Loading...
Email from residents From: Erin <erinmichelle13@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2022 7:01 PM To: Public Comments <publiccomments@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: Avienda Public Comment Hello, I would like to provide some feedback on the proposed amendment to the Avienda plan. I have lived in Chanhassen for over 11 years now. I attended the earliest meetings about Avienda (previously called The Quadrant) and have been following the progress and changes. I attended the informational session on Thursday, and after looking over this proposed plan more, I wanted to provide my input. Originally, this was supposed to be a neighborhood gathering place for people to hang out and spend time, get groceries, go shopping, eat dinner...the entertainment, shops and restaurants were the anchor and center of the project with everything else surrounding that. From this new schematic, I see a humungous apartment complex now the center of the project with everything else worked around "it." I feel this 5 story complex made to be 6 stories with the parking garage is going to be an eye sore in our community. It reminds me of the apartment complexes in Eden Prairie by the transit station which fit well there right off the freeway, but I don't see them fitting well smack dab in the middle of beautiful landscape in Chanhassen. They mentioned there will only be 1.75 parking stalls per unit (and there will be up to 417 units now) and they mentioned there would be roughly 100 outdoor parking spots for the apartments. This doesn't seem like enough parking for the apartment owners and their guests and I can see them taking up a lot of street parking. Another thing to mention, is a huge apartment complex like this is typically seen near a transit station or public transit, and there isn't one here. The closest one is off 101 and 212. I do not want to see a transit station move out here to accommodate this apartment. As I was driving around running errands this weekend, I made a point to look for 5 story apartments around the area in Chaska and Eden Prairie, and they are HUGE. They don't look good. They completely change the appearance of a neighborhood and I didn't see any directly around houses (this apartment will be stacked in with row houses and butting up to another neighborhood). Also, what is going to happen if there isn't enough interest in these expensive luxury apartments...will they sit vacant? Will they be changed to low income housing? Has a study been done to determine if there is enough demand for apartments in this price range in our community? I realize if there is, it would bring a lot of tax revenue, but if there isn't, this could be a drain financially on the community. I highly recommend the council think this through and do the adequate research before approving this change of nearly doubling the number of apartments. The other concerning thing I heard the presenter say is he doesn't expect families with children will be moving into these new housing units and that there wouldn't be kids...the original plans were inclusive of families and children. When did this change? So this won't be a place to gather and hang out with families anymore? What is the point of the ice skating rink and gathering area? Everything surrounding this area is single family homes, why are we trying to completely change this demographic? Thanks for considering my input/comments. Please let me know if you have any questions. Kind Regards, Erin Wong, Chanhassen resident -----Original Message----- From: Robin's E-Mail <rmspevacek@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2022 6:03 AM To: Public Comments <publiccomments@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: Avienda Village open spaces I am interested in knowing what the plan is for tree and shrub cover and open spaces for wildlife and pollinators. I am also interested in knowing how much consideration was given to energy efficiency with regard to the use of water, natural gas and electricity in the complex. The city has a unique opportunity here to set an example for not only the community but for the region! Rochelle Spevacek Sent from my iPhone -----Original Message----- From: Eric Swanson <swanels@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, August 12, 2022 12:36 PM To: Meuwissen, Kim <kmeuwissen@chanhassenmn.gov>; Hokkanen, Laurie <lhokkanen@chanhassenmn.gov>; Potter, Jenny <jpotter@chanhassenmn.gov>; Ryan, Elise <eryan@chanhassenmn.gov> Cc: Ryan, Elise <eryan@chanhassenmn.gov> Subject: Avienda Development Planning Commission / Mayor Ryan, It was my understanding that the project was approved to address the retail needs that were addressed in the comprehensive plan. It looks like the project continues to be more aligned toward housing and moves further and further away from what was proposed. The city is once again pursuing changes to accommodate the developer and current market dynamics and moving away from the original goals of the project and compliance with the comprehensive plan. My question is this, do we feel the comprehensive plan no longer addresses the long term needs of the residents of Chanhassen and therefore changes need to be made to address the needs of the residents? Or rather are we making amendments to the comprehensive plan to address the ever evolving needs of the developer. The lack of movement on the project and continued public meetings seem to indicate the later. Eric Swanson 1440 Bethesda Cir Chanhassen, MN 55317 From: tburnsfam <tburnsfam@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, August 12, 2022 12:56 PM To: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@chanhassenmn.gov> Subject: Submitting Written Comments for Aug 16th Meeting Kate, please let me know if this is in proper form to share copies with the Commission for Tuesday's meeting, or if I need to drop off or mail. Thank you! -Cathy Burns To: Planning Commission Staff RE: Avienda Application consideration, August 16th, 2022 I have several concerns about the recent proposal for Avienda, but cannot attend the city meeting. My concerns are about consistency with the original plan; homebuyers vs. renters; density; traffic; and blending with the neighborhood. The Plan Initially, the physical center of the project was retail. It’s understandable & practical to move retail to the roadway. However, from the site map, it looks like section 2, now dedicated to apartments, is a much larger area than what was initially allocated to all multi-unit housing. For someone who has not looked closely at the project for a couple of years, it seems like a dramatic departure from the original mission. I ask you to consider not only the project and density vs. code, but also vs. the original and earlier revised proposals—as many people in the abutting neighborhoods bought homes and settled in Chanhassen based upon earlier approvals, on descriptions of an upscale retail and office development with about 20% residential, and a small portion of a subset section being apartments. As a layperson who read the Avienda mission statement and prospectus years ago with faith that the developer and city will largely follow that mission, it did not occur to me that so much – 80% -- of the residential area would be apartment rentals. I did not know that “Multi-density” was a euphemism for “High-density.” I naively assumed that the development would mirror the current composition of Chanhassen, which is a mix of single family, townhome, twin, senior, and apartment housing, seemingly in that order. As someone who has not followed the project closely, but trusted when I bought my home that the interests of existing taxpayer / residents would be considered equally to a reasonable developer profit and the city’s desire to increase the tax base, I feel blindsided by how much the project has deviated from the original. Home-Owning Affordability Housing affordability is not just about subsidies. It flows from a balance of supply and demand. Currently there is an historic low in housing inventory. There are available apartments in and around Chanhassen, even in newly-built developments. Adding > 400 market-rate apartments will only exacerbate the problem—pricing out first-time homeowners, forcing them to continue renting, and making it difficult for seniors to downsize. As a parent of three young adults who rent apartments in other cities, rent because historic high prices stemming from low inventory of for-sale property hinder buying, I see downsides to increasing rentals vs. affordable townhomes, twins etc. Market-rate rentals, at $2000-$2600 per month, equate to a mid-range $2300 mortgage payment on a $400,000 home (at 20% down, 5% interest, $200/month property tax, $100 insurance). Developing to increase available residential property for sale will increase supply and might lower our existing property values, but at least there is a societal benefit, in that increased supply should help young & lower-income people to become homeowners, invested for the long-term in our community. Density & Traffic At the Avienda presentation last night, the speaker estimated that 50% of the project was residential. And despite the fact that Avienda has been billed as an “Upscale Retail Development,” the speaker called the proposed 400+ apartment complex “The center of the project.” The original Development Design Standards (attached, p. 3) for Avienda proposed no more than 20% residential. In those standards, the following types of residential were outlined: • Multiple-family dwellings • Senior housing independent living and assisted • Single family homes (Density of 3-6 units an acre) • Townhomes, including detached townhomes and twin homes. The single-family and twin homes, which would mirror the existing area, as well as mitigate high density, are notably absent from the current proposal. Given three entrances/ exits to Avienda, and over 3000 parking spots, the high-density installation at Avienda could add 1000 cars--likely more than doubling the traffic along Bluff Creek Boulevard. There is already concern among neighbors about the safety of bicyclists, pedestrians, and kids at play along that street, where people access two stairways to the below- grade trail, as well as walk down the sidewalk to the park at Pioneer Pass. Will there be access, and even better, some kind of encouragement through signs, sidewalks, or trail connectors, for Avienda residents and visitors to access the city trail from Lyman Boulevard? Accessing the stairways on Bluff Creek Blvd and River Rock Dr S is already dangerous given the current amount of vehicular traffic. Further down the trail toward the high school, many people cross Lyman against traffic, with no crosswalk, at the intersection with Audubon at the Water Pump Station, instead of continuing down the sidewalk to the underpass that connects to the trail across Lyman. Would a connector from Avienda to the Water Pump area entrance to the trail and accentuating the section to the underpass help alleviate both the danger of crossing Lyman and the congestion along Bluff Creek Blvd between River Rock and Bluff Creek Dr.? Did the recently done traffic study include counting cars at various times of day and days of the week? I have not seen a tracking cable across any of the local streets. Fitting in with Existing Neighborhood Four hundred apartments in one portion of the Avienda lot represents a huge deposit of a new type of housing. It does not fit or integrate with the developments to the west: The Preserve at Bluff Creek; Camden Ridge; Pioneer Pass; Liberty on Bluff Creek. How many homes/units are within those four developments? Five hundred? Six hundred? These existing developments and their publicly-accessible amenities (such as the park at Pioneer Pass) are spread out across much more land than proposed residences at Avienda. The large complex of apartments does not fit the area and could overwhelm existing resources and infrastructure. Those existing developments west of Avienda have substantial green space such that they integrate with the wetlands and the rural/suburban feel that drew many of us to Chanhassen. Liberty on Bluff Creek, the highest-density of the neighborhoods along Bluff Creek Blvd & Drive, has a lot of green space around and between the rows of townhomes. What is the hard-surface coverage percentage proposed at Avienda? Will it integrate with the neighboring area? Did the developer, at the outset, do field testing and canvas neighbors? Is there a point where the project has so veered from the original mission that this needs to be readdressed? (Beyond the mid-summer presentation given with one-week notice). Understanding that property owners have rights to develop land that they own within the parameters of city needs and code, should their developments not also be acceptable to the community? And integrate with, if not fit with the feel of, the existing neighborhood? It would be different if Avienda were just abutting our neighborhood, with no access. However, because one of the three main arteries through the development continues through our neighborhood, it would be nice to see as seamless an integration – not just transition – as possible. I understand the goals to make Chanhassen more walkable and bring in more residents. However, apartments are more transient, not as invested in the community as are homeowners. And higher density scale increases congestion and hinders walkability. Finally, is the revised Avienda project so huge that it could draw away from Chanhassen city center? Is a goal to develop a second city center, a Chan South? (An urban area abutting a single-family residential area and wetlands?) Thank you for considering my concerns! -Cathy Burns River Rock Dr. S, Chanhassen Carver County Housing Study (shows 590 market-rate apartments need through 2040) https://chanhassen.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&meta_id=12252 Avienda Development Design Standards (re: 20-30% residential) https://www.chanhassenmn.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/1270/637863379814700877 G:\PLAN\2017 Planning Cases\17-10 Avienda Preliminary Plat & PUD\2022 Amended Avienda PUD\Email from residents