking at that rezoning to say, if we're going to rezone some property, where would that best be? ...some other market needs. Where do we want to capture some of those? We're careful about not doing strip along Highway 5. That's always been our goal and I think that's why we have what we have in the downtown so just being really careful about that decision. There's no rush, in my opinion. Take our time and make a good decision. Mayor Furlong: I know we've had requests on other sites along Highway 5 for a number of smaller buildings. Multiple parcels versus sticking with larger buildings. The Steiner development where Lifetime Fitness is currently located I think was one of those where we had some, call it an opportunity if you will but a proposal to break that up into a number of smaller lots so. Okay. Councilman Peterson: And then the market study Kate, I can't recall, when do we estimate that it'd be done again? Kate Aanenson: April 1', yeah. So we kicked that off so we're underway. Pretty good about that process. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff on this. Any discussion or comment on the issue? Councilman Peterson: I don't see anything that's changed since we last voted on this so. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, I think that the council, you know I think it's, I'm glad that we had a chance here to think about these issues but again I think based on what we've heard this evening, I'm comfortable with the action that we took at our last meeting. Unless there's anyone else that would like to at this point make a motion for reconsideration. Councilman Lundquist: No. Councilwoman Tjomhom: No, I agree on waiting for the market study. I think it will be ... make better decisions for the rezoning in the future. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, I think that's, that is a, you raise a good point Councilwoman Tjornhom 31 City Council Meeting — January 9, 2006 • about the marketing study and the value that that's going to have across the entire city, especially in the ... like this where we are looking at rezoning and location so. Thank you. I guess with that, if there's no motion by the council we'll just look forward to receiving the additional information in the time that we've discussed and allow the approval of last meeting to stand. Okay, thank you. ORCHARD GREEN, 2611 & 2621 ORCHARD LANE, PETER KNAEBLE: REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW FOR 4 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. Public Present: Name Address Steve Lynch 5225 Park Avenue Matt Pavek 7110 Plymouth Avenue No, Golden Valley John Dragseth 2600 Forest Avenue Jacqueline A. Dorsey 311 So. Water Street, Northfield Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The applicant is requesting to subdivide 2.02 acre parcel into 4 single family homes. Just so you know when it originally came in with an additional lot, the staff did work looking at house sizes and reduced it down to 4. This item did appear before the Planning Commission on December 6m to review the plat and the Planning Commission voted 5- 0 to approve the request. I believe there's a little bit of controversy regarding dispute on the property line and why that condition was removed. It's stated right here in the staff report, typically the city does not, because we're not the interested party in this property line dispute, would not make that a condition of approval because in our opinion based on the amount of property in dispute, the lot, the plat would still go forward with the additional right-of-way being removed, and I'll just show you that real quick here... If we were to lay this out the same, this is the area in red that's in dispute. So even if that property was removed from the plat itself, the lots would still meet all the minimum requirements of the setback so if there is a dispute, and that property was to go away, you could still meet all those standards of the one part of the plat could be added administratively later so it's really a civil matter that, so we addressed it in the cover memo. It was a Planning Commission item. Again we don't hold up a plat for that so that's why we moved, removed and put to the front of the agenda on the cover memo so we did address it. It wasn't dropped. We just explained how we did that. With that I'll just go through the plat quickly. There's no street improvements for existing streets for the property so the 3 lots will have access via Orchard and the other one off of Forest. The average lot size is 22,000 so again kind of moving in that direction of little bit bigger lots for executive homes. There are no wetlands on the site. With this plat we're looking at providing some additional easement for ponding in the future. There is some water issues in the area so with that we're not putting a pond in at this time but we're accommodating a drainage easement so in the future as we work through those issues, we can accommodate potentially a future pond, so they will be paying some ponding and quality fees through the subdivision. Again there are services in the area. Existing lots. It needs to be additional service line but that would be accommodated. Parks and trails, there is a park in the immediate vicinity so we'll just be taking park and trail fees. There will be some tree replacement and approximately 19 trees to be replaced. All the lots do meet 32 City Council Meeting — D ember 12, 2005 0 participate in the budget process if we can. To that end, staff would you present the Galpin Crossing proposal this evening. GALPIN CROSSING, NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF DEVELOPMENT FOR A 10 UNIT TWIN HOME PROTECT AND A 66,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE DEVELOPMENT. Public Present: Name Address Rich Ragatz Lance Erickson Kevin McShane Eden Prairie 7735 Vasserman Trail 180 South Shore Court Kate Aanenson: This is the subject site located on the corner of Galpin and Highway 5. West 78`s bisects the property. It's currently zoned A2 and it's guided for low density residential. Most recently it had the golf course on it before West 78th, or driving range, excuse me. And then the miniature golf currently vacant. This is where the parking lot fits currently. Everything else has been removed from the site. There is a creek that runs along the north side of the subject property and on the north side they're proposing residential and the south side is the request for the office industrial. When this first appeared before the staff, to kind of talk about what the intended use was, the applicant wanted to do all retail on the site. If we go back to the Highway 5 corridor study, which is referenced in the document, the staff report excuse me, there was a concern at that time to have strip commercial and it's going to kind of segway into the discussion we're going to have later tonight to talk about the retail market analysis, but there was some concern about that. If you look at the 60,000 square feet, there's some comparable big uses down here. Byerly's. That's quite a significant amount of commercial in how it's being laid out so the direction from the staff was that we would support office. There's complimentary use there based on that, and looking at the multi -family. There's a couple different ways to look at the multi -family or the development of this site. One of the things we talked about was the overlay district which we did on the commercial on this side is we actually left all this as open space. Was an opportunity to kind of maximize it with the PUD, doing the density transfer and then leaving the other side open in ponding. And one of the conditions we did have in there was the suitability of development on that south side, and again this is a concept PUD and as stated in the staff report, approval of the concept does not obligate the city to approve any final plans. Or to rezone the property for the PUD, but rather we were just trying to give a general framework so in here we've indicated some direction that we would like the applicant to pursue and one of the things that we're kind of looking at too is we're conducting, make a policy adoption or implementation of the market study to see how that would relay into this. But we did put some uses in there that we thought would work. The Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on this item back on November 15th. They did recommend approval 6-0 for the PUD concept as outlined here for you tonight. So with that, we are recommending approval with some of those issues outlined in the staff report which kind of highlighted. One of the major ones here was the ecuoao City Council Meeting — December 12, 2005 • traffic study...regarding the access point. There were certainly for retail that would probably be more desirable. We did support a bank. I know there's a lot of banks looking at a bank to go into that comer if it was incorporated in office buildings. Very similar to what we did on the Market Street Station project. They incorporated a bank into that building and they have some offices up there too. Similarly done that over on Villages on the Pond where they incorporated the larger bank with offices. We think that works but the one concern there was the right -in/ right -out and looking at that so we've asked for a traffic study on that access point. Maybe encouraging U-turns and we're just a little concerned about that, so with that again it's concept. Giving some direction to come back. Office use only except for the possibility of incorporation of a banking or that type of similar retail. Financial institution. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Councilman Peterson: Any questions of staff? Councilman Lundquist: We should develop a ratio like our 1 acre of park per 75 people for our banks. We've got to be double digits, as we've got one in the back there. Kate your, I remember reading through the staff report here you talked about you not necessarily thrilled with the plan as laid out and kind of broken up into chunks you'd like to see it bigger and didn't really reflect that in the conditions. That's just one of those things you're going to work with them as, I mean this is a year or two or so out do you anticipate or? Kate Aanenson: Well I think, depending how fast the applicant wants to proceed with that. Obviously before it comes back, then we put, typically when we do a PUD we put that list of uses that we permitted it in the district. First of all we want to get a read from the Planning Commission and the council as to how supportive you are of changing the zoning district, and then kind of give some specific concerns we have. As you look at the south side there isn't much place for ponding, and again there's two ways to reconcile that. You could, under the PUD, compress all that and then use the other side of the street. Or we felt this really ]ends itself to the retail... and we'd like to see a little bit bigger building footprint and give them more flexibility. I think you've got a smaller office building like that. We've got that kind of rounding, and try to look at that nitch. What don't we have. What do we think is a little bit more in the market place. And I guess that kind of parlays in one of the conditions that we did recommend and we look at that with our marketing study to say you know, does that make some sense. I know that was a big discussion we had on the Lifetime side, trying to break up that little pieces and we held our ground to keep a bigger piece and it was a win because we ended up with Lifetime so trying to anticipate some of that. So that's why we put in a condition that we kind of track that. Also that market study and see how that parlays out. Councilman Lundquist: That section of Vasserman right there that would back up to that. Are those townhouses right there or are they single families? Kate Aanenson: Those are single family. Councilman Lundquist: To the west. Todd Gerhardt: Those are twin homes. 0 asa,rnne City Council Meeting — Amber 12, 2005 • Kate Aanenson: Okay, so they'd be compatible. I'm sorry. These are a little bit different as far as these wouldn't be individual lots because they'd be a PUD. Councilman Lundquist: Right. Kate Aanenson: If it was an R-4. Councilman Lundquist: Looking at more for a usage of transition. Kate Aanenson: Yep, and the neighbors, there was some comments at the Planning Commission regarding the transitional use, which is another concern that, you know from the lights and if it's a restaurant, particularly different hours as you would compared to an office. Maybe later hours. I know those were some of the concerns that we had with that building footprint spread out like that, how do you mitigate that? And that was the second page of the report was a letter that was sent by, and I think that kind of summarizes a lot of the concern that the neighbors have. Councilman Lundquist: And my last question, maybe Todd or Roger, as reading through this. Approval 4/5ths. Is that 4/5`s of the council or is that a ratio that you're looking for? Kate Aanenson: That's a good question which I got a legal interpretation on. Typically it does say PUD for rezoning but I'll let Roger answer the question. Roger Knutson: We're processing an amendment, to clarify this I believe. Kate Aanenson: It is a concept PUD, and because there is some residential, we determined that the 2/3 council present would address it. Roger Knutson: The short answer is, although this is concept approval and by statute you wouldn't have to have a simple majority, by your ordinance you do require as part of the rezoning process. And so you need 4 affirmative votes to pass. Councilman Lundquist: 4 affirmative or 2/3 of your quorum present? Roger Knutson: 4 affirmative votes. Todd Gerhardt: One of the options that you could do is wait for Mayor Furlong to come back. Go through your discussion on this item. Hold this item off until you have a 4 member board here. You can go ahead and approve it with the 3 members. However you are doing that in violation of your current ordinance and then you have some risk down the line if somebody would want to contest your approval of it. Kate Aanenson: Just a further note on that. This is a strange thing we have in our code which we are, the Planning Commission at their most recent modified that, has taken that out. It's kind of conflicts with most other city processes so, at your next City Council meeting that language will be actually struck from the ordinance. 91 City Council Meeting — December 12, 2005 • Roger Knutson: Another option, and I don't want to burden you with options. Taking this matter to the next meeting, in case the mayor doesn't make it back. Councilman Peterson: Well let's continue on with questions of staff and I think the mayor's up to speed on the projects. I don't think he needs to necessarily dwell on it so let's keep it moving and then we can decide what to do later. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Kate, with this rezoning, kind of what you had discussion about finding more office industrial. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. This is one of the sites. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Okay. And on retail, everyone now that is wanting to develop something that we want them to wait for the retail market study? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Yep, we're working with a couple other people that are definitely in the holding pattern. Yeah, yeah. Councilwoman Tjomhom: And that should be done in April. March or April? Kate Aanenson: That's what we're recommending is that we have a 4 month, as part of the contract, a 4 month completion date. Councilman Peterson: Any questions? Kate, to go back to the drawing, could you kind of walk me through the, you know obviously we're always focused as well as the Planning Commission on sidewalks and trails and how to get pedestrian traffic through that and across the street, which they obviously would be going to. My drawings on the PC are just so hard to see. Could you kind of walk us through. Kate Aanenson: They're not much better on this one, sure. Actually there is a trail on West 78th, that's on the north side. So one of the recommendations that would be in here that there be a trail along the south side, and then interconnection as you just indicated for buildings. Again they're kind of spread out there. So the interconnection and also sidewalks is currently is shown on this side to get, and then make this connection across if you wanted to go between the uses. So really the only missing link would be between the buildings and then specifically along West 78tH Councilman Peterson: What's the engineering's perspective on possible stop light at the intersection? Is that at all planned in the future, do we know? Paul Oehme: Thank you council member. At that intersection there, I did have a conversation with the County on that a while ago and to date there is no warrants for a signal at that intersection. And in the future it's still out there a ways in terms of the traffic counts now out there is significant accidents or other issues associated with that intersection that might put into a warrant category but at this time I don't see a signal going in there anytime soon. 10 City Council Meeting — Amber 12, 2005 • Councilman Peterson: Okay. Kate, what's the footprint of some of the smaller buildings down towards Highway 5? Kate Aanenson: 3,000. So I mean those could be multi -tenant too. Make it you know, again this is really laid out in kind of a retail format so we expect to see something a little bit different. We were just kind of doing some comparisons of some other buildings in town. If you looked at Eckankar is the one new building they have. That's 60,000 square feet, which is approximately what this would be so that could be one building. If you looked at Mark Undestad's office parks, the Stone Creek Office Park, that's about 70,000 square feet. That was our first condo type that we've done so it just give you some comparisons. I mentioned Byerly's was 60,000 so you're kind of, there is a significant amount of square footage available there. Councilman Peterson: Okay. And then you haven't seen any of the architectural design on the residentials yet? Kate Aanenson: No, this is just preliminary. Again the goal is just to really get a read on the direction and then if the intent is to go with the industrial, we look at that study, how that weaves into this. Then we'd come back with some specific lists. The design standards and then the permitted uses and the intent of the district to actually develop that ordinance. And the district standards. Councilman Peterson: We see residentials requests for that property on the north side before and part of what some of the challenge was is that it was pushing pretty close to the road on a pretty high traffic mad. That it was kind of oriented towards. Kate Aanenson: On this piece? Councilman Peterson: Yeah. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, yeah. I guess as a staff we felt that we didn't see the retail there but we certainly saw some, we've had requests for the office, maybe a larger building and multi -tenant, we anticipated that. We've had requests for churches, some of those kind of things that would be a single user. Some of those rim pieces that would want something of that scale, so that's kind of what we anticipated in looking at that. Councilman Peterson: Okay. Okay. Alright, any other questions of staff? I think what I'd like to do then is to table this, recommend tabling it until we get another member of council here and discuss that further at that point in time. Councilman Lundquist: Motion to table at this point to the end of the meeting. Councilman Peterson: Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjomhom: Second. 11 City Council Meeting — December 12, 2005 • Councilman Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to table this item to the end of the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. Councilman Peterson: Well let's try to figure out what we can talk about with the mayor not here. Why don't we go to council presentations. Councilman Lundquist, I believe you have one. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Councilman Lundquist: Yep I do. Last week there was a presentation done by MnDot at the Carver County government center regarding the proposed Highway 41 bridge crossing or the new Highway 41 bridge crossing with several of the alternatives. MnDot did a mailing, direct mail to all of the households in that corridor that are affected in Chanhassen, Chaska, Carver and several of the surrounding townships and things and then also in Scott County, Shakopee and some of those. Kate was there. The Mayor and I both attended as well. I think a good turnout when I was there. Probably in excess of 150 people there, which I think is good that that comes out and as this thing progresses along we'll keep a keen eye and interest on what's happening with all of those different options. I don't think there's anyone that wouldn't acknowledge that sometime in the future we're going to need another way to get across the river here, other than 41 and 101. Especially when the water gets high in the spring potentially and as this area continues to grow, it's not going to be fun to drive to Belle Plaine or to 35W to, or 169 to get across the river, so I think everybody acknowledges that but there's a lot of, as Lisa Freise put it, there's something to hate about every one of those options. So we'll continue to look at that. We've got to look at some things coming down. Work session meetings with MnDot through that but it will be important that our residents and that keep, they can talk to staff members. I'm the council liaison to that group so they can feel free to contact me as well but as we proceed through about this time next year MnDot hopes to have a corridor identified so, you've got about 10-11 months to sort of work through the big issues here but I think the way MnDot did that was good. Great participation on that. Good information they handed out. It will be an interesting process to go through but for those people that live along that or are affected by that or who care about that, now's the time to get your comments and feedback in to staff or myself. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, if they just call the general number here at City Hall and ask for Paul Oehme or myself, we can get them information on the different alternatives that are out there. Councilman Lundquist: They're also, it's also out on MnDot's web site. You can see that as well with maps and all that good stuff is out there. Todd Gerhardt: Yep. We want to hear their comments and make sure we're going in the right direction on which alternative we believe is the right one. Councilman Lundquist: Yep. 12 City Council Meeting — D•mber 12, 2005 • staff. I want to thank the council for your direction and support in that and look forward to next year's process. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other discussion? If not there's been a motion to adopt the budget and levy. It's been seconded. There's no other discussion we'll proceed with the vote. Resolution#2005-104: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to adopt the 2006 budget and levy certification to the Carver County Auditor, and Resolution#2005-105: to adopt the 2006-2010 CIP. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. CONTINUATION OF THE GALPIN CROSSING APPLICATION. Mayor Furlong: Where are we on the agenda? Councilman Peterson: The point I left is the discussion of the vote for the Galpin Crossing. Mayor Furlong: Galpin Crossing, okay. So we'll bring that up now? Have we had a staff report and was it tabled? Councilman Peterson: Yes, it was tabled. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Has the applicant presented? Where are we in the process there? Just council discussions? Councilman Peterson: Council discussions and voting for or against. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Let's start with discussion then on the, by the council. Has that already taken place as well? Councilman Peterson: No, it hasn't. I'd be happy to go first Mr. Mayor. I think that I agree with staffs recommendations on housing on the north side and I think that their ideas of gathering, you know lowering the number of buildings on the south side I think would be prudent to do. I think you would provide some better pedestrian flow and better look and feel. mean that's a pretty visible intersection for us and I think that that being said, I think a smaller number of buildings might be more appropriate and I think that as we move ahead with this concept, I'll voice my opinion that as I said earlier, that because this is a highly visible area of our city that I think, I certainly will and I hope the rest of the council will too, is, as we have in other areas of Highway 5 corridor, hold a pretty high standard for what goes in there. As far as architecture, as far as just general look and feel and functionality and needing that area so. I would certainly consider to move ahead with this and adhere to staff's recommendations. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjomhom: I also am willing to go ahead with this. I look forward to seeing what the retail market study says about it. I'm hoping that it's the right thing so we can use of 0*1 City Council Meeting — December 12, 2005 • our office industrial land that we need to make up right there, it'd be a good spot for it. On Highway 5 and because it's a PUD I'm hoping too that we can hold it to some of those standards that we discussed at our work session. Councilman Peterson brought that up you know to probably push them to rather make it something that stands out and we can be proud. Right now I guess that's nothing at this point. We're just here to discuss the whole concept so I'm in support of allowing the traffic study and... Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: Echo that I'm in support of it in concept. Over rely on Kate and staff as you work through this to fine tune. We haven't gone through some of the recent ones, the Town and Country and some of those things, I think you get a feel or flare for where we're at and the standards that will put this against so I think there's a lot of work yet to do on it but certainly in favor of future and then will also look to see what that retail market study says as well. That would be a good bit of information and I guess we'll have to find another A number one sign location for campaign signs now. They don't get much better than that so, but no. It's a good point. Good spot so let's put a good development on it. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. My thoughts and from the comments that I've heard here from the council it doesn't appear to be any significant changes between what was presented here this evening and the staff report, and I think for that reason I'm comfortable the issues that concern me have already been raised by the other council members so I'm comfortable that staff will work with the developer to ensure that those are addressed. I think that overall this is good use for this property as recommended by staff and am in favor of the concept plan subject to the recommendations that I've heard here this evening as well as those contained in the staff report. Fortunately with the concept and with the benefit of the PUD, I think that gives us the ability to really get a development that we will all be proud of. What page does the, are there any additional comments on this? Kate Aanenson: The conditions start on page 9. And the motion. Bottom of the page. Mayor Furlong: Is there a motion? Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: I would move that City Council approves Concept PUD for a twin home and office development project located at the northwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin, subject to addressing the following issues as part of the next phase of development review and conditions 1 through 33. As published in the staff report. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjomhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, I'll proceed with the vote. City Council Meeting — Amber 12, 2005 • Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to approve the concept planned unit development for a twin home and office development project located at the northwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard, subject to addressing the following issues as part of the next phase of development review: Development will require a land use amendment from residential to office for the southern eight acres, conditional use permit for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District, preliminary Planned Unit Development, site plan review, and subdivision review with a variance for the private street. 2. The development needs to comply with the design standards for commercial, industrial and office institutional developments. Additional building detail needs to be provided to ascertain the quality of the proposed development. 3. Planned Unit Developments require that development design standards be developed for the project. 4. The following building and parking setbacks will be incorporated in the design standards: 70 feet from Highway 5, 50 feet from West 78th Street and Galpin Boulevard, 25 feet from private streets, 30 feet from the western property line, 50 feet from Bluff Creek, 40 feet from the Bluff Creek Overlay district primary zone boundary and 40 feet from the wetland buffer edge. 5. _. Reduce the number of building sites proposed on parcel B. 6. Verify that all buildings would comply with the proposed and required setbacks. 7. The goals set forth in the Bluff Creek Watershed Resources Management Plan (BCWNRMP) for the Lowlands Region are to be incorporated in the further development of the plan. 8. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds. 9. A preliminary grading plan must be prepared. 10. A preliminary utility plan must be prepared. 11. The applicant must provide storm water calculations for any proposed subdivision. The development will need to provide storm water ponding on site for treatment prior to discharge into the wetlands or creek. The development must meet pre -development runoff rates for the 10 year and 100 year storm. On site storm water ponding must be sufficient to meet all city water quality and quantity standards. 12. Erosion and sediment control measures will be required in accordance with Chanhassen City Code and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's (MPGA) National Pollutant Discharge 0747 City Council Meeting — December 12, 2005 • Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Construction Permit. Type II silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all wetland fill areas, areas to be preserved as buffer or if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge. 13. This project will be subject to Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) connection charges for water quality and water quantity. 14. A MnDOT and Carver County permit will be required for access to the site. 15. The applicant will need to submit a survey showing existing trees and woodlands along with canopy coverage calculations and proposed reforestation. 16. The applicant will be required to pay park fees pursuant to city ordinance. 17. The applicant will need to provide pedestrian connections internally between the buildings and from the site to adjacent trails and sidewalks. 18. A wetland buffer 16.5 feet in width must be maintained around the wetland basin. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the city's wetland ordinance. The applicant must install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of city staff, before construction begins and must pay the city $20 per sign. All structures shall maintain a 40 foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. The grading and erosion control plan shall show the actual wetland buffer widths proposed to meet the minimum average buffer width requirements as well as the 40 foot wetland buffer setback. 19. The Bluff Creek corridor primary zone boundary and required buffer and setback will need to be incorporated on the plans. 20. All of the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone should be included as an Outlot. 21. The Bluff Creek corridor primary zone boundary and the required setback shall be indicated on the grading plan. 22. The development will require a landscaping plan. Staff recommends that significant landscape screening and berming be incorporated along Highway 5 as well as West 78th Street. 23. The developer will need to locate all significant trees on the site and provide a calculation of existing canopy coverage as well as proposed tree removal. 24. The following landscape and tree preservation issues are applicable to the Galpin Crossings site: Parcel A • Show Bluff Creek Primary Zone and setbacks. • Habitat restoration/enhancement around wetland and Bluff Creek. 26 • I � City Council Meeting — Amber 12, 2005 • Tree preservation calculations and landscape plan including reforestation and bufferyard plantings. Show existing trees outside of Primary Zone on landscape plan. Parcel B • No overstory trees allowed under overhead utility lines. • Show overhead utility lines on landscape plan. • Tree preservation calculations and landscape plan including reforestation and bufferyard plantings. Meet parking lot landscape requirements. Meet bufferyard landscape requirements. • Show existing boulevard trees along West 78th Street on landscape plan. 25. Galpin Crossing shall pay full park dedication fees at the rate in force upon final platting. 26. The commercial buildings are required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. 27. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 28. A demolition permit must be obtained before beginning demolition of any existing structures. 29. The location of property lines will have an impact on the code requirements for the proposed buildings, including but not limited to; allowable size and fire -resistive construction. The plans as submitted do not have the information necessary to determine compliance at this time. 30. The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss property line issues as well as plan review and permit procedures. 31. The developer shall have soil borings made to determine the suitability of the site for development. 32. A traffic study be completed for the proposed development." 33. The applicant shall not submit for preliminary review until the Retail Market Study has been completed by the City. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. CITY MANAGER'S PERFORMANCE REVIEW: ANNOUNCE RESULTS. Mayor Furlong: Item number 6 on the agenda refers to the City Manager's performance review. The City Council met in executive session on Monday, December 5`s and again this evening discussing Mr. Gerhardt's performance and compensation as our city manager. Following is a summary of those discussions. Mr. Gerhardt has completed another excellent year of work... 27 0 • os -3F, CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of Epic Development for Concept Planned Unit Development approval — GALPIN CROSSING. Planning Case No. 05-38. On November 15, 2005, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Epic Development for Concept Planned Unit Development approval for a 10 -unit twin home project and a 66,000 square -foot office development property located at the northwest comer of Galpin Boulevard and Highway 5. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed Planned Unit Development preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential — Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: (see attached Exhibit A for Parcels A and B) 4. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed PUD. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are: a) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. b) The proposed use is or will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. c) The proposed use will conform with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. d) The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. e) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. SCANNED 0 0 f) Traffic generation by the proposed use must be determined to be within capabilities of streets serving the property. 5. The planning report #05-38 dated November 15, 2005, prepared by Robert Generous, et al, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Concept Planned Unit Development. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 150'day of November, 2005. CHANHASSEN 3PLANrG COMNIISSION BY: V Its Chairman gAplan\2005 planning case X05-38 galpin c singVindings of faadoc 2 U PARCEL A: That part of the southwest Quarter of the southwest Quarter of section 10, Township 116, Range 23 and the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of scction 15, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of said section 10; thence on as assumed bearing of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds west along the West line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1026.89 feet; thence south 79 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 177.77 feet; thence south 86 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 100.40 feet; thence south 78 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 194.14 feet; thence south 74 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 150.00 feet; thence south 47 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 75.43 feet; thence North 82 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds East, a distance of 74.98 feet; thence south 58 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 84.58 feet; thence south 89 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 164.63 feet; thence south 18 degrees 17 minutes 40 seconds west, a distance of 824.19 feet to the northerly right of way line of Trunk Highway 5; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 33.08 feet; thence south 56 degrees 40 minutes 55 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 158.95 feet; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 518.22 feet to the west line of the Northwest Quarter of section 15, Township 116, Range 23; thence North 1 degree 37 minutes 50 seconds West along said west line of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 9.12 feet to the point of beginning. which lies northwesterly of that particular northwesterly right-of-way line of Parcel 216, as shown on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-08, recorded as Document No. 265755 and as amended on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-14, recorded as Document NO. 279658, described as follows: commencing at the southwest corner of said section 10; thence on an assumed bearing of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds west, along the west line of the Southwest Quarter of said section 10, a distance of 401.19 feet, to a particular right-of-way line of said parcel 216 and the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 47 degrees 18 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 175.14 feet, to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 47 degrees 18 minutes 19 seconds East a distance of 22.71 feet, to a point of curvature in said right-of-way line; thence easterly a distance of 662.60 feet, along a non-tangential curve concave to the south having a radius of 633.04 feet and a central angle of 59 degrees 58 minutes 14 seconds and having a chord of 632.76 feet which bears North 77 degrees 17 minutes 27 seconds East to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 56 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds East, not tangent to said curve a distance of 114.28 feet, to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 22 degrees 13 minutes 10 seconds East, along said right-of-way line, a distance of 116.13 feet and said line there terminating. PARCEL B: That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of section 10, Township 116, Range 23 and the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest comer of said section 10; thence on as assumed bearing of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West along the West line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1026.89 feet; thence south 79 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 177.77 feet; thence South 86 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 100.40 feet; thence south 78 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 194.14 feet; thence South 74 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 150.00 feet; thence south 47 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 75.43 feet; thence North 82 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds East, a distance of 74.98 feet; thence South 58 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 84.58 feet; thence south 89 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 164.63 feet; thence south 18 degrees 17 minutes 40 seconds West, a distance of 824.19 feet to the northerly right of way line of Trunk Highway 5; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 33.08 feet; thence South 56 degrees 40 minutes 55 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 158.95 feet; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 518.22 feet to the west line of the Northwest Quarter of section 15, Township 116, Range 23; thence North 1 degree 37 minutes 50 seconds West along said west line of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 9.12 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPT that part of the above described property which lies northwesterly of that particular northwesterly right-of-way line of Parcel 216, as shown on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-08, recorded as Document No. 265755 and as amended on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-14, recorded as Document NO. 279658, described as follows: commencing at the southwest corner of said section 10; thence on an assumed bearing of North 1 de9ree 56 minutes 40 seconds West, along the west line of the Southwest Quarter of said section 10, a distance of 401.19 feet, to a particular right-of-way line of said Parcel 216 and the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 47 degrees 18 mintues 16 seconds East a distance of 175.14 feet, to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 47 degrees 18 minutes 19 seconds East a distance of 22.71 feet, to a point of curvature in said right-of-way line; thence easterly a distance of 662.60 feet, along a non-tangential curve concave to the south having a radius of 633.04 feet and a central angle of 59 degrees 58 minutes 14 seconds and having a chord of 632.76 feet which bears North 77 degrees 17 mintues 27 seconds East to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 56 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds East, not tangent to said curve a distance of 114.28 feet, to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 22 degrees 13 minutes 10 seconds East, along said right-of-way line, a distance of 116.13 feet and said line there terminating. Also EXCEPT said Parcel 216. 10 0 05-3� CITY OF CHANHASSEN P O BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 01/11/2006 9:26:12 AM Receipt No. 0000272 CLERK: Danielle PAYEE: Epic Development LLC 9820 Sky Lane Eden Prairie MN 55347 GIS list-Galpin Crossing 05-38 ------------------------------------------------------- GIS List 231.00 Total Cash Check 2335 Change 231.00 0.00 231.00 0.00 SCANNED 0 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 M1 of (952) 227-1100 To: Mr. Rich Ragatz Epic Development 9820 Sky Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55347 Ship To: 0 Invoice SALESPERSON DATE TERMS KT M 11/3/05 upon receipt NOTE: This invoice is in accordance with the Development Review Application submitted to the City by the Addressee shown above (copy attached). Make all checks payable to: City of Chanhassen Please write the following code on your check: Planning Case #05-38 Galpin Crossing. If you have any questions concerning this invoice, call: (952)-227-1107. THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS! SCANNED CITY OF CgANNASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PC Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park A Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning A Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassennn.us • MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Bob Generous, Senior Planner - a DATE: January 9, 2006 SUBJ: Request for Reconsideration Concept PUD Approval — Galpin Crossing Planning Case #05-38 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant, Epic Development, has requested that City Council reconsider the conditions of approval for the concept PUD for a ten -unit twin home development on the north side of West 78`s Street and five, two-story office buildings development, including a bank with drive-thru facilities, with approximately 66,000 square feet of floor area, which was approved on December 12, 2005. The applicant specifically objects to the condition that the perimeter setbacks be larger those required for neighborhood business districts, that the number of building pads be reduced and that they wait until the completion of the Retail Market Study to come back in for further review. Staff believes that the recommended conditions are appropriate and should be maintained. Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the City has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the other more standard zoning districts. Galpin Boulevard and West 78`s Street are arterial roadways. Larger setbacks are appropriate along arterial roadways. The 30 -foot perimeter setback permits a better transition to other uses. Within the PUD, staff is proposing no setback requirements from internal lot lines and a 25 -foot setback from the private street. The applicant alleges that their market research indicates smaller buildings with identity are more desirable. However, it is the City's responsibility to determine what is best for the community. Reducing the number of building sites provides a greater opportunity to create a unique and uniform development plan, improve internal traffic and pedestrian circulation, provide a buffer from Highway 5. The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. Todd Gerhardt • • Galpin Crossing Concept PUD January 9, 2005 Page 2 Completing the Retail Market Study prior to proceeding with the development review of the property permits the City to collect additional information in order to determine the soundness of the potential Land Use Amendment from residential to either commercial or office. ACTION REQUIRED City Council approval requires a majority vote of City Council to reconsider the item and a 4/5h vote of the entire City Council to approve the concept PUD. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 15, 2005, to review the proposed development. The Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 to approve the proposed PUD concept for the project with the list of issues specified in the staff report. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council not reconsider the Concept PUD approval. ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter Requesting Reconsideration from Rich Ragatz to Todd Gerhardt dated 12/16/05. 2. Approval Letter from Robert Generous to Rich Ragatz dated 12/13/05. 3. Reduced Copy Galpin Crossing Concept Plan. 9Ap1an\2005 planning cases\05-38 galpin crossing\ezecuuve summary reconsidemdon.doc MEPIC � DEVELOGMFN7 IIC 12/16/05 Todd Gerhardt . City Manager City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Todd; I am writing to ask you to reconsider the concept approval of Ualpin Crossing planning Case 05-38. 1 was at the City Council meeting on December 12, 2005. r left after this was tabled, as the Mayor was not at the meeting. 1 understand that the Mayor arrived later and this was approved. I am concerned about the following items from the documents dated 11/15/05: # 4: 1 feel that the appropriate setbacks should be those set for business neighborhoods of 15 feet and 35 feet. #5: Our market research indicates smaller buildings with Identity are more desirable, reducing the number of buildings does nut incxeasc the amount of green space. 413- We do not think, we should be regtured to wait for the Retail Market Survey socing that approximately 200 acres has been taken out of the Office/Industrial zoning for a school & multi family homes (Mattson &.Bernardi). I'd love to get together to discuss this project further. Sincerely, Rich Ragatz Chief Manager EPIC Development 612-730-2814 cell/office ORYOFCHANHASSEN RECEIVED DEC 1 6 2005 OwftwN PLANNING pF Administration Re: Galpin Crossing — Planning Case #05-38 Phone: 952717.1100 December 13, 2005 CITY OF Dear Mr. Ragatz: CgANgASSEN Mr. Rich Ragatz Phony 952227.1180 Epic Development ng0Market Boulevard 9820 Skylane PO Box 147 Chanhasseq MN 55317 Eden Prairie, MN 55347 Administration Re: Galpin Crossing — Planning Case #05-38 Phone: 952717.1100 Fac g52227.1110 Dear Mr. Ragatz: Building Inspections Phony 952227.1180 This letter is to confirm that on December 12, 2005, the Chanhassen City Council Fax 952.227.1190 approved the concept planned unit development for a twin home and office Engineering development project located at the northwest comer of Highway 5 and Galpin Phow. 952227.1160 Boulevard subject to addressing the following issues as part of the next phase of Fac 952.227.1170 development review: Finance Rbone:952227.1140 1. Development will require a land use amendment from residential to office for Fax952227.1110 the southern eight acres, conditional use permit for development within the Park & Recreation Bluff Creek Overlay, District, preliminary Planned Unit Development, site Phone: 952n7.1120 plan review, and subdivision review with a variance for the private street. Fac 95M7.1110 Recreation Center 2. The development needs to comply with the design standards for commercial, 2310 Couper Boulevard Plume. 952227.1400 industrial and office institutional developments. Additional building detail Fax 952227.1404 needs to be provided to ascertain the quality of the proposed development. Planning b Natural Resources 3, Planned Unit Developments require that development design standards be P I p gn Phone: 952.227.1130 developed for the project. Fax:952221.1110 Public Works 4. The following building and parking setbacks will be incorporated in the 1591 Park Road design standards: 70 feet from Highway 5, 50 feet from West 78th Street and Phae 952227.1300 Galpin Boulevard, 25 feet from private streets, 30 feet from the western Fax 952227.1310 property line, 50 feet from Bluff Creek, 40 feet from the Bluff Creek Overlay Senior Center district primary zone boundary and 40 feet from the wetland buffer edge. Phone: 952.227.1125 Fac952.227.1110 5. Reduce the number of building sites proposed on B. parcel Web She wwaci.ctmhassen.mn.us 6. Verify that all buildings would comply with the proposed and required setbacks. 7. The goals set forth in the Bluff Creek Watershed Resources Management Plan (BCWNRMP) for the Lowlands Region are to be incorporated in the further development of the plan. 8. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds. SCAIRM The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding bails, and beautiful parks. A geal place to live, work, and pby. Mr. Rich Ragatz December 13, 2005 Page 2 9. A preliminary grading plan must be prepared. 10. A preliminary utility plan must be prepared. 11. The applicant must provide storm water calculations for any proposed subdivision. The development will need to provide storm water ponding on site for treatment prior to discharge into the wetlands or creek. The development must meet pre -development runoff rates for the 10 year and 100 year storm. On site storm water ponding must be sufficient to meet all city water quality and quantity standards. 12. Erosion and sediment control measures will be required in accordance with Chanhassen City Code and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's (MPCA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Construction Permit. Type II silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all wetland fill areas, areas to be preserved as buffer or if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge. 13. This project will be subject to Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) connection charges for water quality and water quantity. 14. A MnDOT and Carver County permit will be required for access to the site. 15. The applicant will need to submit a survey showing existing trees and woodlands along with canopy coverage calculations and proposed reforestation. 16. The applicant will be required to pay park fees pursuant to city ordinance 17. The applicant will need to provide pedestrian connections internally between the buildings and from the site to adjacent trails and sidewalks. 18. A wetland buffer 16.5 feet in width must be maintained around the wetland basin. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the city's wetland ordinance. The applicant must install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of city staff, before construction begins and must pay the city $20 per sign. All structures shall maintain a 40 foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. The grading and erosion control plan shall show the actual wetland buffer widths proposed to meet the minimum average buffer width requirements as well as the 40 foot wetland buffer setback. 19. The Bluff Creek corridor primary zone boundary and required buffer and setback will need to be incorporated on the plans. 20. All of the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone should be included as an Outlot. 21. The Bluff Creek corridor primary zone boundary and the required setback shall be indicated on the grading plan. mawA*a Mr. Rich Ragatz December 13, 2005 Page 3 • 40 22. The development will require a landscaping plan. Staff recommends that significant landscape screening and berming be incorporated along Highway 5 as well as West 78th Street. 23. The developer will need to locate all significant trees on the site and provide a calculation of existing canopy coverage as well as proposed tree removal. 24. The following landscape and tree preservation issues are applicable to the Galpin Crossings site: Parcel A • Show Bluff Creek Primary Zone and setbacks. • Habitat restoration/enhancement around wetland and Bluff Creek. • Tree preservation calculations and landscape plan including reforestation and bufferyard plantings. • Show existing trees outside of Primary Zone on landscape plan. Parcel B • No overstory trees allowed under overhead utility lines. • Show overhead utility lines on landscape plan. • Tree preservation calculations and landscape plan including reforestation and bufferyard plantings. • Meet parking lot landscape requirements. • Meet bufferyard landscape requirements. Show existing boulevard trees along West 78th Street on landscape plan. 25. Galpin Crossing shall pay full park dedication fees at the rate in force upon final platting. 26. The commercial buildings are required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. 27. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 28. A demolition permit must be obtained before beginning demolition of any existing structures. 29. The location of property lines will have an impact on the code requirements for the proposed buildings, including but not limited to; allowable size and fire -resistive construction. The plans as submitted do not have the information necessary to determine compliance at this time. 30. The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss property line issues as well as plan review and permit procedures. 31. The developer shall have soil borings made to determine the suitability of the site for development. Mr. Rich Ragatz December 13, 2005 Page 4 32. A traffic study shall be completed for the proposed development. 33. The applicant shall not submit for preliminary review until the Retail Market Study has been completed by the City. I would also like to remind you that the City has not received payment for the property owners list for the public hearing. A copy of the invoice is attached. Please pay this invoice at your earliest convenience. You will need to submit a new development review application at the time of your preliminary submittal. That submittal will need to address the issues outlined above. We are anticipating that the Market Study will be completed within three to four months. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (952) 227-1131 or by email at bgenerous @ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Sincere Robert Generous, AICP Senior Planner Attachment: Invoice dated November 3, 2005 c: John Przymus Perry Ryan, Ryan Engineering gAplan\2005 planning c X05-38 galpin c ing\appmval letter c cept.dm zEL CO iij -i; tri � �4iii#t HIT a! gg i755i7 CITY OF CHANHASSEN STAFF REPORT PC DATE: 11/15/05 CC DATE: 12/12/05 I I REVIEW DEADLINE: December 16, 2005 CASE #: 05-38 BY: RG, LH, ML, AM, JS, ST PROPOSAL: Request for Concept Planned Unit Development approval for a 10 -unit twin home project and a 66,000 square -foot office development - GALPIN CROSSING. LOCATION: Northwest comer of the intersection of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard APPLICANT: Epic Development John Przymus F 9880 Skylane 12174 176`" Avenue Eden Prairie, MN 55347 Villard, MN 56385 (612)730-2814 PRESENT ZONING: Agricultural Estate District, A2 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential — Low Density ACREAGE: 13.94 acres DENSITY: 1.64 units/acre gross; F. A. R. 0.19 SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant in proposing a Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a 10 -unit twin home project and a 66,000 square -foot office development. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving PUD's because the City is acting in its legislative or policy making capacity. A rezoning or PUD, and amendment thereto, must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. OCANNEO Galpin Crossing November 15, 2005 Page 2 of 13 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant, Epic Development, has prepared a concept PUD for a 10 -unit twin home development on the north side of West 78d' Street and five, two-story office building development including a bank with drive-thru facilities with approximately 66,000 square feet of floor area. Development of the southern parcel with anything other than low density residential uses will require a comprehensive plan amendment. The northern site (Parcel A) has a gross area of 6.09 acres. The southern site (Parcel B) has a gross area of 7.85 acres. Approval of the concept plan shall not obligate the city to approve the final plan or any part thereof, or to rezone the property to a planned unit development district. Rather, it provides a general framework to precede with the preliminary development plans on the project. The conditions identify specific areas of investigation that must be undertaken in furtherance of the project. Staff is recommending that the concept plan be approved subject to the recommendations contained in the staff report. BACKGROUND On October 13, 2003, the Chanhassen City Council approved the Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) review for development of a recreational center or office on the eight (8) acres south of West 78s' Street. The land north of West 78'° Street, which was proposed for townhouse development, was not approved as part of the concept planned unit development. In 2000 and 2001, West 78'" Street was constructed through the property, bisecting it into six and eight - acre parcels. Additionally, the city extended sanitary sewer for the BC -7 and BC -8 sanitary sewer subdistricts across the northern portion of the property. December 12, 1998, the Chanhassen City Council adopts the Bluff Creek Overlay District. December 1996, Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan is completed. 1996, City Council adopts the Land Uses for the North 1995 Study Area, guiding this property for residential — low density use. In August 1995, the Highway 5 Corridor Land Use Design Study was completed. The bulk of the area was recommended for single-family residential. A portion of the Mills property (Arboretum Village site) was recommended for neighborhood convenience retail center, but only ancillary to office, institutional or multi -family residential. Highway 5 Corridor Design Standards adopted July 11, 1994. As part of the 1991 Comprehensive Plan, this property was included as part of the 1995 study area for determination of the land use of the property. Galpin Crossing November 15, 2005 Page 3 of 13 On February 12, 1990, the Chanhassen City Council approved a zoning ordinance amendment making golf driving ranges interim uses in the A2 district. On November 16, 1987, the Chanhassen City Council approved a zoning ordinance amendment to permit golf driving ranges as a conditional use in the A2 zoning district and a conditional use permit for John Przymus for a golf driving range and miniature golf course at the subject property. On November 4, 1985, the Chanhassen City Council revoked the conditional use permit for a golf driving range at the northwest comer of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard due to non-compliance with the conditions of the conditional use permit. On December 19, 1983, the Chanhassen City Council approved a conditional use permit for a golf driving range at the northwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Blvd. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 18 Subdivisions Chapter 20, Article II, Division 2, Amendments Chapter 20, Article II, Division 6, Site Plan Review Chapter 20, Article IV, Conditional Use Permits Chapter 20, Article VI, Wetland Protection Chapter 20, Article VII, Shoreline Management Chapter 20, Article VIII, Planned Unit Development District Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 7, Design Standards for Commercial, Industrial and Office Development District Chapter 20, Article XXX, Highway Corridor District Chapter 20, Article XXXI, Bluff Creek Overlay District PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT The applicant is requesting concept PUD for a 10 -unit twin home development and a 66,000 square - foot, five -building office complex. Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD in this instance is to create an office complex development and a twin -home development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the City has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the other more standard zoning districts. The proposed development provides a compatible development with the surrounding development, provides a transition of uses from the highway to the residential development to the north and preserves the Bluff Creek corridor. The proposed concept PUD assists in the furtherance of the following land use policies of the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan: 0 Chanhassen will strive for a mixture of development which will assure its financial well being. Galpin Crossing November 15, 2005 Page 4 of 13 • Development will be encouraged within the MUSA line. • Encourage low density residential development in appropriate areas of the community in a manner that reinforces the character and integrity of existing single-family neighborhoods (the proposed twin homes would continue the development of twin homes in the southeast corner of the Vasserman Ridge development to the west of the site). • The plan should seek to establish sufficient land to provide a full range of housing opportunities. • The city will seek opportunities to provide transitions between different uses of different types. • The city will encourage the development of neighborhood service centers where appropriate. These will be developed as part of a mixed used development or a PUD. • Development should be phased in accordance with the ability of the city to provide services. The proposed concept PUD assists in the furtherance of the following housing policies of the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan: • A balanced housing supply with housing available for people of all income levels. • A variety of housing types for people in all stages of the life cycle. • Housing development that respects the natural environment of the community while striving to accommodate the need for a variety of housing types and costs. DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS As part of the preliminary development stage of the project, development design standards will be developed. This will include such items as uses, setbacks, building heights, building orientation, signage, landscaping and site fumishing, etc The following building and parking setbacks will be incorporated in the design standards: 70 feet from Highway 5, 50 feet from West 78`s Street and Galpin Boulevard, 20 feet from private street easements, 40 feet from the Bluff Creek primary zone boundary and wetland buffer edge and 30 feet from the western project perimeter. Hard surface coverage for the twin homes would be limited to 30 percent per lot. Hard coverage for the office sites is being proposed at 65 percent. Hard coverage for the office sites can be averaged over all of Parcel B. The city is undertaking a market study to determine the need for additional commercial and office development within the community. This study will evaluate if there is additional need for commercial uses and the appropriate location for such uses. Initially, staff believes that if the concept plan is approved, the uses in this development shall be limited to banks with drive-through, medical offices and/or clinics, and offices. However, retail commercial uses are not appropriate for this location. Galpin Crossing November 15, 2005 Page 5 of 13 Galpin Crossing November 15, 2005 Page 6 of 13 SUBDIVISION REVIEW The proposed development will ultimately require subdivision review. At the next stage of development review, a preliminary plat for the project will need to be prepared in compliance with Chapter 18 of the Chanhassen City Code. All of the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone should be included as an Outlot. STREETS AND ACCESS Access to the office site is proposed via a right-in/right-out on Galpin Boulevard and full access via West 78th Street. It appears that internal access to both the twin homes and office development would be via private streets. Private street easements are 30 feet with a 20 -foot pavement width for the twin homes and 40 feet with a 26 -foot pavement width for the offices. Staff recommends that a traffic study be completed for the proposed development should the Planning Commission and City Council support the proposed office/bank uses on the south side of West 78'h Street. The study must address the right-in/right-out access at Galpin, particularly if traffic exiting the site getting in the left turn lane at the Highway 5 intersection will conflict with vehicles entering the right turn lane to the Highway 5 intersection. The study must also address internal traffic circulation and provide recommendations for the minimum stacking distances from the common drive for access to the individual building sites. The Fire Marshall shall determine if the proposed cul-de-sac north of West 78th Street must be a minimum 91 feet in diameter to accommodate the turning movement of a fire truck UTILITIES City sewer and water is available to the site. A preliminary utility plan would be required as part of any future development review. GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL A preliminary grading, drainage and erosion control plan must be prepared. The plan does not identify any ponds within the development. The developer indicated that they would like to expand MNDOT's pond to the west to accommodate water quality and quantity requirements for the site. Staff recommends that the developer contact MNDOT as soon as possible to discuss this possibility before proceeding with the preliminary plans. Epic Development should be aware that MNDOT rejected another developer's proposal to expand a MNDOT pond in the 212 corridor. Storm Water Management No storm water management facilities are currently proposed on-site. The proposed development is required to maintain existing runoff rates and meet National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. Storm water calculations should be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water pond is sized adequately for the proposed development. Galpin Crossing November 15, 2005 Page 7 of 13 Easements Drainage and utility easements (minimum 20 feet in width) should be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas and storm water ponds. Erosion and Sediment Control Erosion and sediment control measures will be required in accordance with Chanhassen City Code and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's (MPCA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase 11 Construction Permit. The contractor must secure an NPDES Phase H Construction Permit prior to beginning work on the project. Surface Water Management Fees This project will be subject to Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) connection charges for water quality and water quantity. These charges are a function of the proposed land use as well as the size of the property in acres. Water quality credit is available for providing on-site water quality treatment of storm water. Other Agencies The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley - Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Site Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Army Corps of Engineers, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Department of Health) and comply with their conditions of approval. WETLANDS Existing Wetlands Three ag/urban wetlands exist on-site. Schoell & Madson, Inc. delineated the wetlands in June 2003. Basin 1 is a Type 2 wetland located in the west -central portion of the property south of West 78'h Street. The wetland is dominated by reed canary grass and narrow leaf cattail. Basin 2 is a Type 2 wetland located in the west -central portion of the property, north of West 78th Street. The wetland is dominated by reed canary grass and smartweed. Basin 3 is a Type 2 wetland located in the northern portion of the property. The wetland is dominated by reed canary grass, smartweed, trembling aspen and box elder. On August 29, 2003, City staff issued a Notice of Wetland Conservation Act Decision for a wetland exemption for Basins 1 and 2. Aerial photography was reviewed by the City and the wetland basins on either side of West 78`h Street were not present prior to the construction of West 78"' Street. The wetlands were found to be a result of blockage of drainage along the south side of West 78'h Street and concentration of runoff on the downstream (north) end of the culvert under West 780' Street. Galpin Crossing November 15, 2005 Page 8 of 13 Wetland Replacement If non-exempt wetland impact is proposed, wetland replacement must occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The City must approve a wetland replacement plan prior to wetland impacts occurring. A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) must be maintained around Wetland 3 and any required wetland mitigation areas. Wetland buffer areas should be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant must install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign. All structures must maintain a setback of at least 40 feet from the wetland buffer edge. BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT The City of Chanhassen established the Bluff Creek Overlay District by ordinance in 1998 to protect the Bluff Creek Corridor, wetlands, bluffs and significant stands of mature trees through the use of careful site design and other low -impact practices. This parcel is partially encumbered by the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The primary and secondary corridor boundaries and the 40 -foot setback from the primary corridor are not shown on the plans. The plans should be revised to show the primary and secondary corridors and the setback. No alterations are allowed within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet of the setback from the primary corridor. The grading plan should be revised to eliminate alterations within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet of the setback from the primary corridor. All structures must meet the 40 -foot setback from the primary corridor. The plans should be revised to show the ordinary high water level (OHW) for Bluff Creek, as well as the required 50 -foot setback from the OHW. The goals set forth in the Bluff Creek Watershed Resources Management Plan (BCWNRMP) for the Lowlands Region are to be incorporated in the further development of the plan. Due to the location of the site in areas of wet soils, soil borings should be taken to determine the suitability of the site for development. LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION The following landscape and tree preservation issues are applicable to the Galpin Crossings site: Parcel A Show Bluff Creek Primary Zone and setbacks. • Habitat restoration/enhancement around wetland and Bluff Creek. • Tree preservation calculations and landscape plan including reforestation and bufferyard plantings. Show existing trees outside of Primary Zone on landscape plan. Parcel B No overstory trees allowed under overhead utility lines. Show overhead utility lines on landscape plan. Galpin Crossing November 15, 2005 Page 9 of 13 Tree preservation calculations and landscape plan including reforestation and bufferyard plantings. • Meet parking lot landscape requirements. • Meet bufferyard landscape requirements. • Show existing boulevard trees along West 78th Street on landscape plan. PARKS AND RECREATION PARKS The property is situated within the park service areas of Sugarbush Neighborhood Park and the Chanhassen Recreation Center, a community park facility. No additional parkland dedication is required as a part of the Galpin Crossing proposal. TRAILS Two segments of the city's comprehensive trail plan are adjacent to and service the proposed development area—the West 78 Street trail and Galpin Boulevard trail. Internal sidewalk and trail connectors leading to these existing amenities should be made a condition of the approval of Galpin Crossing. In the absence of parkland dedication, it is recommended that Galpin Crossing pay full park dedication fees at the rate in force upon final platting. At today's rates, these fees would total $118,500 (10 units @ $4,000 each plus 7.85 acres @ $10,000 each). GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE The development will need to comply with the development design standards to be developed as part of the preliminary and final development plan for the Galpin Crossing Planned Unit Development. It appears that the development proposes limiting building heights to two stories. Staff is concerned that the applicant is proposing the use of five office buildings. Building square footages should be consolidated in a maximum of three building pads. This should permit additional pedestrian and green space to be incorporated within the project. The development should also provide pedestrian connections from the interior of the project to the trail system on West 786' Street and Galpin Boulevard. The applicant has proposed the use of interconnections between the building sites' parking areas. Staff supports this type of parking lot design. Cross access easements and cross parking agreements will be required of the development sites. The concept plan over -parks the proposed development by approximately 70 parking spaces. Staff recommends that the developer look at providing an opportunity for creating shared parking, through the appropriate selection of site users, to reduce the amount of parking within the development. MISCELLANEOUS Galpin Crossing November 15, 2005 Page 10 of 13 The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss property line issues as well as plan review and permit procedures. The location of property lines will have an impact on the code requirements for the proposed buildings, including but not limited to, allowable size and fire -resistive construction. The plans as submitted do not have the information necessary to determine compliance at this time. The commercial buildings are required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. A demolition permit must be obtained before beginning demolition of any existing structures. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion and adoption of the attached findings of fact and recommendation: "The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends concept planned unit development approval for a twin home and office development project located at the northwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard subject to addressing the following issues as part of the next phase of development review: 1. Development will require a land use amendment from residential to office for the southern eight acres, conditional use permit for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District, preliminary Planned Unit Development, site plan review, and subdivision review with a variance for the private street. 2. The development needs to comply with the design standards for commercial, industrial and office institutional developments. Additional building detail needs to be provided to ascertain the quality of the proposed development. 3. Planned Unit Developments require that development design standards be developed for the project. 4. The following building and parking setbacks will be incorporated in the design standards: 70 feet from Highway 5, 50 feet from West 78th Street and Galpin Boulevard, 25 feet from private streets, 30 feet from the western property line, 50 feet from Bluff Creek, 40 feet from the Bluff Creek Overlay district primary zone boundary and 40 feet from the wetland buffer edge. 5. Reduce the number of building sites proposed on parcel B. 6. Verify that all buildings would comply with the proposed and required setbacks. 7. The goals set forth in the Bluff Creek Watershed Resources Management Plan (BCWNRMP) for the Lowlands Region are to be incorporated in the further development of the plan. 8. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds. 9. A preliminary grading plan must be prepared. 10. A preliminary utility plan must be prepared. Galpin Crossing November 15, 2005 Page 11 of 13 11. The applicant must provide storm water calculations for any proposed subdivision. The development will need to provide storm water ponding on site for treatment prior to discharge into the wetlands or creek. The development must meet pre -development runoff rates for the 10 year and 100 year storm. On site storm water ponding must be sufficient to meet all city water quality and quantity standards. 12. Erosion and sediment control measures will be required in accordance with Chanhassen City Code and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's (MPCA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Construction Permit. Type II silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all wetland fill areas, areas to be preserved as buffer or if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge. 13. This project will be subject to Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) connection charges for water quality and water quantity. 14. A MnDOT and Carver County permit will be required for access to the site. 15. The applicant will need to submit a survey showing existing trees and woodlands along with canopy coverage calculations and proposed reforestation. 16. The applicant will be required to pay park fees pursuant to city ordinance. 17. The applicant will need to provide pedestrian connections internally between the buildings and from the site to adjacent trails and sidewalks. 18. A wetland buffer 16.5 feet in width must be maintained around the wetland basin. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the city's wetland ordinance. The applicant must install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of city staff, before construction begins and must pay the city $20 per sign. All structures shall maintain a 40 foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. The grading and erosion control plan shall show the actual wetland buffer widths proposed to meet the minimum average buffer width requirements as well as the 40 foot wetland buffer setback. 19. The Bluff Creek corridor primary zone boundary and required buffer and setback will need to be incorporated on the plans. 20. All of the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone should be included as an Outlot. 21. The Bluff Creek corridor primary zone boundary and the required setback shall be indicated on the grading plan. 22. The development will require a landscaping plan. Staff recommends that significant landscape screening and berming be incorporated along Highway 5 as well as West 78th Street. 23. The developer will need to locate all significant trees on the site and provide a calculation of existing canopy coverage as well as proposed tree removal. Galpin Crossing November 15, 2005 Page 12 of 13 24. The following landscape and tree preservation issues are applicable to the Galpin Crossings site: Parcel A • Show Bluff Creek Primary Zone and setbacks. • Habitat restoration/enhancement around wetland and Bluff Creek. • Tree preservation calculations and landscape plan including reforestation and bufferyard plantings. • Show existing trees outside of Primary Zone on landscape plan. Parcel B • No overstory, trees allowed under overhead utility lines. • Show overhead utility lines on landscape plan. Tree preservation calculations and landscape plan including reforestation and bufferyard plantings. • Meet parking lot landscape requirements. • Meet bufferyard landscape requirements. • Show existing boulevard trees along West 78th Street on landscape plan. 25. Galpin Crossing shall pay full park dedication fees at the rate in force upon final platting. 26. The commercial buildings are required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. 27. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 28. A demolition permit must be obtained before beginning demolition of any existing structures. 29. The location of property lines will have an impact on the code requirements for the proposed buildings, including but not limited to; allowable size and fire -resistive construction. The plans as submitted do not have the information necessary to determine compliance at this time. 30. The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss property line issues as well as plan review and permit procedures. 31. The developer shall have soil borings made to determine the suitability of the site for development." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Recommendation. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Reduced Copy Concept Plan. 4. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List. gAplant2005 planning cases\05-38 galpin crossin&taff report concept pud.doc Administration December 13, 2005 CITY OF Phone: 952227.1140 CIIANIIASSEN Mr' Rich Ragatz Building Inspections Epic Development 7700 Markel Boulevard 9820 Skylane PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Eden Prairie, MN 55347 Administration Re: Galpin Crossing — Planning Case #05-38 Phone: 952.227.1100 Phone: 952227.1140 Fax 952.227.1110 Dear Mr. Ragatz: Building Inspections Phorre:95M7.1160 This letter is to confirm that on December 12, 2005, the Chanhassen City Council Fax: 952.227.1190 approved the concept planned unit development for a twin home and office Engineering development project located at the northwest comer of Highway 5 and Galpin Phone: 952.227,1160 Boulevard subject to addressing the following issues as part of the next phase of Fax. 952.227.1170 development review: Finance Phone: 952227.1140 1. Development will require a land use amendment from residential to office for Fax.952.227.1110 the southern eight acres, conditional use permit for development within the Park a Recreation Bluff Creek Overlay District, preliminary Planned Unit Development, site Phone: 952.227.1120 plan review, and subdivision review with a variance for the private street. Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation center 2. The development needs to comply with the design standards for commercial, 231one: 52227.1400 Phone: 952.227.1400 industrial and office institutional developments. Additional building detail P g Fax: 952.227.1404 needs to be provided to ascertain the quality of the proposed development. Planning 8 Natural Resources 3. Planned Unit Developments require that development design standards be Phone: 952227.1130 developed for the project. Fax: 952.227.1110 Public works 4. The following building and parking setbacks will be incorporated in the 1591 Park Road design standards: 70 feet from Highway 5, 50 feet from West 78th Street and Phone: 952.227.1300 Galpin Boulevard, 25 feet from private streets, 30 feet from the western Fax: 952.227.1310 property line, 50 feet from Bluff Creek, 40 feet from the Bluff Creek Overlay Senior Center district primary zone boundary and 40 feet from the wetland buffer edge. Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: %2.227.1110 5. Reduce the number of building sites proposed on parcel B. Web She www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us 6. Verify that all buildings would comply with the proposed and required setbacks. 7. The goals set forth in the Bluff Creek Watershed Resources Management Plan (BCWNRMP) for the Lowlands Region are to be incorporated in the further development of the plan. 8. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds. SCAMM The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding Irai Is. and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. Mr. Rich Ragatz December 13, 2005 Page 2 9. A preliminary grading plan must be prepared. 10. A preliminary utility plan must be prepared. 11. The applicant must provide storm water calculations for any proposed subdivision. The development will need to provide storm water ponding on site for treatment prior to discharge into the wetlands or creek. The development must meet pre -development runoff rates for the 10 year and 100 year storm. On site storm water ponding must be sufficient to meet all city water quality and quantity standards. 12. Erosion and sediment control measures will be required in accordance with Chanhassen City Code and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's (MPCA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Construction Permit. Type II silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all wetland fill areas, areas to be preserved as buffer or if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge. 13. This project will be subject to Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) connection charges for water quality and water quantity. 14. A MnDOT and Carver County permit will be required for access to the site. 15. The applicant will need to submit a survey showing existing trees and woodlands along with canopy coverage calculations and proposed reforestation. 16. The applicant will be required to pay park fees pursuant to city ordinance. 17. The applicant will need to provide pedestrian connections internally between the buildings and from the site to adjacent trails and sidewalks. 18. A wetland buffer 16.5 feet in width must be maintained around the wetland basin. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the city's wetland ordinance. The applicant must install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of city staff, before construction begins and must pay the city $20 per sign. All structures shall maintain a 40 foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. The grading and erosion control plan shall show the actual wetland buffer widths proposed to meet the minimum average buffer width requirements as well as the 40 foot wetland buffer setback. 19. The Bluff Creek corridor primary zone boundary and required buffer and setback will need to be incorporated on the plans. 20. All of the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone should be included as an Outlot. 21. The Bluff Creek corridor primary zone boundary and the required setback shall be indicated on the grading plan. tm"004t Mr. Rich Ragatz December 13, 2005 Page 3 22. The development will require a landscaping plan. Staff recommends that significant landscape screening and berming be incorporated along Highway 5 as well as West 78th Street. 23. The developer will need to locate all significant trees on the site and provide a calculation of existing canopy coverage as well as proposed tree removal. 24. The following landscape and tree preservation issues are applicable to the Galpin Crossings site: Parcel A • Show Bluff Creek Primary Zone and setbacks. • Habitat restoration/enhancement around wetland and Bluff Creek. • Tree preservation calculations and landscape plan including reforestation and bufferyard plantings. • Show existing trees outside of Primary Zone on landscape plan. Parcel B No overstory trees allowed under overhead utility lines. • Show overhead utility lines on landscape plan. • Tree preservation calculations and landscape plan including reforestation and bufferyard plantings. • Meet parking lot landscape requirements. • Meet bufferyard landscape requirements. • Show existing boulevard trees along West 78th Street on landscape plan. 25. Galpin Crossing shall pay full park dedication fees at the rate in force upon final platting. 26. The commercial buildings are required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. 27. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 28. A demolition permit must be obtained before beginning demolition of any existing structures. 29. The location of property lines will have an impact on the code requirements for the proposed buildings, including but not limited to; allowable size and fire -resistive construction. The plans as submitted do not have the information necessary to determine compliance at this time. 30. The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss property line issues as well as plan review and permit procedures. 31. The developer shall have soil borings made to determine the suitability of the site for development. Mr. Rich Ragatz December 13, 2005 Page 4 32. A traffic study shall be completed for the proposed development. 33. The applicant shall not submit for preliminary review until the Retail Market Study has been completed by the City. I would also like to remind you that the City has not received payment for the property owners list for the public hearing. A copy of the invoice is attached. Please pay this invoice at your earliest convenience. You will need to submit a new development review application at the time of your preliminary submittal. That submittal will need to address the issues outlined above. We are anticipating that the Market Study will be completed within three to four months. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (952) 227-1131 or by email at bgenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Sincere Robert Generous, AICP Senior Planner Attachment: Invoice dated November 3, 2005 c: John Plzymus Perry Ryan, Ryan Engineering g:lplan\2005 planing c X05-38 galpin crossingNappmval letter wncept.dw City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Uff OF (952) 227-1100 Comm To: Mr. Perry Ryan Epic Development 9820 Sky Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55347 Ship To: Invoice SALESPERSON DATE TERMS KTM 11/3/05 upon receipt QUANTITY I DESCRIPTION I UNIT PRICE AMOUNT 77 Property Owners List within 500' of Proposed Galpin Crossing (77 $3.00 $231.00 labels) TOTAL DUE $231.00 NOTE: This invoice is in accordance with the Development Review Application submitted to the City by the Addressee shown above (copy attached). Make all checks payable to: City of Chanhassen Please write the following code on your check: Planning Case #05-38 Galpin Crossing. If you have any questions concerning this invoice, call: (952)-227-1107. THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS! DEVELOVMFNT. IIC 12/16/05 Todd Gerhardt . City Manager City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Todd; I am writing to ask you to reconsider the concept approval of Ualpin Crossing planning Case 05-38. 1 was at the City Council meeting on December 12, 2005. 1 left atter this was tabled, as the Mayor was not at the meeting. I understand that the Mayor arri vcd later and this was approved. I am concerned about the following items firm the documents dated 11/15/O5: # 4: l feel that the appropriate setbacks should be those set for business neighborhoods of 15 feet and 35 feet. #5: Our market research indicates smaller buildings with Identity are more desirable, reducing the number of builduigs does not increase the amount of green space. 413! We do not think we should be required to wait for the Retail Market Survey seeing that approximately 200 acres has been taken out of the Office/Industrial zoning for a school & multi family homes (Mattson & Bernardi). I'd love to get together to discuss this project further. Sincerely, >r�.. Rich Ragatx Chief Manager EPIC Development 612-730-2814 cell/office CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED [�HAM�� DEC 1 6 2005 SEN PLANNING DEPT EPIC Development 9820 Sky Lane Eden Prairie, Mk55347 ° �C°mpany:L ax: It- 'd� Ci�u.hngss From: Pages: Date; Rich Ragatz 612-730-2814 phone Email: rragatza.41ink."t (Including cover shoot) 1,�-IlepI2006 hone: 45o '—X�7' !/� ime: ubject: CmRE(C^�SSEN DF _ DEPT _ L Administration Re: Galpin Crossing — Planning Case #05-38 Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Dear Mr. Ragatz: Building Inspections Phone: 952.227 1180 This letter is to confirm receipt of your letter requesting reconsideration of the Fax: 952.227.1190 Planned Unit Development concept approval for the above reference project. Engineering We have scheduled this item for City Council review on January 9, 2006. The Phone: 952.227.1100 City Council meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. and is held in the Council Fax: 952.227.1170 Chambers. Finance December 19, 2005 CITY OF You may wish to provide a copy of your market research for City Council CIIANIIASSEN Mr' Rich Ragatz Epic Development T700 Market Boulevard 9820 Skylane PO Box 147 Eden Prairie, MN 55347 Chanhassen, MN 55317 appropriate and should be maintained. Administration Re: Galpin Crossing — Planning Case #05-38 Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Dear Mr. Ragatz: Building Inspections Phone: 952.227 1180 This letter is to confirm receipt of your letter requesting reconsideration of the Fax: 952.227.1190 Planned Unit Development concept approval for the above reference project. Engineering We have scheduled this item for City Council review on January 9, 2006. The Phone: 952.227.1100 City Council meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. and is held in the Council Fax: 952.227.1170 Chambers. Finance Phone: 952.2271140 You may wish to provide a copy of your market research for City Council Fax: 952.227.1110 review. If you have any additional items you wish to submit to City Council to facilitate their reconsideration, have it in our office by December 30, Park 3 Recreation please Phone: 952.227.1120 2005. Please note that staff believes that the recommended conditions are Fax: 952227.1118 appropriate and should be maintained. Recreation Center 2310 Coulter If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at e:952.22 .1404 Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 (952) 227-1131 or beenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Planning A Sine Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public works 1591 Park Road Robert Generous, AICP Phone: 952227.1300 Senior Planner Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center ec: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Phone: 952.227.1125 Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. /ACTION 1 To: � a V1• �[ Date: /o.7o •T From: ❑ FOR YOUR COMMENTS FOR YOUR INFORMATION L)FOR YOUR APPROVAL ❑ NOTE & RETURN ❑ TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ❑ NOTE & FILE ❑ CALL ME ❑ FOR YOUR SIGNATURE ❑ SEE ME ❑ ❑ REPLY & SEND ME COPY ❑ COMMENTS: 10 0 SJc. r.i b � `o.% C Pe.j 4 LIJ If"411 C Copyright 1%9,1970 ural Office Aids, Inc. 13 n ills, N.V. 10708 V.W. Eimicke Associates, Inc., &enxville, N.V. 10]08 Tel. (914) 33]-1900 • Fax (914) 33]-1]23 Distributed in Canada solely by VW Eimicke Ltd., Peterborough, Ontano Tel. (705) 743-4202 • Fax (705) 743-9994 PRIWIM IN USA Form OA -4 PARCEL A: That part of the southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of jection 10, Township 116, Range 23 and the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of section 15, Township 116, Range 23, carver county, Minnesota, described as IoilOws: Beginning at the southwest corner of said section 10; thence on as assumed bearing Of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds west along the West line of said southwest Quarter, a distance of 1026.89 feet; thence South 79 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 177.77 feet; thence South 86 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 100.40 feet; thence south 78 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 194.14 feet; thence south 74 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 150.00 feet; thence South 47 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 75.43 feet; thence North 82 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds East, a distance of 74.98 feet; thence south 58 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 84.58 feet; thence South 89 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 164.63 feet; thence South 18 degrees 17 minutes 40 seconds west, a distance of 824.19 feet to the northerly right of way line of Trunk Highway 5; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 33.08 feet; thence south 56 degrees 40 minutes 55 seconds west along said northerly right of way, a distance of 158.95 feet; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 518.22 feet to the west line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23; thence North 1 degree 37 minutes 50 seconds West along said west line of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 9.12 feet to the point of beginning. Which lies northwesterly of that particular northwesterly right-of-way line of Parcel 216, as shown on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-08, recorded as Document No. 265755 and as amended on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-14, recorded as Document No. 279658, described as follows: commencing at the southwest corner of said section 10; thence on an assumed bearing Of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds west, along the west line of the Southwest Quarter of said section 10, a distance of 401.19 feet, to a particular right-of-way line of said Parcel 216 and the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 47 degrees 18 mintues 16 seconds East a distance of 175.14 feet, to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 47 degrees 18 minutes 19 seconds East a distance of 22.71 feet, to a point of curvature in said right-of-way line; thence easterly a distance of 662.60 feet, along a non-tangential curve concave to the south having a radius of 633.04 feet and a central angle of 59 degrees 58 minutes 14 seconds and having a chord of 632.76 feet which bears North 77 degrees 17 mintues 27 seconds East to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 56 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds East, not tangent to said curve a distance of 114.28 feet, to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 22 degrees 13 minutes 10 seconds East, along said right-of-way line, a distance of 116.13 feet and said line there terminating. SCANNED mrOF Date: October 17, 2005 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department By: Robert Generous '% f n/ heaif4rn0/ yOu/'0/0 ans t tfj n° /° Thank rh tiger e�hen y041! eq Subject: Request for Concept Planned Unit Development approval for a 10 -unit twin home project and a 66,000 square -foot office development on the northwest comer of the intersection of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard - GALPIN CROSSING. Applicant: Epic Development. Planning Case: 05-38 The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on October 17, 2005. The 60 -day -review period ends December 16, 2005. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on November 15, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than November 4, 2005. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. 1. City Departments: a. City Engineer b. City Attorney c. City Park Director d. Fire Marshal e. Building Official f. Water Resources Coordinator g. Forester 2. Carver Soil & Water Conservation District 3. MN Dept. of Transportation (2 copies) 4. MN Dept. of Natural Resources 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 6. U.S. Fish & Wildlife 7. Carver County a. Engineer b. Environmental Services 8. Watershed District Engineer a. Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek b. Lower Minnesota River c. Minnehaha Creek 9. Telephone Company (Qwest or Sprint/United) 10. Electric Company (Xcel Energy or MN Valley) 11. Mediacom 12. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco Location Map Galpin Crossing Concept PUD Planning Case No. 05-38 NW Corner Highway 5 & Galpin Blvd. City of Chanhassen 5 ArboretumBo lu ve and SUBJECT PROPERTY e U 0 0 OS -3a CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 15, 2005 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Deborah Zorn, Debbie Larson, Kurt Papke, Dan Keefe, Uli Sacchet and Jerry McDonald MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Alyson Morris, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: GALPIN CROSSING. DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF GALPIN Public Present: Name Address Mark Scholle Rich Ragatz Perry Ryan Gerald Wolfe Mike Shields Charles Gelino Larry & Michaele Martin Dianne & Lance Erickson Tom Kraus Andy Mital Maureen & Mark Magnuson Jeff Weyandt 568 Summerfield Drive Eden Prairie Orono 7755 Vasserman Trail 7759 Vasserman Trail 7729 Vasserman Trail 7725 Vasserman Trail 7735 Vasserman Trail 7744 Vasserman Trail 7750 Vasserman Trail 7715 Vasserman Trail 7626 Ridgeview Way Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Bob. Questions from staff. Keefe: Yeah Bob, I've got a question. Going from, what's the next step after concept planned unit development? Is it planned unit preliminary? Planning Commission Meeting — November 15, 2005 • Generous: They would do a preliminary plat, preliminary subdivision review. Get those, the preliminary engineering work done. Keefe: Okay. And then one thing I'm just looking at. I don't know what page, it's on page 4. Just at the bottom it says the City is undertaking a market study to determine whether we need additional commercial and office space. Just in terms of process, that happens after we grant the concept PUD? Just in terms of. Generous: Yes, it would be taking place probably concurrently there. Once they get concept approval they have an idea that the city supports this project but it really doesn't have any standing. We don't have to approve it but we give them a list of issues that they would need to address if they wanted to go forward with this project. In the interim we would have this market study done and it would tell us, we're looking at, do we need more retail. Do we need more office industrial and where are appropriate locations for that? Keefe: Okay, so let me just follow that through. If the study kicks back and says that we don't need more commercial, what is sort of the process then? Generous: If they came in and they said we don't need it there, we can say no to that. Based on our study we don't, this is not an appropriate location. Keefe: And then does the land use go back? Generous: Well it stays residential. This is just concept. As one, the list of things they'd have to do at the next step would be the conditional use permit. The comp plan amendment for the land use changes. Any rezoning. All that. The preliminary platting. All the general review processes for that we would undertake as a city. Keefe: Alright. Just one additional question. Just going back to the parking. If you were to go to that, I don't know if you've given some thought in terms of the 3 building design. How much of a green space pick-up do you think you'd get? Have you gotten that far yet? Generous: No we haven't but we think that we can create corridors... Keefe: Yeah, because it doesn't look like there's really any office... Generous: Well and also like I stated in the report, they over parked this just on the site plan basis numerically for the type of uses they're proposing there. Additionally if they did come in again, if they could get complimentary type uses in there that some shared parking opportunities, you have an ability to reduce parking even further. And if the lot, if you can show proof of parking so you maintain green area until it's proven that you know they have a parking issue up there and then they can have them pave it later. Keefe: Okay, good. Sacchet: Any other questions from staff? 2 Planning Commission Meeg —November 15, 2005 • Larson: I was just curious regarding that full range of housing opportunities and you've got only 10 units. I mean how wide a range are we talking here for something like this? Generous: Well I'm talking city wide. We don't have many twin home units so that would be a different housing opportunity community wide. Larson: Got ya. Okay. Generous: And you know single family probably not the best location for that on West 78's Street, and there wasn't support before for townhouses. That would be the next step up in here. So this is a nice transition, and again blends into the Vasserman Ridge development just to the west. Zom: Bob you mentioned that the primary and secondary corridor boundaries are not recognized. Generous: They haven't designated them on this plan. At the next level that would be something that we would require they show and then there's two things we'd look at that for impacts from grading issues and also for setbacks issues. Zorn: So the plan as it right now, does it seem, does it violate any of those boundaries? Do we know that? Generous: We think the housing around that little cul-de-sac bubble may be a little close but that's yet, we'll leave that to be determined. And that could be the, force the bubble up where they have to lose a unit or redesign it. So there's, again that would be a preliminary issue. We can take care of that if they go forward. Zorn: And the MnDot traffic study, does that also dictate whether that Galpin Road exit/entrance would happen? Generous: Yes, that would be something that we would look at. If the study said it's an unsafe location, then the city could say that we're not recommending approval of that connection. But then you'd also have to look at the flip side, if all the traffic's forced onto West 78"' Street, will that operate appropriately also. So. Zorn: Okay, thanks. Sacchet: Jerry, got any questions? McDonald: I've got a couple. First question I've got is, okay I'm a little confused about these PUD's. Are we going to see the plans for this again or if we approve a PUD, does it skip us and then go straight up to City Council for any further approvements? Planning Commission Meeting — November 15, 2005 • Generous: If you recommend approval and council recommend approval, then it would come back again as a preliminary planned unit development and preliminary plat. McDonald: Okay, so it would come back through... again? Generous: Right, and then additionally they may have a site plan approval as a part of that or they may come in later with a site plan on the commercial side. The residential would have to be pretty much finalized as a part of the preliminary plat. McDonald: Okay. On the roadway here, a couple questions on that. Was any of this dictated by us to have a road that would go through this island here as the way it's laid out or is that pretty much, is that a question I should ask? Generous: It's better for the applicant. However we are aware that MnDot did leave an access opening for them on Galpin. McDonald: Okay. Well then the next question is the entrance onto Galpin. We went through this before about spacing between entrances. Galpin's a county road so it should fall under that. Do we have those kind of restrictions on here as far as entrances and exits off of a road such as this? Morris: This, the County certainly still has jurisdiction over this road. However Galpin Boulevard north of Highway 5 is treated differently versus Galpin Boulevard south. The County is interested in actually turning back that portion of Galpin Boulevard to the City so they're not, they don't tend to enforce their spacing guidelines but we would certainly send this over to the County to get their input on spacing guidelines. McDonald: Okay, and as part of the study, are we going to end up looking at traffic flow to look at the determination of traffic signals up at West 78th and Galpin because of additional flow here? Is that all part of this too? Moms: We would look at what traffic volumes would generate. They would come up with a background amount of traffic and then the additional traffic that would be generated due to the uses proposed on the site, and based on that recommendation they would come up with how the intersection of West 78th and Galpin will function and they'll come up with recommendations at which time we would put a four way signalized intersection there. McDonald: So we will get a study that will talk about, it rises to a level of a four way stop or the volume is such that there should be a traffic light there, or there should be additional tum lanes. Moms: Correct, and we can look to the Planning Commission to see exactly what you would like to see in a traffic study, both with signal recommendations with islands to restrict turning movements. Internal safe circulation, all those sorts of things we can look at a transportation professional's recommendations. 4 Planning Commission Meeting —November 15, 2005 • McDonald: Okay. Now getting into the way it's laid out with all the parking spaces and those types of things. At this point this is only a conceptual drawing so what they could do is, they could always add a sixth building if they wanted to if we approved a PUD, is that right? Generous: Well except for you're approving, yeah they could come back with anything under that. McDonald: Okay. I guess I have some questions for the applicant at that point as to that, but the study that you're looking at doing as far as the commercial viability and the need for things, what exactly, is that a market study based upon what the city has and doesn't have and is it a competitive study or how much of this is left up to the applicant to decide what kind of businesses will go in there? Generous: Well our study will look at what's best for the City of Chanhassen. It will look community wide where our land uses are. Where our housing's proposed. What type of commercial opportunities, do we need more retail? Do we need, you know we're always, our surveys are coming back and people are saying well restaurants and I'm sure that will be one of the components of that. What are the types of commercial uses? McDonald: Okay. And then how binding is that upon the applicant at that point? I mean what's to stop. Generous: It's not binding on the applicant at all. It's for the city to determine whether or not it's, if that study direction says we need more commercial, then ultimately City Council will say okay, let's designate additional lands for retail for instance. McDonald: Okay. Now the homes that are up on Parcel A, what it looks like is, I guess it's 7, 8, 9 and 10, there is a feeder road that will be their driveway, another private driveway... Generous: Yeah. McDonald: Everybody would come in through the circle for that and would either you know go to their homes there or go down this little road. Generous: That's correct. McDonald: Okay. And does that become a private drive or what exactly is that? Generous: Well it would be a private street and under the subdivision process we'd have them, it's a variance. So you'd have to review that. McDonald: So are we responsible for maintenance as far as snow removal and those things? Generous: Not if it's a private street, no. McDonald: Okay. I guess that's it. The rest I'll save for the applicant. 5 Planning Commission Mee — November 15, 2005 • Sacchet: Kurt. Papke: Back to the traffic study. Would it look at the probability of people doing U-turns at that area headed north there because that happens quite a bit already and I don't know, does a traffic study look at people making those kinds of illegal maneuvers or does it strictly look at flow through that intersection? Moms: We can ask that the traffic study look at that. Look at driver behavior. Anticipate the number of U-tums that would occur at that. They can predict number of turns and review turns so we can direct them to study that. Papke: Okay. I'd like to see that happen because as the letter that we received here just prior to the meeting pointed out, and I've observed this many times myself, that does happen there and I have a concern. I know we're not at commentary yet but since we're at questions and we're on this topic, I do have a concern that this additional road coming out to Galpin will exacerbate that situation with people driving by that entrance and it's going to be natural for people to want to double back and tum at that point because that's the entrance that they see. So that would be great. In terms of the building count here and you know 3 versus 5 or whatever buildings, Bob are there any standards, guidelines, you know looking for consistency other than the green space issue? What else would guide our decision making process about whether this is a suitable choice? Generous: Well as far as the comp plan, we use a floor area ratio of between .2 and .3 for office uses. Their proposal right now is under that so we think that the square footages work. They could probably even increase that and it would be okay. Subject to the traffic analysis. That they're not over burdening the roads. The rest of it's just a design issue. What, from the city standpoint, what is the vision we have for this comer. Papke: Okay. And one other question about the rezoning, market study, etc.. Would you also take into account in that study the space, or the areas within the city that have recently been taken out of the commercial zoning? For instance, you know recently in the southwest corner of the city there's some conversions that have been going on. Will you be taking that into account as well? The balance that the comp plan steers us towards. Generous: Yes, and we'll look at all our office/industrial and commercial land uses. And our projected build out populations. Papke: Okay. No more questions. Sacchet: Little more about this usage thing. That you said it would be studied but you also make a pretty clear statement they will be limited to a bank with drive thin, medical offices and/or clinics and offices. It's not really our task but I would think it's going to be something certainly City Council will look at. I mean how many banks is in the good of the city? I mean we have banks like weeds in this town and, but then on the other hand I feel very strongly that it's not the city government's task to regulate what kind of business comes in. I mean if the business goes Planning Commission Meetmg — November 15, 2005 • there and wants to take a chance and has a good prospect, it's free trade here so. So I'd like to have a little bit of an idea from you, from staff, what's the thinking behind proposing banks, medical offices, clinics? Generous: Well our major thinking for this corner, we believe it's a good site for an office complex. The bank issue came up, we have banks coming into the community all the time asking where they can locate. There are some banks that aren't represented in Chanhassen. Sacchet: It's hard to believe. Generous: You know and that's all market driven. They do their homework before they locate and even, they're a good user as far as the city's concerned because they do generally do high quality buildings. They maintain their facilities. They can be incorporated in a larger building, and that's one of the things we'd like out here, that it not just be a bank but that it be an office building. A bank with, as part of a larger office building so there could be other users there. Sacchet: I feel like a collector of banks. Yeah, that gives a little idea, thanks. I don't want to make light of it. In terms of where the Bluff Creek is, do we have a general idea where that primary, secondary boundary is or is that premature to try to at least give us a general idea. Generous: Well we did the, Mr. Pryzmus had the corridor surveyed at one time. I'm surprised he didn't give it to the applicant. It's generally follows the sewer easement on the east side. And then it cuts across and then it comes out with this wetland complex and then back in. Sacchet: So pretty much follows that wetland line. Generous: Yeah. Sacchet: But isn't then the setback is supposed to be 30 feet? 40 feet? Generous: It's 40 feet from the Bluff Creek primary zone. It's 561/2 feet from wetland edges, so we think there may be a little overlap in there. Sacchet: So I mean, there isn't, as I read that, there's certainly not that much distance from where the wetland boundary is now right? Generous: Yeah, and this is just a concept so like we stated in the report, if they come forward they'd have to prove that they can meet all the required setbacks. Sacchet: Yeah, and I saw the applicant shaking their head before when we touched on it and maybe you can give us a little more an idea on that when we get to that. Let's see. 5 versus less office buildings. I think we talked about that. The parking. There's a mention on top of page 10 about property line issues. Property line issues that may impact some of the requirements of the proposed buildings, including but not limited to allowable size and fire resistive construction. Can you explain that a little bit more please? Planning Commission Meeting — November 15, 2005 • Generous: That's part of the building and fire code requirements. If they're going to subdivide the office component they have to have so much separation between the property line and the building or they have to do fire, different fire rating. They can't have openings for instance if they're too close to the property lines so that eliminates our windows, so they need to be cognizant that that will be an issue as far as the platting and site planning for the southern properties, as well as the residential on the north side. Because under a PUD theoretically they could have lots that just go around the building and the rest would be common open space, which is one of the things that we look at under a planned development. That they give common area for either the association or the community. Specifically on this one we know that we'd like to see the Bluff Creek primary zone included as a separate outlot so that everyone's aware that that's the demarcation there. Sacchet: One aspect of this asking the applicant to have less of this office building. What basis do we really have? I mean what are we, I mean it says recommendation or is this is something we can ask for or is it just, I mean is there a trade off with the PUD that we can get into that... Generous: Under a PUD the city can determine whatever uses it wants for that property. We'd be rezoning it. Again we're hoping that as part of our market study on this come back and you get more clarity on that. One of the uses that I was looking at potentially adding would maybe be personal services. You know dry cleaning, things like that. People, things that people could use on a daily basis, but not specifically retail. Our concern if we open this comer up to retail, the traffic gets even more intensive and so. Sacchet: And then my last question. Last condition actually states that we ask for soil borings. Is that a standard requirement or is that because it's close to the wetland or what exactly are we doing here? Generous: Well it is a standard requirement as part of the platting but our concern is because of the wetlands on the north side and Bluff Creek, that we get some verification that these are developable sites rather than you know a 20 or 30 foot pit that they're going to have to dig out or the construction activity use pilings for that. So at least coming in under the preliminary plat we'd be aware of it and the developer would be aware of those issues. Sacchet: Okay, thank you. You have another question Deborah? Zorn: Yes, I have two follow-up's. Just to clarify that. On the bottom of page 4 for the market study, is there a time line for the market study where we can ensure that when this comes before us again, this plan, that we, it will actually coincide with the market study? Generous: Well that, the market study's going separately to council. I think it's later this month to get approval to do it. We're also contacting the Chamber to see if they're interested in Participating in that. So hopefully it'd be ordered this year and then to do the study we think we can, it will dovetail pretty close because there's a lot of issues that the developer would have to rezone based on just the list that we've provided and I don't know whether they can tum it around fast enough to do that. 0 ■ Planning Commission Me ing — November 15, 2005 • Zorn: Okay. And then also on the bottom of page 4, just to clarify one of the letters from our resident indicated a sufficient number of banks and office space and I think this person is also alluding to why not retail space. On the bottom of page 4 indicates retail, commercial uses are not appropriate. Is it for just that traffic reason that you mentioned? Generous: Yeah, because of the intensity of traffic on there. You know convenience store. Another all night operation. When the person came in and talked to me, his concern was you know the lighting they have across the street, that this not be continued. So again office uses shut down at night generally and so they're darker and quiet. Zorn: Okay, thanks. Sacchet: Alright. With that I'd like to ask the applicant, if you want to come forward and add to what staff presented. You may want to state your name and address for the record. Rich Ragatz: Mr. Chair and members of the commission. My name is Rich Ragatz from Epic Development. I live in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. Just wanted to come up and, this is a real unique site that we have here and at first we thought, we thought of some other uses for this site too. It's well located. Good visibility. Good access. We even thought that maybe retail was an appropriate use but after talking with the city, found that they weren't really encouraging that type of use and we are open to looking at the office and we think that having several different buildings is the way to go. If you look at what's been built in the market recently, there's a lot of, most of the people that are out in the market right now prefer to own versus lease and so we think a number of these buildings, probably at least half of them will be for sale instead of for lease. You're seeing a lot of the office condos. The mortgage rates are still pretty good and that's just kind of the mentality in Minnesota is people want to own versus lease and so we're thinking that that's more appropriate and we don't really see that by doing 3 buildings versus the 5 buildings that you're really going to save much in terms of parking and open space. We'd like to try and maximize the green space on the site but we'll continue to work to see if we can do that. I guess on the north side of the property here, we think that the twin homes do a good job of kind of transitioning from the other adjacent twin homes and residential to the commercial that will be along Highway 5. So I guess with that I'll just open it up for comments. Sacchet: Thank you. Questions from the applicant? McDonald: On this road that you have going through the northern part of Parcel B, what's the purpose of that? And what I mean by that, is this still a viable development if the entrance is off of West 78`s9 Rich Ragatz: Well this access point right here is actually a platted access and we think that that is needed in order to make the developer viable. The people just, people like convenience and if it's not convenient, then they're not going to go there. 0 Planning Commission Meeting — November 15, 2005 • McDonald: And the other question I've got is, you've got a lot of space here with these buildings and I tend to agree with staff that it is over parked. Is there any consideration as far as maybe cutting back on some of those spaces and turning that into more green space? Rich Ragatz: We'd consider doing that. We think there is too many spots on this site. Some other developments that we've worked on around the metro area, this is a fairly low percentage of buildings versus the total site area. This is I think about 19% and we've seen some developments, I'm doing a development down in Eagan that we're a little more than that so we're actually on the low end of the range in terms of buildings per acreage. And so we, I don't know if you'd be open to looking at some, fewer parking spots per building so we could get more open space. That's something we'd consider too. McDonald: Okay. I mean I agree with you that building space per the lot, I mean you've done a good job there as far as keeping it, it's not over crowded. On the road, the concern I've got there and this is something I just want to know if you all would consider this or if it is but as part of this study, I mean you're right across from the CVS. What I'm concerned about is at that point from Highway 5 up to West 78th, we're going to create a traffic problem. Between people on your side trying to get in and out. Between the people over on CVS trying to come in and out, we can't put a light or stop sign there and if say it comes back and says there's even a potential at that point are you willing to reconsider the entrance off of 78d or do something else? Maybe redo the layout. Rich Ragatz: Yeah, we'd look at that. McDonald: On the twin homes that you have up to at the top up there, have you done a look and to see where these are going to be as far as setbacks within the Bluff Creek area? Rich Ragatz: We have. The overlay that we got from the previous engineering firm, we use that in terms of coming up with this design and we believe that it fits within, it's outside of the overlay district. McDonald: Okay. I have no further questions Sacchet: Okay. Any other questions from the applicant? No? Let's see. So you're fine with the idea that staff presented with the bank, medical offices, clinics, offices. Is that, does that make sense to you or do you have anything to say about that? Rich Ragatz: Well obviously you've seen there's a lot of banks out there looking to be in every suburb and this area, there's going to be a lot of homes being built here in the next several years in Chanhassen and there's several banks that are anxious to take a hard look at the site. And we agree that it's a great location for that. I don't know if you're open to looking at some other uses, if you'd look at a mix of office, maybe some professional services. Other things like that such as a dry cleaner. Maybe even a little strip center. I know it's probably not a good work to hear but it seems like a logical location for that. Sacchet: Strip center, okay. 10 Planning Commission Meeting — November 15, 2005 • Rich Ragatz: I don't know if you're open to looking at more retail or not. Larson: Strip mall. Sacchet: Alright. We're helping you out. Yeah, anything else you wanted to add from your end? Rich Ragatz: I don't know if you'd be open to looking at anything else on the north side of West 78th. If we're looking at concentrating the density and providing more open space over there and more buffer to the existing wetland, we'd be open to looking at something like that. We even thought it'd be a logical place for a little daycare or something like that. It's a great location. Sacchet: Question of staff. I mean if we say like neighborhood business, that's a -term that came up sometimes in the context of these, not really central business district. Say neighborhood business. Now this one would be more restrictive the way you're suggesting, right? Generous: Right. Sacchet: Okay. Generous: Once neighborhood business, once you say retail, unless you specifically list you know what the uses are. Sacchet: And with a PUD we could do that. Generous: Yes. Sacchet: I mean we could say daycare center. We could say dry cleaner. We could come up with a list that everybody could be comfortable with. Rich Ragatz: I think that'd be a great way to go because we can do market studies but really it's up to the people that are out there looking at the time and then it would give us some flexibility if the market is dictating some other uses other than what we had there, as long as it falls in line with what you guys are looking for. Sacchet: I think that would be important because we want to make sure this can be successful. Alright, thank you very much. Rich Ragatz: Thank you. Sacchet: Now this is a public hearing. I'd like to invite anybody who wants to speak up to this topic to come forward at this time and come up to the podium and speak into the microphone. State your name and address for the record and you can move that microphone in front of you so it actually picks up your sound. There you go. 11 Planning Commission Meeting —November 15, 2005 • Andy Mital: My name's Andy Mital and I live on 7750 Vasserman Trail, which is just a little a ways above where this development would occur. My only concern is a subject that a number of you touched on and I want to suggest we give this a very serious consideration and that is the traffic situation. I've lived there for a little over a year and a half now and I've observed people going to the Kwik gas, the gasoline station or the CVS. The majority of them coming off of Highway 5, if not all of them, make a U tum there. And with that ingress and egress that's being proposed in this study, it's just going to cause one hell of a big problem there in my opinion. And my only purpose for coming up here is to impress upon everyone here the importance of looking at this traffic situation and not come back a few years later and we'll all say we're sorry, we didn't look at it hard enough. Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Larry Martin: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. My name is Larry Martin. I live at 7725 Vasserman Trail. I too am concerned about the operation of that intersection. Just some simple math would tell you that any vehicle that is going into that space is either going to have to make a left hand turn or, on the way in or the way out and many of them are also going to have to make U turns off of Galpin there. My personal observation is about 1 in 3 cars now that go down Galpin are making a U turn around there and I think it could get worst. Part of the proposed housing there has private streets. I don't know how the Planning Commission feels about private streets, but there's one that's parallel to 78d' Street there. My experience with those, living over in Minnetonka is that the maintenance department doesn't like them because there's no place to put the snow, and they just don't give a pleasing look in front of there. Towards that thing I'm worried about the berm separation too. Those townhomes that are on 78`s are going to be looking across at a commercial area there. I don't know if a 6 foot or an 8 foot berm is appropriate there to do that but I think there is some buffering that is needed there. Those, because they are commercial buildings, commercial buildings do have trash and refuse pick-up. I don't know if the city requires those to be located inside the buildings but certainly outside the building I think they could be there. For the office area there, it would be nice if we did have some walking trails between the buildings. I think that was in the staff report. Also a connection to the trail system would be in there too. Going along the north/south border is a power line. That power line does not show here on any of the things. There are various easements that they have on those. For the higher voltage ones, I could be wrong but I think they're up to 75 feet of the easements and I think that could sway where those townhomes are located there. The area where the townhomes are now is a low area so there will be fill. I think in the technical jargon it's what, Basin number 3 and it's a Type H. So there possibly would be some wetlands swapping out and replacement having to be done there. In my estimation a bank is retail. I don't know why people don't think it's that. There are cars coming and going all night. On the plan there they show many of the drive thru windows so it is a retail type thing. We're worried about storm water retention on the site there. When you leave that much hardscaping, something has to happen. And staff picked up on that so there's just a number of concerns that the residents in that area have talked to me about and we've talked and stuff. I wonder on the process, since this is so preliminary and since there are a number of things, would it be proper to have the applicant do some more work on this and then come back before the Planning Commission before it is given to the council so I thank you for your attention and we 12 Planning Commission Meering — November 15, 2005 0 are interested in good development in that area and we thank you for all the work you're doing. Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you for your comments. Appreciate it. Charles Gelino: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. My name is Charles Gelino and the address is 7729 Vasserman Trail. It's one of the lots that's nearest to the adjoining proposed Parcel A. And I would like to open with a question if I may. I'm not aware of the practices. In the county I lived in previously the Planning Commission would go out and look at sites physically. Do you do physical? Sacchet: We make it a practice to go look at places, absolutely. Charles Gelino: This would be an excellent site for an early look. Just to my untrained eye, this ground is really low and we look across our storm water retention pond. The level of the pond and the level of the berm on the other side drops off dramatically in the direction of this land and into Bluff Creek. In the 4 inch rain that we had this fall, it was ponding in that land. It didn't hang around for a long time but water did pond in that area. The other comment is, because it's, this is only a concept, there are, it's very difficult to comment on anything until they have a chance to do some work and see how well it really does meet the metes and bounds. It doesn't look like the townhouses around the traffic circle would meet those metes and bounds but that's an engineer can settle that one, one way or another so we'll wait until the preliminary hearing, thank you. Sacchet: Thank you very much for your comment. Anybody else like to address this item? This is your chance. Jeff Weyandt: Howdy. My name's Jeff Weyandt. I'm at 7626 Ridgeview Way and it's a little bit up past where a lot of this is taking place but just a couple comments. When I looked at the plan, with that much asphalt in there and I'm sure you've given some thought to this already but for the amount of snowplowing and stuff you have to do for a surface like that and where you're going to put it. I know that along our stretch of road we've had a lot of water issues this year and that may be a different issue for the Planning Commission on a different day but what's happening back there is all along that ridge right now we are, everybody along there, their sump pumps are running constantly already and with the rains we had this summer, we had that overflow, that Bluff Creek area overflowed several times and it was over the trails and it got basically pretty much up into our yards, which is not a big deal because it doesn't affect our house but our concerns are more along the lines if you put a little denser housing in, along the north side of this and you're increasing the amount of snow that you're going to plow, you're decreasing the amount of area that you're doing to drain water into, is it going to make things worst back there? Are we going to have more problems? We've had several people had their basements flood. We've got enough issues now and you may have already looked into it to your development, I'm not sure. I was reading as much as I could through there but that's the main issue that my neighbors and I talked about. We want to look at the second thing we want to look at is with the amount of asphalt and the amount of parking there and the type of buildings we're talking there. Like right now you can see a lot of light from Kwik Trip. You can see a lot of 13 Planning Commission Meeting — November 15, 2005 • light from CVS. How much of a lighting plan do we have here to deal with? With all these parking spots and all these office buildings that come in there, you know what are we talking about there because that's something else we have to think about is how that's going to change that area too if all of a sudden we've got all these bright lights in there. Something to think about also so if you increase the amount of green space, maybe that will help that. If you're looking at that and maybe a little less density would be nice. I mean I don't think you know I'd object to what is going on as far as office versus retail. I agree with you that it'd be better to have office than to have a bunch of stores in there adding to traffic problems that already exist as mentioned already, so I just, just a couple thoughts. I don't know if they're addressed that already, do you know? Has somebody already looked at the drainage issues in that area? Sacchet: We're a little bit ahead. We're not quite there yet. I mean we're not looking at the specifics. I mean it's a comment also a previous resident brought up. I mean is this going to come back? Are they going to work more on it? They haven't really worked all that tremendously much on it. That's why it's a preliminary review and if, and they come in to get some direction. They come in to get your comments. Get our comments. To shoot for something that has some chance to actually go somewhere because that's going to be an investment for them, so there will be much more and drainage would certainly fall into what would be looked at very carefully in that context too. Charles Gelino: Alright, thank you. Sacchet: Anybody else wants to come forward? Please. Tom Kraus: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. My name is Tom Kraus. I live at 7744 Vasserman Trail. My concern is the commercial development. At the present time there seems to be a lot of unleased or unsold commercial space in that area. There is a complex, a strip mall at the intersection of Century Avenue and Highway 5 that has been there for at least 2 years. They finally got their third applicant when the liquor store went in there but there's still at least 3 or 4 business areas that are empty, even in the Edina Realty section of it there is empty space in there too that doesn't seem to be leased. In the other buildings on the, should we say the southeast section, past Bluff Creek school where they're building those office complexes there, there seems to be a lot of over building in there. There doesn't seem to be as many people wanting to them as the developer thought there would be, so I'm concerned about now probably we're looking at maybe 2-3 years away before this whole complex gets done. How many buildings are they going to build that might be empty for a period of time before they're used or will the applicant build a building as he gets a tenant or what's going to happen along those lines there. I think those are some of the issues that you have in your marketing plan that will come forward and I hope we don't get too far down the road before that marketing plan is presented to the Planning Commission to say okay, we already have too much commercial or retail or whatever we want to call it, space in that area. Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Anybody else want to talk about this? See nobody getting up so I'll, yeah. No? Alright, nobody getting up. I close the public hearing and bring it back to the commissioners for comments and discussion. We've got some really good feedback from the residents. I really want to thank you for speaking up. Express very clear aspects, concerns. 14 Planning Commission Melling — November 15, 2005 • Things that need to be looked at and we appreciate that very much. Just to summarize what I got from the residents comments, the traffic concerns was mentioned several times. The concern of the private street. The proximity to West 78u' Street there. The need for berming. The concern about the lowness of the ground where those twin homes go in. Drainage issues that will be studied as it gets refined further. A lighting plan I would think that certainly would be part too of what would be looked at, and finally the concern about the demand for commercial, and that's a really sticky thing. I mean to what extent can city government dictate what kind of business comes in? I mean ideally we have a little bit of a partnering and I think that's what staff is aiming for with that study, but ultimately it's the business demands that drive that most of all. Anyhow, comments. Discussion. Commissioners. Do you want to start Dan? Keefe: Sure. I think we have tremendous input, particularly at this stage of the development and I think these guys have a lot of things to mull over and consider in terms of coming forward with the next step of the plan. Generally I'll encourage them to take that next step and to really look at it and come back and I think you guys are headed down generally in the right direction. Sacchet: Thank you. Anybody else? Hop in there Debbie? Larson: Sure, I'll jump in. The traffic issues, I know what you guys are talking about. I do the same thing and I didn't know it was an illegal U tum but I do it because I want to go that way. I want to go south out of there and to me coming out of there, you can't see the other exit that you should be using so you don't do that. It's just not visible to me so I don't see it. So that may be something that definitely should be looked at a little closer. The storm water, that's also a large issue just because of all the water we do have in Chanhassen and the drainage and if we can figure that out, then I'm fine with it. The lighting issues, as was pointed out by staff, doesn't seem to be that big of an issue just because if it is office buildings, they do. They shut down at night so I don't know where that's that big of a deal. The empty building issue. This again is more office space. Some of the ones that the gentleman pointed out were more maybe perhaps industrial and different types of uses so I don't know if this falls into that same category but that's I assume that maybe studies will be done too to find out what the need is and I hope that will be done so those are my comments. Sacchet: Thanks Debbie. You want to jump in Deborah? Zorn: Yes, I even agree with some of the additional comments from our commissioners. The traffic study still remains a concern for me. I'm actually a resident in that area so I also have concerns and hoping you can, that you will take some of the comments and think about some of the features that will retain a residential neighborhood. You know the lighting. Definitely the concern about the drainage and the Bluff Creek Overlay District and I know a lot of my neighbors did have flooding many times this summer and so. And also looking on that south side, if there's any way we can reduce some of that parking, just to alleviate, add some more green space and to take away some more asphalt. Otherwise it looks like a nice addition to this side of town. Sacchet: Thanks Deborah. Jerry, do you want to comment? 15 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting —November 15, 2005 McDonald: Sure. I guess from a preliminary standpoint, I don't have a problem with this. It looks fine. I would expect more detail. That was why one of my questions you know are we going to see it through here again. The whole issue about Parcel A and if that's too low or not. I mean at that point I expect to see elevation drawings and that will begin to tell us where are you at as far as the elevation and what are we looking at for fill and what requirements the city's going to put on top of that so that's a detail that will come. So the private street issue, I wouldn't be in favor of this without the private street because that's too many entrances onto 78`h. I have a concern about the traffic problems. We probably should have never allowed the entrance on Galpin where it was at. I mean 78`" was designed to be more of a feeder road off of 5 for businesses so that we wouldn't have the traffic trying to get on and off of 5. But that's water over the bridge. I just don't think that we should compound the problem which is why I think the entrance should be on 78`s, but we'll wait for the traffic study to come up and see how there is. As far as the parking lot. Yeah, I believe you have over parked it but there's probably room for you know, there's definitely room to put some green space or reserve parking and if one of these buildings needs it at some future time, do it then. Otherwise, you know except for those concerns and most of those I think will shake out in the details, I don't have any problems with the plan at this point. Sacchet: Thanks Jerry. Kurt. Papke: All I'll add is, I'm in favor of some flexibility of the use of Parcel A. Providing that we're of course sensitive to the fact that we're right next to a residential area and obviously there are some drainage, wetland issues and so on so if you come back with a proposal that puts in a daycare center or something like that, as long as the hard surface coverage doesn't exacerbate the drainage issues there, I'm fine with that because I think there's enough traffic in that area and again with the limited access in there and the use of private roads to accommodate residential, I think a single environmentally sensitive business in there that fits in with the neighborhood I think would be very appropriate. So overall I think it's a very good proposal. Sacchet: I think it's an interesting thing. Ultimately the issue in front of us, the way I understand it is, are we fine with business type, office type use on Parcel B? Isn't the guidance for that right now is residential, isn't it? So that the main thing I think in front of us to, and I think we all expressed very clear, are we comfortable with an office type use. A business type of use within a defined framework that we can fine tune that it fits in with your PUD is the proper tool to do that. That we have that discussion and mutually come to an agreement, what is the appropriate collection of uses there. I think that's the main thing that's actually in front of us and I think you have, or you are for backing it sounds like by everybody expressed that. As far as going into details, I think it's just way too early to really get too much drilled down into specifics. We know we do the business study. We know we do traffic study. We know as we move into this when we have a PUD we'll define design standards. We define usage definitions. Eventually come to the point of looking at elevations and drainage and all that. I mean that's going to happen in the future. I mean we're not there at this point so I wouldn't belabor that at this point too much. However the traffic concern is very real. But then on the other hand there is, and I don't know how you call it. Established but a given access from Galpin. I think that is a given if I don't misunderstand the situation. So I don't know whether we even have the option of outlining the process of this to say well there shouldn't be an access. We probably did traffic 16 Planning Commission Mee• g — November 15, 2005 • studies purpose, if I understand it correctly, is more to find out how can we best mitigate imbalances. But I don't think it's necessarily going to go to the point that we can say well there should be an access to Galpin, but that's just my personal opinion. I don't know whether you have something to add to that Alyson. Moms: I think we can look at how the agreements that the property owner has, what stipulations they have. An actual access there and you would have to consult with the city attorney to see if with this going under Planned Unit Development, if having that zoning can restrict use of that access. Those are all things that we have to look into. Sacchet: Something we have to work through basically with the study and everything. Moms: But absolutely looking at mitigation measures. Sacchet: Okay. Yes Jerry. McDonald: I ask a question. This used to be a former driving range. Is that access, that entrance, is that what's plotted there? Morris: We'd have to take a look and the applicant has their documentation stating what their access is for and as staff we would have to look at is that access granted based on a certain land use at the time. Was this zoned for a residential and they assume residential traffic volumes coming through here, so those are all things that we will be looking at through the traffic analysis. McDonald: Because that corner was significantly different when that was a driving range. Sacchet: Also one more question about the traffic aspect. I mean the fact that people make U turns there at the intersection of Galpin and 78`h Street, that's the, mostly the people that use the Kwik Trip. That's really totally unrelated to this parcel, and I don't think that, at that intersection it would be more aggravated because you can't go north when you come out of Galpin from this side. You can only go south. If you want to go north you have to use the other entrance so it wouldn't really aggravate that U tum thing so I would consider that U tum problem unrelated to this parcel. Papke: Mr. Chair I respectfully disagree. Sacchet: Please, explain. Papke: I believe that if you tum, make a right tum off of Highway 5, headed north, you will see the entrance to this new development on the left and you're going to go oh. I need to make a U turn up at the intersection here so I can double back and turn in because I can't see the entrance... Sacchet: Can't see the other one. 17 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — November 15, 2005 Papke: ...the entrance over on West 78`s. Sacchet: That's a good point. Papke: You take the entrance you see. Sacchet: Right, right. So we're going to have more of the same U turns. Okay, okay. That is true. That's the type of thing that we're going to be looking at. That's the type of thing that we're going to be discussing and weighing with this traffic study and hopefully get a good, strong foundation where that is at so that's certainly one of the focuses of the traffic study to look at. I see you take notes Alyson, that's good. Anyhow I think I made enough comments in terms of this concept plan. I think we have a pretty clear opinion about it so I would like to ask for a motion. It's on page 10. McDonald: Mr. Chair, I recommend that we adopt staff's motion, the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the concept planned unit development approved for a twin home and office development project located at the northwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard subject to addressing the following issues as a part of the next phase of development review. And that would include the 31 posted bullets with that. Sacchet: And just for the residents in attendance I want to emphasize that this is a recommendation to City Council. This is not a decision. Our role is to make recommendations to City Council so we have a motion, is there a second? Papke: Second. Sacchet: We have a motion and a second. Keefe: Friendly amendment? Sacchet: Friendly amendment, sorry. Keefe: I think 32, do we need to add a traffic study be conducted? Sacchet: That's not mentioned in there at this point? Keefe: I don't see it anywhere in here. Sacchet: That would definitely be a good amendment if it's not mentioned already. Good point. Keefe: I don't see it anywhere. Sacchet: So we have accepted that Jerry? Okay, any other friendly amendments? In that case everybody in favor say aye. IE Planning Commission Meeting — November 15, 2005 McDonald moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends concept planned unit development approval for a twin home and office development project located at the northwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard subject to addressing the following issues as part of the next phase of development review: 1. Development will require a land use amendment from residential to office for the southern eight acres, conditional use permit for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District, preliminary Planned Unit Development, site plan review, and subdivision review with a variance for the private street. 2. The development needs to comply with the design standards for commercial, industrial and office institutional developments. Additional building detail needs to be provided to ascertain the quality of the proposed development. 3. Planned Unit Developments require that development design standards be developed for the project. 4. The following building and parking setbacks will be incorporated in the design standards: 70 feet from Highway 5, 50 feet from West 78th Street and Galpin Boulevard, 25 feet from private streets, 30 feet from the western property line, 50 feet from Bluff Creek, 40 feet from the Bluff Creek Overlay district primary zone boundary and 40 feet from the wetland buffer edge. 5. Reduce the number of building sites proposed on parcel B. 6. Verify that all buildings would comply with the proposed and required setbacks. 7. The goals set forth in the Bluff Creek Watershed Resources Management Plan (BCWNRMP) for the Lowlands Region are to be incorporated in the further development of the plan. 8. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds. 9. A preliminary grading plan must be prepared. 10. A preliminary utility plan must be prepared. 11. The applicant must provide storm water calculations for any proposed subdivision. The development will need to provide storm water ponding on site for treatment prior to discharge into the wetlands or creek. The development must meet pre -development runoff rates for the 10 year and 100 year storm. On site storm water ponding must be sufficient to meet all city water quality and quantity standards. 12. Erosion and sediment control measures will be required in accordance with Chanhassen City Code and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's (MPCA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Construction Permit. Type II silt fence shall be 19 Planning Commission Meeting — November 15, 2005 • provided adjacent to all wetland fill areas, areas to be preserved as buffer or if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge. 13. This project will be subject to Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) connection charges for water quality and water quantity. 14. A MnDOT and Carver County permit will be required for access to the site. 15. The applicant will need to submit a survey showing existing trees and woodlands along with canopy coverage calculations and proposed reforestation. 16. The applicant will be required to pay park fees pursuant to city ordinance. 17. The applicant will need to provide pedestrian connections internally between the buildings and from the site to adjacent trails and sidewalks. 18. A wetland buffer 16.5 feet in width must be maintained around the wetland basin. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the city's wetland ordinance. The applicant must install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of city staff, before construction begins and must pay the city $20 per sign. All structures shall maintain a 40 foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. The grading and erosion control plan shall show the actual wetland buffer widths proposed to meet the minimum average buffer width requirements as well as the 40 foot wetland buffer setback. 19. The Bluff Creek corridor primary zone boundary and required buffer and setback will need to be incorporated on the plans. 20. All of the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone should be included as an Outlot. 21. The Bluff Creek corridor primary zone boundary and the required setback shall be indicated on the grading plan. 22. The development will require a landscaping plan. Staff recommends that significant landscape screening and berming be incorporated along Highway 5 as well as West 78th Street. 23. The developer will need to locate all significant trees on the site and provide a calculation of existing canopy coverage as well as proposed tree removal. 24. The following landscape and tree preservation issues are applicable to the Galpin Crossings site: Parcel A • Show Bluff Creek Primary Zone and setbacks. • Habitat restoration/enhancement around wetland and Bluff Creek. 20 1-9 • etin Planning Commission Meg — November 15, 2005 Tree preservation calculations and landscape plan including reforestation and bufferyard plantings. Show existing trees outside of Primary Zone on landscape plan. Parcel B • No overstory trees allowed under overhead utility lines. • Show overhead utility lines on landscape plan. • Tree preservation calculations and landscape plan including reforestation and bufferyard plantings. • Meet parking lot landscape requirements. • Meet bufferyard landscape requirements. • Show existing boulevard trees along West 78th Street on landscape plan. 25. Galpin Crossing shall pay full park dedication fees at the rate in force upon final platting. 26. The commercial buildings are required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. 27. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 28. A demolition permit must be obtained before beginning demolition of any existing structures. 29. The location of property lines will have an impact on the code requirements for the proposed buildings, including but not limited to; allowable size and fire -resistive construction. The plans as submitted do not have the information necessary to determine compliance at this time. 30. The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss property line issues as well as plan review and permit procedures. 31. The developer shall have soil borings made to determine the suitability of the site for development. 32. A traffic study be completed for the proposed development." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Sacchet: Good luck with it. This will go in front of City Council on the Ie of December so for the residents if you have an interest to see it through the process on the 12th of December, the City Council will look at it. They may or may not take comments. The formal public hearing is done here at the Planning Commission but depending on where it's at and what the situation is, they may take some comments. Alright, with that let's go to our next item. 21 olli 0 } 0 k w 20 7} 2LL or zawin Wk 0 0 0 0 \ , � ) � B �)!�!#:!;`• ;d y 222£e gy«a�&p 9"G w GlE• sm 0 /!+• !//®t /2f 9229 yIr G �la03r \ /i q 6! )/got �wi �wf �! w >� §k 3 - �f � �a®e2 o�ala x£)29 ® 2 olli 0 } 0 k w 20 7} 2LL or zawin Wk 0 0 0 0 \ , � ) � B �)!�!#:!;`• ;d y 222£e gy«a�&p 9"G w GlE• sm 0 /!+• !//®t /2f 9229 yIr G �la03r \ /i q 6! )/got Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers 7700 Market Blvd. Request for Concept Planned Unit Development approval for Proposal: a 10 -unit twin home project and a 66,000 square -foot office Bevel ment — GALPIN CROSSING Planning File: 05-38 Applicant: E is Development Property Northwest comer of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard. Location: A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob Generous at 952-227-1131 or Questions & e-mail bcenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to Comments: submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online at httPJ/206.10.76.6twebIink7 the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is irwited to attend the meefing. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the rlport and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or party the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezpnings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerciaVindustrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an hem through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighbot ood spokespersonfrepresentative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the nc'ghborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report please contact the Planninc Staff person named on the notification. STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Request for Concept Planned Unit Development approval for a 10 -unit twin home project and a 66,000 square -foot office development - GALPIN CROSSING. LOCATION: Northwest comer of the intersection of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard APPLICANT: E�6 elopment John Przymus ylane 12174 170h Avenue Eden Prairie, MN 55347 Villard, MN 56385 (612)730-2814 PRESENT ZONING: Agricultural Estate District, A2 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential — Low Density ACREAGE: 13.94 acres DENSITY: 1.64 units/acre gross; F. A. R. 0.19 SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant in proposing a Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a 10 -unit twin home project and a 66,000 square -foot office development. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving PUD's because the City is acting in its legislative or policy making capacity. A rezoning or PUD, and amen ent thereto, must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. _? �Q L r ccw _Z7) !37� tA-A- �;-4,exz�v S,AC,-,,R C�f Location Map Galpin Crossing Concept PUD Planning Case No. 05-38 NW Corner Highway 5 & Galpin Blvd. City of Chanhassen SUBJECT PROPERTY �:Street/ SCANNED Galpin Crossing November 15, 2005 Page 2 of 13 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant, Epic Development, has prepared a concept PUD for a 10 -unit twin home development on the north side of West 78`s Street and five, two-story office building development including a bank with drive-thru facilities with approximately 66,000 square feet of floor area. Development of the southern parcel with anything other than low density residential uses will require a comprehensive plan amendment. The northern site (Parcel A) has a gross area of 6.09 acres. The southern site (Parcel B) has a gross area of 7.85 acres. Approval of the concept plan shall not obligate the city to approve the final plan or any part thereof, or to rezone the property to a planned unit development district. Rather, it provides a general framework to precede with the preliminary development plans on the project. The conditions identify specific areas of investigation that must be undertaken in furtherance of the project. Staff is recommending that the concept plan be approved subject to the recommendations contained in the staff report. BACKGROUND On October 13, 2003, the Chanhassen City Council approved the Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) review for development of a recreational center or office on the eight (8) acres south of West 78th Street. The land north of West 788h Street, which was proposed for townhouse development, was not approved as part of the concept planned unit development. In 2000 and 2001, West 78`s Street was constructed through the property, bisecting it into six and eight - acre parcels. Additionally, the city extended sanitary sewer for the BC -7 and BC -8 sanitary sewer subdistricts across the northern portion of the property. December 12, 1998, the Chanhassen City Council adopts the Bluff Creek Overlay District. December 1996, Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan is completed. 1996, City Council adopts the Land Uses for the North 1995 Study Area, guiding this property for residential — low density use. In August 1995, the Highway 5 Corridor Land Use Design Study was completed. The bulk of the area was recommended for single-family residential. A portion of the Mills property (Arboretum Village site) was recommended for neighborhood convenience retail center, but only ancillary to office, institutional or multi -family residential. Highway 5 Corridor Design Standards adopted July 11, 1994. As part of the 1991 Comprehensive Plan, this property was included as part of the 1995 study area for determination of the land use of the property. Galpin Crossing November 15, 2005 Page 3 of 13 On February 12, 1990, the Chanhassen City Council approved a zoning ordinance amendment making golf driving ranges interim uses in the A2 district. On November 16, 1987, the Chanhassen City Council approved a zoning ordinance amendment to permit golf driving ranges as a conditional use in the A2 zoning district and a conditional use permit for John Przymus for a golf driving range and miniature golf course at the subject property. On November 4, 1985, the Chanhassen City Council revoked the conditional use permit for a golf driving range at the northwest comer of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard due to non-compliance with the conditions of the conditional use permit. On December 19, 1983, the Chanhassen City Council approved a conditional use permit for a golf driving range at the northwest comer of Highway 5 and Galpin Blvd. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 18 Subdivisions Chapter 20, Article 11, Division 2, Amendments Chapter 20, Article 11, Division 6, Site Plan Review Chapter 20, Article IV, Conditional Use Permits Chapter 20, Article VI, Wetland Protection Chapter 20, Article VII, Shoreline Management Chapter 20, Article VIII, Planned Unit Development District Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 7, Design Standards for Commercial, Industrial and Office Development District Chapter 20, Article XXIX, Highway Corridor District Chapter 20, Article XXXI, Bluff Creek Overlay District PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT The applicant is requesting concept PUD for a 10 -unit twin home development and a 66,000 square - foot, five -building office complex. Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD in this instance is to create an office complex development and a twin -home development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the City has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the other more standard zoning districts. The proposed development provides a compatible development with the surrounding development, provides a transition of uses from the highway to the residential development to the north and preserves the Bluff Creek corridor. The proposed concept PUD assists in the furtherance of the following land use policies of the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan: 0 Chanhassen will strive for a mixture of development which will assure its financial well being. Galpin Crossing November 15, 2005 Page 4 of 13 • Development will be encouraged within the MUSA line. • Encourage low density residential development in appropriate areas of the community in a manner that reinforces the character and integrity of existing single-family neighborhoods (the proposed twin homes would continue the development of twin homes in the southeast corner of the Vasserman Ridge development to the west of the site). • The plan should seek to establish sufficient land to provide a full range of housing opportunities. • The city will seek opportunities to provide transitions between different uses of different types. • The city will encourage the development of neighborhood service centers where appropriate. These will be developed as part of a mixed used development or a PUD. • Development should be phased in accordance with the ability of the city to provide services. The proposed concept PUD assists in the furtherance of the following housing policies of the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan: • A balanced housing supply with housing available for people of all income levels. • A variety of housing types for people in all stages of the life cycle. • Housing development that respects the natural environment of the community while striving to accommodate the need for a variety of housing types and costs. DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS As part of the preliminary development stage of the project, development design standards will be developed. This will include such items as uses, setbacks, building heights, building orientation, signage, landscaping and site furnishing, etc The following building and parking setbacks will be incorporated in the design standards: 70 feet from Highway 5, 50 feet from West 78'h Street and Galpin Boulevard, 20 feet from private street easements, 40 feet from the Bluff Creek primary zone boundary and wetland buffer edge and 30 feet from the western project perimeter. Hard surface coverage for the twin homes would be limited to 30 percent per lot. Hard coverage for the office sites is being proposed at 65 percent. Hard coverage for the office sites can be averaged over all of Parcel B. The city is undertaking a market study to determine the need for additional commercial and office development within the community. This study will evaluate if there is additional need for commercial uses and the appropriate location for such uses. Initially, staff believes that if the concept plan is approved, the uses in this development shall be limited to banks with drive-through, medical offices and/or clinics, and offices. However, retail commercial uses are not appropriate for this location. Galpin Crossing November 15, 2005 D • �` ti�` Page 5 of 13 -IA - v�� Galpin Crossing November 15, 2005 Page 6 of 13 SUBDIVISION REVIEW The proposed development will ultimately require subdivision review. At the next stage of development review, a preliminary plat for the project will need to be prepared in compliance with Chapter 18 of the Chanhassen City Code. All of the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone should be included as an Outlot. STREETS AND ACCESS Access to the office site is proposed via a right-in/right-out on Galpin Boulevard and full access via West 78m Street. It appears that internal access to both the twin homes and office development would be via private streets. Private street easements are 30 feet with a 20 -foot pavement width for the twin homes and 40 feet with a 26 -foot pavement width for the offices. Staff recommends that a traffic study be completed for the proposed development should the Planning Commission and City Council support the proposed officefbank uses on the south side of West 78m Street. The study must address the right-in/right-out access at Galpin, particularly if traffic exiting the site getting in the left tum lane at the Highway 5 intersection willconflict with vehicles entering the right turn lane to the Highway 5 intersection. The study must also address internal traffic circulation and provide recommendations for the minimum stacking distances from the common drive for access to the individual building sites. The Fire Marshall shall determine if the proposed cul-de-sac north of West 78h Street must be a minimum 91 feet in diameter to accommodate the turning movement of a fire truck UTILITIES City sewer and water is available to the site. A preliminary utility plan would be required as part of any future development review. GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL A preliminary grading, drainage and erosion control plan must be prepared. The plan does not identify any ponds within the development. The developer indicated that they would like to expand MNDOT's pond to the west to accommodate water quality and quantity requirements for the site. Staff recommends that the developer contact MNDOT as soon as possible to discuss this possibility before proceeding with the preliminary plans. Epic Development should be aware that MNDOT rejected another developer's proposal to expand a MNDOT pond in the 212 corridor. Storm Water Management No storm water management facilities are currently proposed on-site. The proposed development is required to maintain existing runoff rates and meet National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. Storm water calculations should be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water pond is sized adequately for the proposed development. Galpin Crossing ~' November 15, 2005 Page 7 of 13 Easements Drainage and utility easements (minimum 20 feet in width) should be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas and storm water ponds. Erosion and Sediment Control Erosion and sediment control measures will be required in accordance with Chanhassen City Code and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's (MPCA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Construction Permit. The contractor must secure an NPDES Phase II Construction Permit prior to beginning work on the project. Surface Water Management Fees This project will be subject to Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) connection charges for water quality and water quantity. These charges are a function of the proposed land use as well as the size of the property in acres. Water quality credit is available for providing on-site water quality treatment of storm water. Other Agencies The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley - Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Site Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Army Corps of Engineers, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Department of Health) and comply with their conditions of approval. WETLANDS Existing Wetlands Three ag/urban wetlands exist on-site. Schoell & Madson, Inc. delineated the wetlands in June 2003. Basin 1 is a Type 2 wetland located in the west -central portion of the property south of West 78th Street. The wetland is dominated by reed canary grass and narrow leaf cattail. Basin 2 is a Type 2 wetland located in the west -central portion of the property, north of West 78th Street. The wetland is dominated by reed canary grass and smartweed. Basin 3 is a Type 2 wetland located in the northern portion of the property. The wetland is dominated by reed canary grass, smartweed, trembling aspen and box elder. On August 29, 2003, City staff issued a Notice of Wetland Conservation Act Decision for a wetland exemption for Basins 1 and 2. Aerial photography was reviewed by the City and the wetland basins on either side of West 78th Street were not present prior to the construction of West 78th Street. The wetlands were found to be a result of blockage of drainage along the south side of West 78th Street and concentration of runoff on the downstream (north) end of the culvert under West 78th Street. Galpin Crossing November 15, 2005 Page 8 of 13 Wetland Replacement If non-exempt wetland impact is proposed, wetland replacement must occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The City must approve a wetland replacement plan prior to wetland impacts occurring. A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) must be maintained around Wetland 3 and any required wetland mitigation areas. Wetland buffer areas should be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant must install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign. All structures must maintain a setback of at least 40 feet from the wetland buffer edge. r,'{ BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT �' The City of Chanhassen established the Bluff Creek Overlay District by ordinance in 1998 to protect the Bluff Creek Corridor, wetlands, bluffs and significant stands of mature trees through the use of careful site design and other low -impact practices. This parcel is partially encumbered by the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The primary and secondary corridor boundaries and the 40 -foot setback from the primary corridor are not shown on the plans. The plans should be revised to show the primary and secondary corridors and the setback. No alterations are allowed within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet of the setback from the primary corridor. The grading plan should be revised to eliminate alterations within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet of the setback from the primary corridor. All structures must meet the 40 -foot setback from the primary corridor. The plans should be revised to show the ordinary high water level (OHW) for Bluff Creek, as well as the required 50 -foot setback from the OHW. The goals set forth in the Bluff Creek Watershed Resources Management Plan (BCWNRMP) for the Lowlands Region are to be incorporated in the further development of the plan. Due to the location of the site in areas of wet soils, soil borings should be taken to determine the suitability of the site for development. LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION The following landscape and tree preservation issues are applicable to the Galpin Crossings site: Parcel A Show Bluff Creek Primary Zone and setbacks. Habitat restoration/enhancement around wetland and Bluff Creek. • Tree preservation calculations and landscape plan including reforestation and bufferyard plantings. • Show existing trees outside of Primary Zone on landscape plan. Parcel B • No overstory trees allowed under overhead utility lines. • Show overhead utility lines on landscape plan. Galpin Crossing November 15, 2005 Page 9 of 13 Tree preservation calculations and landscape plan including reforestation and bufferyard plantings. Meet parking lot landscape requirements. Meet bufferyard landscape requirements. Show existing boulevard trees along West 78th Street on landscape plan. PARKS AND RECREATION PARKS The property is situated within the park service areas of Sugarbush Neighborhood Park and the Chanhassen Recreation Center, a community park facility. No additional parkland dedication is required as a part of the Galpin Crossing proposal. TRAILS Two segments of the city's comprehensive trail plan are adjacent to and service the proposed development area—the West 78th Street trail and Galpin Boulevard trail. Internal sidewalk and trail connectors leading to these existing amenities should be made a condition of the approval of Galpin Crossing. In the absence of parkland dedication, it is recommended that Galpin Crossing pay full park dedication fees at the rate in force upon final platting. At today's rates, these fees would total $118,500 (10 units @ $4,000 each plus 7.85 acres @ $10,000 each). GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE The development will need to comply with the development design standards to be developed as part of the preliminary and final development plan for the Galpin Crossing Planned Unit Development. It appears that the development proposes limiting building heights to two stories. Staff is concerned that the applicant is proposing the use of five office buildings. Building square footages should be consolidated in a maximum of three building pads. This should permit additional pedestrian and green space to be incorporated within the project. The development should also provide pedestrian connections from the interior of the project to the trail system on West 78'h Street and Galpin Boulevard. The applicant has proposed the use of interconnections between the building sites' parking areas. Staff supports this type of parking lot design. Cross access easements and cross parking agreements will be required of the development sites. The concept plan over -parks the proposed development by approximately 70 parking spaces. Staff recommends that the developer look at providing an opportunity for creating shared parking, through the appropriate selection of site users, to reduce the amount of parking within the development. MISCELLANEOUS Galpin Crossing November 15, 2005 Page 10 of 13 The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss property line issues as well as plan review and permit procedures. The location of property lines will have an impact on the code requirements for the proposed buildings, including but not limited to, allowable size and fire -resistive construction. The plans as submitted do not have the information necessary to determine compliance at this time. The commercial buildings are required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. A demolition permit must be obtained before beginning demolition of any existing structures. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion and adoption of the attached findings of fact and recommendation: "The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends concept planned unit development approval for a twin home and office development project located at the northwest comer of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard subject to addressing the following issues as part of the next phase of development review: 1. Development will require a land use amendment from residential to office for the southern eight acres, conditional use permit for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District, preliminary Planned Unit Development, site plan review, and subdivision review with a variance for the private street. 2. The development needs to comply with the design standards for commercial, industrial and office institutional developments. Additional building detail needs to be provided to ascertain the quality of the proposed development. 3. Planned Unit Developments require that development design standards be developed for the project. 4. The following building and parking setbacks will be incorporated in the design standards: 70 feet from Highway 5, 50 feet from West 78th Street and Galpin Boulevard, 25 feet from private streets, 30 feet from the western property line, 50 feet from Bluff Creek, 40 feet from the Bluff Creek Overlay district primary zone boundary and 40 feet from the wetland buffer edge. 5. Reduce the number of building sites proposed on parcel B. 6. Verify that all buildings would comply with the proposed and required setbacks. 7. The goals set forth in the Bluff Creek Watershed Resources Management Plan (BCWNRMP) for the Lowlands Region are to be incorporated in the further development of the plan. 8. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds. 9. A preliminary grading plan must be prepared. 10. A preliminary utility plan must be prepared. Galpin Crossing November 15, 2005 Page 11 of 13 11. The applicant must provide storm water calculations for any proposed subdivision. The development will need to provide storm water ponding on site for treatment prior to discharge into the wetlands or creek. The development must meet pre -development runoff rates for the 10 year and 100 year storm. On site storm water ponding must be sufficient to meet all city water quality and quantity standards. 12. Erosion and sediment control measures will be required in accordance with Chanhassen City Code and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's (MPCA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase H Construction Permit. Type II silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all wetland fill areas, areas to be preserved as buffer or if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge. 13. This project will be subject to Surface Water Management Plan (SWAP) connection charges for water quality and water quantity. 14. A MnDOT and Carver County permit will be required for access to the site. 15. The applicant will need to submit a survey showing existing trees and woodlands along with canopy coverage calculations and proposed reforestation. 16. The applicant will be required to pay park fees pursuant to city ordinance. 17. The applicant will need to provide pedestrian connections internally between the buildings and from the site to adjacent trails and sidewalks. 18. A wetland buffer 16.5 feet in width must be maintained around the wetland basin. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the city's wetland ordinance. The applicant must install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of city staff, before construction begins and must pay the city $20 per sign. All structures shall maintain a 40 foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. The grading and erosion control plan shall show the actual wetland buffer widths proposed to meet the minimum average buffer width requirements as well as the 40 foot wetland buffer setback. 19. The Bluff Creek corridor primary zone boundary and required buffer and setback will need to be incorporated on the plans. 20. All of the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone should be included as an Outlot. 21. The Bluff Creek corridor primary zone boundary and the required setback shall be indicated on the grading plan. 22. The development will require a landscaping plan. Staff recommends that significant landscape screening and berming be incorporated along Highway 5 as well as West 78th Street. 23. The developer will need to locate all significant trees on the site and provide a calculation of existing canopy coverage as well as proposed tree removal. Galpin Crossing November 15, 2005 Page 12 of 13 24. The following landscape and tree preservation issues are applicable to the Galpin Crossings site: Parcel A • Show Bluff Creek Primary Zone and setbacks. • Habitat restoration/enhancement around wetland and Bluff Creek. • Tree preservation calculations and landscape plan including reforestation and bufferyard plantings. • Show existing trees outside of Primary Zone on landscape plan. Parcel B • No overstory trees allowed under overhead utility lines. • Show overhead utility lines on landscape plan. • Tree preservation calculations and landscape plan including reforestation and bufferyard plantings. • Meet parking lot landscape requirements. • Meet bufferyard landscape requirements. • Show existing boulevard trees along West 78th Street on landscape plan. 25. Galpin Crossing shall pay full park dedication fees at the rate in force upon final platting. 26. The commercial buildings are required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. 27. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 28. A demolition permit must be obtained before beginning demolition of any existing structures. 29. The location of property lines will have an impact on the code requirements for the proposed buildings, including but not limited to; allowable size and fire -resistive construction. The plans as submitted do not have the information necessary to determine compliance at this time. 30. The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss property line issues as well as plan review and permit procedures. 31. The developer shall have soil borings made to determine the suitability of the site for development." 32, -�" Z Z "�DL� ATTACHME I. Findings of Fact and Recommendation. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Reduced Copy Concept Plan. 4. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List. gAplant2005 planning c X05-38 galpin c siug\staff report concept pud.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of Epic Development for Concept Planned Unit Development approval — Planning Case No. 05-38. On November 15, 2005, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Epic Development for Concept Planned Unit Development approval for a 10 -unit twin home project and a 66,000 square -foot office development property located at the northwest corner of Galpin Boulevard and Highway 5. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed Planned Unit Development preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential — Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: (see attached Exhibit A for Parcels A and B) 4. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed PUD. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are: a) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. b) The proposed use is or will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. c) The proposed use will conform with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. d) The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. e) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. f) Traffic generation by the proposed use must be determined to be within capabilities of streets serving the property. 5. The planning report #05-38 dated November 15, 2005, prepared by Robert Generous, et al, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Concept Planned Unit Development. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 15`s day of November, 2005. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION M Its Chairman gAp1an\2005 planning c m\05-38 galpin =singU"indings of factdoc 2 PARCEL A: That part of the southwest Quarter of the southwest Quarter of section 10, Township 116, Range 23 and the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of scction 15, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of said section 10; thence on as assumed bearing of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds west along the West line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1026.89 feet; thence south 79 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 177.77 feet; thence south 86 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 100.40 feet; thence south 78 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 194.14 feet; thence south 74 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 150.00 feet; thence south 47 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 75.43 feet; thence North 82 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds East, a distance of 74.98 feet; thence south 58 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 84.58 feet; thence south 89 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 164.63 feet; thence south 18 degrees 17 minutes 40 seconds west, a distance of 824.19 feet to the northerly right of way line of Trunk Highway 5; thence North_85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 33.08 feet; thence south 56 degrees 40 minutes 55 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 158.95 feet; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 518.22 feet to the west line of the Northwest Quarter of section 15, Township 116, Range 23; thence North 1 degree 37 minutes 50 seconds West along said west line of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 9.12 feet to the point of beginning. which lies northwesterly of that particular northwesterly right-of-way line of Parcel 216, as shown on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-08, recorded as Document No. 265755 and as amended on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-14, recorded as Document NO. 279658, described as follows: commencing at the southwest comer of said section 10; thence on an assumed bearing of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds west, along the west line of the Southwest Quarter of said section 10, a distance of 401.19 feet, to a particular right-of-way line of said parcel 216 and the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 47 degrees 18 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 175.14 feet, to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 47 degrees 18 minutes 19 seconds East a distance of 22.71 feet, to a point of curvature in said right-of-way line; thence easterly a distance of 662.60 feet, along a non-tangential curve concave to the south having a radius of 633.04 feet and a central angle of 59 degrees 58 minutes 14 seconds and having a chord of 632.76 feet which bears North 77 degrees 17 minutes 27 seconds East to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 56 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds East, not tangent to said curve a distance of 114.28 feet, to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 22 degrees 13 minutes 10 seconds East, along said right-of-way line, a distance of 116.13 feet and said line there terminating. 3 PARCEL B: That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of section 10, Township 116, Range 23 and the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest comer of said section 10; thence on as assumed bearing of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West along the West line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1026.89 feet; thence south 79 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 177.77 feet; thence South 86 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 100.40 feet; thence south 78 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 194.14 feet; thence South 74 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 150.00 feet; thence south 47 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 75.43 feet; thence North 82 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds East, a distance of 74.98 feet; thence South 58 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 84.58 feet; thence south 89 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 164.63 feet; thence south 18 degrees 17 minutes 40 seconds West, a distance of 824.19 feet to the northerly right of way line of Trunk Highway 5; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 33.08 feet; thence South 56 degrees 40 minutes 55 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 158.95 feet; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 518.22 feet to the west line of the Northwest Quarter of section 15, Township 116, Range 23; thence North 1 degree 37 minutes 50 seconds West along said west line of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 9.12 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPT that part of the above described property which lies northwesterly of that particular northwesterly right-of-way line of Parcel 216, as shown on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-08, recorded as Document No. 265755 and as amended on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-14, recorded as Document NO. 279658, described as follows: commencing at the southwest corner of said section 10; thence on an assumed bearing of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West, along the west line of the Southwest Quarter of said section 10, a distance of 401.19 feet, to a particular right-of-way line of said Parcel 216 and the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 47 degrees 18 mintues 16 seconds East a distance of 175.14 feet, to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 47 degrees 18 minutes 19 seconds East a distance of 22.71 feet, to a point of curvature in said right-of-way line; thence easterly a distance of 662.60 feet, along a non-tangential curve concave to the south having a radius of 633.04 feet and a central angle of 59 degrees 58 minutes 14 seconds and having a chord of 632.76 feet which bears North 77 degrees 17 mintues 27 seconds East to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 56 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds East, not tangent to said curve a distance of 114.28 feet, to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 22 degrees 13 minutes 10 seconds East, along said right-of-way line, a distance of 116.13 feet and said line there terminating. Also EXCEPT said Parcel 216. 4 10/14/2005 FRI 10:08 FAX FROM : FAX NO. :320762225S 10/13/2005 THCI 14:37 FAI CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulovard – P.0, Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 – (952) 227-1100 Oct. 13 20105 07:42PM P1 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Phone:6+x-7 ^ p.` x. `_J_" Comprohonsive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit __. Non -conforming Ure Permit Planned Unit Development - Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Pian Revisw Site Plan Review - Subdivision, - 002/003 X0 2ffl Planning Case Nov 5 ✓-3 S CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED OCT 1 7 2005 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Phone: (pry X20.7 Fax: mil posy Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right•Of-Way/Easemente _.__,,........_ Variance Wetland Alienation Permit Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign- ' - $75 + $100 Damage Deposit X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attornay Cost— $50 CUP/SPFJVAC/VAR/WAP/Metes & Bounds $450 Minor SSU/UBy/,��, TOTAL FEE $ 26' W An additional fee of $9.00 per addross Within the Public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. lone n a26) fuflslze�ylMded opPias of the Pians rtxtst im submitted. Including sn eh' X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet APPtiCant to obtain otification sign from C ty of cha�ivm3aen PuMIc Works at log I -ark Fold and inslell upon submittal of completed aPplichtlon. $100 damage deposit to be refunded io aPP1lCont when xign Is returned following CRY Council approval. Escrow will be required for outer eppllcntiona through the development contriiCt. Building mate(el samples must be submitted with site plain reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall bo charged for each application. SCANNED IU/14/ZUU5 PKI IUM HAA FROM 10/13/2005 TH 14:38 FAX PROJECT N LOCATION: Ff;X NO. : M07E.22255 IJUU3/003 Oct, 13 2005 07:42PM P2 X003/003 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: TOTAL ACREAGE' WETLANDS PRESENT! r VES PRESENT ZONING: REQUESTED ZONIN I. G1 PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: REASON FOR REQUEST: rte! c-• �� _..C1� ./iP RSA! C/J� �" //.dL✓ _ /GY/ BA This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be 000Ompanied by all Information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should corer with the Planning Department to determine the speclrlc ordinance and procedural requiremcMs applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be inxide within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application dencloncies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am snaking application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed In my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter portaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ovnorahlp (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or 1 am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further undor;tand that additional fees may be charged for consulting tees, feasibility studies, etcwith an estimate prior to any authonzatlon to prp9qed with the stuff. The documents and Information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of sny knowledge. n Date ROV14W Appliwaon.C)DC Rov. 4105 SCANNED i Y-10 1 .f F ee� If z ! � Jca B g3 g a�e3t@jllQi QS3i�3f 73g33g5g Y-10 1 .f F ee� If z ! c a B g3 g a�e3t@jllQi QS3i�3f 73g33g5g i /ic�6p i yj t�RAi IIIIYa ad43s3�3s3 i Y-10 1 .f F ee� ! c a B g3 g a�e3t@jllQi QS3i�3f 73g33g5g i /ic�6p i yj t�RAi IIIIYa ad43s3�3s3 i U N !J CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being Fust duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on November 3, 2005, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for Galpin Crossing Concept PUD — Planning Case No. 05-38 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Subscribed and to before me this 2rA day of sw m 2005. Notary P bl�ci Kane J. Eng Ih dt, De Clerk T. MEUWISSEN JWNL Publio-Minnesota Carvn�eaWExpaea Jan 31,2010 Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: uesday, November 15, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Location: Request for Concept Planned Unit Development approval for Proposal: a 10 -unit twin home project and a 66,000 square -foot office Proposal: development — GALPIN CROSSING Planning File: 05-38 Applicant: Epic Development Property Northwest comer of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard. Location: A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. Location: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens public hearing through the following steps: at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. at the Meeting: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob Generous at 952-227-1131 or Questions & e-mail bgenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to Comments: submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the Comments: department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available online at http://206.10.76.6/weblink7 the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 600 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application In writing. Any Interested party Is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The Item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerclallndustdal. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an Item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff Is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be Included in the report, lease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, November 15 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for Concept Planned Unit Development approval for Proposal: a 10 -unit twin home project and a 66,000 square -foot office development — GALPIN CROSSING Planning File: 05-38 Applicant: Epic Development Property Northwest comer of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard. Location: A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob Generous at 952-227-1131 or Questions & e-mail boenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to Comments: submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available online at http://206.10.76.6/webllnk7 the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any Interested party is Invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that Includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council, The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezpnings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerclavindustrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding Its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighbolhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the projectwith any Interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have somethingto be included in the report, lease contact the Plannin Stall person named on the notlflca6on. This map is "Mer a legally recorded nap nor a survey and is not intended to be used as ane. This map is a mfryilabon of records, inform int and data located in vanous city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not v2rrant that the Geographic Infanution System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, Z ilang or any other repairing pairing a iacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in Z depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies are found pease contact 952-227-1107. The preceding pieclair er is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, SuM1 21 (2000), and the user M this map wicnoWedges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all darm, am agrees to defend, indarrniy, and hold hamiess the City fpm any and all dawns brought by User, its employees or agents, or thiN parties which arse pull of the users access or use of data pro tided. This chap is nether a legally recorded map nal a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in varcus city, county, state and federal offices and offer sources regarding me area shown, and is to bo used for reference purposes orgy. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Infometion System (GIS) Data used to prepare this that, are arra tree, and the City does rot represent that the GIS Data can be used for narigadonal, treclaq a any other purpose requiring eazceng measurement of Cstaree or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. H errors or ciscrepancies are fond pease contact 952-227-1107. The precedxy discialper is phnAded pursuant to Minnesota Stables §46603, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user d this that, actr owfedges Mal the City shall not be liable for any der ages, and expressly waives all clairrs, and agrees to defmd, indermity, and hold hapless the City from pry and all dairts brought by Use, its m0oyees or agents. or third partes which arse out of the users access a use of data provided. «NAME1» nNAME2» aADDI» «ADD2» «CITY» (,STATE,, (,ZIP,, «Next Record»«NAME1» «NAME2» , ADD111 «ADD2» «CITY» ,,STATE» "ZIP:' AMIL JUSTIN C ANDERSON STACY ANN BENNET LINDA D BENSON 7848 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE 2388 HARVEST WAY 2409 HARVEST WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THEODORE F & MARLENE M BENTZ GUY W & JUNE M BLESSING THOMAS S BLUSTIN 7300 GALPIN BLVD 7844 HARVEST LN 2394 HARVEST WAY EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ELDEN E & GLORIA A BOTT THOMAS R BREKKE JARED M BROGHAMER 7626 PRAIRIE FLOWER BLVD 2400 HARVEST WAY 7856 HARVEST LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN B BUJARSKI & CENTEX HOMES SHARON L KING CARVER COUNTY HRA 12701 WHITEWATER DR 2376 HARVEST WAY 705 WALNUT ST N SUITE 300 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHASKA MN 55318 HOPKINS MN 55343 HANG CHAN &CHECHANHASSEN DEVELOPMENT LLC DAVID J & TASIA M CLOUTIER 2201 BA AI CHONG 1434 SALEM LN SW 2406 HARVEST WAY CHANHASSEN NHASSEN MN 55317 NEBERRY WAY W ROCHESTER MN 55902 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHA CNBI LLC CONVENIENCE STORE BRAD L & ELAINE N DALAGER C/O CHAD EICHTEN INVESTMENTS 7847 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE 4930 OLIVE LN N PO BOX 2107 PLYMOUTH MN 55446 LACROSSE WI 54602 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PATRICIA S DEZIEL RODNEY DORSCHNER DENNIS E & ELISSA K ELLEFSON 2382 HARVEST WAY 2396 HARVEST WAY 2194 BANEBERRY WAY W CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THEODORE A & ANGELA M DIANNE JANICE ERICKSON ELLEFSON TRUSTEE OF TRUST SUSAN M ERI 7609 WALNUT CRV 7735 VASSERMAN TRL 2198 BANEBERRY RY WAY W CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS E & HELEN E ERNST JEFFREY GIBBS MICHAEL J GLIGOR 7749 VASSERMAN TRL 2402 HARVEST WAY 7859 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARK C GOODMAN ROBERT L GRIFFITH & LARRY S & TERESA M HANSON 2370 HARVEST WAY GABRIELLE GRIFFITH 7734 VASSERMAN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 7739 VASSERMAN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID J & SUSAN A HAPPE MICHAEL HEIEN MELISSA A HEIN 7850 HARVEST LN 7832 HARVEST LN 2193 BANEBERRY WAY W CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAWN N HUEBERT 2372 HARVEST WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHERYL A JOHNSON 7861 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BARBARA L KERN 2407 HARVEST WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LINDA A KOENIG 7851 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARTIN J & JUDITH C LEFF 7745 VASSERMAN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARK I & MAUREEN E MAGNUSON 7715 VASSERMAN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RUTH H MITAL 7750 VASSERMAN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN OBREMSKI & GERALD F OBREMSKI 7851 HARVEST LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 IND SCHOOL DIST 112 & CITY OF CHANHASSEN 11 PEAVEY RD CHASKA MN 55318 LONNIE G & JAN M JOHNSON 6706 PROMONTORY DR EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 CAROLYN M KLECKER 7863 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KATHERINE M KORPI & JOANNE R SCHMIEG 7845 HARVEST LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LUNDGREN BROS CONSTRUCTION 935 WAYZATA BLVD E WAYZATA MN 55391 CARLOS J MEJIA & MARIA C MONTEALEGRE 7853 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MODEL HOMES LLC 1997 TOPAZ DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KAREN ANN OLSON 7850 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 J P'S LINKS INC -JOHN PRZYMUS 12174 176TH AVE VILLARD MN 56385 DIANE JULSON 7740 VASSERMAN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KLINGELHUTZ DEVELOPMENT CO 350HWY212E PO BOX 89 CHASKA MN 55318 THOMAS W & SHARON D KRAUS 7744 VASSERMAN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SALLY LYMAN 7730 VASSERMAN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SHERI MELANDER-SMITH 2403 HARVEST WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PAULA & KIMBERLY MONSEN 2384 HARVEST WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MATTHEW S OLSON & BRUCE R OLSON 2405 HARVEST WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RALPH H PAMPERIN & AMY M PEITZ JOHN T & DIANE M PERRY BARBARA J 7846 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE 1380 THRUSH CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 VASSERRMANMAN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHA ROBERT M & PATRICIA L PETERSON MARK A & SARAH L PLETTS DANIEL M RYAN & 2398 HARVEST WAY 7517 BENT BOW TRL KAREN L THARALDSON-RYAN CHANHASSEN MN 55317CHANHASSEN MN 55317 13573 96TH PL N MAPLE GROVE MN 55369 TERRA L SAXE 7845 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL L & CAROLYN L SHIELDS 7759 VASSERMAN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 VASSERMAN RIDGE MASTER ASSOC C/O LUNDGREN BROS CONST INC 935 WAYZATA BLVD E WAYZATA MN 55391 WALNUT GROVE HOMEOWNERS KIMBERLY A SCHABLIN 7857 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BRIAN D SMITH 2197 BANEBERRY WAY W CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BLAINE D SHANSTROM 7828 HARVEST LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KATHRYN T STODDART 7305 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 VASSERMAN RIDGE PROMENADE SRIRAM VISWANATHAN & INC GAYATHRI SAMBASIVAN C/O LUNDGREN BROS CONST INC 7614 RIDGEVIEW WAY 935 WAYZATA BLVD E CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WAYZATA MN 55391 ASSN JEFFREY M & TIFFANY M WEYANDT CHRISTOPHER A WILLADSEN C/O GITTLEM MGMT CORP 7626 RIDGEVIEW WAY 2386 HARVEST WAY SUITE 211 1801E 79TH STT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BLOOMINGTON MN 55425 JOHN D WILSON JULIA A WOLTER DENEEN D YOUNG 2392 HARVEST WAY 7849 HARVEST LN 7852 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 14 fir` '.c'yL 113 w I0 2005 mars .. � BLUFF CgEEK PARCEL A i n, A g L------ 9 10 \� 7 8 \ T 4 \. 7 3 WEBS 78 5 H BISTpT w ' / g y_Texx1"Se 4 �•^` h !' �rs'rTrT 1 1 1 1 1 1 U6 I L I I IITTIT-n�-� f LEGEND SmltarySerer —G— SAr6TMY SEMER —�— WATER — i— WATER —�— HYO. W/VALVE �--b NW). W/VALVE STORM SEWER —Ga— STORM SEWER N � � �L•nm�111p 331Y onrce n earn r / nn aex cna s ecw er r afa 7MW H*W YA Na S C GENERAL INFORMATIONS PARLEI- N vsLPJFm TWwtll2s AT 1.1 DIVN PARLFL B. PP QT !Y I 3 STRFGTOM (4-bWWM) PARCEL A ZOIa1K LODe: LIIANIAY�BI ZORINS OI✓aR1AlILE GLASSFILAnOtL RSF - LpH DENSITY RES. (PROMe.�ED, IpT AIEA: baa ALRES rPAPa6 N bBHUL HOi�: PRaPD=� TN p SIMJ.nR 01flLe R TO PROP@ttt TO TIE YET SO STALLS 1+'1000 SF) IpV D@bitt I.T DU /ALR PARCEL B LOMM LOT£: n-n��cAnow tar ARE/u BInLaN6 seTeAers: PARKINb SETBACK5: PARYJNb DIN13a5aN5: >� mWHb ORONANGE EN BLSRL6 tEI61ETORItlOD (PROM`.®, SLOE IS Ff. PROIR m". Re4a 95 PT. 55 R. 91De IS PT. IE/R 55 FR. TAW A. -Ow. -vi N5LE: 26'C deY: 62'-0e 6ET8UL NOI£5: SPFLW. OJCt-ftIDIN6 a/TD!• . SEIBAOK ABNNST RE51OBR1MLY ZGwd N:Ib1eORIH6 PROP9lTIE5. sff 1p1UN5 coDE sEL�a-ba5.. MPaNKV5 ORALE: LOT MEA W. M:4166 MT. Pf9f/IOVS SWP 12996(6m BALK 5pOO 5F. 20 STN (I 5FJ 21® STY. OT 5pw SF. S 5TALL5 PJ/IOGYJ Sl) 01flLe R 0000 5F. SO STALLS 1+'1000 SF) 180' 0' 60' ST ST 5 OFRf.En IOpW SF. 505TALL5 t91o005F) once n I2p00 Sr. jwsTA (5AO0o 5F) OR1(X M ] Aw SF. I W 5TAI)S 19x000 SF) 116 5TA — TOTAL 66FU0 5F. 9]S STALLS 9x1 STALLS bRces FLOOR AREA RATIO = WOOO / S 2,766 - la9$ Rya Engineering LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVKES 434 Lake Street Excelsior, MN 55331 (952)380-5000 iI Mrey r.Ery aM uN am. Rcllmlm. be c.o ..bii mead y'eteM Eno— ud. be IOee of be Stoto of Yimmota GALPIN CROSSING Chanhassen, MN for MEPIC R 'wl No, DWId Dieting Name WIC-DraYlrbouL'td/7 o,om ay fJrcntee By Oah ReWbne�� &:h m,w FOf Dots Seheme5e CbejT 1 FhW Review ReheR conetrOcibn Concept Plan Fog* CP -1 X 120' 180' 0' 60' Rya Engineering LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVKES 434 Lake Street Excelsior, MN 55331 (952)380-5000 iI Mrey r.Ery aM uN am. Rcllmlm. be c.o ..bii mead y'eteM Eno— ud. be IOee of be Stoto of Yimmota GALPIN CROSSING Chanhassen, MN for MEPIC R 'wl No, DWId Dieting Name WIC-DraYlrbouL'td/7 o,om ay fJrcntee By Oah ReWbne�� &:h m,w FOf Dots Seheme5e CbejT 1 FhW Review ReheR conetrOcibn Concept Plan Fog* CP -1 r lie r � • . gas",rr w MOL 7179RWww.�Sw MCI, sm © 2005 RYAN ENGINEERING. BLUFF CREEK -�� _� 6VILO,NG E _ PARCEL A 265,595 Sq. Ft. \ i (6.097 Acres) \ ANENT MND T� � 00.A1 SEMIF IT � L _ 1 9 `PERMANENT 10 MNDOT M ^ dR EASEMENTS � ry0 JSghiTgRY - fly `j S 2 1 1-1111MIN. ,F N� ell. - 1P / J o� 'J- �aP P S� B 4 Sq. Ft. 8 Acres) `\5.0OFFICE #1 00 SF // FL\ PATIO FOUNTAIN 2-5TY OFFICE 02 5,000 5F / F -R. Fq ,� SE'yWT yo O;F 1 h WEST 78 8TH .: -- 7 140.357): • T4t" N a'. 35' SETBACK u IT 1 2-5TY OFFICE 04 2e 5T a'� Cr_ 12000 5F / FLR. U/6 `` �• 2 -STY OFFICE 03 6000 5F / FLR. 583.35'53"E 206.78 \ LEGEND `ORIGINAL BOUNDARY PER DESCRIPTION EXISTING PROPOSED Sanitary Sewer SANITARY SEWER —4 WATER WATER — I HYD. W/VALVE HYD. W/VALVE STORM SEWER STORM SEWER —N 268.22 "'UW HGhWAY No. 5 NORM UNE Y GENERAL INFORMATION# PARCEL A: PROPOSED TAINHOME5 AT I.1 DU/ACRE PARCEL B: PROPOSED OFFICES AND BANK USES 2 STORY CONSTRUCTION (24'-26HEIGHT) PARCEL A ZONING CODE: CHANHASSEN ZONING ORDINANCE CLA551FICATION: RSF - LOA DENSITY RES. (PROPOSED) LOT AREA: &.Oq ACRES (PARCEL A) GENERAL NOTES: PROPOSED TAINHOMES SIMILAR 1 BAY: 62'-O" TO PROPERTY TO THE REST 10,000 S.F. LOA DENSITY OFFICE #2 1.1 DU / ACRE 50 5TALL5 (5/1000 S.F.) OFFICE #3 12,000 5F. 60 STALLS (5/1000 S.F.) OFFICE #4 24,000 5.F. 120 STALLS (5/1000 S.F.) 126 STALLS Y�'aI Y $. _/i ~ NORM UNE Y GENERAL INFORMATION# PARCEL A: PROPOSED TAINHOME5 AT I.1 DU/ACRE PARCEL B: PROPOSED OFFICES AND BANK USES 2 STORY CONSTRUCTION (24'-26HEIGHT) PARCEL A ZONING CODE: CHANHASSEN ZONING ORDINANCE CLA551FICATION: RSF - LOA DENSITY RES. (PROPOSED) LOT AREA: &.Oq ACRES (PARCEL A) GENERAL NOTES: PROPOSED TAINHOMES SIMILAR 1 BAY: 62'-O" TO PROPERTY TO THE REST 10,000 S.F. LOA DENSITY OFFICE #2 1.1 DU / ACRE PARCEL B ZONING CODE: CHANHASSEN ZONING ORDINANCE CLASSIFICATION: BN BUSINESS NEIGHBORHOOD (-FROP05ED) LOT AREA: '1.85 ACRES (PARCEL B) BUILDING SETBACKS: PARKING SETBACKS: PARKING DIMENSIONS: FRONT 35 FT, 51DE 15 FT. REAR 35 FT. FRONT 35 FT. SIDE 15 FT. REAR 35 FT. STALL: q'-O"x18'-O" AISLE: 26-0" 1 BAY: 62'-O" GENERAL NOTES: SPECIAL OVER-RIDING "BUFFER" SETBACK AGAINST RESIDENTIALLY ZONED NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. SEE ZONING CODE 5EC20-6115e. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: LOT AREA 5F: 342,168 E5T. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: 223,885 (65%) PARKING USE 51ZE REOUIRED PER CODE PROVIDED BANK 2ND 5TY. OFF 5,000 S.F. 5,000 5.F. 20 STALLS (1/250 S.F) 25 STALLS (5/1000 211 STALLS OFFICE #1 10,000 S.F. 50 STALLS (5/1000 S.F.) OFFICE #2 0,000 5.F. 50 5TALL5 (5/1000 S.F.) OFFICE #3 12,000 5F. 60 STALLS (5/1000 S.F.) OFFICE #4 24,000 5.F. 120 STALLS (5/1000 S.F.) 126 STALLS TOTAL 66,000 S.F. 325 STALLS 3q1 5TALL5 GROSS FLOOR AREA RATIO = 66,000 / 342,168 - I41.3% 0' 60' 120' 180' Ryan Engineerinc LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICI 434 Lake Street Excelsior, MN 55331 (952) 380-5000 www.ryanengineerirvg.com JI hereby certify that this plan, specificat or report was prepared by me or under tdirect supervision and that I am a duly registered Engineer under the laws of th State of Minnesota. Signature Registration No. Date GALPIN CROSSING Chanhassen, MN for MEPIC DEVELOPMENT, LLC Project No. Digital Drawing Nome galpin-prelim-layout-1.dw9 Drawn Sy GLG Checked Sy PMR Date e 10/6/05 .e visions i Issued For Date: j Schematic Design Design Development . Preliminary Review Final Review Bidding Construction Concept PlanOF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED OCT 1 7 2005 CHANHASSEN PUNNING DEPT I Page CP -1 2005 RYAN ENGINEERING, BLUFF CREEK rAR__ VIER / j BASEMENT N PARCEL A 265,595 Sq. Ft (6,097 Acres) / I n 2� 1 4` a5 �p 1 / \ B 4 746 Sq. Ft. 8 Acres) m\� 5,000 5FE FLR. LEGEND PATIO FOUNTAIN Sanitary Sewer SANITARY SEWER —4 WATER WATER — I HYD. W/VALVE HYD. W/VALVE STORM SEWER STORM SEWER —N 2 -STY OFFICE •2 5000 5F / FLR. 7 8 35' SE�AO' i \ANENT 11ND T—/^ Is 56M T \ `PERMANENT MNDOT d'n QR EASEMENTS ry at SgHiTgRY = 0 f A�MfNr �o WEST , - 78 Pq 84$707 W 38 140-35 Z p n ,.. I I 4 2 -STY OFFICE 04 5T 5---1 12,000 SF /FLR. U/6 3 \1!�IIIJIi�� 1i q, tt- 0 I ? 59 5T 5 a / Q h M / v o i i N z qI /i Y� d' 69 �OFfrll I E OF THE NW 1/4 TRE NW 1/4 OF SEC. 15 { TRUNK SWAY NO. 5 ,� 2-sTY OFFICE *3 6000 5F / Fl -R. 3'35'53"E 206.78 \ ORIGINAL BOUNDARY PER DESCRIPTION J-35'5- 268.22 STORE LOT 1 GENERAL INFORMATION1 PARCEL A: FIROP05ED THINHOME5 AT 1.7 DU/AGRE PARCEL B: PROPOSED OFFICES AND BANK USES 2 STORY CONSTRUCTION (24'-26' HEIGHT) PARCEL A ZONING CODE: CHANHA55ENZONING ORDINANCE CLA551FICATION: RSF - LOW DENSITY RES. (PROPOSED) LOT AREA: 6.09 ACRES (PARCEL A) GENERAL N07E5: PROPOSED TWINHOME5 SIMILAR 1 MAY 62'-0" TO PROPERTY TO THE NF -5T OFFICE #I LOW DENSITY 50 STALLS (5/1000 5.F.) I.? DU / ACRE PARCEL B ZONING CODE: CHANHASSEN ZONING ORDINANCE CLASSIFICATION: BN BUSINESS NEIGHBORHOOD (PROPOSED) LOT AREA: '1.85 ACRES (PARCEL B) BUILDING SETBACKS: PARKING 5ETBAGK5: PARKING DIMENSIONS: FRONT 35 FT. 51DE 15 FT. REAR 35 FT. FRONT 35 FT, 51DE 15 FT. REAR 35 FT. STALL: q'-O"x18'-O" A151 E: 26'-0" 1 MAY 62'-0" GENERAL NOTES: SPECIAL OVER-RIDING "BUFFER" 5ET5ACK AGAINST RESIDENTIALLY ZONED NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. SEE ZONING CODE 5EC.20-6015e. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: LOT AREA SF: 342,168 EST. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: 223,585 (65%) - PARKING USE 51ZE REQUIRED PER CODE PROVIDED BANK 2ND 57Y. OFF 5,000 5.F 5,000 5.F. 20 STALLS (1/250 S.F.) 25 STALLS (5/1000 S.F.) 2-71 STALLS OFFICE #I 10,000 S.F. 50 STALLS (5/1000 5.F.) OFFICE #2 10,000 S.F. 50 STALLS (5/1000 S.F.) OFFICE #3 12,000 S.F. 60 STALLS (5/1000 S.F.) OFFICE #4 24,000 S.F 120 5TALL5 (5/1000 5.F.) 126 5TALL5 TOTAL 66,000 5.F 325 STALLS 3ql STALLS 1?01N1D1 fj6 6R055 FLOOR AREA RATIO = 66,000 / 342,165 = Icl.3% /,J R yan Engineerim LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICI 434 Lake Street Excelsior, MN 55331 (952) 380-5000 www.ryanangineering.com I hereby certify that this plan, specificat or report was prepared by me or under direct supervision and that I am a duly registered Engineer under the laws of th State of Minnesota. Signature Registration No. Date GALPIN CROSSING Chanhassen, MN for MEPIC DEVELOPMENT, LL( Project No. Digital Drawing Name galpin-prelim-layo4A-1.dw9 Drawn By GI -G Checked By PM Date 10/6/05 Revisions - Issued For Date: Schematic Design Design Development Preliminary Review Final Review _ Bidding Construction Concept P I a rvy OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED OCT 17 2005 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Page CP -1 F Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan District Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville MN 55113-3174 November 16, 2005 Bob Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 SUBJECT: Galpin Crossing Mn/DOT Review S05-102 Northwest corner of TH 5 and Galpin Blvd Chanhassen, Carver County Control Section 1002 Dear Mr. Generous: s _.J V , 7 2005 :....-i -ASSEN Thank you for submitting the Galpin Crossing site plan. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the above referenced site plan. Before any further development, please address the following issues: Drainage. A drainage permit will be required for this project. Specific drainage issues and plans are not adequately shown in this site plan and there are no ponds on the layout. Stormwater runoff will not be allowed to flow onto Mn/DOT right-of- way if it exceeds the amount or rate of flow that currently exists. Stormwater plans adjacent to Mn/DOT right-of-way must be designed to a 100 -year, 24-hour storm with one foot, minimum of freeboard. Proposed and existing grading plans, proposed and existing drainage area maps (with flow arrows), and proposed and existing computations for the 10 and 100 year rainfall events are needed. Please direct questions concerning these issues to Richard Cady (651-634-2075) of Mn/DOT's Water Resources section. Permits: A Mn/DOT access permit will be needed for the access points on Gilpin Road and West 78a' Street. Any use of or work within or affecting Mn/DOT right of way requires a permit. Permit forms are available from Mn/DOT's utility website at www.dot.state.mn.us/tecsuv/utility. Please direct any questions regarding permit requirements to Buck Craig (651-582-1447) of Mn/DOT's Metro Permits Section. As a reminder, please address all initial future correspondence for development activity such as plats and site plans to: Development Reviews Coordinator An equal opportunity employer Mn/DOT - Metro Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Mn/DOT document submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats and two (2) copies of other review documents including site plans. Failure to provide three (3) copies of a plat and/or two (2) copies of other review documents will make a submittal incomplete and delay Mn/DOT's review and response to development proposals. We appreciate your anticipated cooperation in providing the necessary number of copies, as this will prevent us from having to delay and/or return incomplete submittals. If you have any questions concerning this review please feel free to contact me at (651) 582-1548. Tod Sherman Planning Supervisor Copy: Roger Gustafson / Carver County Engineer Ryan Engineering Metro LGL files — Chanhassen Metro Division File —CS 1017 Copies via GroupWise to: Ann Braden — Met Council Richard Cady — Water Resources Buck Craig — Permits Roger Gustafson Carver County Engineer PO Box 300 Cologne, MN 55322-0300 Ryan Engineering 434 Lake Street Excelsior, MN 55331 11-12-05 To; Bob Generous, Senior Planner, City of Chanhassen, MN From; Dave and Lori Moser, 7632 Ridgeview Way, Chanhassen, MN Subject; Galpin Crossing, Planning file 05-38 Bob; Thanks for taking the time earlier this week to review the proposed concept plan of Galpin Crossing. I am traveling on business next week and unable to attend the November 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission meeting, however I would like to have our thoughts on the proposal read at the meeting. Our family moved to Chanhassen in May 2004 based on the recommendations of family, friends, and Real Estate professionals. Our decision was based on the school system, services, along with the unique character and esthetics of the community. We are in support of intelligent planned smart growth and appreciate the opportunity to participate in the process to build and preserve the uniqueness of the Chanhassen community. Our interests in this, and all future projects in the area include; - Maintain the existing natural flow and distribution of water in the Bluff Creek wetlands. o This basin has filled twice in the past year during heavy rains, overtopping the pedestrian path - Attract businesses that fulfill the needs and esthetics of the community o We seem to have a sufficient number of banks and office space, the though of an urgent care center seems appropriate given the proximity to Bluff Creek Elementary - Preserve and maintain the unique wildlife refuge provided by the wetlands o We see deer, fox, and pheasants on a regular basis - Support property values o Our decision to purchase our lot at a premium was based on privacy, view of wetlands, and knowledge that no future development can take place in the wetlands o Any future development that may be allowed adjacent to the wetlands should consider landscaping and berms to minimize any visual impact to the wetlands panorama - Smooth traffic patterns o We have a current traffic hazard from people exiting from the convenience/CVS store onto Gapin northbound, then U turning onto Galpin southbound at W 78`h St. Manage the ratio of tax base revenue to services required o Attract higher value single family homeowners We and other concerned neighbors look forward to supporting a plan that accommodates these issues, and also to hear about the plans listed on the future planning commission agenda for the Bentz property. ,✓ 1% MEMORANDUM CITYOF Neighborhood Park and the Chanhassen Recreation Center, a community park CgANNSEN TO: Bob Generous, Senior Planner 7700 Market Boulevard FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park &Recreation Director PC Bax 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 DATE: October 27, 2005 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 SUBJ: Park & Trail Conditions of Approval; Galpin Crossing Fax: 952.227.1110 the proposed development area—the West 78th Street trail and Galpin Boulevard Building Inspections trail. Internal sidewalk and trail connectors leading to these existing amenities Phone: 952.227.1180 I have reviewed the Concept Planned Unit Development application by Epic Fax: 952,227,11 go Development for Galpin Crossing. Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 PARKS Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance The property is situated within the park service areas of Sugarbush Phone: 952.227.1140 Neighborhood Park and the Chanhassen Recreation Center, a community park Fax: 952.227 1110 facility. No additional parkland dedication is required as a part of the Galpin Park & Recreation Crossing proposal. Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 TRAILS Recreation center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Two segments of the city's comprehensive trail plan are adjacent to and service Phone:22 Fax: 952.2.227.1 .1404 q04 the proposed development area—the West 78th Street trail and Galpin Boulevard trail. Internal sidewalk and trail connectors leading to these existing amenities Planning g should be made a condition of the approval of Galpin Crossing. Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 RECOMMENDED PARK AND TRAIL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Public Works 1Park In the absence of parkland dedication, it is recommended that Galpin Crossing Phone95300 227.1 pay full park dedication fees at the rate in force upon final platting. At today's Fax: 952.227.1310 rates, these fees would total $118,500 (10 units@ $4,000 each plus 7.85 acres @ Senior Center $10,000 each). Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci,chanhassen. mn.us GApark\thkgalpin aming.dm The City of Chan hassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. 2005 RYAN ENGINEERING, LEGEND Sanitary Sewer WATER HYD. W/VALVE STORM SEWER i SEWER % EASEMfNT h _ PARCEL A SQ r t v > I es) L _ I 9 10 4 , I 1=1 "10.5 :4 1 PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER —4 WATER — I HYD. W/VALVE —1—«} STORM SEWER —N P� OT`'Ra" .P PC r� 206.78 \ ORIGINAL BOUNDARI PER DESCRIPTION CREEK i \NANENI NNE TJ \ OR SE�E T .4r op�MA"ENT MNDOT� GENERAL INFORMATION1 0 SgNiTgRY �— 2N R ` 1 PARCEL A: PROPOSED TWINHOME5 AT 11 DU/ACRE iT PARCEL B: PROPOSED OFFICES AND BANK USES 2 STORY CONSTRUCTION (24'-26' HEIGHT) •^S` .L" NNd PARCEL A WE E rT 78 ZONING CODE: CHANHASSEN ZONING ORDINANCE N 87.5707 W CLASSIFICATION: R5F - LOW DENSITY RES. (PROPOSED) a5.38 N 8a0307 W 9ru L LOT AREA: 6.09 ACRES (PARCEL A) PER,,, N i 35'S♦ TRACK ORAMAANE,,, a°; �� oo GENERAL NOTES: PROPOSED TWINHOMES SIMILAR TO PROPERTY TO THE AE5T LOA DEN517Y 1.7 DU / ACRE 2-5TY OFFICE 04 STALLS' 12,000 SF / FLR. Uyb a m X11 126 STALLS PARCEL B TRUNK HGHWAY NO 5 NOWM LINE OF THE NW 1/4 THE NW 1/4 OF SEC. 15 ZONING CODE: CLA551 F ICATI ON: LOT AREA: BUILDING SETBACKS: PARKING SETBACKS: PARKING DIMENSIONS: CHANHASSEN ZONING ORDINANCE BN 13USINESS NEIGHBORHOOD (PROPOSED) 7.85 ACRES (PARCEL B) FRONT 35 FT, SIDE 15 FT. REAR 35 FT. FRONT 35 FT. SIDE 15 FT. REAR 35 FT. STALL: 9'-O"x18'-O" A15LE: 26'-O" BAY: 62'-O" GENERAL NOTES: SPECIAL OVER-RIDING "BUFFER" SETBACK AGAINST RESIDENTIALLY ZONED NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. SEE ZONING CODE 5EC.20-695e. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: LOT AREA 5F: 342,768 E57 IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: 223095 (65%) 0' 60' 120' 180 Ryan Engineerinc LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICI 434 Lake Street Excelsior. MN 55331 (952) 380-5000 www.ryanengineering.com I hereby certify that this plan, specificot or report was prepared by me or under djrt supervision and that I am a duly e� tered Engineer under the laws of th State of Minnesota. Signature Registration No Date GALPIN CROSSING Chanhassen, MN for MEPIC DEVELOPMENT, LLC Project No Digital Drawing Name galpin-prelim-layout-t.dwg Drawn Sy GLG Checked By PMR Date 10/6/05 Revisrbns Issued For: Date: Schematic Design Design Development . Preliminary Review Final Review y - Bidding Construction Concept P i a nITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED OCT 1 7 2005 CHANHASSEN PUNNING DEPT Page CP -1 PARKING \� USE SIZE REQUIRED PER CODE PROVIDED BANK 5,000 5.1' 20 STALLS (1/250 5.F) 2ND STY. OFF 5,000 S.F. 25 STALLS (5/1000 5.F,) OFFICE #1 10,000 S.F. 50 STALLS (5/1000 5.F.) 271 STALLS OFFICE #2 10,000 S.F. 50 STALLS (5/1000 S.F.) OFFICE #3 12,000 S.F. 60 STALLS (5/1000 S.F.) OFFICE #4 24,000 S.F. 120 STALLS (5/1000 S.F.) 126 STALLS TOTAL 66,000 5.F. 325 STALLS 397 STALLS 5R055 FLOOR AREA RATIO = 66,000 / 342,768 = 19.3% 0' 60' 120' 180 Ryan Engineerinc LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICI 434 Lake Street Excelsior. MN 55331 (952) 380-5000 www.ryanengineering.com I hereby certify that this plan, specificot or report was prepared by me or under djrt supervision and that I am a duly e� tered Engineer under the laws of th State of Minnesota. Signature Registration No Date GALPIN CROSSING Chanhassen, MN for MEPIC DEVELOPMENT, LLC Project No Digital Drawing Name galpin-prelim-layout-t.dwg Drawn Sy GLG Checked By PMR Date 10/6/05 Revisrbns Issued For: Date: Schematic Design Design Development . Preliminary Review Final Review y - Bidding Construction Concept P i a nITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED OCT 1 7 2005 CHANHASSEN PUNNING DEPT Page CP -1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 05-38 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, November 15, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for Concept Planned Unit Development approval for a 10 -unit twin home project and a 66,000 square -foot office development located on the northwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Blvd. - GALPIN CROSSING. Applicant: Epic Development. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Bob Generous, Senior Planner Email: b_eenerous@ci.chanhassen.mrims Phone: 952-227-1131 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on November 3, 2005) SCANNED PARCEL B: That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116, Range 23 and the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of section 15, Township 116, Range 23, carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of said section 10; thence on as assumed bearing of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West along the west line of said southwest Quarter, a distance of 1026.89 feet; thence South 79 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 177.77 feet; thence South 86 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 100.40 feet; thence South 78 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 194.14 feet; thence South 74 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 150.00 feet; thence South 47 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 75.43 feet; thence North 82 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds East, a distance of 74.98 feet; thence South 58 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 84.58 feet; thence South 89 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 164.63 feet; thence Sout distance of 824.19 feet to the northh 18 degrees 17 minutes 40 seconds West, a erly right of way line of Trunk Highway 5; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 33.08 feet; thence South 56 degrees 40 minutes 55 seconds West along said northerly right of way, a distance of 158.95 feet; thence North 85 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds west along said northerly right of way, a distance of 518.22 feet to the west line of the Northwest Quarter of section 15, Township 116, Range 23; thence North 1 degree 37 minutes 50 seconds West along said west line of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 9.12 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPT that part of the above described property which lies northwesterly of that particular northwesterly right-of-way line of Parcel 216, as shown on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-08, recorded as Document No. 265755 and as amended on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-14, recorded as Document No. 279658, described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Section 10; thence on an assumed bearing Of North 1 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds West, along the west line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 10, a distance of 401.19 feet, to a particular right-of-way line of said Parcel 216 and the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 47 degrees 18 mintues 16 seconds East a distance of 175.14 feet, to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 47 degrees 18 minutes 19 seconds East a distance of 22.71 feet, to a point of curvature in said right-of-way line; thence easterly a distance of 662.60 feet, along a non-tangential curve concave to the south having a radius of 633.04 feet and a central angle of 59 degrees 58 minutes 14 seconds and having a chord of 632.76 feet which bears North 77 degrees 17 mintues 27 seconds East to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 56 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds East, not tangent to said curve a distance of 114.28 feet, to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence North 22 degrees 13 minutes 10 seconds East, along said right-of-way line, a distance of 116.13 feet and said line there terminating. Also EXCEPT said Parcel 216. SCAMMED E Date: October 17, 2005 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department By: Robert Generous Subject: Request for Concept Planned Unit Development approval for a 10 -unit twin home project and a 66,000 square -foot office development on the northwest corner of the intersection of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard - GALPIN CROSSING. Applicant: Epic Development. Planning Case: 05-38 The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on October 17, 2005. The 60 -day review period ends December 16, 2005. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on November 15, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than November 4, 2005. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. City Departments: a. City Engineer b. City Attorney c. City Park Director d. Fire Marshal e. Building Official f. Water Resources Coordinator g. Forester 2. Carver Soil & Water Conservation District 3. MN Dept. of Transportation (2 copies) 4. MN Dept. of Natural Resources 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 6. U.S. Fish & Wildlife 7. Carver County a. Engineer b. Environmental Services 8. Watershed District Engineer a. Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek b. Lower Minnesota River c. Minnehaha Creek 9. Telephone Company (Qwest or Sprint/United) 10. Electric Company (Xcel Energy or MN Valley) 11. Mediacom 12. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco scam Public Hearing Notification Area (500 feet) Galpin Crossing Concept PUD Planning Case No. 05-38 NW Corner Highway 5 & Galpin Blvd. City of Chanhassen vv 78 5 Arboretum Boulevard TH St er et IM _EA �1 SUBJECT PROPERTY e U {CANNED Public Hearing Notification Area (500 feet) Galpin Crossing Concept PUD Planning Case No. 05-38 NW Corner Highway 5 & Galpin Blvd. City of Chanhassen SUBJECT PROPERTY Public Hearing Notification Area (500 feet) Galpin Crossing Concept PUD Planning Case No. 05-38 NW Corner Highway 5 & Galpin Blvd. City of Chanhassen 5 Arboretum B a �H Street SUBJECT PROPERTY :• CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Payee: EPIC DEVELOPMENT LLC Date: 10/17/2005 Time: 3:05pm Receipt Number: DW / 6686 Clerk: DANIELLE GALPIN CROSSING 05-38 CONCEPT PUD ITEM REFERENCE AMOUNT ------------------------------------------- DEVAP GALPIN CROSSING 05-38 CON PUD USE & VARIANCE 750.00 SIGN RENT 75.00 SIGN ESCROW 100.00 --------------- Total: 925.00 Check 5080 925.00 --------------- Change: 0.00 THANK YOU FOR YOUR PAYMENT! SCANNED MEMORANDUM TO: Bon Generous, Senior Planner FROM: Steven Torell, Building Official DATE: November 2, 2005 SUBJ: Review of Concept PUD, Galpin Crossing Planning Case: 05-38 I have reviewed the plans for the above project received by the Planning Department on October 17, 2005. Following are my comments, which should be included as conditions of approval. 1. The commercial buildings are required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. 2. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 3. A demolition permit must be obtained before beginning demolition of any existing structures. 4. The location of property lines will have an impact on the code requirements for the proposed buildings, including but not limited to; allowable size and fire -resistive construction. The plans as submitted do not have the information necessary to determine compliance at this time. 5. Provide grading and utility plans for review. 6. The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss property line issues as well as plan review and permit procedures. G/safety/st/memos/plan/Galpin Crossing 2005 RYAN ENGINEERING, LEGEND EXISTING Sanitary Sewer WATER HYD. W/VALVE STORM SEWER `_ BLUFF CREEK �SE7HACKEASEM4LNE NT � N � PARCEL A 265,595 SQ. Ft. (6.097 Acres) L _ I 9 10 e 7 PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER —4 WATER —1 HYD. W/VALVE —1 ---*+ STORM SEWER —N DOME n4,FaJ G� 206.78 \ — `ORIGINAL BOUNDARY PER DESCRIPTION 0 h� \ / \ MANENT MND TJ ^ / � \ pqAl ASEM T .� \ DR RMnNEEASENONT� \ ry 0 GENERAL INFORMATIONg 0 Sqh/TgRy =ry PARCEL A: PROP05EP TNINHOMES AT 1.7 DU/ACRE \ fASi"isf-NT �� PARCEL B: PROPOSED OFFICES AND BANK USES 2 STORY CONSTRUCTION (24'-26HEIGHT) WEST 7a ARE N- 81'57'U7.. W 45.38 r-� PARCEL A ZONING CODE: CHANHA55EN ZONING ORDINANCE CLA551FICATION: RSF - LON DENSITY RES. (PROPOSED) LOT AREA: 6.011 ACRES (PARCEL A) GENERAL NOTES: PROPOSED TWINHOMES 51MILAR TO PROPERTY TO THE WEST LOW DENSITY I.7. DU / ACRE -7 PARCEL B CON'VE!I.ENCE STORE LOT BANK / 2-57Y / A`� 'CVS PHARMACY 5000 5F / FLR. LO 2 9 i S83'35' ° —` — o / 1 a66 036 �J S3^E � OWiH LINE OF THE NW 1/4 THE NW 1/4 OF SEC. 15 268.22 4 i 111UNK HK` VAY N. ZONING CODE: CLASSIFICATION: LOT AREA: BUILDING SETBACKS: PARKING SETBACKS: PARKING DIMENSIONS: GHANHASSEN ZONING ORDINANCE ON BUSINESS NEIGHBORHOOD (PROPOSED) '1.85 ACRES (PARCEL B) FRONT 35 FT. SIDE 15 FT. REAR 35 FT. FRONT 35 FT. 51DE 15 FT. REAR 35 FT. STALL: q'-O'kl6'-O" AISLE: 26'-O" 1 BAY: GENERAL NOTES: SPECIAL OVER-RIDING 'BUFFER" SETBACK AGAINST RESIDENTIALLY ZONED NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. SEE ZONING CODE 5EG2049g5e. IMPERVIOU5 SURFACE: LOT AREA SF: 342,766 EST. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: 223,5115 (65%) PARKING USE SIZE REQUIRED PER CODE PROVIDED BANK 2ND STY. OFF 5,000 S.F. 5,000 S.F. 20 STALLS (1/250 5.F) 25 STALLS (5/1000 S.F.) 271 STALLS OFFICE #1 10,000 S.F. 50 STALLS (5/1000 S.F.) OFFICE #2 0,000 S.F. 50 STALLS (5/1000 S.F.) OFFICE #3 12,000 S.F. 60 STALLS (5/1000 S.F.) OFFICE #4 24,000 5.F. 120 STALLS (5/1000 5.F.) 126 STALLS TOTAL 66,000 5.F. 325 STALLS 3117 STALLS GR055 FLOOR AREA RATIO = 66,000 / 342,766 = I01.3% 0' 60' 120' 180' Ryan Engineerin( LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICI 434 Lake Street Excelsior, MN 55331 (952) 380-5000 www.ryanengineering.com I hereby certify that this plan, specificat or report was prepared by me or under direct supervision and that I am a duly registered Engineer under the laws of th State of Minnesota. Signature Registration No. Date GALPIN CROSSING Chanhassen, MN for MEPIC DEVELOPMENT, LL( Project No Digital Drawing Name galpirrprelim-layout-1.dw9 Oro wn By GLG Checked By PMR Date 10/6/05 Re visions Issued For Date: Schematic Design Design Development . Preliminary Review Final Review Bidding Construction Concept P I a rFITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED OCT 1 i 2005 GHANHASSEN PUNNING DEPT Page CP -1 STATEMENT OF PROPERTY TAX PAYABLE IN 2005 CCARVER COUNTY TOM KERBER -TREASURER MARK LUNDGREN - AUDITOR � 600 EAST 4TH STREET • P.O. BOX 69 CARVER CHASKA, MN 55318-0069 COUNTY 952-361-1980 • www.co.carver.ramms J P'S LINKS INC -JOHN PRZYMUS 12174 176TH AVE VILLARD MN 56385-2203 5489 PARCEL mEN111ICAn0N Np.: R 25.0101800 COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL -New Improvements/ Expired Exclusion, Estimated Market Value: 466,500 488,700 Taxable Market Value: 466,500 488,700 DESC: Sect -10 Twp -116 Range -023 15.01 AC P/O SW1/4 8 NW1/4 OF SECT 15 LYING W OF CENTER OF CO RD 117 & N OF NLY R -O -W LINE OF HWY 5 & LYING S OF TRACT DESC AS: COMM AT W 1/4 CORN OF SECT 10 TH St'E ON W 1. r ou may oe eugtme for one or even two returns to reauce your property tax. If applying use this amount on fomt M-IPR. Make a photocopy of this tax statement and include it with your form M-1 PR. file by August ❑ 15th. If box is checked, you owe delinquent taxes and are nut eligible. 2. Use this amount for the special property tax refund on schedule I of form M- IPR. Your Property Tax And How It Is Reduced By The State 3. Your property tax before reduction by state -paid aids and credits. 32,158.45 29,276.25 4. Aid paid by the State of Minnesota to reduce your property tax. 15,586.26 13,324.93 5, A. Homestead and agricultural credits Raid by the State of Minnesota to reduce your property tax. B. Other credits paid by the State of Minnesota to reduce your property tax. 6. Your property tax after reduction by state -paid aids and credits. 16,572.19 15,951.32 Where Your Property Tax Dollars Go 7. County A. 3,507.04 3,268.64 S. 8. Citv or Town. 2,382.89 2,083.26 9. State General Tax: 4,642.55 4,613.16 10. School District: A. Voter approved levies. 2,905.18 2,671.88 0112 B. Other local levies. 598.82 536.45 11. Special Taxing Districts: A. METRO DISTRICT 255.86 204.19 B. OTHERS 164.59 213.38 C. D. FISCAL 1,839.98 2,097.29 12. Non -school voter approved referenda levies. 275.28 263.07 13. Total property taxes before special assessments. 16,572.19 15,951.32 14. Special assessments added to this property tax bill: Princioal: 10.479.00 Interest: 3,405.68 14,565.81 13,884.68 WATER 252813 0 13,884.6 8 15. YOUR TOTAL PROPERTY TAX AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. 31,138.00 29,836.00 fryou pay your taxes late, you will be charged a penally. Pay this anh0uni no laRr than MAY 15 Read the back of this statement for penalty rates and Pay this amount no later than OCTOBER 1 5 applying for refund information. 14,918.00 14,918.00 5r r,;.; cp