PC Staff Report 12-04-2012PC DATE: December 4, 2012
1
CC DATE: December 10, 2012
REVIEW DEADLINE: January 1, 2013
CASE #: 2012 -18
BY: KA
PROPOSED MOTION:
"The Chanhassen Planning Commission provide the City Council with comments and feedback,
along with staff's proposed comments listed in the staff report."
PROPOSAL: Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) on approximately 14 acres of land
located at the northwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard — Chanhassen Apartments.
LOCATION: Northwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard (7750 Galpin Boulevard).
PID 25- 0101800 & PID 25- 0101810
APPLICANT: Oppidan, Inc.
5125 CR 101, Suite 100
Minnetonka, MN 55345
Paul Tucci
952- 294 -1234
paul@oppidan.com
ZONING: A2 Agricultural Estate District
Americana Community Bank
600 Market Street, Suite 100 d ,
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Jim Swiontek
952- 937 -9596
jims e ,americanfinancial.com
2030 LAND USE PLAN: Office on the southern parcel; Residential Low Density (1.2 -4
units /acre) on the northern parcel
ACREAGE: Approximately 14 acres
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval for a general concept plan
for a PUD for 224 apartments. If the project is to proceed for preliminary or development plan
approval, the application would include a land use amendment from office and residential low
density to residential high density, a rezoning to Planned Unit Development — Residential from
Agricultural Estate District, A2, and a site plan review.
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION MAKING: The City has a relatively high
level of discretion in approving or denying a rezoning because the City is acting in its legislative
or policy - making capacity. A PUD must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
PROPOSAL /SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting a general concept plan for a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The
site is currently zoned Agricultural Estate (A2). With the adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan in 2008, the City Council guided the southern parcel to office. The request for a Planned
Unit Development concept plan allows the applicant to seek relief from the standards of the
conventional zoning districts by creating a unique zoning district rather than asking for
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
vanances.
Planning Commission
Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development
December 4, 2012
Page 2 of 20
Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of
most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater
variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing and a potential for lower
development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the city has the expectation that the
development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than
would have been the case with the other, more standard zoning districts. It will be the applicant's
responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be realized as evaluated against
nine criteria.
The property would need a land use amendment to High Density, rezoning to PUD -R (allowing
16 units an acre) and site plan approval to proceed.
BACKGROUND
2008 Comprehensive Plan changed the land use guiding to Office on the southern eight acres of
property.
In May of 2006 the Chanhassen City Council approved the concept planned unit development
for a10 -unit twinhome development on the north side of West 78 Street, two -story office
building development including a bank with drive -thru facilities with approximately 66,000
square feet of floor area. *See attachment #3
On October 13, 2003, the Chanhassen City Council approved the Concept Planned Unit
Development (PUD) review for development of a recreational center or office on the eight (8)
acres south of West 78 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.
Planning Commission
Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development
December 4, 2012
Page 3 of 20
As part of the 1991 Comprehensive Plan, this property was included as part of the 1995 study
area for determination of the land use of the property.
On February 12, 1990, the Chanhassen City Council approved a zoning ordinance amendment
making golf driving ranges interim uses in the A2 district.
On November 16, 1987, the Chanhassen City Council approved a zoning ordinance amendment
to permit golf driving ranges as a conditional use in the A2 zoning district and a conditional use
permit for John Przymus for a golf driving range and miniature golf course at the subject
property.
On November 4, 1985, the Chanhassen City Council revoked the conditional use permit for a
golf driving range at the northwest 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 REGUATIONS
Chapter 20: Article VIII, Planned Unit Development District,
Article VI, Wetland Protection,
Article VII, Shoreland Management district,
Article XXXI, Bluff Creek Overlay District
Concept PUD - What is required?
The intent of the concept plan is to get direction from the Planning Commission and City
Council without incurring a lot of expense. There will be a greater level of detail required
through the city code and the recommendations and direction in this report. Following are the
requirements for conceptual PUD approval.
Chanhassen City Code, Section 20 -517 General concept plan.
(a) The general concept plan for a PUD provides an opportunity for the applicant to submit a
plan to the city showing the basic intent and the general nature of the entire development
without incurring substantial cost. The plan shall include the following:
(1) Overall gross and net density.
(2) Identification of each lot size and lot width.
(3) General location of major streets and pedestrian ways.
(4) General location and extent of public and common open space.
(5) General location and type of land uses and intensities of development.
(6) Staging and time schedule for development.
Planning Commission
Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development
December 4, 2012
Page 4 of 20
(b) The tentative written consent of all property owners within the proposed PUD shall be
filed with the city before the staff commences review. Approval of the concept statement
shall not obligate the city to approve the final plan or any part thereof or to rezone the
property to a planned unit development district.
(c) The final acceptance of land uses is subject to the following procedures:
(1) The developer meets with the city staff to discuss the proposed developments.
(2) The applicant shall file the concept stage application and concept plan, together
with all supporting data.
(3) The planning commission shall conduct a hearing and make recommendations to
the city council. Notice of the hearing shall consist of a legal property
description, description of request, and be published in the official newspaper at
least ten (10) days prior to the hearing, written notification of the hearing shall be
mailed at least ten (10) days prior thereto to owners of land within five hundred
(500) feet of the boundary of the property and an on -site notification sign
erected.
(4) Following the receipt of the report and recommendations from the planning
commission, the city council shall consider the proposal. The council may
comment on the concept plan.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The subject site is located adjacent to Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard. There are two parcels:
the northern parcel is six acres and the southern parcel is eight acres. Bluff Creek runs along the
northern property line of the six -acre parcel and a portion of this parcel is in the Bluff Creek
Overlay District. Access is gained via West 78 Street. The property to the east is zoned PUD
and guided commercial and includes a gas station and pharmacy. The property to the north is
Planning Commission
Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development
December 4, 2012
Page 5 of 20
guided Residential Low Density. It includes a farm and could be subdivided or developed in the
future. The property to the west is zoned R4 Mixed Low Density Residential District and
includes twin and single - family homes. South of the site across Highway 5 is Autumn Ridge, a
townhouse development. Bluff Creek Elementary School is southeast of the site across Highway
5.
The project proposes 224 units including studio, one and two- bedroom apartments. Building
materials are cement board and brick. The building would be three stories with underground
parking. There is an additional 119 surface parking stalls provided with 127 underground stalls.
Amenities for the apartments include a swimming pool and clubhouse.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The city has a lot of discretion in amending the comprehensive plan. The site currently has a
low - density residential as well as office designation. The intent of the office /institutional district
is to provide for public or quasi - public non - profit uses and professional businesses and
administrative offices (see attached zoning district). The following elements of the
comprehensive plan discuss land use policies that should be evaluated in changing the land use.
Planning Commission
Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development
December 4, 2012
Page 6 of 20
Chanter 2 Land Use Element
2.5.4 Residential High Density
The high density category includes units with a density range of 8 -16 units per acre
accommodating apartments and condominium units. Within this category, an average density of
10 units per acre is used for land use projections. The zoning options in the high density land
uses include R -8 (Mixed Medium Density), R -12 and R -16 (High Density Residential), and
PUD -R (Planned United Development - Residential). High density is located on major
transportation corridors that include transit, commercial centers and employment centers.
2.10 Office Land Use
This land use has increased since the last comprehensive plan was completed. In addition, the
City has identified other property for this land use. In the 2020 Comprehensive Plan, less than
1% of the City was guided Office; this has increased to 2.3% in the 2030 plan. With the increase
in the number of dwelling units, the City has seen an increase in the number of "office " uses
including medical uses and corporate headquarters. The City has given a dual land use
designation for the 160 acres at the southeast corner of Powers and Lyman Boulevards. Should a
lifestyle center not be feasible, then an office development, corporate headquarters site would be
appropriate. The zoning district for the land is OI (Office Institutional District).
Chapter 4 Housing Element
In March of 2007, Maxfield Research Inc. completed a Comprehensive Housing Needs
Assessment for Carver County Community Development agency for the years 2005 -2015 and
2015 -2030. A significant portion of the data comes from this study as well as from the U.S.
Census, Metropolitan Council and the City of Chanhassen.
4.2 Housing Element
• Communities in eastern Carver County will see a greater percentage of seniors, young
adults, and older adults. These increases will be due to the aging of the existing
population, young adults and adults seeking rental housing near employment centers, and
older adults with greater means purchasing more expensive housing.
Chapter 7 Transportation
7.6 5 Major Collectors
Major collectors are designed to serve shorter trips that occur entirely within the city and to
provide access from neighbor hoods to the arterial system. These roads supplement the arterial
system in the sense that they emphasize mobility over land access, but they are expected,
because of their locations, to carry less traffic than arterial roads.
Planning Commission
Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development
December 4, 2012
Page 7 of 20
The following roadways are classified as Major Collectors in Chanhassen:
West 78th Street: This east/west route connects TH 41 to TH 101. It parallels TH 5 and provides
local access to the properties adjacent to TH 5.
• ��;
.�� all �i�I , �' 11 , 7+' ��.�_
__ _ ;_, .,,�,;• = �
II / /M J�. aye•
`'
ko
INWTf61INNl� s I,:t�3
�� r y: rx .&C U
�
VNI
x �'�
el
•`.JN•.�4e_
.�
j� _
►, .
Nj
C Plan Goals and Policies
4.6 Housing Goals and Policies
Goals: Provide housing opportunities for all residents, consistent with the identified community
goals:
• A variety of housing types for all people in all stages of the life cycle.
• A community of well- maintained housing and neighborhoods, including ownership and
rental housing.
• Housing development that respects the natural environment of the community while
striving to accommodate the need for a variety of housing types and costs.
• The availability of a full range of services and facilities for its residents, and the
improvement of access to a linkage between housing and employment.
• Housing development methods such as PUD's, cluster development, and innovative site
plans and building types, should be encouraged to help conserve energy and resources for
housing.
• While density is given by a range in the comprehensive plan, the City shall encourage
development at the upper end of the density range.
Planning Commission
Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development
December 4, 2012
Page 8 of 20
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT INTENT
See. 20 -501. Intent.
Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of
most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater
variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing and a potential for lower
development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the city has the expectation that the
development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than
would have been the case with the other, more standard zoning districts. It will be the applicant's
responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be realized as evaluated against
the following criteria. Planned unit developments are to encourage the following:
1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive
environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and
scenic views.
Analysis: The six acres to the north, which has a portion of the property in the Bluff Creek
overlay district, will be protected with no development.
2. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing of
land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels.
Analysis: The developer proposed a transfer of development to the southern property
creating a development that provides its own amenities while preserving the more sensitive
parcel. Development adjacent to Highway 5 could provide a buffer to the properties to the
north.
3. High quality design and design compatibility with surrounding land uses, including both
existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect
higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community.
Analysis: The building will be of high quality design and materials including cement board
and brick as well as a landscaping and planting plan that provides a buffer and screening.
4. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along
significant corridors within the city will be encouraged.
Analysis: The apartments will provide a transitional use between Highway 5 to the south,
the commercial to the east and the low- density residential to the west
5. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Analysis: Currently, a portion of the site is guided for Office. A land use amendment to
High Density Residential would be required to be consistent the Comprehensive Plan.
Planning Commission
Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development
December 4, 2012
Page 9 of 20
Municipal services are available to the site. The project furthers several goals and policies of
the City's comprehensive plan including the land use and housing elements.
6. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city. Such
park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and overall trail
plan.
Analysis: There are neighborhood and community parks as well as city trails adjacent to
subject site. The development proposes a pool and clubhouse. The proposed development
would preserve the Bluff Creek Corridor as permanent open space. Improving the creek by
remeandering may be considered.
7. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD.
Analysis: Not applicable with this application. This project will be market rate.
8. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and siting and the
clustering of buildings and land uses.
Analysis: The building adjacent to Highway 5 will provide noise and light attenuation to the
neighboring residential low density lands to the north and northwest.
9. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts.
Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate.
Analysis: A traffic analysis was done comparing the current proposal with the Galpin
Crossings proposal. The study found that the am and pm peak trips would be less, but there
would be increase in overall trips. A more detailed traffic study would need to be completed
to study the function of the intersection of Galpin and West 78 Street.
Sec. 20 -502. - Allowed uses.
Specific uses and performance standards for each PUD shall be delineated in a development
plan.
(1) Each PUD shall only be used for the use or uses for which the site is designated in the
comprehensive plan. Specific uses and performance standards for each PUD shall be
delineated in a PUD development plan.
Finding. If the project moves beyond conceptual approval, preliminary PUD design standards
will be created that will control the development of the project.
Planning Commission
Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development
December 4, 2012
Page 10 of 20
Sec. 20 -503. - District size and location.
Each PUD shall have a minimum area of five acres except the regional /lifestyle center
commercial PUD, which must be a minimum of 30 acres, unless the applicant can demonstrate
the existence of one of the following:
(1) Unusual physical features of the property itself or of the surrounding neighborhood such
that development as a PUD will conserve a physical or topographic feature of importance
to the neighborhood or community.
(2) The property is directly adjacent to or across a right -of -way from property which has
been developed previously as a PUD or planned unit residential development and will be
perceived as and will function as an extension of that previously approved development.
(3) The property is located in a transitional area between different land use categories or on a
collector, minor or principal arterial as defined in the comprehensive plan.
Finding: The entire site is 14+ acres and is located in a transitional area between a
commercial development (developed as a PUD), Highway 5, and low density development. Six
acres of the site will be preserved as permanent open space.
Sec. 20 -504. - Coordination with other zoning regulations.
The development must comply with Article II, Division 6 of Chapter 20 addressing Site Plan
Review as well as Articles V, VI and VII (Floodplain, Wetland and Shoreland District and the
Bluff Creek Overlay District).
Finding. The project will be required to meet these standards as described in the staff report.
The development must receive a land use amendment, rezoning and site plan review approvals.
Chapter 20 Article XXIII
Sec. 20 -505. - Required general standards.
Standards and purposes of the comprehensive land use plan to coordinate between the proposed
development and the surrounding use.
(a) The city shall consider the proposed PUD from the point of view of all standards and
purposes of the comprehensive land use plan to coordinate between the proposed
development and the surrounding use. The city shall consider the location of buildings,
compatibility, parking areas and other features with response to the topography of the
area and existing natural features; the efficiency, adequacy and safety of the proposed
layout of streets; the adequacy and location of green areas; the adequacy, location and
screening of non - compatible land uses and parking areas.
Finding: The project meets elements of the city's comprehensive plan if amended
including housing and transportation. The plans provide for preservation of the natural
features and the building is efficient in its design location.
Planning Commission
Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development
December 4, 2012
Page 11 of 20
(b) The applicant shall demonstrate that the PUD plan offers the city higher quality
architectural and site design, landscaping, protection of wetlands, creeks and mature trees
and buffering for adjoining properties that represent improvements over normal
ordinance standards.
Finding: With the application of density transfer, the natural features of the northern
parcel will be preserved. And with some modifications, they could be enhanced. The
Bluff Creek Overlay District gives some recommendations for enhancement and
management of the area. The development will meet the higher standards established for
high density residential development by the city.
(c) Density. An increase /transfer for density may be allowed at the sole discretion of the city
utilizing the following factors:
(1) Density within a PUD shall be calculated on net acreage located within the
property lines of the site in accordance with the land use plan.
(2) The area where the density is transferred must be within the project area and
owned by the proponent.
(3) Density transfer in single - family detached area will be evaluated using the items
listed in sections 20 -506 or 20 -508. Density transfer eligible for multiple - family
areas are not permitted to be applied to single - family areas.
(4) In no case shall the overall density of the development exceed the net density
ranges identified in the comprehensive plan except as specified in policies
supporting the city's affordable housing goals.
Finding: The developer must calculate the net developable acres of the site and wetland
acreage. The project proposes using all of the area of the northern six -acre parcel
including wetlands to develop this site, thus maximizing the density.
(d) The city may utilize incentives to encourage the construction of projects which are
consistent with the city's housing goals. Incentives may include modification of density
and other standards for developments providing low and moderate cost housing.
Incentives may be approved by the city contingent upon the developer and the city
entering into an agreement ensuring that the housing will be available to low and
moderate income persons for a specific period of time.
Finding: Not applicable with this request. The project will be market rate.
(e) Hard surface coverage shall be limited as follows:
Planning Commission
Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development
December 4, 2012
Page 12 of 20
Comprehensive Plan Designation
Hard Surface Coverage ( %)
Low or medium density residential
30
High density residential
50
Office
70
Commercial (neighborhood or community)
70
Commercial (regional)
70
Industrial
70
Mixed use
70
Individual lots within PUD may exceed these standards as long as the average meets these standards.
Finding: The development appears to be under 50 percent hard cover. The developer
shall provide the hard surface coverage calculation to confirm.
(f) Building and parking setbacks from public streets shall be determined by the city based
on characteristics of the specific PUD. Parking lots and driving lanes shall be set back at
least 20 feet from all exterior lot lines of a PUD.
Where industrial uses abut developed platted or planned single - family lots outside the
PUD, greater exterior building and parking setbacks, between 50 and 100 feet, shall be
required in order to provide effective screening. The city council shall make a
determination regarding the adequacy of screening proposed by the applicant. Screening
may include the use of natural topography or earth berming, existing and proposed
plantings and other features such as roadways and wetlands which provide separation of
uses. PUD's must be developed in compliance with buffer yard requirements established
by the comprehensive plan and chapter 20, article XXV, of the Chanhassen City Code.
Finding: The project has a 50 foot perimeter building setback. The apartments placed
on the southeast corner of the site will provide a visual and sound barrier from Highway
5. The development will be held to these standards. One small portion of the building
encroaches into the required setback. The building shall be adjusted to meet the setback.
(g) More than one building may be placed on one platted or recorded lot in a PUD.
Finding: The project proposes two apartment buildings and a clubhouse on one lot. The
property will not be subdivided. Storm water and park and trail fees are collected with a
subdivision. Because there is no platting, the city is requesting 50 percent of these fees in
force at the time of project approval be paid if the project advances.
(h) At the time PUD approval is sought from the city, all property to be included within a
PUD shall be under unified ownership or control or subject to such legal restrictions or
covenants as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the approved master
development plan and final site and building plan. After approval, parcels may be sold to
Planning Commission
Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development
December 4, 2012
Page 13 of 20
other parties without restriction; however, all parcels will remain subject to the PUD
development contract that will be recorded in each chain -of- title.
Finding: The project will be developed under singular ownership.
(i) Signs shall be restricted to those which are permitted in the sign plan approved by the city
and shall be regulated by permanent covenants or design standards established in the
PUD development contract.
Finding: Signage will be consistent with the city's sign ordinance for residential
development (Area identification/entrance signs. Only one monument sign may be
erected at the entrance(s). Total sign area shall not exceed 24 square feet of sign display
area, nor be more than five feet high. More than one sign per entrance may be erected,
provided that the total sign area does not exceed 24 square feet. Any such sign or
monument shall be designed with low - maintenance, high quality materials. The adjacent
property owner or a homeowners association shall be responsible for maintenance of the
identificationlentrance sign and surrounding grounds and landscaped areas. Such sign
shall be located so as not to conflict with traffic visibility or street maintenance
operation, and shall be securely anchored to the ground.)
(j) The requirements contained in articles XXIII and XXV of this chapter may be applied by
the city as it deems appropriate.
Finding: The project will follow the city's design standards and landscaping, tree
removal and buffering requirements (see m).
(k) The uniqueness of each PUD required that specifications and standards for streets,
utilities, public facilities and subdivisions may be subject to modification from the city
ordinances ordinarily governing them. The city council may therefore approve streets,
utilities, public facilities and land subdivisions which are not in compliance with usual
specifications or ordinance requirements if it finds that strict adherence to such standards
or requirements is not required to meet the intent of this [article] or to protect the health,
safety or welfare of the residents of the PUD, the surrounding area or the city as a whole.
Finding: A traffic study will be required to determine if any improvements need to be
made to the existing roadway system. Access to the site is via a collector street. The
internal streets are private and shall meet the city's driveways standards. A traffic
analysis was done comparing the current proposal with the Galpin Crossings proposal.
The study found that the am and pm peak tips would be less, but there would be a minor
increase in overall trips. A more detailed traffic study would need to be completed to
study the function of the intersections of Galpin at West 78` Street and Highway S.
(1) No building or other permit shall be issued for any work on property included within a
proposed or approved PUD, nor shall any work occur unless such work is in compliance
with the proposed or approved PUD.
Planning Commission
Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development
December 4, 2012
Page 14 of 20
Finding. Not applicable at this time.
(m) Buffer yards.
(1) The city comprehensive plan establishes a requirement for buffer yards. ...in
areas indicated on the plan where higher intensity uses interface with low density
uses and shall comply with chapter 20, article XXV, of the Chanhassen City
Code.
(2) The buffer yard is not an additional setback requirement. The full obligation to
provide the buffer yard shall be placed on the parcel containing the higher
intensity use.
(3) The buffer yard is intended to provide physical separation and screening for the
higher intensity use. As such, they will be required to be provided with a
combination of berming, landscaping and/or tree preservation to maximize the
buffering potential. To the extent deemed feasible by the city, new plantings shall
be designed to require the minimum of maintenance, however, such maintenance
as may be required to maintain consistency with the approved plan, shall be the
obligation of the property owner.
Finding. The area guided for low density land use designation is proposed for density
transfer, thus maintaining the natural buffer by preserving this area as permanent open
space. Buffer planting can be placed in the building setback area around the perimeter
of the building as specified in city code.
Sec. 20 -508. - Standards and guidelines for single - family attached or cluster -home PUDs.
(a) Generally. Single - family attached, cluster, zero lot line, townhouses and similar type
dwelling types may be allowed on sites designed for low, medium or high density
residential uses by the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan.
(b) Minimum lot sizes. There shall be no minimum lot size; however, in no case shall net
density exceed guidelines established by the city comprehensive plan.
(c) Setback standards /structures and parking:
(1) PUD exterior: 50 feet.
(2) Interior public right -of -way: 30 feet.*
*The 30 foot front yard setback may be waived by the city council when it is
demonstrated that environmental protection will be enhanced. In these instances, a
minimum front yard setback of 20 feet shall be maintained.
(3) Other setbacks: Established by PUD agreement.
Finding. With a land use amendment to high density residential and the rezoning of the
property, the standard would be met. Additional design standards will be generated as a
part of the PUD review.
Planning Commission
Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development
December 4, 2012
Page 15 of 20
(d) Protection and preservation of natural features. The applicant must demonstrate that the
flexibility provided by the PUD is used to protect and preserve natural features such as
tree stands, wetlands, ponds and scenic views. These areas are to be permanently
protected as public or private tracts or protected by permanently recorded easements.
Finding: The northern six -acre parcel would be preserved with this PUD request.
Without the application of a PUD and density transfer, the northern parcel could
potentially provide development capacity.
(e) Landscaping plan. An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall contain the
following:
(1) Boulevard plantings. Located in front yards shall require a mix of over -story trees
and other plantings consistent with the site. Landscaped berms shall be provided
to screen the site from major roadways, railroads and more intensive land uses. In
place of mass grading for building pads and roads, stone or decorative blocks
retaining walls shall be employed as required to preserve mature trees and the
site's natural topography.
(2) Exterior landscaping and double fronted lots. Landscaped berms shall be
provided to buffer the site and lots from major roadways, railroads, and more
intensive uses. Similar measures shall be provided for double- fronted lots. Where
necessary to accommodate this landscaping, additional lot depth may be required.
(3) Foundation and yard plantings. A minimum budget for foundation plants shall be
established and approved by the city. As each parcel is developed in the PUD, the
builder shall be required to install plant materials meeting or exceeding the
required budget prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy or provide financial
guarantees acceptable to the city.
(4) Tree preservation. Tree preservation is a primary goal of the PUD. A detailed tree
survey should be prepared during the design of the PUD and the plans should be
developed to maximize tree preservation.
Finding: The following landscaping requirements make the proposal consistent with the
requirements:
Parking lot requirements:
• An island or peninsula for every 6000 square feet of vehicular use area. May
need one more island in parking lot.
• All islands must have minimum interior width of 10 feet.
Building requirements:
• Foundation plantings.
• Headlight/traffic screening.
Additional:
• City boulevard trees must be protected during construction and replaced if
damaged. Trees must be shown on plans. Plantings along the roads must comply
with the bufferyard B standards of the city code.
Planning Commission
Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development
December 4, 2012
Page 16 of 20
• Canopy coverage for site should be around 25% (78 trees or so)
(f) Architectural standards. The applicant should demonstrate that the PUD will provide for
a high level of architectural design and building materials. While this requirement is not
intended to minimize design flexibility, a set of architectural standards should be
prepared for city approval. The primary purpose of this section is to assure the city that
high quality design will be employed and that home construction can take place without
variances or impact to adjoining lots. The PUD agreement should include the following:
(1) Standards for exterior architectural treatments...
Findings: The building will be reviewed under the city's design standards for multifamily
development, Chapter 20, Article XUR,, Division 9, including archictural style,
materials, lighting, etc. as well at the R16 Zoning District. MnDOT requires that the
building be designed for noise attenuation. The R16 zoning district permits a height of
three stories or 35 feet. The pitch of the building's roof adds additional height making
the building approximately 50 feet tall. The midpoint of the roof is used is used for
calculated height. The PUD ordinance can address the height by permitting taller
buildings.
The building is highly articulated with pitched roofs and balconies, windows and patio
doors. The materials are cement boards and brick.
STREETS AND ACCESS
Access to the site is proposed via two access points on West 78 Street. The westerly access is a
full access and the easterly access is a right - in/right -out only.
Staff recommends that a traffic study be completed for the proposed development should the
Planning Commission and City Council support the concept PUD. The study must address
intersection of Galpin Boulevard at West 78 Street and Highway 5.
UTILITIES
City sewer and water is available to the site. A preliminary utility plan would be required as part
of any future development review.
GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL
A grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be required as part of the preliminary Planned
Unit Development review for the project should it move beyond the concept stage. The concept
plans prepared by Alliant Engineering; Incorporated on behalf of Oppidan dated 10/11/12 and
were received by Chanhassen on November 2, 2012. The delineation preformed by Kjolhaug
Environmental on November 2, 2012 was field reviewed. A final delineation report was
submitted the afternoon of 11/19/2012. This report will need to be noticed to Technical
Evaluation Panel members for review and comment prior to approval.
Planning Commission
Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development
December 4, 2012
Page 17 of 20
The property is divided by West 78 Street into two parcels. These parcels have been identified
as Parcel A north of West 78 Street and Parcel B to the south.
BLUFF CREEK MANAGEMENT
Parcel A includes a large wetland complex which is also the origination of Bluff Creek. Bluff
Creek was listed as impaired for aquatic life due to high turbidity in 2002 and for low fish biota
scores in 2004. Bluff Creek drains to the Lower Minnesota River which is also impaired due to
elevated turbidity.
Wetlands
Primary r
,it
1 - - QIQ
,driJE�r
The area was first delineated in 2003 by Schoell
and Madson, Inc. It was delineated again this
fall by Kjolhaug Environmental. Both
delineation reports found extensive wetlands on
Parcel A. In addition, one wetland was found on
Parcel B in both cases. However, in 2003 it was
determined that this area was created incidental
to the construction of West 78 Street. Because
Minnesota Rules 8420.0255, Subpart 4 states that
an LGU decision is only valid for three (3) years,
the applicant must request a No Loss decision.
However, the determination from 2004 that the
wetland was incidental to the construction of
West 78 Street can be used as evidence that a
decision of No Loss should be granted for the
wetland on Parcel B.
Any impacts to wetlands would have to meet
the sequencing requirements of Minnesota
Rules, Chapter 8420. Avoidance is always
preferred and economics cannot be the sole
justification for wetland impacts. But these
same rules do allow for the impact and
replacement of wetlands provided that
sufficient argument is made for why avoidance
is not possible.
Bluff Creek Overlay District
A significant portion of Parcel A is within the
Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD). It is
required that the primary zone of the BCOD be
preserved as open space and that any natural
habitat areas, including wetlands, remain
undisturbed. The intent of the Bluff Creek
Planning Commission
Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development
December 4, 2012
Page 18 of 20
Natural resources Management Plan was to protect the water quality of Bluff Creek and provide
for a continuous greenway along Bluff Creek to the Minnesota River.
Minnesota Shoreland Rules
Parcel B is outside of the shoreland management district and would not be subject to the same lot
and building 'requirements as Parcel A.
Floodplain
A substantial portion of Parcel A is within a flood hazard area Zone A. This flood hazard area is
approximately coincidental with the BCOD. There is no established base flood elevation. No
portion of Parcel B is within a flood zone.
Soils
Approximately 60 percent of Parcel A is mapped as Houghton and Muskego soils. Houghton
soils have a profile which consists of muck to a depth of at least 80 inches. Muskego soils have
a profile of muck overlying coprogeneous earth at a depth of 3 feet and extending to five feet or
greater. Muck is defined as being dark, finely divided, well decomposed organic soil material.
Muck soils and coprogenous soils are very poorly drained and make for extremely poor building
sites. These soil types were confirmed during the construction of West 78 Street.
Conclusion
While some development of Parcel A is possible, the presence of wetlands, Bluff Creek, a
shallow water table and poor soils make this parcel a difficult site for development. The
Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act does not preclude wetland impacts provided adequate
justification is given for why a project could not occur without wetland impacts. As such, while
the wetland located on Parcel A within the BCOD would be protected from any and all impact, it
is not possible to conclude that some development would not allow for some impacts to the
wetland on Parcel A outside of the BCOD. Because of the constraints found on Parcel A and the
desire to protect and improve the water quality of Bluff Creek, it would be my recommendation
that Parcel A is preserved and that density is transferred to Parcel B.
More specifically:
1. Parcel A is provided to the City for management consistent with the Bluff Creek
Management Plan, the Bluff Creek TMDL and the 2nd Generation Surface Water
Management Plan.
2. The applicant and the City should work together to develop an appropriate mitigation
scenario.
3. That any portion of the wetland presumed to be impacted under an alternate development
scenario, which would require the use of Parcel A and is subsequently transferred to Parcel B
for density calculations, be mitigated for at a 1:1 ratio. This mitigation should occur within
the Bluff Creek Overlay District but does need to be in the form of wetland.
Planning Commission
Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development
December 4, 2012
Page 19 of 20
PARK AND RECREATION
Parks
There are multiple existing parks in the area; Sugarbush Park and Lake Ann Park are situated
north of Highway 5 and The Chanhassen Recreation Center/Bluff Creek Elementary School and
the Chanhassen Nature Preserve South of Hwy 5. No additional parkland dedication is
recommended as a condition of approval for this proposal.
Trails
The city trail along West 78 Street provides access from this site to the four public parks in the
area and the city's larger trail network. No additional trail construction is recommended as a
condition of approval for this proposal.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Chanhassen Planning Commission provide the City Council with
comments and feedback to along with the following comments:
1. A detailed traffic study would need to be completed to study the function of the intersection
of Galpin Boulevard at West 78 Street and Highway 5.
2. Payment of 50% of the required park and trail dedication fee and stormwater fee at the rate in
force upon final development approval.
3. Parcel A is provided to the City for management consistent with the Bluff Creek
Management Plan, the Bluff Creek TMDL and the 2 nd Generation Surface Water
Management Plan.
4. The applicant and the City should work together to develop an appropriate mitigation
scenario.
5. That any portion of the wetland presumed to be impacted under an alternate development
scenario, which would require the use of Parcel A and is subsequently transferred to Parcel B
for density calculations, be mitigated for at a 1:1 ratio. This mitigation should occur within
the Bluff Creek Overlay District but does need to be in the form of wetland. The developer
must calculate the net developable acres of the site and wetland acreage.
6. Wetland delineation report shall be finalized.
7. A PUD Ordinance shall be created to govern the site and design standards.
8. The developer shall calculate hard surface coverage.
9. Buildings must meet the 50 -foot perimeter setback requirements.
Planning Commission
Chanhassen Apartments Concept Planned Unit Development
December 4, 2012
Page 20 of 20
10. The development shall meet multi - family design standards in Chapter 20, Article XXIII,
Division 9.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Development Review Application.
2. Site Plan.
3. Existing Conditions.
4. Garage Level Plan.
5. First Level Plan.
6. Typical Floor Plan.
7. Elevations.
8. Galpin Crossing Concept Plan.
9. City Code Chapter 20, Article XXI. — "OP' Office and Institutional District.
10. Traffic Analysis from Alliant Engineering, Inc. dated November 20, 2012.
11. Letter from MnDOT dated November 20, 2012.
12. Letter from CenterPoint Energy dated November 6, 2012.
13. Affidavit of Mailing of Public Hearing Notice.
14. Letter from Mr. and Mrs. D.B. Dahlquist dated November 26, 2012.
15. Email from Erin Buss dated November 27, 2012.
16. Email from Alice English dated November 28, 2012.
17. "Preserve Chanhassen" Online Neighborhood Petition
gAplan\2012 planning cases\2012 -18 chanhassen apartments\staff report pc.doc
Planning Case No clkla — l'i
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227 -1100
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
NOV 0 2 2012
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
PLEASE PRINT
Applicant Name and Address:
t7 PPS' DA n . - ZN G
St ) 0 1. t
IM 3yS
Contact: 6 L u cL. i
Phone: 9s.2- 2tiN -1Zy3 Fax: _9Sa- DAq -0Y6'I
Email: Ors v 1 o n j 4A n. r&w\
NOTE Consultation with City staff is required
plans
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT
Property Owner Name and Address:
Ame—Air -m\A 6Glrnr»uni 9"k
[t op CA A a FT ST.
Ghcmhasu'A mnl �s 3 )� - 4S/.°►
Contact: Z m Svo, rb y\+-e k
Phone: ys.'?-o) 3 -`1596 Fax: 95a- h'3 95
uding review of development
Comprehensive Plan Amendment _, Temporary Sales Permit
Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
Interim Use Permit (IUP)
Non - conforming Use Permit
Planned Unit Development* C&WZV4- P14 n
Rezoning
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review
Site Plan Review (SPR)*
Subdivision*
Vacation of Right -of -Way /Easements (VAC)
(Additional recording fees may apply)
Variance (VAR)
Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP)
Zoning Appeal
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
- - Notification Sign $200
(City to install and re
X Escrow 'o i ' g Fees /Attorney Cost **
- $50 CUP / R/VACNARNVAP /Metes & Bounds
- $450 Mi r UB
TOTAL FEE $ 950
An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant
prior to the public hearing.
*Five (5) full -size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8 %" X 11" reduced
copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 ( *.tif) format.
* *Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for
each application.
SCANNED
PROJECT NAME: C_J�n �1���� Y-�
LOCATION: � ' - co r ner o-f �I iASa ''J ark Gad c i
LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: 77S6 ini
WP
TOTAL ACREAGE:
WETLANDS PRESENT: YES NO
PRESENT ZONING: A _ -2�N
REQUESTED ZONING: PU IZ-
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: Lli�t C�
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: A I"
M
REASON FOR REQUEST:
FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: Include number of existing employees: and new employees:
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the
Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written
notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership
(either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person
to make this application and the fee owner has also signed fhis application.
I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge.
Signature of Applicant
1�
Signature of Fee Owner
gAplanWorms \development review application.doc
Date
Date
SCANNED
01PT I V N -
Builder of towns. Creator of value.
5125 COUNTY ROAD 101 #100 MINNETONxA, MN 55345 PHONE: 952/294 -0353 FAx: 952/294 -0151 ' * WEB: WWW.oppidan.com
November 1, 2012
Kathryn Aanenson, AICP, Community Development Director
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
RE: Proposed Apartment Development
NWC Highway 5 & Galpin Blvd NOV 0 Z� 1
Chanhassen, MN CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEpt
Dear Kate:
This letter is designed to serve as .a brief narrative for. proposed apartment development at Galpin
Boulevard and Highway 5.- The highlights of the plans are as follow:
• Anew, market "rate apartment building, containing 224 total units.
• The target mix of unit is currently being finalized.- Goal is to have 5 -10% Studio Units,
55% One Bedroom,Units and the balance 2 Bedroom This will move a bit.as
design continues.
• Parking will meet City requirements including, one underground.stall for each unit:
• The building will be 3 levels plus an underground level for parking.
• Each unit will have -a 'washer and dryer and some units will be designed to, have the
potential for a fireplace:
• The building exterior will be a combination of btick/block and cement board siding for
the predominance of the building elevation,
• Balconies will be provided for the majority of 'the units.
• There will be a Clubhouse with community room and exercise facilities. Also looking at
the potential for a small business center for residents (may not need it with the proximity
of Kinko's to the site).
• ' An exterior patio area and outdoor pool are planned on the southeast corner of the site
This will be appropriately fences and landscaped.
• Outside sitting/park areas and trails will be provided connect to the existing. walkway
system.
A Market Study has been completed and the indication is that this product type and size is
supportable in this location.. The'design and amenities are that of a Class A market rate facility.
We look forward to "working with the City on this matter. If you have any questions or need
additional information on this submittal, please do not hesitate to call me at (952) 294 -1243.
Sincerel
Paul J. cci
-
1
WETLAND BASIN
(APPROXIMATE
UNDERGROUND ,
PARKING 1
EN RANCE
/
BUILDING /
ENTRANCE
L OPEN
SPACE? /
/
BUILDING /
FOOTPRINT /
38,000 SFt /
/
/
/
GARO
I BUILDING
ENTRANCE
BUILDING
\ FOOTPRINT
39,800 SF2
- DOISDINC
- -� - - -� PROP =RTy UN=
I /
I
I
i
i
HIGHWAYS
MULTI - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (225 UNITS ±)
GALPIN BLVD, CHANHASSEN 1 -11 -12
CITY OF CHANHASSEN!
RECEIVED
NOV 0 2 2012
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT
0 w W w 1$
L'LIZ
wvum m. •uwr ov[vnc xc. NptM
SCANNED
/
/
ST9.RMWATER
/ / POND
U ,
ALLIANT
ENGINEERING. Wf..
U)PARRAVf. $(IIrtIL SIIITE JfA
IS. MN SHIS
PIIONE )1F10A0
FA \(61 ?)"/5 &1099
g
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
NOV 0 2 2012
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT
131
REd3'C
FOR CC32'fiTAUG'T1CStti
N
o
ZS 50
.A. iN T
SCANNED
z
w
co
¢ z
IL
" 0
0
z
LU U
a mN z
x ?
z J a F
U c
I n.n� .w1iI�1FO1 „l. oleo.
o: a m
DUAUW ASSURANCE /CONTROL
DATE ISSUE wR
PROJECT TERN DATA
C -1
SCANNED
G
Collage
r / / / /
r � m n c s � / / /
CWM SEN
APA TMENTS
oppo"
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
-,PAR
NOV 0 2 2012
II I III ililll
-
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT
GARAGE LEVEL PLAN
227 ENCLOSED STALLS
�,\ GARAGE BEVEL PLAN
�
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
SCANNED
G
Collage
CHANHASSEN
APARTMENTS
OPPIOAN
/
/
/
1
1
1
TY OF CHANHASMN
RECFNED
NP LANN(NG OEPI
FIRST L PLA
53 ONE BEDROOM UNITS
22 TWO BEDROOM UNITS
�,1 FI -. RST LEVEL PLAN FIRSTFLOORPIAN
✓n A -102
SCANNED
G
Collage
l
TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN
49 ONE BEDROOM UNITS / FLOOR
26 TWO BEDROOM UNITS / FLOOR
CHANHASSEN
*ttCEIVED
0 s ?_ 2012
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT
n NPIC{�L FLOOR PLAN
�vx -ra
tl1aMwsm
avamMENB
OPKD M
TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN
A -103
SCANNED
Q 2005 fly- ENG�
PARCEL A
8
a
7
3
7
6
2
5
4 --- — ---
3
-----------
2
J
BL UFF - " -E" - -,-, -
7—
VABST 78
..�� \l � � 11 1 1 �l i.i I I
P
LEGEND
ENS=
S.,A>y S— SANITARY SEWER
WAIER
WATER —I—
m
STORK SEWER STORM SEWER
GENERAL INFORMIATION1
Mx AT 1.1
2 5Toar
PARCEL A
Lola Rentrr
uwtAwe
PARCEL 8
- 51—
TOTAL MO009F. I SMS— I 9
MA- 1212.b .p L
it
"MM666100119
v w
LOT ARW
I- Aw WARM W
jqrA . M-0'M wj AL°ab W .-Y
EST S—. 2v0. OM
- 51—
TOTAL MO009F. I SMS— I 9
MA- 1212.b .p L
Ry5 a e'ing
LMO DEVELWIAV SUMCES
434 Lake Street
ExceWcw, MN M
(952) 380-5000
wvvrysrcnpFrartgcnn
GALPIN
CROSSING
ChaMassm MN
for
MEPIC
Td nets
OLn
pmn
IDA"
!MWA Fm ...... ..... We ...........
Concept
Plan
Pw
CP-1
it
"MM666100119
v w
12V 1w
Ry5 a e'ing
LMO DEVELWIAV SUMCES
434 Lake Street
ExceWcw, MN M
(952) 380-5000
wvvrysrcnpFrartgcnn
GALPIN
CROSSING
ChaMassm MN
for
MEPIC
Td nets
OLn
pmn
IDA"
!MWA Fm ...... ..... We ...........
Concept
Plan
Pw
CP-1
Municode
Page 1 of 3
Chanhassen, Minnesota, Cade of Ordinances >> - CITY CODE >> Chapter 20 - ZONING >> ARTICLE
XXI. - "OI" OFFICE AND INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT >>
ARTICLE XXI. - "OI" OFFICE AND INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT
Sec. 20 -791. - Intent.
Sec. 20 -792. - Permitted uses.
Sec. 20 -793. - Permitted accessory uses.
Sec. 20 -794. - Conditional uses.
Sec. 20 -795. - Lot requirements and setbacks.
Sec. 20 -796. - Interim uses.
Secs. 20- 797 -20 -810. - Reserved.
Sec. 20 -791. - Intent.
The intent of the "OI" district is to provide for public or quasi - public nonprofit uses and
professional business and administrative offices.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V. § 15(5- 15 -1), 12- 15 -86)
1 ' -
The following uses are permitted in an "OI" district:
(1) Antennas as regulated by article XXX of this chapter.
( Community center.
( Churches.
( Fire station.
( Funeral homes.
( Health services /hospitals.
( Library.
(8) Museum.
(9) Nursing homes.
(10) Offices.
(11) Post office.
(12) Public parks /open space.
(13) Public recreational facilities.
(14) Schools.
(15) Utility services.
(Ord. No. 80. Art. V, § 15(5- 15 -2), 12- 15 -86; Ord. No. 259, § 25 11- 12 -96; Ord. No. 377. § 107, 5- 24 -04)
Sec. 20 -793. - Permitted accessary uses.
The following are permitted accessory uses in the "OI" district:
http: // library. municode .com /print.aspx ?h= &clientID= 14048 &HTMRequest= http %3a %2f... 11/28/2012
Municode
(1) Parking lots.
( Signs.
( Temporary outdoor sales (subject to the requirements of section 20 -312
(Ord. No. 80, Att. V, § 15(5- 15 -3), 12- 15 -86; Ord. No. 243, § 13, 2- 13 -95; Ord. No. 377, § 108, 5- 24 -04)
Sec. 20 -794. - Conditional uses.
The following are conditional uses in the "OI" district:
Page 2 of 3
(1) Adaptive reuse of vacant public or private school buildings for private business uses.
( Commercial towers as regulated by article XXX of this chapter.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 15(5-15-4),.12-15-86; Ord. No. 259, § 26, 11- 12 -96)
State law reference— Conditional uses, M. S, § 462.3595.
Sec. 20 -795. - Lot requirements and setbacks.
The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "OI" district subject to
additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter:
(1) The minimum lot area is 15,000 square feet.
( The minimum lot frontage is 75 feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac shall
have a minimum lot frontage of 60 feet.
( The minimum lot depth is 150 feet.
( The maximum lot coverage is 65 percent.
( Off - street parking shall comply with district setback requirements except:
a• There is no minimum setback when it abuts a railroad right -of -way, except as
provided in chapter 20 , article XXV, division 3, pertaining to landscaping
requirements.
b• There is no minimum setback when it abuts, without being separated by a
street, another off - street parking area.
C. The minimum setback is 50 feet when it abuts a residential district without
being separated from the residential district by a street or railroad right -of -way.
d. The minimum setback is 25 feet for side street side yards.
( The maximum height is as follows:
a. For the principal structure, two stories.
b. For accessory structures, one story.
( Minimum setback requirements:
a• For front yards, 35 feet.
b• For rear yards, 30 feet.
C. For side yards, 15 feet.
d• The minimum setback is 50 feet when it abuts a residential district without
being separated from the residential district by a street or railroad right -of -way.
(Ord. No. 80 Art. V, § 15(5- 15 -5), 12- 15-86; Ord. No. 94 §§ 1, 6, 7- 25 -88; Ord. No. 451, § 7, 5- 29 -07)
Sec. 20 -796. - Interim uses.
The following are interim uses in the "OI" district:
http: / /library.municode.com/ print. aspx? h= &clientID= 14048 &HTMRequest= http %3a %2f... 11/28/2012
Municode Page 3 of 3
(1) Temporary classroom structures for use by public or private schools needed for
temporary use.
(Ord. No. 282, § 9, 6- 22 -98)
Secs. 20- 797 -20 -810. - Reserved.
http: / /library.municode.coml print. aspx? h= &clientID= 14048 &HTMRequest =http %3 a %2f... 11/28/2012
g
Alliant Engineering, Inc.
MEMORANDUM
ALLIANT PROD. NO. 12 -0103
DATE:
November 20'', 2012
TO:
Paul Tucci - Oppidan
FROM:
Katie Schmidt, PE
SUBJECT: Chanhassen Multi - Family Development - Trip Generation Comparison
This memorandum has been prepared to document the trip generation potential of the Chanhassen Multi -
Family Development in Chanhassen, MN. The trip generation of the Multi- Family Development has
been compared to the trip generation potential of the previously approved office /residential land uses for
the Galpin Crossing Development.
The trip generation rates for the proposed and previously approved land uses were obtained from the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9`" Edition. This manual is a
compilation of daily and peak hour trip generation rates based on data collected from similar development
sites. The estimated volume of site - generated trips for the weekday AM and PM Peak hours and on a
daily basis for the proposed development is summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Proposed Multi - Familv Development Trin Generation
1
Land Use /ITECode
ITT Unit
No ./Size
Trip Rate
Uehicte
Trips
37
133
1 557
General Office /710
AM PM ;- Daily
AM',
RII,
Daily
Apartments / 220
DU
224
0.51 0.62 1 6.65
114
139
1490
Total Trips
114
139
1490
` Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers.
z Trip rate for the AM and PM peak hour of adjacent street traffic.
Table 2 details the estimated volume of site - generated trips for the previously approved Galpin Crossing
Development.
Table 2.
Crossings Trip Generation
Bank (Drive -Thru) / 912
Drive -Thru Lanes
4
9.29
33.24
139.25
37
133
1 557
General Office /710
SF
61,000
1.56
1.49
11.03
95
91
673
Townhouse / 230
DU
10
0.44
0.52
5.81
4
5
58
Total Trips
137
229
1288
1 Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers.
Trip rate for the AM and PM peak hour of a dj ace nt street traffic.
3 The 5,000 SF 2nd story ofthe bank is assumed to be office space. The trip rate is per 1,000 SF
The difference in trips between the proposed Chanhassen Multi - Family Development and the previously
approved Galpin Crossing Development is shown in Table 3.
233 Park Avenue South, Suite 300, Minneapolis Minnesota 55415 -1108
Phone 612.767.9300, Fax 612.758.3099
Chanhassen Multi- Family Development — Trip Generation
November 20 2012
Table 3. Difference in TAD Generation
During the weekday AM and PM peak hours it is anticipated that there will be a lower number of trips for
the proposed Multi- Family Development when compared to the previously approved Galpin Crossing
Development. In particular 22 less trips or a reduction of 16% during the AM peak hour is estimated and
90 less trips or a reduction of 39% in the PM peak hour is estimated. There is a slight increase of 202
daily trips (16 %). This increase will be insignificant as the residential trips are spread out during a 24-
hour period with many occurring during off -peak traffic times.
In summary, the trip generation for the proposed Chanhassen Multi- Family Development is estimated to
generate a lower number of trips during the critical weekday AM and PM peak traffic hours than the
previously approved Galpin Crossing Development. On a daily basis the proposed Chanhassen Multi -
Family Development is estimated to generate slightly more trips than the previously approved Galpin
Crossing Development. This will be an insignificant increase as residential trips occur during a 24 -hour
period with many trips occurring during off -peak traffic times. It is noted that that the office land uses in
the Galpin Crossing Development have usual weekday business hours with a very lower number of trips
occurring outside regular business hours.
Alliant Engineering, Inc.
#12 -0103 Page 2
.11ehicle
Trips
Scenario
wily.
Proposed Chanhassen Multi- Family Development
114
139
1490
Previously Approved Gal pin Crossing
137
229
1288
-22
-90
202
Trip Difference
-16%
-39•%o
16%
During the weekday AM and PM peak hours it is anticipated that there will be a lower number of trips for
the proposed Multi- Family Development when compared to the previously approved Galpin Crossing
Development. In particular 22 less trips or a reduction of 16% during the AM peak hour is estimated and
90 less trips or a reduction of 39% in the PM peak hour is estimated. There is a slight increase of 202
daily trips (16 %). This increase will be insignificant as the residential trips are spread out during a 24-
hour period with many occurring during off -peak traffic times.
In summary, the trip generation for the proposed Chanhassen Multi- Family Development is estimated to
generate a lower number of trips during the critical weekday AM and PM peak traffic hours than the
previously approved Galpin Crossing Development. On a daily basis the proposed Chanhassen Multi -
Family Development is estimated to generate slightly more trips than the previously approved Galpin
Crossing Development. This will be an insignificant increase as residential trips occur during a 24 -hour
period with many trips occurring during off -peak traffic times. It is noted that that the office land uses in
the Galpin Crossing Development have usual weekday business hours with a very lower number of trips
occurring outside regular business hours.
Alliant Engineering, Inc.
#12 -0103 Page 2
°� Minnesota Department of Transportation
Metropolitan District
Waters Edge Building
1500 County Road B2 West
Roseville, MN 55113
November 20, 2012
Ms. Kate Aanenson, AICP
Community Development Director
7700 Market Blvd.
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
SUBJECT: Chanhassen Apartments
MnDOT Review # S12-052
NW Corner of TH 5 and CR 117 (Galpin Blvd.)
Chanhassen, Carver County
Control Section 1002
Dear Ms. Aanenson:
NOV 2 " 7011
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Chanhassen Apartments Site Plan. The
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has reviewed the site plans and has
the following comments:
Water Resources:
A MnDOT drainage permit will be required. The drainage permit application form can
be found at http: / /www. dot. state .mn.us /utility /forms /index.html
The following information is required with the drainage permit application:
• Final drainage plan showing storm sewer plan, storm sewer and culvert profiles
and pond contours
• Existing and proposed drainage area maps with flow arrows
• Existing and proposed drainage /pond computations for the 2, 10, and 100 year
rainfall events
Addition information may be required once a drainage permit is submitted and after a
detailed review. MnDOT will not allow an increase in discharge to MnDOT right -of -way.
Please direct any questions regarding these issues to Hailu Shekur (651- 234 -7521 or
hailu.shekurkstate.mn.us ) of MnDOT's Water Resources Engineering section.
Noise:
MnDOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land
use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in
complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise
standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of
Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities are responsible for
taking all reasonable measures to prevent land use activities listed in the MPCA's Noise
Area Classification (NAC) where the establishment of the land use would result in
violations of established noise standards.
MnDOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the
expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The project
proposer should assess the noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to
minimize the impact of any highway noise. If you have any questions regarding
MnDOT's noise policy please contact Peter Wasko in our Design section at (651) 234-
7681.
Review Submittal Options:
MnDOT's goal is to complete the review of plans within 30 days. Submittals sent in
electronically can usually be turned around faster. There are four submittal options.
Please submit either:
1. One (1) electronic pdf version of the plans. MnDOT can accept the plans via
e -mail at metrodevreviews.dotpstate.mn.us provided that each separate e-
mail is under 20 megabytes.
2. Three (3) sets of full size plans. Although submitting seven sets of full size
plans will expedite the review process. Plans can be sent to:
MnDOT — Metro District Planning Section
Development Reviews Coordinator
1500 West County Road B -2
Roseville, MN 55113
3. One (1) compact disc.
4. Plans can also be submitted to MnDOT's External FTP Site. Please send files
to: ftp: / /ftn2.dot.state.mn.us/ pub / incoming /MetroWatersEdge/Planning
Internet Explorer doesn't work using ftp so please use an FTP Client or your
Windows Explorer (My Computer). Also, please send a note to
metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us indicating that the plans have been
submitted on the FTP site.
If you have any questions concerning this review, please feel free to contact me at
(651) 234 -7793.
Copy sent via E -Mail:
Hailu Shekur, Water Resources
Diane Langenbach, Area Engineer
Peter Wasko, Design
Nancy Jacobson, Design
Dale Gade, Design
Buck Craig, Permits
Dale Matti, Right -of -Way
Steve Channer, Right -of -Way
David Sheen, Traffic Engineering
Clare Lackey, Traffic Engineering
Ann Braden, Metropolitan Council
CenterPoint.
Energy
November 6, 2012
Kate Aanenson
AICP, Community Development Dir.
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: Proposed request for Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Located at: 7750 Galpin Boulevard, Chanhassen MN, 55317.
Dear Ms. Aanenson:
700 West Linden Avenue
PO Box 1165
Minneapolis, MN 55440 -1165
With reference to your request, CenterPoint Energy has no natural gas facilities within
the property PID area of 250101800, but has mains in the Right of Way of the
surrounding roads of Galpin Blvd and 78 Street West. For gas service to your
proposed development please contact Cherie Monson at 612- 321 -5435 or email her
at Cherie.monson @centerpointenergy.com
If you have any questions, please contact me at 612- 321 -5381.
Respectfully,
CENTERPOINT ENERGY
�L& 14 a , ; � ,,,
Chuck Mayers
Right -of -Way Administrator
612- 321 -5381
k1i0V - ?012
CITY Cd
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on
November 21, 2012, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen,
Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public
Hearing for Chanhassen Apartments — Planning Case 2012 -18 to the persons named on
attached Exhibit "A ", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner,
and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage
fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such
by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate
records.
Karen./ Enge ar , Deput Jerk
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this h day of i4oV-e►' be-r , 2012.
KIM T. MEUWISSEN
�== Notary Public- Minnesota
Notary P blic My Commission Expires Jan 31, 2015
...�•
Notice of Public Hearing
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Date & Time:
Tuesday, December 4, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not
start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda.
Location:
City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd.
Request for Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a
Proposal:
224 -unit Apartment Building on 8.08 acres of property zoned
Agricultural Estate A2 — Chanhassen Apartments
Applicant:
Oppidan, Inc.
Property
7750 Galpin Boulevard (northwest corner of Highway 5 and
Location:
Galpin Boulevard)
A location map is on the reverse side of this notice.
The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood
about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the
What Happens
public hearing through the following steps:
at the Meeting:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses
the project.
If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit
the City's projects web page at:
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us /2012 -18 If you wish to talk to
someone about this project, please contact Kate Aanenson by
Questions &
email at kaanenson(c- ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at
Comments:
952- 227 -1129. If you choose to submit written comments, it is
helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the
meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The
staff report for this item will be available online on the
project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the
Planning Commission meetin
City Review Procedure:
• Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations,
Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the
Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the
application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting.
• Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation.
These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of
the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of
the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a
recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning
Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the
City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial /industrial.
• Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant
waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any
person wishing to follow an item through the,process should check with the Planning Department regarding its
status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.
• A neighborhood spokesperson /representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers
are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the
project with any interested person(s).
• Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and
any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have
something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification.
Notice of Public Hearing
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Date & Time:
Tuesday, December 4, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not
start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda.
Location:
City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd.
Request for Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a
Proposal:
224 -unit Apartment Building on 8.08 acres of property zoned
Agricultural Estate A2 — Chanhassen Apartments
Applicant:
Oppidan, Inc.
Property
7750 Galpin Boulevard (northwest corner of Highway 5 and
Location:
Galpin Boulevard)
A location map is on the reverse side of this notice.
The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood
about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the
What Happens
public hearing through the following steps:
at the Meeting:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses
the project.
If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit
the City's projects web page at:
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us /2012 -18 If you wish to talk to
someone about this project, please contact Kate Aanenson by
Questions &
email at kaanenson(cb-ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at
Comments:
952- 227 -1129. If you choose to submit written comments, it is
helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the
meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The
staff report for this item will be available online on the
project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the
Planning Commission meeting.
City Review Procedure:
• Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations,
Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the
Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the
application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting.
• Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation.
These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of
the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of
the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a
recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning
Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the
City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial /industrial.
• Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant
waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any
person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its
status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. .
• A neighborhood spokesperson /representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers
are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the
project with any interested person(s).
• Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and
any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have
something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification.
AMERICANA COMMUNITY BANK AMY B TREBIL AMY M PEITZ
600 MARKET ST #100 2406 HARVEST WAY 7846 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4569 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8452 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8451
ARTEMAS ROBERTS III BLAINE D SHANSTROM BLAKE S HULANDER
7762 VASSERMAN PL 8516 IRWIN RD 7850 HARVEST LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4536 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55437 -1523 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8453
BRAD L & ELAINE N DALAGER BRADLEY CARR BRANDON R MESSER
7847 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE 2219 BANEBERRY WAY W 7851 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8451 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8339 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8451
BRIAN R & BARBARA C FOLSOM CARLOS J MEJIA CARVER COUNTY CDA
2215 BANEBERRY WAY W 7853 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE 705 WALNUT ST N
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8339 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8451 CHASKA MN 55318 -2039
CENTEX HOMES - MINNESOTA DIV CNBI LLC CONVENIENCE STORE
7500 OFFICE RIDGE CIR STE 325 PO BOX 47570 INVESTMENTS
EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 -3786 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55447 -0570 PO BOX 2107
LACROSSE WI 54602 -2107
DENEEN D YOUNG DIANE JULSON DIANNE JANICE ERICKSON
7852 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE 7740 VASSERMAN TRL 7735 VASSERMAN TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8451 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4506 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4506
ELIZABETH D SANTIAGO ERICA J MAAS GELINO FAMILY TRUST
2386 HARVEST WAY 7851 HARVEST LN 7729 VASSERMAN TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8444 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8453 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4506
GERALD P & PEGGY A WOLFE GUY W & JUNE M BLESSING IND SCHOOL DIST 112
7755 VASSERMAN TRL 7844 HARVEST LN 11 PEAVEY RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4506 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8453 CHASKA MN 55318 -2321
JACLYN N MAAS JAMES H & AMELIA A CHMURA JEFFREY GIBBS
7832 HARVEST LN 7745 VASSERMAN TRL 8061 DAWN DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8453 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4506 ROCKFORD MN 55373 -9317
JULIA A WOLTER JULIE A SKOOG JUSTIN C ANDERSON
6645 E LAKETOWNE DR 2400 HARVEST WAY 7848 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE
ALBERTVILLE MN 55301 -4366 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8452 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8451
KAREN ANN OLSON KATHERINE M KORPI LARRY S & TERESA M HANSON
7850 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE 7845 HARVEST LN 7734 VASSERMAN TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8451 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8453 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4506
LAWRENCE M & MICHAELE A LONNIE G & JAN M JOHNSON LORI J WIRTZ
MARTIN 6706 PROMONTORY DR 2392 HARVEST WAY
7725 VASSERMAN TRL EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 -1919 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8444
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4506
LYNN D & VELMA M WILDER MARILYN G LEBLANC MARK C GOODMAN
7754 VASSERMAN TRL 2376 HARVEST WAY 2370 HARVEST WAY
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4506 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8444 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8444
MARYANN TOMPKINS. MATTHEW S BLEWETT MICHAEL L & CAROLYN L SHIELDS
7724 VASSERMAN TRL 2396 HARVEST WAY 7759 VASSERMAN TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4506 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8444 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4506
MUOI TAM NGU NICHOLAS J SCHULIST PATRICIA S DEZIEL
2050 WATERLEAF LN W 2372 HARVEST WAY 2382 HARVEST WAY
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8342 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8444 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8444
RICHARD A OLSON ROBERT L GRIFFITH ROBERT M & PATRICIA L PETERSON
5081 SAINT ALBANS BAY RD 7739 VASSERMAN TRL 2398 HARVEST WAY
EXCELSIOR MN 55331 -8632 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4506 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8444
RUTH H MITAL SERLIN PROPERTIES LLC STACY ANN BENNETT
7750 VASSERMAN TRL 1 CVS DR 2388 HARVEST WAY
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4506 WOONSOCKET RI 02895 -6146 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8444
STANLEY W VALENSKY STEVEN GUY LEDBETTER THEODORE F & MARLENE M BENTZ
7752 VASSERMAN PL 7756 VASSERMAN PLACE 7300 GALPIN BLVD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4536 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4536 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 -8011
THOMAS E & HELEN E ERNST THOMAS S BLUSTIN THOMAS W & SHARON D KRAUS
7749 VASSERMAN TRL 2394 HARVEST WAY 7744 VASSERMAN TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4506 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8444 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4506
TIMOTHY DESAULNIERS VASSERMAN RIDGE MASTER VICKIE S KLINE
7845 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE . ASSOC 2384 HARVEST WAY
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8451 16305 36TH AVE N SUITE 600 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8444
PLYMOUTH MN 55446 -4270
AMERICANA COMMUNITY BANK AMY B TREBIL AMY M PEITZ
600 MARKET ST #100 2406 HARVEST WAY 7846 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4569 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8452 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8451
ARTEMAS ROBERTS III BLAINE D SHANSTROM BLAKE S HULANDER
7762 VASSERMAN PL 8516 IRWIN RD 7850 HARVEST LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4536 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55437 -1523 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8453
BRAD L & ELAINE N DALAGER BRADLEY CARR BRANDON R MESSER
7847 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE 2219 BANEBERRY WAY W 7851 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8451 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8339 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8451
BRIAN R & BARBARA C FOLSOM CARLOS J MEJIA CARVER COUNTY CDA
2215 BANEBERRY WAY W 7853 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE 705 WALNUT ST N
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8339 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8451 CHASKA MN 55318 -2039
CENTEX HOMES - MINNESOTA DIV CNBI LLC CONVENIENCE STORE
7500 OFFICE RIDGE CIR STE 325 PO BOX 47570 INVESTMENTS
EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 -3786 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55447 -0570 PO BOX 2107
LACROSSE WI 54602 -2107
DENEEN D YOUNG DIANE JULSON DIANNE JANICE ERICKSON
7852 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE 7740 VASSERMAN TRL 7735 VASSERMAN TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8451 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4506 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4506
ELIZABETH D SANTIAGO ERICA J MAAS GELINO FAMILY TRUST
2386 HARVEST WAY 7851 HARVEST LN 7729 VASSERMAN TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8444 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8453 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4506
GERALD P & PEGGY A WOLFE GUY W & JUNE M BLESSING IND SCHOOL DIST 112
7755 VASSERMAN TRL 7844 HARVEST LN 11 PEAVEY RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4506 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8453 CHASKA MN 55318 -2321
JACLYN N MAAS JAMES H & AMELIA A CHMURA JEFFREY GIBBS
7832 HARVEST LN 7745 VASSERMAN TRL 8061 DAWN DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8453 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4506 ROCKFORD MN 55373 -9317
JULIA A WOLTER JULIE A SKOOG JUSTIN C ANDERSON
6645 E LAKETOWNE DR 2400 HARVEST WAY 7848 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE
ALBERTVILLE MN 55301 -4366 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8452 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8451
KAREN ANN OLSON KATHERINE M KORPI LARRY S & TERESA M HANSON
7850 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE 7845 HARVEST LN 7734 VASSERMAN TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8451 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8453 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4506
LAWRENCE M & MICHAELE A LONNIE G & JAN M JOHNSON LORI J WIRTZ
MARTIN 6706 PROMONTORY DR 2392 HARVEST WAY
7725 VASSERMAN TRL EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 -1919 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8444
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4506
LYNN D & VELMA M WILDER MARILYN G LEBLANC MARK C GOODMAN
7754 VASSERMAN TRL 2376 HARVEST WAY 2370 HARVEST WAY
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4506 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8444 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8444
MARYANN TOMPKINS MATTHEW S BLEWETT MICHAEL L & CAROLYN L SHIELDS
7724 VASSERMAN TRL 2396 HARVEST WAY 7759 VASSERMAN TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4506 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8444 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4506
MUOI TAM NGU NICHOLAS J SCHULIST PATRICIA S DEZIEL
2050 WATERLEAF LN W 2372 HARVEST WAY 2382 HARVEST WAY
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8342 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8444 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8444
RICHARD A OLSON ROBERT L GRIFFITH ROBERT M & PATRICIA L PETERSON
5081 SAINT ALBANS BAY RD 7739 VASSERMAN TRL 2398 HARVEST WAY
EXCELSIOR MN 55331 -8632 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4506 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8444
RUTH H MITAL SERLIN PROPERTIES LLC STACY ANN BENNETT
7750 VASSERMAN TRL 1 CVS DR 2388 HARVEST WAY
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4506 WOONSOCKET RI 02895 -6146 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8444
STANLEY W VALENSKY STEVEN GUY LEDBETTER THEODORE F & MARLENE M BENTZ
7752 VASSERMAN PL 7756 VASSERMAN PLACE 7300 GALPIN BLVD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4536 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4536 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 -8011
THOMAS E & HELEN E ERNST THOMAS S BLUSTIN THOMAS W & SHARON D KRAUS
7749 VASSERMAN TRL 2394 HARVEST WAY 7744 VASSERMAN TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4506 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8444 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4506
TIMOTHY DESAULNIERS VASSERMAN RIDGE MASTER VICKIE S KLINE
7845 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE ASSOC 2384 HARVEST WAY
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8451 16305 36TH AVE N SUITE 600 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8444
PLYMOUTH MN 55446 -4270
WESTON VOGDS PAUL TUCCI - OPPIDAN INC
7842 HARVEST LN 5125 COUNTY ROAD 101 STE 100
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8453 MINNETONKA MN 55345
11/26/12
TO: Mayor Tom Furlong tfurlone @ci.chanhassen.mn.us
Council Member; Bethany Tjornhom btlornhom @ci.chanhassen.mn.us
Jerry McDonald imcdonald @ci.chanhassen.mn.us
RE: Proposed 244 Unit Apartment Building at Highway #5, Galpin, and 78 Street; CASE 2012 -18
First, to our two re- elected Council Members, congratulations.
Next, to our good mayor Tom Furlong, thank you for your leadership and especially in managing our property
taxes yet providing the solid services we enjoy.
Next, concerning the proposed Apartment Building for the triangle shaped property at 7750 Galpin and 78
Street, adjacent and north of Highway of Highway #5. We ask that you Mr. Mayor and our City of
Chanhassen council members PLEASE do not approve this apartment "case 2012 -18" proposal.
The original proposal for this property for a one story professional building caused concerns but seemed more
suited for the property and acceptable than this apartment proposal. The current, existing zoning seems
thought out and correct. A zoning change to accommodate the increased population of 244 unit renters and
350 auto's does not seem acceptable. The increased daily traffic at the corners of 78 Street and Galpin and
78 Street and Century would cause tremendous congestion and dangers. Actually any apartment building
structure should not be a consideration for this property.
May we suggest alternative solutions and locations. The location previously considered for a Walmart has the
necessary city traffic controls already installed. The site at Powers Blvd. intersection, south of Highway #5.
seems apropos. This site is closer to (1) the city commerce and (2) the new Southwest bus ramp, and (3) will
be closer to the future light -rail extension depot, (4) no re- zoning would be necessary, (5) the water run off
would not require re- classifying property across 78 Street. The height of the proposed apartment can be
higher considering the adjacent properties, unlike the Galpin site. Finally, the city of Chanhassen already has
similar apartment buildings only blocks from this recommended site.
Another apartment building location suggestion is on the north side of Highway #5 on Powers Blvd. and 78
Street. This property shape is similar to the Galpin property also being triangular. Water parking lot run off
could be achieved into the pond on the EKCANCAR property. The listed above advantages pertain to this site
too, plus the advantage of a top light at the corner of Power Blvd. and 78 Street.
We hope this is helpful. We again ask that this apartment proposal at 7750 Galpin, and 78 Street, north of
Highway #5, NOT be approved.
Regards,
Mr. and Mrs. D.B. Dahlquist
7634 Prairie Flower Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Aanenson, Kate
From: Erin Buss [ekbusser @msn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 8:03 PM
To: Aanenson, Kate
Subject: FW: Aparment Building Proposal
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
It was suggested you be copied on all emails regarding this topic.
Have a great day.
From: ekbusser(a>msn.com
To: btiornhom(&ci.chanhassen.mn.us
Subject: Aparment Building Proposal
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 16:45:03 -0600
Dear Ms. Tjornhom:
Congratulations on your recent reelection! I'm proud to say I voted for you.
I have recently discovered the proposed development of the property on the corner of 78th /Galpin /Hwy 5. I feel strongly
that this development is wrong for the City and very wrong for this area of Chanhassen. I also feel that the council should
conduct a town hall style forum with the neighborhood prior to voting on this development. Below are some of my
concerns about this development.
1. School Area/Traffic - My daughter attends Bluff Creek Elementary. I have very real and strong worries about adding as
many as 500 additional cars to the area near the school. There is already a fair amount of bus traffic before and after
school in this area. If the concerns are true that a stop light could not be placed at the corner of 78th and Galpin, that
corner will become extremely difficult to cross, especially with the addition of so many vehicles. I fear a situation of
someone who really wants to cross that intersection and hits a school bus full of our children. Further, many people walk
to CVS or Kwik Trip to get a perscription or grab a newspaper. The addition of all of these vehicles could create a very
dangerous situation for pedestrians.
2. This development is just too too large - The zoning for the area is currently for office use - not for High Density
Occupancy. The Proposed Development requires a change to PUDR or High Density Residential. The density of units
would be in excess of 27 units per acre. Per the 2030 land use map the net density for residential high density is actually
8 -16 units per acre. A development like this may be more suited to an area near hwy 212 which has easier access to the
highway.
3. Affects to the Bluff Creek Wetlands - While this site is not directly adjacent to any wetlands, the proximity to it as well
as the proposed underground garage suggest runoff and raises environmental concerns.
4. Police /Safety - A development of this size is very likely to strain resources and cost the city to upgrade existing utilities
(water, police, fire) leaving very little realized tax income to the city. As noted in the recent citizen action against the
proposed Chanhassen Walmart, the net realized tax income was greatly offset and amounted to just over $1,000 a month
due to increased investment to utilities. Additionally, renters just don't have the same sense of community and
responsibility that an owner does. By it's nature, apartment complexes are renting establishments that require
significantly more attention by police and saftey personnel. This situation is not ideal for an area already raising many
young families.
I hope that the Council and Planning Commission will say NO to this development. It's not right for Chanhassen.
I am happy to discuss this with you further. Thank you so much for your time.
Sincerely,
Erin Buss
7638 Arboretum Village Place
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Aanenson, Kate
From: Alice English [dnaenglish2 @att.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 6:56 AM
To: Aanenson, Kate
Subject: Re: Apartment Proposal at Galpin Blvd.
Dear Kate Aanenson -
My name is Alice English and I live in the Walnut Grove Homeowners Assn. on Galpin Blvd. I would appreciate your consideration
with the following concerns of a possible apartment complex on Galpin.
My serious concerns are:
:Apartment complex could affect the value of our property.
: Galpin Blvd. would have greater traffic congestion.
:Apartment complex could have a potential for increased crime.
I highly recommend DENYING this apartment project and I thank you for your consideration.
Alice English
C AMERICANA
COMMUNITY BANK
Date: December 3, 2019
To: Kate Aanenson
Community Develo Director, City of Chanhassen
From: James J. Swiontek
Sr. Credit Officer, � ricana Community Bank
RE: Galpin Boulevard Property
This memo is to present facts regarding the role Americana Community Bank has had in the
sale of the land at the corner of Galpin Boulevard and Highway 5 in Chanhassen.
Americana Community Bank (ACB), along with two other community banks, became the
owner of the Galpin Boulevard property through a default by a borrower in March, 2009.
Community banks are prohibited from developing real estate or speculating on real estate
development. They are also prohibited from owning land that was acquired through a
default for an indefinite period of time.
The Galpin Boulevard property has been listed with a realtor since the default of the
borrower and was recently sold to Oppidan,,Inc. Oppidan, Inc. and the three banks are
buyer and sellers, respectively, and have no other ties in this transaction. The buyer and the
City of Chanhassen have been working on concept plans for the property, which are now
before the City of Chanhassen Planning Commission.
Administrative Office
600 Market Street, Suite 230, Chanhassen, MN 55317
Phone 952.230.9720, Fax 952.230.9727
RE: Conceptual Planned Unit Development at 7750 Galpin Boulevard
Case #: 2012 -18
Date: December 4, 2012
My name is Gerald Wolfe and I live at 7755 Vasserman Trail. I am in the first
twinhome on the east side of Vasserman Trail. The north parcel (Parcel A) of the
proposed development abuts the back of my property and the south parcel (Parcel B)
is directly across 78th street. Along with our "roof- mates" we are the closest residential
property to the proposed development and will be looking directly at it day in and day
out.
I have studied the entire 20 page Planning Department Staff Summary on the
proposed development and have looked over the remaining 30 pages of attachments
giving some of the attachments more scrutiny than others and I have spent hours
(literally) writing and rewriting this document attempting, without success, to shorten its
length. So, rather than use an inordinate amount of time at the Planning Commission
meeting reading it into the minutes I decided to send this to Kate Aanenson and have
her include it in your packets.
I first want to say, for the record, that I'm not against development on Parcel B of this
proposal and I'm not against an apartment building being that development if everyone
agrees that is the best use for the property. However, I am against an apartment
building of 3 stories and 224 units. It is simply too large for the site and proximity to the
R4 Mixed Low Density Residential District of Vasserman Ridge. My first choice for
development would be for office buildings similar to those in the 2006 Galpin Crossings
proposal and secondly for an apartment building. Since the proposal before us is for
the apartment building let's discuss it.
I want to start with the proposed transfer of density from Parcel A to Parcel B. The
developer is using 100% of the size of Parcel A to come up with a density transfer of
96 units to Parcel B. You all know what Parcel A's property looks like and the
difficulties it presents for anyone desiring to develop it. The staff report conclusion on
page 18 states that "while some development of Parcel A is possible, the presence of
wetlands, Bluff Creek, a shallow water table and poor soils make this parcel a difficult
site for development ". Because of this any development of Parcel A will most likely
make the preparation of the site for building extremely expensive and those increased
costs would probably mean there would be little or no profit in developing the property.
And, it is no secret that the residents along the east side of Vasserman Trail would
prefer to see Parcel A remain in its current state as would many others in the
Vasserman Ridge neighborhood. So, transfer of density makes sense in order to keep
Parcel A as is. Having said that, I also believe that even'without this transfer"of density
Parcel A will remain undeveloped simply because of the difficulty and cost of
developing the property. And, without the transfer of density the apartment complex
will be much smaller in size and more palatable to everyone.
On page 11 of the Staff report under letter (c) Density, in the Findings paragraph at the
bottom staff states that the "developer must calculate the net developable acres of the
site" and under number 1 of letter (c) it says that this number is to be used in
determining the density per acre. As an aside, I believe this causes a conflict of
interest to allow the developer to do this calculation because it is in their best interest
to make that number as large as possible. For the proposal before us the developer
has used 100% of the acreage of both parcels to come up with a maximum of 224
units. If the transfer of density from Parcel A to Parcel B is denied then the apartment
could only be a maximum of 128 units. Since we know there are wetlands on Parcel A
not all the land is developable which means that the building cannot be 224 units
unless the Planning Commission and City Council waives the 16 unit maximum on net
developable acres. Please don't do that. It is my understanding that there is estimated
2
to be up to 1.5 acres of wetland on Parcel A. Since net developable acres eliminates
wetland acreage from total acres that means that only about 4.5 acres are developable
on Parcel A. A sewer line bisects across the north end of Parcel A and I know nothing
can be built on top of this sewer line so I'm not sure if that land can be considered
developable or not. And, I suppose there could be other factors which could reduce
this even more. For sure we know that 1.5 acres is not developable so assuming a
transfer of density, the development can have a maximum of 200 units or 72 units
more than if the transfer of density were denied. A drop from 224 to 200 is not a huge
difference but enough that it will throw off the sizing of the current proposal and require
some redesign of the buildings. But, it is still too large. I would suggest that
transferring the density from Parcel A and then limiting the maximum size of the
apartment to 2 stories and a maximum of 140 units comprised of 1, 1 +den, 2 and
2 +den bedroom units would make much more sense.
On page 9 under point number 8 in the Analysis staff says the building will provide
noise and light attenuation to the neighboring residential low density lands to the north
and northwest. With all due respect to the staff I have to say this is a moot point. We
already have light attenuation because of the mature trees along part of the east side
and the entire south side of Parcel B. These mature trees provide almost 100%
blocking of lights along Galpin Blvd and Hwy 5. 1 hope, if this proposal goes forward,
the city will not allow the developer to cut down those beautiful mature trees. To be
clear, I have absolutely no problem with light from vehicles, stop lights, Hwy lighting or
the lights on the CVS Pharmacy. I do see light from the Kwik Trip but it does not cause
any kind of inconvenience to me due to the way it is installed. The only thing an
apartment building will do is completely block my view of Hwy 5 even when I want to
be able to see it and force all residents of the apartment along Galpin Blvd. to look
directly at the lighting from the CVS Pharmacy and Kwik Trip. As for noise reduction,
in my opinion, there would be no attenuation of that from the apartment building at all.
There is a 100% open view of Hwy 5 immediately to the west of the proposed
3
development and noise from Hwy 5 will not be lessened because a building is present.
The people that will have to deal with noise, dirt and light are the people in the
approximately 75 units of the proposed development that will look directly on Hwy 5
from about 100 feet away with nothing to attenuate that noise and lighting. I'm not sure
who would want to pay $1100 or more per month to have that view and to deal with
that noise. I suggest that the developer do something to block that view for those
apartments on the south side of the development or I believe those units will be very
difficult to rent.
On page 16 under the Streets and Access heading it says the easterly access will be a
right -in /right -out access. The developer said at our neighborhood meeting that this
would be enforced with a "pork chop" island. With all due respect to the developer and
anyone else who believes a pork chop island will stop vehicles coming from the east
from entering the development at that entrance, I say you are naive, it simply will not
work. 78th street is wide enough for a driver to easily make a U -turn to use that
entrance to access the development and I believe many, if not most, of the residents of
the east building will make that U -turn even, I suspect, if a no U -turn sign is present.
see many people making U -turns now and there is no development to access. And,
those U -turns will increase the possibility of accidents. Even extending the median,
unless it is extended almost all the way to the west entrance, will not stop U -turns to
use the east entrance. It only makes se se that drivers will make the U -turn because
why would you want to enter the property at the west entrance if you park your car in
the underground parking of the east buil ding whose entrance is just inside the east
entrance to the development? I would do it if I lived in that complex. And, face it, most
people will be coming off Galpin to enter the complex simply due to the fact that
downtown Chanhassen and almost all business and shopping areas are to the east. I
don't really know what a solution to this problem would be except for the extension of
the median all the way to the west entrance.
rd
On page 8 of the staff report under number 1 it says that Parcel A will never be
developed because its density will have been transferred to Parcel B. I think I
remember the developer mentioning at the neighborhood meeting that they might be
required to put a storm water pond on Parcel A to handle the run off from the parking
lot. I would suggest that it would greatly improve the visual palette of Parcel A to have
that pond be quite large and geometrically aesthetic with a fountain in it to keep the
water from stagnating and becoming a mosquito breeding spot, a walking path around
it (preferably paved), trees, shrubs, grasses and possibly flowers in season for
landscaping and a few sitting areas with benches. It might be reasonable to determine
if it would be feasible or desirable to connect this pond to the existing storm water pond
of the Vasserman Ridge neighborhood. This would improve Parcel A aesthetically and
give the renters and others a pleasant place to view, relax at and watch the wildlife.
The apartment management company would be responsible to maintain the fountain
and keep the grass and landscaping watered and mowed., Also, on page 8 under
number 3 it says the building will be cement board and brick. This is proposed as an
upscale development therefore, I would like to see the building be all brick and other
decorative stone work and masonry rather than a lot of cement board which will have
to be painted every 5 -8 years.
On Page 15 under letter (d) Protection and preservation of natural features staff says
that the "applicant must demonstrate th t the flexibility provided by the PUD is used to
protect and preserve natural features such as tree stands ". Under letter (e)
Landscaping plan and number (4) Tree preservation staff states that "tree preservation
is a primary goal of the PUD ". And, at the top of page 16 staff says "Canopy coverage
for the site should be around 25% (78 trees or so) ". There are at least 20 mature
deciduous trees (I counted them) and a couple of mature pine trees on Parcel B. I
think those trees appear to be where the building footprint shown on the proposal plans
will fall which means those trees will end up being cut down. In order to meet the
1
requirements stated please require the developer to change the location of the building
enough to spare the demise of as many of those mature trees as possible?
Again, on Page 15 under letter (e)'s Findings and under the Building requirements
heading staff says that the developer will need to provide head I ig ht/traffic screening.
I'm assuming that means for the 1st floor residents of the building. However, I would
like to see something done along the north side of 78th street to screen headlights
from our twinhome building. Currently, vehicle headlights shine right into our sunporch
and bedroom windows as they come around the curve from Galpin Blvd. With the
additional vehicles driving into the apartment complex at all hours of the night that will
significantly increase that intrusion into our homes. So, the addition of some tall pine
trees on the north side of 78th street to mitigate vehicle headlights shining into our
homes would .be desirable. In - order to accomplish this trees would have to be placed
on Parcel A from approximately half the distance between the yellow diamond shaped
sign and the fire hydrant to an equal distance west of the fire hydrant.
Since the developer is proposing this as a' "market rate" development I would like
something put in the covenants of the property to preclude a future investor from
changing that designation to low -rent or Section -8 use.
And, finally, I do not know how good the soil is on Parcel B. But if the contractor has to
drive pilings to provide solid footings for the complex can the developer and /or
contractor be required to carry insuranCE to cover any damage to our foundations
and /or interior walls and ceilings? I know this isn't something the city normally requires
but, if pilings need to be installed, could 't be done for this project so we don't have to
sue the developer /contractor to fix any d mage that may occur? At the very least there
should be something in writing as part of the formal documentation on this project that
obligates the developer and /or contracto to repair any and all damage incurred to
residential or commercial property due to the driving of pilings.
3
I hope that if you approve this concept PUD that it will be for no more than 2 stories
and no more than 140 units with the building(s) being all brick, stone and masonry with
the units being 1, 1 +den, 2 and 2 +den sizes. There should be no studio apartments
unless those studios are furnished and permanently reserved for use by resident
guests. Underground parking should provide 1 parking spot for each apartment with
some additional spots available for rent to residents with 2 vehicles.
If you have read this entire document, I thank you for your interest and concern to do
your job well.
7
Aanenson, Kate
From:
Norma May [cornercotg @gmail.com]
Sent:
Wednesday, November 28, 2012 3:49 PM
To:
Aanenson, Kate
Cc:
Chuck Engh; William and Barbara Brown
Subject:
Proposed Apartment Complex at 7750 Galpin Blvd.
Dear Ms. Aanenson --
I am a homeowner near the the site of the the proposed apartment complex at 7750 Galpin Blvd. I have
reviewed the relevant documents on the Planning Commission section of the City website. I am against
changing the current zoning, and I request that the Planning Commission deny approval to change the zoning.
This site is appropriately zoned for office /professional use. But even if the zoning were changed to High
Density Residential, using the City's density criteria, the site is too small to accommodate the proposed number
of units. And reclassifying property on the north side of W. 78th and transferring the density to the other plot is
a dishonest remedy, in my view. This site is too small for the proposed use as a 224 -unit apartment building.
Surely there must be land elsewhere within Chanhassen where such a project can be built without
compromising the City's comprehensive plan standards.
Ms. Aanenson, as a Chanhassen resident, homeowner, and voter, I oppose this development and I urge you and
the Planning Commission to recommend to the Cityl Council that the zoning changes needed for this project not
be approved and no apartments be built at this location.
Sincerely,
Norma J. May
2050 Clover Court
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Aanenson, Kate
From: Karen Suedmeyer [bogeykas @aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:47 PM
To: Aanenson, Kate
Subject: Galpin Blvd /proposed Chanhassen Apartments.
Please pass this message on to the appropriate individuals within the City Planning
Commission.
I am very surprised and concerned that the City of Chanhassen would consider this large of a
complex in the middle of what is already a very busy and congested area of the City, along
with the fact that it would be in very close proximity to a school with children trying to
cross already congested streets via both bicycles as well as by foot. This just doesn't
sound like something that has been very well thought through. Chanhassen has historically
spent significant time and money to give clear thought and foresight toward zoning issues
taking into consideration what is in the best interest of the City, community, and it's
residents. I think the current zoning should stand, which was well thought through and with
clear rationale behind the thought process. The proposed plan sounds more like a short term
access to additional dollars for the City, without thinking this through thoroughly and
assessing the long term impacts. I clearly'do NOT support this proposal. A very concerned
citizen, K.A. Suedmeyer.
Sent from my iPad
Aanenson, Kate
From: Andrew Aller [aaller @mchsi.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 8:04 PM
To: Aanenson, Kate
Subject: Community Contact - Proposed Apartment Complex @ Galpin & 78TH
Kate -
I received a VM message from Dan Beno (952)- 474 -1104 Thursday 11/29/12 at @ 3:15 pm requesting a call back
regarding the proposed project. You might do a quick call back to him, or I can if you prefer. I still like written
submissions, attendance and open discussion at the hearing, or both for a cleaner record.
Tonight, I spoke with Ms. Mary K Roberts of 7762 Vasse rman Place, and intends to be at the hearing:
She stated that she attended the neighborhood meeting and thought very well done. Has primary concerns regarding
Density and Public Safety:
Thinks the Buildings too large for the lot and too many people in small area.
Believes Crossings will be hazardous for children and pedestrians. (she is a walker and doesn't like the lack of X -walks
and lights even now).
Higher density will most likely bring more children using school and rec center and walking across 78' Galpin, & 5
Also concerned with the maintenance for the buildings once developer sells.
I requested that she make these points and any others � the meeting, and thanked her for her interest and
participation.
Andrew Aller
Aanenson, Kate
From: Les & Carol Anderson [lesancar @me.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 9:19 PM
To: Aanenson, Kate; City Council; Furlong, Tom; Hokkanen, Lisa
Subject: Galpin Apartment Project
I live in the Walnut Grove Community on Clover Court. I attended the neighborhood meeting
last night on this project by Oppidan Inc. The presentation was very complete and there was a
lot of good discussion. However I came away from the meeting like most of the community
members, very concerned that this project should not proceed. Building this large apartment
project on that small parcel of land seems to make a mockery of the zoning ordinance. This is
VERY HIGH DENSITY project and does not belong in that location and our neighborhood. In
addition the intersection of Galpin and Highway S is already a major problem. The short
distance to W 78th Street and traffic from this project would make that intersection even
more hazardous. This project is NOT a good fit for our community. Please reject this project.