Loading...
02-18-25 PC Item minutesCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 18, 2025 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Noyes called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Eric Noyes, Edward Goff, Steve Jobe, Jeremy Rosengren, Perry Schwartz, and Ryan Soller. MEMBERS ABSENT: Katie Trevena. STAFF PRESENT: Rachel Jeske, Planner; Eric Maass, Community Development Director; Mackenze Grunig, Project Engineer; Joe Seidl, Water Resource Engineer. PUBLIC PRESENT: Russell Holmes 1635 Hemlock Way Erin Wong 1674 Hemlock Way Geoff Wong 1674 Hemlock Way Ryan Bauer 1675 Mayapple Pass Lindsey Button 1655 Hemlock Way Glen Shoenberg 1665 Hemlock Way Natania Schoenberg 1665 Hemlcok Way Holly Wilde 1685 Hemlock Way Kristie Habermaier 1664 Hemlock Way Jeff Habermaier 1664 Hemlock Way Jason Besler 1704 Hemlock Way David Grover 2565 Highcrest Court Maureen Homa 1545 Hemlock Way Ted Homa 1545 Hemlock Way Nataraja Nallathamby 1661 Mayapple Pass Christina Graese Brandl Anderson Christopher Contreras Brandl Anderson Nancy Gilmore 1705 Hemlock Way Dan Gilmore 1705 Hemlock Way John Anderson Brandl Anderson Becky Fluegge 1671 Mayapple Pass Holly Hanson 1725 Hemlock Way Kristyn Vickman 1535 Hemlock Way Christopher Juulke 1778 Marigold Court John Santini 1625 Hemlock Way Cathy Santini 1625 Hemlock Way Planning Commission Minutes – February 18, 2025 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Consider an Ordinance Rezoning Property from Right-of-Way to R-8 Mixed Medium Density Residential District and Request for Preliminary Plat and Site Plan Approval for a 60 Unit Townhome Development (Planning Case #2025-01) Eric Maass, Community Development Director, introduced Mackenze Grunig who is the new Project Engineer. Mr. Maass introduced the project with a rendered site plan of the initial proposal, which includes 60 attached townhomes. Mr. Maass said that the city requests applicants to hold neighborhood meetings, which was done with this project. At the meeting, attendees were asked to write down feedback on small pieces of paper. Mr. Maass presented slides to review what residents were hoping to learn about during the neighborhood meeting. After the neighborhood meeting, the residents were able to share what they were still nervous about in regards to the project and what they were happy to learn. Mr. Maass said that the property is currently designed by the city’s comprehensive plan for Medium Density Residential development. He explained that municipalities are required to update their Comprehensive Plan every ten years based on different factors involving growth forecasts provided by the Metropolitan Council. The Comprehensive Plan is reviewed by the Planning Commission, adopted by the City Council, and approved by the Metropolitan Council. The current Comprehensive Plan in effect is the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. He stated that both the 2030 and 2040 Comprehensive Plans gave the site a mixed land use designation of office or residential medium density of four to eight units per acre. Mr. Maass said that the plan did not have a zoning designation, since it was MnDOT right-of-way for transportation projects before MnDOT deemed it as excess and put it up for public auction. Mr. Maass stated they received questions about areas where attached townhomes were backing up to single-family detached homes. Mr. Maass provided examples of similar layouts in Chanhassen, including Mission Homes Townhomes, Powers Place Townhomes, Lake Susan Townhomes, and Prairie Creek Townhomes. Mr. Maass reviewed public feedback about the development, including concerns about the shared boundary with the Pioneer Pass neighborhood to the north. Mr. Maass said that the plans were updated to provide more buffering through the new street becoming a private street which reduced the right of way requirement from 60 feet to 40 feet. He stated that there is now a proposed 80 to 105 feet distance between the detached rear of the single-family homes and the rear of the townhomes. Mr. Maass reviewed the two different product types proposed and said that the applicant needs to provide at least 20 percent of accent material to meet the required threshold outlined in city code. Additionally, Mr. Maass said that there needs to be more variety for architectural differences. He said that if the area is deemed to be critical bat habitat that any tree removal would need to take place prior to April 14, unless the site was reviewed by a qualified inspector and the area not deemed suitable bat habitat. Timelines regarding bat habitat are established by the United States Fish and Wildlife. Mr. Maass showed the original landscaping proposal. He said an additional 84 trees would need to be planted to offset the tree removals. The landscaping plan proposed 217 Planning Commission Minutes – February 18, 2025 3 trees. There would need to be plant diversity to meet the city’s plant diversity requirements. Mr. Maass said that this information was added to the plan. Mackenze Grunig, Project Engineer reviewed the proposed street layout, public and private utility plans, as well as proposed location of parking spaces provided in the development. Joe Seidl, Water Resource Engineer, said that the wetland delineation was completed in May 2024. The technical evaluation panel and the City of Chanhassen reviewed and approved the delineation. He stated that two small wetlands were determined to be incidental and created from other roadway projects. Since the wetlands were created incidentally, they can be graded and filled without penalty. Mr. Seidl said that there was one watercourse located in the project. He stated that permitting requirements for the water course required the city, Watershed District, and possibly the Army Corps of Engineers. He reviewed the existing conditions, such as the large hill in the middle of the site. He said that the water runoff on the east side of the site would go down to Bluff Creek, areas to the northwest would drain to the city-owned and maintained wet pond, and drainage to the southwest would drain to the existing drainage ditch system. Mr. Seidl said that there would be more volume created by the storm sewers, which could be mitigated through stormwater best management practices. Mr. Seidl proposed two options for the plan, including a stormwater wet pond reuse system that would capture stormwater and be used to irrigate the site. Mr. Seidl said that the applicant would need to complete additional permitting to ensure they meet regulations. He stated there was a stormwater wet pond located on the northeast of the site to meet water quality and rate control. He said that there would be buffers for the watercourse to meet additional rules and regulations. Mr. Seidl noted that the applicant proposed to outlet the storm sewer down the water course. The water course is highly eroded, so there were concerns that it would be exasperated if it were to take more water. Mr. Seidl said that the city will work with the Watershed and the applicant on the design. He stated an additional concern was at the southwest corner of the site, where there might be a need for some grading or water best management practices to ensure that there will not be excess water. He stated that the stormwater best management practices would be private and need to be maintained by the developer and the Homeowners Association. Mr. Seidl stated that there were standard engineering conditions to implement to address concerns. Mr. Seidl reviewed a concern discussed at the open house about drainage and flooding issues associated with the city-owned wet pond and the adjacent ditch. He reviewed previous aerial photos, which showed water saturation and that there could be potential for subsurface water interactions; the area is encompassed by a drainage and utility easement. The wet pond is on a city-owned outlot and the drainage and utility easement exists in portions of the backyard of the development to the north. He stated that when a development goes through and if there is an area that is known to be wet, the city would include a drainage and utility easement. He commented that a new development could not dump a lot of water there to make the situation worse. Mr. Seidl reviewed hydraulic and hydrological modeling to understand the drainage and reviewed stormwater events. He had a conversation with the developer’s engineer to highlight the concern and mitigate the problem in the final design to make sure the situation would not worsen. Chairman Noyes invited the developer forward to answer questions. Planning Commission Minutes – February 18, 2025 4 John Anderson, Project Manager for Brandl Anderson, stated that Brandl Anderson purchased the site from MnDOT at public auction. He reviewed the original anticipated plan. He commented that they held a public meeting a few weeks ago and afterward adjusted the plan set to address neighborhood concerns. The adjustments included moving from a public street layout to a private street layout to push the units adjacent to the neighborhood further south for a larger setback and to plant trees for a buffer along the property line. He stated that the water would not touch neighbors’ property, but instead go into the swale which would drain the water west to the pond. He said that they would increase the pond size, which would increase the overall level and help things from a drainage standpoint. Their engineers were trying to figure out how to best address stormwater issues at the watercourse. The existing drainage channel might need upgrades, which would be addressed in the final plan. He stated that the site meets all the required zoning requirements. He commented that the existing power line on the site would be relocated to the very south property line. He said that they received comments from the watershed district. He commented that they wanted to start work on grading, streets, and utilities in the spring, and start house construction in the late summer. Commissioner Schwartz asked about the Homeowners Association’s responsibilities of maintaining the stormwater ponds. Mr. Anderson said that there was a maintenance agreement that would require the Homeowners Association to maintain the pond. He said this typically includes requirements that the ponding does not fill up with sediment and that appropriate vegetation is planted. The Homeowners Association would also be responsible for maintaining the private streets. Commissioner Schwartz asked about marketing terms they planned to use to describe the wetland and the pond. Mr. Anderson answered that the two wetlands on site will not exist when the project is complete since they were deemed incidental. He said that they would describe the stormwater pond as a best management practice. Chairman Noyes asked for a description of the swale. He asked if it presented an elevation change and if it provided an optical or physical buffering between the development to the north and the proposed development. Mr. Anderson answered that the swale would be grass or sodded and could be mowed. He said the elevation change would be less than two feet from the normal landscape to the swale. He stated it would not create a buffer and it would be approximately twenty feet from the property line. He said that the trees would be the buffer. Commissioner Jobe questioned the design and if they accounted for a 50-year flood or 100-year flood with water run-offs. Mr. Anderson said that he did not know the answer and asked Mr. Seidl. Mr. Seidl answered that the standard regulations when designing stormwater best management practice would be two-year, ten-year, and 100-year storm events. He said that there were accepted models that differed based on your location and how much water they conveyed. He provided an example of a 100-year event in Chanhassen, which would be 7.5 inches of stormwater in 24 hours, and how the stormwater runs over that period. He explained that the calculations are standard wastewater engineering and they utilize data from Atlas 14. He said Planning Commission Minutes – February 18, 2025 5 that the stormwater system would be designed for a 10-year event and best management practices would be designed for a 100-year event. Chairman Noyes stated that he reviewed 517 pages regarding the proposal. He said there was a huge concern about traffic. He requested information about the findings of the traffic study and how it might mitigate resident concerns. Mr. Anderson answered that the study found that Bluff Creek Drive and Pioneer Trail can handle the additional traffic loads. He stated that a comment was that the southwest corner of the site has a hillside, so they would need to regrade this so people can see traffic coming down the hill. Mr. Grunig clarified that the access proposed onto Pioneer Trail would be a right-in and right-out access only which would reduce the conflicts of the possible traffic issues. He said there was adequate capacity on Pioneer Trail and Bluff Creek Boulevard to support the homes. Commissioner Schwartz asked if the additional traffic generated by the 60 homes had been looked into with regard to adding to the existing traffic from the neighborhood to the north. Mr. Grunig answered that Bluff Creek Boulevard was designed to support the growth of additional developments. Commissioner Schwartz asked if there was a way to objectively identify the discrepancy between what he said and the comments from the neighbors about the safety issues with additional traffic regarding the development. Mr. Grunig answered that he would have to discuss the information with the Engineering Department to understand the best response. Mr. Maass said that Bluff Creek Boulevard and Pioneer Trail were collector streets. He said that collector streets are designed to absorb traffic flows from neighborhoods as cities utilize the land use plan. He said that as they anticipated growth, roads needed to be built to support the growth. He said that Bluff Creek Boulevard was built to accommodate the anticipated traffic generated as land was developed in accordance with the city’s Comprehensive Plan land use designations. Commissioner Schwartz said that the neighbors to the north said that there are current safety issues regarding traffic in the neighborhood and that this development would add additional safety issues. Although Bluff Creek Boulevard is a collector road, the residents believe there are current traffic safety issues before the added development. The development could increase the issues. He asked how to resolve the discrepancies between the complaints and the information provided. Mr. Maass responded that the applicant would need to address the grading of the hill to help with the visibility to help with safety. He stated that the perception of a safety concern is not the same as a traffic study which uses accepted engineering standards to identify safety issues that require mitigation. Commissioner Soller asked if there were any changes to prevent left turns out of the neighborhood onto Pioneer Trail. Mr. Anderson answered that there was a median in the center of Pioneer Trail to help with this concern. Planning Commission Minutes – February 18, 2025 6 Commissioner Soller asked if it was a single-stop sign for exiting traffic but remained a through- road for north and south traffic on Bluff Creek Boulevard. Mr. Anderson confirmed this information. Mr. Anderson noted that there was a private overhead streetlight proposed at that intersection for nighttime driving and lighting purposes. Chairman Noyes asked if the wet pond expansion would be a city pond. Mr. Seidl answered that this decision was not sorted out. He explained that when you mix public and private stormwater it becomes public. The pond expansion would benefit residents. Commissioner Rosengren asked if there was a necessity for a fence or a barrier for road noise on the east side of the development since it appeared to be close to 212. Mr. Maass said that they sent the plans for MnDOT for review, but a barrier was unnecessary. Commissioner Rosengren asked if there would be new trees planted on the east side that might help with the noise. Mr. Maass confirmed this information. Commissioner Schwartz asked how the city would implement their maintenance easement if the plans were private. Mr. Seidl answered that if the ponds were private, the city would not have an easement over them. He said that they would have a stormwater operations agreement that gave similar rights as an easement to inspect best management practices, but the city would not need to have an easement over it. Mr. Seidl said the city found that maintaining easements over a stormwater infrastructure made it complicated to figure out how they would be maintained. There is a standard template agreement that explains how the best management practices would be maintained. He stated that he spent a lot of time reviewing and making comments because he wanted to make sure that a future person in the water resources engineer role would understand what the city owns and maintains and what the private owner owns and maintains. Commissioner Schwartz asked if they anticipated a check and balance or an oversight on the maintenance of these ponds. Mr. Seidl answered that there were requirements with the permitting from the MPCA. The permitting process requires a program that checks in on private best management practices. He stated that the city is working on collecting data and building out a database. He commented that the general idea is in the future, the city would be auditing and doing inspections. He said that the inspection form that is standard with the agreement requires that the private owner completes an inspection every year and submits it to the city. Mr. Seidl said that he would link these inspections to the database and it would be clear what properties were not completing the inspections and the city would follow up. Commissioner Schwartz asked if there would be penalties. Mr. Seidl confirmed this information. Commissioner Schwartz provided an example of how his Homeowners Association has had many boards come and go, so the current board has no idea about their responsibilities for the maintenance of the stormwater pond. He stated that the developer sold homes with a water feature rather than a stormwater maintenance pond, and sold the houses for $10,000 more. He Planning Commission Minutes – February 18, 2025 7 said that residents feel confused and angry when muck appears on the stormwater ponds every year. Mr. Seidl said he would be happy to discuss this situation with him and answer questions about the maintenance of the stormwater feature in his development. Commissioner Schwartz thanked Mr. Seidl for the offer. Commissioner Goff said that the street moved from a public street to a private street, so there would be responsibilities for snow removal. He asked if any other services were impacted, such as fire. Mr. Maass said that since the width of the street was reduced, there would be no street parking to ensure that there would be access for emergency service vehicles in the event of an emergency. He explained that the north corner and the eastern corner have turnarounds that the fire department reviewed. He stated that there is a twenty-foot front yard setback in the driveways to allow for parking. Commissioner Jobe asked how much public parking was available per unit. Mr. Maass answered that the city requires one guest parking stall for every four units. He stated that since there were 60 units, the City Code would require 15 parking stalls. Chairman Noyes asked if there was a plan to revisit the visitor parking stalls since it was centralized. Mr. Maass answered that the city recommended that the applicant move some of the parking to the corner so it would be more accessible to other units. Commissioner Soller clarified the zoning changes. He said that the Comprehensive Plan had guided the future of this lot for many years. He said that the Comprehensive Plan sets things in motion, but there might be flexibility in terms of what it allows. He stated that R8 was one permissible re-zoning outcome, but asked if other potential zoning outcomes were allowed within the available zones. Mr. Maass answered that the Comprehensive Plan establishes a range that densities had to fall within. He explained that the Residential Medium Zoning District requires between four and eight units an acre. He said the Comprehensive Plan identifies four zoning districts – RLM, R8, PUDR within the Residential Medium Zoning District. He said that the R8 was one of the zoning districts allowed. Commissioner Soller asked if the city was led by the interests of the land developer if it fell within the Comprehensive Plan requirements. He wanted to understand the confines of the Comprehensive Plan and submitted proposals. Mr. Maass answered that the Comprehensive Plan shows the zoning district options. Once the zoning district is selected based on which zoning districts are eligible, there are minimum standards that need to be met with the zoning district. Chairman Noyes asked if the bike path and sidewalks were being maintained in the plan. Mr. Maass answered that they were in the city’s right-of-way and being maintained. Commissioner Soller asked if the green area was zoned A2. Mr. Maass answered that the land was owned by the city and was a part of the Bluff Creek Overlay District. He stated it had an A2 zoning designation. Planning Commission Minutes – February 18, 2025 8 Commissioner Soller asked if the other gray areas to the east were part of the MnDOT right-of- way. Mr. Maass confirmed that information. Commissioner Schwartz asked if the other parcels owned by MnDOT in the immediate vicinity could be sold. Mr. Maass said it was his understanding that those parcels were not intended to be sold. The other areas were not seen as developable with the interchanges and heavily wooded areas. Commissioner Soller said he wanted to understand the structure and the process behind the decision. He asked whether there were additional options or if it was a well-designed plan. Mr. Maass said that the project as proposed did not request variances, and it meets the land use parameters and zoning standards. He stated that the city staff prepared findings of fact related to the subdivision and site plan for approval. If the Planning Commission or City Council finds that there is a finding of fact that is inaccurate, they could provide concern. He commented that city staff work hard to ensure accurate findings of fact. Chairman Noyes indicated that there were sixteen letters from the public. Some of the letters were submitted before the changes to the site plan. He reviewed the themes of the letters, including tree removal, parking and traffic, potential declining traffic values, erosion, flooding, lack of a buffer, and removal of green space. He stated there would be a five-minute limit per person. He requested that they state their name and address and speak clearly in the microphone. He requested if the agreement is the same as one previously mentioned, to state the similarity rather than giving detailed information. He said if the information was new, it could be shared. Chairman Noyes opened the public hearing. Geoff Wong, 1674 Hemlock Way, voiced appreciation to the Mayor for answering questions to understand the on-site concerns. He said he understood that growth was needed, but was concerned with how it was being done. He discussed the erosion concerns and echoed agreement on the comments from the commissioner. He said that there were a lot of kids in the neighborhood, so he had safety concerns. He stated that there was a huge park to the west of the neighborhood that was utilized by the kids for recreational needs, so the collector road is frequently occupied and crossed. He stated that the traffic was a concern since Avienda was brought to light. He commented that there were concerns about emergency services being able to access the road. He asked if taxpayer money is used to improve the current infrastructure to support this type of neighborhood. He said that the infrastructure or the strain on the city would be impacted, especially if additional neighborhoods like this come up. He suggested a Comprehensive Risk Assessment Plan for the commissioners to understand the uncertainty about who was responsible for different aspects of the drainage. He said a mitigation plan should be fully understood before the site plan was approved. He asked how the 2040 Comprehensive Plan aligned with the city. He commented that Chanhassen was voted as one of the most desirable cities to live in and there was a reason for that, so it would be important to consider what was best for the neighborhood. Planning Commission Minutes – February 18, 2025 9 Erin Wong, 1674 Hemlock Way, voiced appreciation for the changes to the setback in some areas by Brandl Anderson. She said she did not see changes to the setback on the east side, so some homes are still pretty tight along the property. She proposed a solution to consider single- family homes against the existing single-family homes and then keeping the rest of the property of townhomes. She said that the road would be the buffer and it would be similar to the current neighborhood. She suggested they could also consider duplexes. She said these options would help keep greenspace and the feel of the neighborhood and mitigate the issues of reduced property values. She said that two neighbors moved and had to accept offers of $20,000 to $30,000 less than if the townhomes were not going to be placed in the backyard. She reiterated the traffic concerns by adding 60 townhomes and potentially 120 more cars. She often sees near- misses and has to wait often to cross the street when she is walking her dog. She commented that the trees would take twenty to thirty years for the trees to grow to provide a buffer to the townhomes. Lindsey Button, 1655 Hemlock Way, said that her property line sits approximately 20 feet from the back patio of the 290-foot proposed two-story multi-family housing structure. She commented that the structure was very different from the existing single-family homes. She said it was different to share backyard space with one family than with six families. She thanked Brandl Anderson for listening to their concerns and putting evergreens to create a buffer. She said that there was limited space and the townhouse residents could likely reach out from their patio and touch the evergreens. She commented that trees were too close and did not align with the Comprehensive Plan, which required transitions between different land uses. She said when these natural features were absent, the land use plan allowed for buffer yards with increased setbacks with landscaping and berms to improve the separation of incompatible uses. She said that there should be an orderly setback that makes sense and provided an example of the Lake Susan Development that provided 100 feet of separation between the low-density houses and medium-density houses. She asked for the same consideration when considering the development of their property. She reiterated the concerns of Erin Wong with the traffic. She commented that the road was icy and snowy in the winter and coming down the hill was dangerous, so it was a huge risk for young drivers. She said there was poor visibility on Hemlock Drive which provided additional risks for drivers. She voiced concerns about the influx of traffic with Avienda. She appreciated the discussion of the medium-density designation for the land and reviewed what the Comprehensive Plan stated. She said it would make more sense to be R4 rather than R8 when backing up to single-family homes. She commented that the land was 11.75 acres and 2.5 acres would be road and infrastructure and 2.5 acres would not be developed. She said there would be 10 dwellings per acre which far exceeded the amount allowed by R8 development. She requested to reconsider if it made sense to put 10 houses on one acre behind low-density homes. She requested that the land be redesignated to R4 to provide continuity with the other neighborhoods, provide a sense of order, and decrease traffic concerns to keep kids safe. Kristie Habermaier, 1664 Hemlock Way, stated that she was the original owner of her house and moved in in 2011. She said that she understood the need for growth in the community, but did not believe the current Pioneer Ridge proposal did not match the best interests of the neighborhood or the city. She voiced agreement with the previously stated safety concerns. She discussed the entrance added to Bluff Creek Drive. She said the hill prevented visibility, but the Planning Commission Minutes – February 18, 2025 10 trees also did. She commented that there was ice which provided concerns. She stated she was worried about the intersection with the newly licensed drivers and newly permitted drivers in the driveway. She commented that her daughter has an easier time pulling out of the driveway at nighttime since you can see headlights. She thought that the traffic would get worse, especially with the completion of Avienda. She said her house shares a backyard with Becky’s house on Mayapple. She appreciated that they measured her strip of Hemlock and Mayapple, but those were single-family house homes backing up to each other, not townhouses. She commented that the City of Chanhassen was voted as one of the best places to raise a family. She explained that her neighborhood acted as her village as she helped raise a family and was a tight-knit group. She commented that a few neighbors moved because of the development and other families were planning to do the same if the current proposal went through. She voiced devastation about the idea of the neighborhood being ripped apart. She said that a developer told her at a meeting that it could be worse and the townhouses could be three stories, but that did not make her feel better. She voiced appreciation that they listened to concerns and made some changes but expressed the need to consider other options such as what Lindsey Button mentioned. She asked that they reconsider the street that enters and exits on Bluff Creek Drive. She encouraged the Planning Commission to consider their own houses and neighborhoods and if this would be something that they would want. Tedd Homa, 1545 Hemlock Way, commented that his house did not back up to the proposed development. He shared the same concerns already mentioned by other neighbors. He also expressed concerns about safety westbound on Pioneer Trail, which was 50 miles per hour over the overpass. He said that the roads were not in good shape, and you could not be in the right- hand lane without sliding. He worried about increased accidents on Pioneer Trail which would be terrifying for new neighbors. He commented that he would be blocked from turning left on Hemlock Way. He said it would be necessary to consider the proposed traffic from the south to go to the industrial areas, especially the Avienda Group. Cathy Santini, 1625 Hemlock Way, said that she had three traffic questions and issues directed to the city. She asked as you are heading northbound on Bluff Creek Drive, if there would be a right-hand turn lane. She also asked if there would be a left-hand turn lane for southbound traffic. She thought a turn lane would be helpful for the traffic coming through the neighborhood. She discussed the iciness when coming south on Bluff Creek Drive and asked for the city to keep an eye on the intersection to see if it needed to be regraded. There has been a lot of snow and ice that gathered there in the past. She stated there were lights in four directions as you were headed eastbound on Pioneer Trail at the intersection. But if you were headed eastbound, you only get a yellow flashing arrow for turning and there is no green arrow. She suggested a green arrow to have the right-of-way would be helpful. Russell Holmes, 1635 Hemlock Way, commented that his property was in front of the water course. He agreed with the concerns discussed by his neighbors. He agreed with Cathy’s comments about adding turning lanes for traffic. He said that Bluff Creek has unregulated crosswalks and traffic circles, so increased traffic flow puts additional risks. He said Pioneer Trail had traffic lights, but Bluff Creek did not even though they were classified in similar ways. He thanked the Planning Commission for looking at the plan and their concerns regarding traffic and drainage. He stated he heard a lot about water drainage to the west. He said the watercourse Planning Commission Minutes – February 18, 2025 11 was horrendous with the erosion and the debris. He voiced concerns about relying on it as a major point of drainage but figuring out the details after the plan was approved. He asked who would maintain the watercourse long term and the agreements with the city to ensure it remains an open drainage site. He appreciates that the developer listened to concerns and added trees as a buffer, but the trees would be small for many years. Mr. Holmes suggested that the northern perimeter should also have trees so that those on the edge of the property would receive the benefit of privacy from the development. He said that the two outlots to the property should become a part of city land to ensure that they remain green space in the future. Glen Shoenberg, 1665 Hemlock Way, said that Chanhassen has had a lot of well-planned growth, but he did not think that this project was well-planned. He commented that the road came out on a hill, which made it difficult to make a left turn onto the development from the north if there was ice on the road. He said that there was a crosswalk further north up the hill to the park, but not everyone utilizes the crosswalk and choose to cross at Hemlock Way. He commented that kids do not understand the risks of crossing the road. He stated that there were sixteen guest parking spaces and no street parking, which was not enough. There was no street parking on Bluff Creek Drive or Pioneer Trail, so he voiced concerns about parking on Hemlock Way and people crossing through his backyard. He voiced concerns about safety such as trespassing. He said that people choose Chanhassen for the thoughtfulness of neighborhood design and green spaces. There was a lack of green, open space in this design. He commented that Chanhassen needed to maintain green space and environmental health and that the proposed development introduces a metropolitan atmosphere. He stated that other townhomes in Chanhassen have increased buffer spaces. He said that the 2040 Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan supports low-density residential development in appropriate areas of the community in such areas that maintain the aesthetic of single-family homes and to create new neighborhoods with similar quality. He said that the plan also requires increased buffer areas for neighborhoods of different densities. He commented that the city needed to ensure the landowner abides by these requirements and urged alternate solutions for the development of the land. He believes that the property met the zoning requirements but not the land-use goals in the Comprehensive Plan. Nancy Gilmore, 1705 Hemlock Way, said that her house backs up to the development. She agreed with the statements from her neighbors. She said today as she pulled onto Bluff Creek, she almost got into a car accident. She stated that the through traffic from Pioneer Trail to Avienda was ridiculous. She said it was difficult to cross the road to the park. She stated that the buffer of small trees would not make a difference. She said that they need to consider respect for the residents who have lived there for years. Christopher Juulke, 1778 Marigold Court, agreed with the statements shared tonight by other residents. He reiterated the safety concern and said that there were no places where the cars stop between the stoplight and the roundabout further down, so cars increase their speed while driving. He asked for additional ideas to slow the traffic and provide safe-crossing for children. Jason Besler, 1704 Hemlock Way, said the development did not directly impact his property. He stated that there were a lot of unanswered questions, so he encouraged the Planning Commission to call a time-out and hold additional discussions. Planning Commission Minutes – February 18, 2025 12 Glen Shoenberg, 1665 Hemlock Way, spoke again. He said that the traffic proposal said that the grading won’t meet the recommended sight lines for the proposal. Chairman Noyes closed the public hearing. Chairman Noyes said that there were a lot of comments about the traffic study and residents provided valid comments. He recognized that both of the roads were collector roads and he asked what options there were on the roads as it related to safety, such as turn lanes or roundabouts. Mr. Grunig answered that turn lanes were not a part of the project right now, and it was not recommended based on the traffic study. Chairman Noyes asked how to separate the facts from fiction as it relates to traffic and whether there were actions that the city could take to improve the situation. He asked how they were evaluated and implemented. Mr. Grunig said he would love to hear about the safety concerns specifically from residents as he is the chair of the Traffic Safety Committee and can request more enforcement. He stated that Bluff Creek Boulevard was a collector road and is designed to receive a lot of traffic. He commented that there were different ways that the city could decrease speed or improve pedestrian safety. Chairman Noyes said it would be important to review the options based on concerns. Commissioner Schwartz commented on the high usage rates of the adjacent Pioneer Pass Park and said it was an everyday issue to have difficulties crossing the street to get to the park. He asked how someone doing a traffic study could not see these issues, unless they were not accurate. Mr. Maass answered that the traffic study did not make the lived experiences untrue, but the traffic study is a science-based engineering approach to analyze the roadway capacity and design solutions. He commented that proper grading can solve the sight distance issue. The analysis did not require turn lanes, but the neighbors expressed concerns about traffic issues on Bluff Creek Boulevard. He said that these traffic issues could be brought to the city’s Traffic Safety Committee for review. He said there were additional pedestrian safety issues that could be improved by the city that the city could improve when necessary. These improvements are not connected to the development or within the boundaries of the proposed plat. Commissioner Schwartz reiterated if residents follow up with Mr. Grunig, they can be sure that there concerns about traffic on Bluff Creek Boulevard are heard. Mr. Maass answered that he took extensive notes and would take the information to the Traffic Safety Committee to discuss additional improvements. Chairman Noyes asked if potential pedestrian improvements within the road would be a parallel or a serial process to the review of this project. He asked if they could put a hold on the project until the road improvements were made. Mr. Maass answered that the two projects would be separate and were not applicable to the rezoning or the site plan. Commissioner Jobe said if the setback was set, but people were asking to reduce the size of the housing unit or the angle, the Planning Commission could only put it as a request. Mr. Maass answered that they could make it a request but not a requirement. Planning Commission Minutes – February 18, 2025 13 Commissioner Schwartz clarified that changing the configuration of the development, such as switching to single-family houses, would be outside of the Planning Commission’s role. Mr. Maass confirmed this information unless there were amendments to the Comprehensive Plan or a request by the property owner for a switch in which of the eligible zoning districts was being pursued. Chairman Noyes asked if they were providing feedback about zoning. Mr. Maass said they were providing recommendations on the rezoning, preliminary plat, and site plan. Commissioner Schwartz clarified that the plan meets the criteria, so the discretion to approve or not approve is based on whether it meets the criteria. He commented that since it meets the criteria, they have no choice but to confirm. Mr. Maass confirmed this information. Commissioner Soller asked about the exit onto Bluff Creek Drive and if it was required based on the flow of traffic and how people should enter and exit the new neighborhood, or if it was based on how the developers wanted to plan the neighborhood to meet market demand. He asked if there was an alternative to consider no exit onto Bluff Creek Drive since there were concerns about traffic on Bluff Creek Drive. Mr. Maass answered that access to Bluff Creek and Pioneer Trail was a recommendation of city staff. There was a limitation for cul-de-sacs of 750 feet for purposed of public safety. Anything in excess of 750 feet would require a variance and it was unclear if city staff would support such a request. Commissioner Soller clarified that the exits and entrances were for public safety. Mr. Maass answered that the recommendations for exits and entrances were a right-in and right-out on Pioneer Trail and access to Bluff Creek Boulevard. Commissioner Jobe asked if there was a 100-year flood and if areas were public, the city would service it, but if it was private, the Homeowner’s Association would be responsible. He asked about the triangle point and whether it could be made into public land for a playground or a nature preserve. Mr. Maass responded that the city would own a portion of the land for preservation excluding the pond and the best management practice area. Mr. Seidl voiced appreciation for the stance expressed for the plans to be fully figured out with no questions. He said the stormwater design was complicated and there were a lot of moving parts. He looks through developments through a specific lens to determine whether the plans are far along enough so that he can address reasonable concerns. He said during a preliminary plat review; he is conditioning things that need to be done before a final plat review. The designation of the water feature depends on the final design and if it would be considered private or public. He would not let things move forward from a stormwater perspective unless there were engineering solutions for any possible issues. Commissioner Schwartz asked if a Homeowners Association would be required to maintain a vegetative buffer around the ponds. Mr. Seidl answered that the City Code did not require a buffer around stormwater management features. He said that the wet ponds would not require a Planning Commission Minutes – February 18, 2025 14 native buffer, but there were rules and regulations on watercourses that the applicant would need to sort through. Commissioner Soller said that an unanswered question was about the language brought up when planning developments in the Comprehensive Plan, especially with the transition from one zone to another zone. He said that the plan felt slightly in contradiction to the language of the Comprehensive Plan about transitions from one zone to the next. Mr. Maass said that the Pioneer Pass neighborhood was zoned residential low-medium or RLM. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan looked to segmentally organize land use and that medium density residential adjacent to low density residential is an appropriate land use adjacency. He said that an example of an incompatible adjacent land use designation would be heavy industrial. He said that the modified proposal was aligned with the distances of the homes in the area, but recognized the differences between spacing with townhomes and single-family homes. He commented that the buffering area was appropriate and based on city code. Commissioner Jobe asked about privacy and separation. Mr. Maass answered that both evergreen and decisions trees were proposed for buffering and would be six-foot at installation and should grow one to two feet per year. He commented a six-foot tree was less susceptible to various issues when transplanted than larger trees. Commissioner Rosengren said he reviewed the Carver County Community Development Agency’s Housing Marke Study which was recently reviewed by the City Council. He said that the report stated that Chanhassen has a nine-month supply of land to build new houses. He said that the median cost to build a new house in Chanhassen was $800,000 and that 90 percent of the people who work in Chanhassen do not live in Chanhassen. He asked where houses would fit in Chanhassen to meet Carver County expectations. He stated that the concerns were valid and needed to be heard by the city staff, but they would need to consider how to provide different types of housing options for individuals who will move to Chanhassen in the future. He stated it was less of a concern about the zoning and whether it fit into the Comprehensive Plan, but there was a need to adapt and grow as a community while also properly addressing resident concerns. Commissioner Soller stated he questioned whether the City Code made appropriate requirements and whether the design was considered when two different zones were next to each other. He asked if the City Code considered transitions between different districts. Mr. Maass answered that the city had buffer yard requirements and design guidelines for multi-family housing. Commissioner Soller asked if the buffers and setbacks required in an R8 do not change based on the zone it is next to. Mr. Maass indicated that city code outlines the buffering requirements based on adjacent land use. Commissioner Soller said maybe the idea was unheard of in City Planning. Mr. Maass said that the downtown zoning district required a high-density residential adjacent to detached single- family homes, the rear yard setback must match the setback for single-family homes even though it is zoned for downtown designation. He explained that the downtown designation and detached single-family designation were opposite ends of the zoning ordinance in terms of density. He stated that the city could add one between R8 and RLM, but it is not in the City Code today so it Planning Commission Minutes – February 18, 2025 15 could not consider that as a variable applicable to the project. He stated that R8 and RLM zoning districts were similar to each other, so it might not be appropriate to mandate the same rear yard setback. He stated that they were not far off from meeting the comparison. Commissioner Schwartz said that Chanhassen has developed the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance appropriately which could be built on in the future. Chairman Noyes said he was not sold on the traffic study. He had trust in the city and that they would investigate issues and consider resolutions. He understood that people had concerns about erosion. He said that he was confident between Mr. Seidl’s team, the developer, and the DNR, the concerns with erosion and water would be addressed. He stated that the builder proposed an adequate buffer. He said that the buffer was not the issue, but that residents did not want townhomes in the area. He stated that the decrease of property values was not because they were townhomes, but because of the loss of green space in the backyard. He commented that the green space would go away no matter how the land was developed. He said that there needed to be further discussions about traffic and it would need to be a parallel process. They would not stop the project because of the traffic. He wanted the City Council to know that there were concerns with the set-up of the roads and there were some solutions that could mitigate the traffic and safety concerns expressed. He said that collector roads were designed to have a lot of traffic on them, but high-volume streets could still be made safer and fit the needs of residents. Commissioner Schwartz asked if the property values go down because the green space was being developed and if the property value differences would be offset since the townhomes would be fairly expensive. Chairman Noyes answered that he was not sure, but it was a good question. Commissioner Soller said that the City Council would need to review the concerns since they have a wider purview. He encouraged them not to stigmatize individuals moving into the townhomes. People tend to treat the neighborhood as their own and treat it respectfully. Chairman Noyes commented that the residents in the townhomes would have common goals of safety for their families. Commissioner Schwartz asked if they wanted the City Council to see their concerns and if they should change the motion or provide comments. Mr. Maass responded that he took copious notes from the meeting tonight and there would be no need to amend the motion. He said that the comments from the public meeting and the meeting minutes would be provided to the City Council. The concerns had been noted and would be addressed at the City Council. Chairman Noyes said the Planning Commission’s job is to make sure the proposals met the land use and zoning designations. The Planning Commission was a recommending body based on those factors. He wanted residents to understand that the commission could not vote no to a project just because of other merits. Commissioner Jobe moved, Commissioner Schwartz seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the requested rezoning of the property to R-8 Mixed Medium Density Residential District and recommending Planning Commission Minutes – February 18, 2025 16 preliminary plat and site plan approval for a 60-unit townhome development subject to the conditions included in the staff report dated February 12, 2025. The motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1 (Noyes voted Nay) GENERAL BUSINESS: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED JANUARY 21, 2025 Commissioner Goff moved, Commissioner Jobe seconded to approve the Chanhassen Planning Commission summary minutes dated January 21, 2025, as presented. All voted in favor, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Eric Maass, Community Development Director, updated the Commissioners, noting the City Council interviewed architecture firms for the Chanhassen Bluffs Community Center and would make the decision tomorrow. They would then notify the selected firm to move forward. Chairman Noyes asked if anything changed on Avienda. Mr. Maass responded that they were identifying the acreage that the city would buy and platting it out to leave useable outlots on either side for a future hotel. He said he had no other pending applications within Avienda to share at that time. Commissioner Schwartz asked when demolition of the hotel downtown would commence. Mr. Maass answered that the site owners received approval from the Watershed District with conditions. They are working on those conditions for final approval from the Watershed District until they move forward. There were a few things that needed to be done before taking down the building, but the building would be demolished into itself and then debris cleared. He stated that the cinema demolition would take a month and then they would move forward to the hotel. Commissioner Jobe asked if there are any changes planned for the transit facility. Mr. Maass said he was not aware of any changes to the transit facility. Commissioner Soller asked if there was a specific date for the removal of the cinema so residents could pay final respects. Mr. Maass answered they made the public aware of the project via communication channels several times, but they do not have a specific date, but it is likely soon. Commissioner Schwartz suggested sharing the demolition date with the local media and the museum to capture the last hurrah of the mural and structures. Mr. Maass responded that the Historical Society already removed items from the hotel and High Timber Lounge.