Loading...
PC 2013 01 15 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 15, 2013 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Lisa Hokkanen, Kim Tennyson and Bill Colopoulos MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad, and Kathleen Thomas STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Terry Jeffery, Water Resources Coordinator; Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources Technician; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: Arturo Urrutia 408 Monk Court John Knoblauch 6450 Knob Hill Avenue, Excelsior LuAnn Markgraf 401 Rice Court Mary Muirhead 424 Monk Court Steve Lehto 8591 Tigua Lane PUBLIC HEARING: TH 101 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT: REQUEST FOR A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR PROPOSED ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR THE SEGMENT OF TH 101 BETWEEN CSAH 18 (LYMAN BOULEVARD) AND CSAH 14 (PIONEER TRAIL). APPLICANT: CITY OF CHANHASSEN, PLANNING CASE 2013-01. Spreiter: Good evening Chairman Aller and members of the Planning Commission. As stated an application has been submitted by the City of Chanhassen for a wetland alteration permit as part of the Trunk Highway 101 roadway improvement project. As a result of the project the City is proposing impacts to 4 wetlands totaling 1.84 acres of permanent impact. The proposed project is to be located within the TH 101 corridor between Lyman Boulevard and Pioneer Trail. To give some background on the project, in 2007 the City of Chanhassen and the Minnesota Department of Transportation completed a corridor scoping study for TH 101 from Lyman Boulevard to the Scott County line. The study identified the segment of 101 from Lyman to Pioneer Trail as the highest priority for improvements. There currently are several safety concerns with the corridor, including steep grades, sharp curves, and inadequate sight distances. If completed the roadway improvements project will address these safety concerns and also provide increased capacity by constructing the current 2 lane undivided highway to a 4 lane divided highway with curb and gutter, a median separation, turn lanes and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The project includes a proposed 10 foot multi-use recreational trail along the west side of 101 from Lyman Boulevard to Pioneer Trail connecting existing trails on the east side of 101 and Bandimere Park via an underpass at the entrance to the park. The project and it’s improvements are consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, City Code, city and regional trail plans and are also presented in the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s Jurisdictional Turnback Project List. The construction phase of the proposed project is scheduled to begin the summer of 2013 with final construction completion in July of 2014. As part of the project a wetland delineation report was completed and approved in February of 2012 identifying 5 wetlands in the area. As a result of the proposed project the City of Chanhassen is requesting a wetland alteration permit for permanent impacts to 4 of the identified wetlands totaling 1.84 acres. The impacted wetlands are Wetlands 2, 3, 4, and 5. Wetland 2 is located just north of Bandimere Park on the east side of 101. The impact proposed is .04 of an acre. It’s classified as a Type 3 or shallow Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2013 marsh wetland. Wetland 3 is located on the west side of 101, across from Bandimere Park. It outlets to Wetland 4 via a channel that flows between the two. Wetland 3 is identified as a Type 2 fresh, wet meadow. The proposed impact to Wetland 3 is .04 of an acre. Wetland 4 located on the west side of 101 just south of Wetland 3 consists of four wetland types. Type 1, floodplain forest. Type 2, fresh, wet meadow. Type 3, shallow marsh and Type 6, Shrub-Carr. It is also identified as a Minnesota DNR public water. However in this case the DNR has chosen to waive it’s permitting authority to the City of Chanhassen. The proposed impact to Wetland 4 would be .83 acres. Wetland 5 lies in the northwest corner of the intersection of 101 and Pioneer Trail and is classified as a Type 2, fresh, wet meadow. The proposed impact to Wetland 5 is .93 acres. The majority of the impact resulting from creation of stormwater ponding. Chapter 20, Article VI of City Code requires that the applicant must comply with the Wetland Conservation Act. The Wetland Conservation Act requires that the applicant must adhere to the following sequencing. First the applicant must avoid impacts wherever possible. Second, if avoidance is not an option the applicant must minimize impacts to the greatest extent practical. And finally the applicant must replace the impacts that could not be avoided or minimized. The City of Chanhassen as the applicant has presented two alternatives to the proposed project that would avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands as required. These alternative options are described in the Joint Notification Application prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates and are also presented in the staff report. The preferred design was chosen for various reasons including cost efficiency, reduction in maintenance and further wetland impact avoidance. Minimization efforts were then presented to minimize the proposed unavoidable impacts through a variety of measures which included reducing roadway slope near wetlands, achieving minimum distance between trail and roadway, reducing median and modifying the design of the stormwater ponds adjacent to wetlands. Finally the City is proposing to mitigate for the impacts using wetland banking credits from two different sources. Because the roadway improvements are safety driven the wetland impacts associated with the roadway and stormwater treatment is eligible for Board of Water and Soil Resources roadway replacement credits. The impacts that would result from the trail construction are not eligible. Therefore these impacts will be mitigated for through credits from the City’s wetland bank #127. Both are required to be mitigated for at a 2 to 1 ratio according to Chapter 8420 of the Wetland Conservation Act. In conclusion the City of Chanhassen, as the applicant, has completed the requirements set forth by City Code and the Wetland Conservation Act. Therefore staff is recommending approval with conditions outlined in the staff report. The motion can be found on page 14. This concludes my presentation. If there are questions on the roadway project in general, those can be directed towards the City Engineer or the City’s consultant and I’ve included the contact information for the project which is also available on the City’s website. Thank you and I’d be happy to take any questions at this time. Aller: Anyone have any questions? It was a great report. Very thorough. For those of you at home, the reports can be found on the website. Could you just, this isn’t just a process that started last week. This is about a 5 year project, isn’t it? Spreiter: I’m not sure when the planning portion of the project itself started. The delineation again I think was done in 2011 did it start? So yeah, I mean it’s quite a process starting with the delineation itself. Aanenson: If I may Commissioner Aller. I think going back to the process, the corridor study was done a number of years ago. I think we shared that information with you and then you know try to get the plan put in place so when there’s funding availability then the project can move forward so they kind of picked, identified some issues with that section of corridor. Whether it’s the geometrics to widen the road. Safety improvements and that sort of thing so that was put in place and then once the funding was secured then these are the steps that needed to go through and this is one of the steps that needs to happen for the road project to go forward. And maybe Alyson you can talk about the timing of the rest of the improvements for that section of the road. 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2013 Fauske: MnDOT would certainly have to go and get the final approvals so I think they were, if I remember correctly, I think they were looking at a 2015 start date to get going on some of these improvements but we would, as always we update the project website on the City’s webpage so folks can keep checking back to that for updated information. Aller: And I just wanted to point out for those present and for those at home that this item’s been before us several times. There have been many public hearings on this and visitations with the contractors and developers. And then this process with regard to the wetlands had to go through BWSR and other State departments. DNR and they’ve all looked at this as well. The report appears to indicate that it fits the requirements of the code. Am I understanding that correctly? You would agree with that? Spreiter: Yeah. Basically our code defers back to the Wetland Conservation Act process. It says that through that process approval has to be gained in order for the City to approve a wetland alteration permit so there was a TEP, Technical Evaluation Panel meeting that was held in November. After some kinks were worked out they approved the replacement plan and the impacts as well. Aller: And then the replacements here, BWSR’s going to be a 2 for 1? Spreiter: Yep. Both are 2 to 1 and the BWSR Roadway Replacement Bank is for roadway projects that are accepted under their criteria. From my understanding they have to be safety driven and then the stormwater impacts, because they’re required as part of that, are also covered. The only thing that’s not covered is the trail impacts so that’s what is covered under our wetland bank. Aller: I just want everybody to be comfortable with the fact that the reason for some of the, and the need for the alteration is that it’s a safety concern and the structure of the roadway we’ve looked at meets the bill now for those safety concerns regarding the steep grades, the curves and the sight alignments and that’s why we need to do this in the first place. So it’s for safety number one. And then number two, we’ve looked at several different alternatives and come up with what we believe is the best one and as a result of that, then we get the 2 for 1. Spreiter: Right. Aanenson: If I can Commissioner Aller, if you recall in the work session that we had maybe a year or so ago, we actually had the layout and then I know the City Council has been working through, we showed you kind of the preliminary design but the City Council then approved the final design, as we talked about the safety improvements. Giving better access to some of the people that had direct access onto. The City acquired a couple properties along the corridor. I think when we were on our tour this fall we actually went out and parked at Bandimere and looked across at some of those so this is kind of what needs to take place for those improvements to move forward. Aller: Great. Anything else? Okay, with that I’ll open the public hearing portion of the meeting. Anyone wishing to come forward and speak either for or against or comment on the item before us can do so at this time. Please step forward and state your name and address for the record. Seeing no one coming forward on this matter, we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing. Comments from the commissioners? Tennyson: No. Aller: Okay. Well I have no further comments or questions so I’ll entertain a motion if there is one. 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2013 Hokkanen: I’ll propose a motion. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit #2013-01 to impact 1.84 acres of wetland for the purpose of the construction of the proposed TH 101 Roadway Improvement Project and authorize the Water Resources Coordinator to sign the Joint Notification Application for approval of wetland replacement as shown in plans dated November 27, 2012, and based upon the included Findings of Fact and subject to the following conditions. Conditions 1 through 6, or do I need? Aller: Conditions within the staff report. And do you want to adopt the attached Findings of Fact. Hokkanen: And adopt the attached Findings of Fact. Colopoulos: I’ll second that motion. Aller: Having a motion and a second, any discussion? Hokkanen moved, Colopoulos seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit #2013-01 to impact 1.84 acres of wetland for the purpose of the construction of the proposed TH 101 Roadway Improvement Project and authorize the Water Resources Coordinator to sign the Joint Notification Application for approval of wetland replacement as shown in plans dated November 27, 2012, and based upon the included Findings of Fact and subject to the following conditions: 1. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The applicant shall receive the City’s approval of a wetland replacement plan prior to any wetland impact occurring. 2. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, maintained, and/or created around all existing wetlands in compliance with Sections 20-401 – 20-421 of Chanhassen City Code. 3. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, e.g. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources and Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions of approval. 4. The applicant must submit a Bill of Sale for Wetland Banking Credits to the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources signed by both the buyer and seller of designated wetland credits. 5. The applicant must obtain, and the City must have received copy of, an Application for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits from the Minnesota Wetland Bank signed and approved by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources prior to any wetland impacts. 6. A signed Landowner Statement and Contractor Responsibility form shall be provided to the City prior to commencement of activity. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2013 PUBLIC HEARING: PRESERVE AT RICE LAKE: REQUEST FOR A CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) FOR A 15 LOT SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT ON 13.2 ACRES OF PROPERTY CURRENTLY ZONED RSF-SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND R4- MIXED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AND LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE TH INTERSECTION OF WEST 86 STREET AND TIGUA LANE. APPLICANT: JOHN KNOBLAUCH. OWNER: CHESTNUT GROUP, LLC, PLANNING CASE 2013-02. Al-Jaff: Good evening Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. Before you is a request for a concept planned unit development. The site has an area of 13.2 acres. It is located southwest of the thth intersection of 86 Street. West 86 Street and Tigua Lane. Just briefly, this site was part of the parcel located south of Highway 212 and with the construction of Highway 212 it was segmented into two pieces. The 13 acres to the north and the remainder, I believe there were 60 acres to the south which were developed by another developer as single family detached homes. So the remaining piece, the 13 acres that is before you today, it is currently zoned, it’s currently guided Residential Low Density which allows for 1.2 to 4 units per acre. The westerly half of the site is currently zoned Single Family Residential which permits attached as well as detached single family homes. The easterly portion is Mixed Low Density which allows for townhomes. Some of the characteristics of this site include a complex of different bodies of wetlands all along the northerly portion, the westerly portion, as well as a few along the east side of the site. Highway 212, a four lane highway is located south of the subject site. The site falls within the Shoreland Overlay District of Rice Marsh Lake. That entire area that is within 1,000 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a lake is considered shoreland and it falls under specific regulations that any development would have to adhere to. The buildable area on the site. What we attempted to do was just look at the location of the wetlands and just highlight the buildable area on the site solely based on the setback from the edge of the wetlands and what you see shaded in pink, that becomes the buildable area of the site. What the applicant is proposing to do is build single family homes. If we look at, and this plan was submitted by the applicant. The typical home that they intend to build will be 60 feet in depth and will require 52 feet in width. When we have these homes on the proposed lots, some of the house pads will encroach into required setbacks. Some of the homes don’t meet width requirements for the shoreland ordinance. So there are sections that will need to be addressed. They just don’t meet the regulations that are required in the wetland as well as the Shoreland Overlay District. To be able to accommodate the type of product that the applicant is requesting, one of the things that the City could entertain is re-guiding this site to medium density. It would be dual guiding it to low density as well as medium density. When we guide it to medium density one of the things that the planned unit development ordinance will allow us to do is really work with the site. There is no minimum lot area. There is no minimum lot width. That will allow us to look at the features of the site and position homes so that they are respectful and conscientious of how can we develop without impacting the natural features of the site. We are recommending that the Planning Commission provide us with feedback. We have raised some issues within the staff report that are still of concern. The current plan that the applicant is, has submitted does not meet the intent of a planned unit development. We believe that it is doable. It just requires some additional work by the applicant. Aanenson: I’d like to just add a couple more comments. Can you go back to the slide? In looking at this project and the shoreland district, we’ve gotten feedback from the DNR that it does not meet the intent of the shoreland district so, because we believe that the single family housing product and meeting the goals of the number of units that the applicant wanted, somewhere around 16, staying at that 4 units an acre, which is low density by the City ordinance, we believe that it can fit on this site and meet the ordinance requirements, not only for the City’s ordinance but for the shoreland regs and not filling any wetlands and avoidance and meeting all that. We do believe the PUD is the right tool for the fact that in order to get th access to this site coming off of West 86 Street, to go through, to get that access you are going to impact roads, no matter what product you were to put on that site. The only way to service that via sewer would 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2013 have to come off that way so to narrow that road to less impact as we just talked about in the last application, we believe that the PUD is the right tool. The problem with the low density is it doesn’t fit within the shoreland regs. That flexibility that we have in place so the reason we were recommending the dual guiding is that if this application wasn’t to go forward and the council wanted to revisit some other application, that would give them the leeway. Again because this is concept we’re just looking for direction and what we’re telling you is that we don’t believe that under the low density that this application could go forward under that. There’s, it just doesn’t fit under the current regs but we believe getting to the 4 units an acre, keeping the 50% open space under the medium density would make some sense so with that, with some of the conditions that we put in the staff report, we would recommend kind of moving in that direction so with that, that’s kind of our position and we’re looking for some direction from you and then also from the City Council on that so, I think Sharmeen did a good job kind of explaining the issues that we have so, be happy to answer any questions you have on that. Aller: Even if we were to do or look at moving toward the…PUD with the medium density, we would still have to meet the shoreland requirements, right? Aanenson: Absolutely. Aller: ...overlay that has to be met. Aanenson: Absolutely. The difference is with, the way our shoreland ordinance is written, it’s very prescriptive as far as lot size under that low density. The medium density allows greater flexibility. It’s similar to what we did up on, up on the 2005 MUSA area. We have some of those lot sizes are different so it would still accommodate the single family home. We’d keep the buffers and the setbacks in the preservation area but allows for a smaller lot. It would meet the goals of trying to provide a single family lot so it doesn’t have to be a 15,000 lot. It might be a 11,000 or a 12,000 square foot lot. Similar to what Ryland just did. Excuse me, what Lennar just did across the street and so. Aller: Even at the medium density which allows for flexibility, it allows us to move the lot sizes and the structure on the lot. But I don’t see, based on the map that’s in front of us where we would be getting 15 units. Aanenson: What you’re looking at now is you’re looking at it as it’s laid out meeting the larger lot. If you were to go similar to what Lennar has across the street, which is the similar property, with also some of those lots fell within the shoreland. That was the RLM which allowed you to go as small as. Al-Jaff: 9,000 square feet. Aanenson: Yeah. Al-Jaff: And 63 or 64. Aanenson: Yeah, 65. I don’t think they were that small in that subdivision. Al-Jaff: Correct. Aanenson: But they were selling very well there so we believe that, based on the house plans that were submitted, and reconfiguring that. Again that’s up to the applicant to do that but we believe it can be met based on that and without impacting, meeting the ordinance requirements. Aller: And we’re here for concept purposes. 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2013 Aanenson: Correct. Aller: We’re not here to make a decision or say that this plan is set in stone or even moving forward because it’s really up to the developer to take the comments… Aanenson: That’s correct but I guess what we’re saying is under the, under the low density or the application that came in, we don’t believe that could advance solely on, the other path that could be taken which we’re asking your feedback on is to go towards the re-guiding of the property. Then again it would have to come back through for a public hearing but just to get your read on that. Aller: And then with some of the other issues that are in the staff report that I would see this coming forward with the hardscape requirements at 50%. With driveways and garages or patios, are going to need to meet that? Al-Jaff: They will have to provide us with all of that information so the next step will be figuring out exactly where that 50% open space is and then calculate the hard surface coverage on the site, and that would be part of the planned unit development regulations that we would put together should this project move forward. Aller: Any other questions at this point? The applicant wish to come forward and make a presentation? Welcome sir. Come forward, state your name and address for the record. John Knoblauch: Chairman Aller, staff and the Planning Commission, my name is John Knoblauch. I live at 1450 Knob Hill Lane, Excelsior, Minnesota. I’m the applicant for the Preserve at Rice Lake. Couple comments. This property, the landowner has drawn somewhere in the neighborhood of 12 different drawings on this subject parcel here we’re working on. Staff’s done a great job trying to work with myself in this challenging piece of property, but we have drawn about, I think we’re on our eleventh shot at this as far as working with staff and trying to make a project that makes sense. The new drawing that we submitted on Monday is not shown here and that would fall closer to Kate’s comments of the lots are 10,000 square feet. There’s 16 lots. They meet the 4 units per acre of developable land. We have a total wetland impact I believe of point, on that new drawing I think it’s .14 total and seems to be pretty close to, pretty close to what I think is a very doable project for us. So yes, we would like to ask to switch to that medium density situation so that we can proceed and work with staff to try to massage this to get it to work. The wetland impacts, just the drawing up there obviously is a little exaggerated because of the bigger lots. The V that you see coming with some red and orange, which are the buffers for the wetlands, just to make you aware. That is a 23 foot buffer so the triangle is greatly exaggerated because from the actual wetland it’d be 23 feet so those would be rounded off, just to let you know on that triangle there. We have a new drawing now that has a similar setup there in that area but we actually only have about 300 square feet of wetland that would be affected, or actually not make your buffer setback from that Type I wetland. I’m sorry, Type 3 wetland. So I’d like, I don’t think we have that from Monday? Aller: Are these wetlands delineated now? Aanenson: No, I think at this, we didn’t want to put the new plan in because I think it’s kind of a moving target. I think we’re trying to look at some of the macro issues and it’s defining the parameters of the development. The shoreland district. The impact to the wetlands. Those were kind of the driving factors. Can we get sewer to the site? How is that connection going to be made? There’s still a few question marks that need to be resolved on where that’s going to be so really the goal here is before we went into actually laying out the plat is, we believe based on the parameters that are set in place that you would have to go to a smaller lot. And even if you changed the density to medium you still have to get to 4. 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2013 You can’t go below that. So we believe that you know if we get to the 4 buildable acres at 4 units. Working through all the design, you know limitations we can make that work and the lot sizes, they’re not all going to be at 9. They’ll probably be closer to 11 or 12 I think is what we were looking at. Al-Jaff: This one is 11. Aanenson: Yeah, in area which is similar to what we just did across on 212 so. Yep, and meeting the 50% open space so it would have to meet all those regulations but we didn’t want to show that plan now because our whole staff report bases on this. Really the goal here tonight is to say, do you believe this is a reasonable way to, to proceed for this application to go forward? That’s really the goal here because I think you know we’re going to have to go through all that detail in the next iteration of the plan itself. Aller: Right, and it sounds like you’re well aware of the wetland issues, which are probably will be the biggest ones that you have to face once, regardless of the zoning. John Knoblauch: Right. Aller: You’ll have to deal with the other entities, the State entities with regard to how you’re going to put these and what impacts. John Knoblauch: Yes, no doubt and I think you know the, as far as this design, what I think it brings a couple nice things to the table I think. You know it fits well with the surrounding area. The path which would finally get connected to the east, which would be a nice trail for the neighbors. We are proposing a sound wall to continue from the townhomes to the west in similar fashion across the next to 212 which would be, we’re figuring right now, I mean we haven’t completely had noise studies. We had preliminary noise study done but somewhere in the 6 to 8 feet going across the berm, which is basically across the lower part of the drawing up on the board there. And then we’re planning on, if we can work out with staff the 16 lots, we’re planning on this parcel to the west, which actually turned out to be about an acre and a half would end up, which is good, high ground, would end up being dedicated to the City, which would be nice open space. To the, on the east side, I’m sorry. Yeah, it’s a very challenging piece of property but I think it’s a really good site for my product because I build a really nice 2,800 to 3,000 square foot two story and I think, the pad area that I’ve got figured with patio, 3 car garage will fit well underneath the 30% hard cover, including you know driveway, sidewalk and the pad sizes we drew on that sketch. On the new sketch actually mirror this house and I actually made an attempt to oversize the garage from what we normally do to make sure that staff felt comfortable that these homes that I’m proposing will have no trouble down the road and we won’t be back asking for situations that they don’t enjoy so. Any questions? Aller: Anyone? Not at this time. Thank you very much sir. Aanenson: Mr. Chair, can I just add one other point of clarification? We didn’t discuss, there’s a lot of other things that need to be, we talked about the applicant just briefly talked about the noise wall that needs to take place and we still haven’t finalized where that sewer location tie is going to be. There’s a lot of other design issues. Again we’re just kind of back talking about, is this the right way? You know we’ve worked through a lot of different designs that didn’t seem to fit so we’re just trying to decide the right path before we come back with all that detail. But there’s quite a few things that still need to be addressed. Aller: Ultimately the question is if it goes forward, the best option for it may very well be the increase to allow for a PUD at the medium density so that we don’t pigeon hole whether this goes forward but we don’t stop another person from coming in and doing something different if this one does not go forward. 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2013 Aanenson: That gives you the flexibility, that’s right. You have another public hearing on that. As you recall we changed the PUD ordinance so it can go down to the smallest is 11. It’s the frontage requirement that’s hanging us up in the shoreland district of 90 feet of frontage. That’s what’s hanging us up so. Aller: And staff is comfortable with that potential modification based on the 2030 plan and it fits. Aanenson: Correct. Again…ordinance requirements, correct. Aller: Can it be done water wise? Jeffery: Chairman Aller, I believe it can. Again it would be on the applicant to show that it can. You know there have been, I don’t what? 11 iterations now. Every one seems to get a little closer so I guess time will tell but I think there’s probably a way to make it happen. Aller: And if not this one, the flexibility would allow for another applicant to come in. It would just be a new look, a fresh look as far as you’re concerned for purposes of the impact on the wetlands. That the property. Jeffery: That is correct. That is correct. Aller: …any additional work. Okay. Let’s open up the public hearing portion. Anyone wishing to come forward, please do so. State your name and address for the record. Lots of lookers, no talkers? Welcome ma’am. Mary Muirhead: Thank you. My name is Mary Muirhead and I live at 424 Monk Court so my townhouse would directly face, it directly faces the marshland. Judging from your last comments I can’t quite tell whether development is a foregone conclusion. If I had my druthers the land would never be developed. It’s leaving an undeveloped helps my property value at a time when everyone has experienced loss in property value. I moved here from Anoka County where I was on 4 acres on the Rum River and one of the things that just astounded me was the fact that I moved down here and I actually had a sense of being more in nature than I did at the spot that I had been living and it would make me very sad to lose that. One of the, if construction is a foregone conclusion at some point in time in the future then I think my biggest problem with this development is where the road is. I mean the road cuts as close to the townhouse property line as possible and just the thought of having headlights in the evening and then additional traffic as people are going into their homes, that just is a concern to me so respectfully speaking if this didn’t go forward I would not be at all sadden. Aller: Thank you, and this is exactly what we’re here for is the concept so that the developer and the council can get impact statements from people with regard to what they feel should be done with the property so construction is never a foregone conclusion. We have to see what happens. Things have been approved and never move forward too so thank you for coming. Mary Muirhead: So then let me be that much clearer, please leave it undeveloped. Aller: Anyone else wishing to speak for or against, or commenting? Good evening. LuAnn Markgraf: Good evening. My name is LuAnn Markgraf and I live at 401 Rice Court and I’m in th the townhouse development. I’m the very last building and the unit closest to 86 so I would be definitely impacted by the entrance the way this roadway concept is designed now. I have lots of trees. 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2013 It’s not that far back to the wetland, to the pond. It’s very narrow. I mean how you could even think of even putting a narrower street in there to accommodate the wetland, plus put a sidewalk and then try to make it more attractive by putting spruce trees up so we’re not impacted by all the traffic that would be going in and out because it would be coming in and out right out, out my deck. Right straight there and there is not that much room back there. It is beautiful. I don’t understand why the entrance needs to be right there against the back of that last townhome building. I do believe from everything that I’ve read since Saturday that there is a great impact on that roadway and all that wetland that’s behind that area in that little circular area that you see there. I have lived in that townhouse since the development was first built. I’ve been there since 1996. When I was, when I first moved in there was not even one single family house and none of those homes in Mission Hills Lane were built. There has to be, this is such a great impact on the wetlands and the proximity to the townhouses and I think the association, I don’t know if they have been involved in this at all. They would need to be involved because that property line, which you had said Saturday all those trees would go. I mean that, I’ve got some big old oak trees. I’ve got a dense property on that corner right there and to have all that gone and to have all that traffic in and out, th plus I also think it would also be problems with traffic on 86 and 101. There’s already enough problems th with 86 and 101 without it being a controlled intersection. Especially coming from 212 and going north th on 101. A lot of people go through the single family homes to bypass that intersection of 86 and get onto 101 from farther down. So there is a lot of issues with this concept and just because we’re a townhouse development should not bear anything that we get the bad end. Oh, you’ll have the traffic in and out. You’ll have you know all this beautiful area, all these trees, the wetlands back there impacted. It is absolutely horrible to even think of having that on that western edge of this development. Aller: Alright, thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak for or against? Good evening sir. Steve Lehto: Good evening. My name is Steve Lehto. I live at 8591 Tigua Lane so our, my wife and I th have the property that’s in the upper right corner of the map, which abuts this property all the way to 86 so we’re going to have a lot of impact. And I’d like to echo the comments of the first person who spoke tonight that when we bought our home in the summer of 2010, one of the main reasons we fell in love with the property was the fact that it was indeed in nature and the impact of a development like this is obviously going to be significant for us. Again in line with what the first person stated, our view is that you know it would be best for us selfishly if the property were never developed but if development is truly an inevitability, we’re looking for something that is obviously going to be as, the least amount of impact obviously to our property and also to the neighborhood. I guess I don’t know what different options might exist out there. What the difference really is. We’re going to obviously have to do some research too but the difference between low and medium density, I’m not certain how that impacts potential developments that another applicant might bring before the council but in some ways it seems like this, the 11 drawings that were mentioned have gone some way to try to mitigate that impact so we’re certainly thankful for that but again if we had our druthers the property would remain a natural resource like it is now so, thank you. Aller: Alright, thank you sir. Anyone else? Arturo Urrutia: Sure. My name is Arturo Urrutia. I’m at 408 Monk Court and I think I would like to second what the previous homeowner said. One of the reasons that I purchased my townhouse was that it afforded me a nice view of the wetlands in the back, and that’s always been one of the things that I pointed out to the people that came to visit. The first time, or the first couple of months that I had guests was, look at the nice view that I have on the other side of the house. And I don’t know what the pro’s and con’s tax wise and development wise for the City would be. From a selfish homeowner standpoint, also with all due respect to the developers, I think it would be to our detriment to Mission Hills if something like this gets developed. Hopefully if something does get developed it would try to minimize the impact 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2013 traffic wise and tree wise and view wise for the current owners so I just wanted to second what other people were saying and thank you for the opportunity to express our views. Aller: Great, thank you. Anyone else? Okay, seeing no one come forward we’ll close the public hearing portion and open for comments from the commissioners. Anyone? It’s a concept hearing so. Colopoulos: Yeah, Chairman Aller you made an earlier comment about the roadway which I think is apparently of concern here regardless of what other considerations are given to the zoning itself. You know that is, off the top of my head that to me is the biggest concern. The roadway cutting across that wetlands there. I mean obviously as this plan goes forward there’s going to be several, several shall we say conflicting perceptions here. You know the views expressed by the neighbors versus the property rights of the owner of the property and their legal right to pursue application for developable plans. Where do we think the roadway issue is going to weigh in? That’s as much of a question I guess as that of a comment. I mean how much of an influence is that going to be? Aller: I think it’s going to depend on the actual plan that’s put forward. Aanenson: We just need to stay for the, you know there’s going, this property is developable and we’ve looked at all the different iterations for the roadway. I think the least amount of impact to the wetlands is in the configuration that it’s shown the access to the property. You’re coming across a larger portion of the wetland the further you move to the, to the west. Excuse me, east. So we had to place it there. Certainly I mean we haven’t looked at all the impacts of the surrounding property. That’s the first I’ve heard all those trees are coming down on the property. What would be the property. It’s on their property if the trees would come down, on the developer’s proposed property but we would look at that more closely. Colopoulos: So the concept drawing here just basically…across the wetlands and with minimum impact, that was behind that drawing there. Aanenson: I’ll let Terry answer that question. Jeffery: If I may. Terry Jeffery, Water Resources Coordinator. I’m not Krista Spreiter. It’s a little tough to hear, to see in this drawing and I intentionally overlaid the wetlands in a very transparent layer so that you could see what was beneath it but if you look at where the two red impacts are, there is actually no, there is a small bridge that exists right there. It’s two separate wetlands. One over, one over to the, yeah. Yep, there. One to the east. One to the west. Yep, yep, so to come through up here would actually result in greater impact and then to come even further north would result in property he doesn’t even have control of. Again regardless of what comes through as a final product he’s going to have to meet the Wetland Conservation Act sequencing which always look at one, avoidance. Two, minimization and three, replacement of those unavoidable impacts so, and the intent of the PUD would be that there would be that trade-off where okay, we can, you get the lots but we need to provide protections that we would not otherwise be afforded if we used standard zoning. Aller: And that’s why I don’t think it would be a bad thing to comment and pass our comment along to the council that they should potentially look at this for movement towards allowing for a PUD with medium density to allow greater flexibility so that this project, or another project can come forward and allow for greater opportunity to deal with the mitigation to those wetlands. Aanenson: If I may, I think if you look at this map that’s up on the screen right now, it’s very illustrative of the wetland impacts. What it’s not showing is the over layer of the shoreland impacts and that’s where the, where the problem aligns. As we showed on the other, other drawing, part of the property is zoned 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2013 for twinhomes so you know there are some different things. What we’re trying to do is kind of take the best of all that. Get that 50% open space. Minimize those impacts and we don’t have all that detail yet. As the applicant said we’ve already worked through a number of drawings so we’re saying we’re really not on the right path right now. Now we want to go to a different direction and try to even do a better job of trying to reduce those impacts and move forward so that’s what we’re just trying to get a read on. On that issue and just anything that we would do, whether the council would recommend would have to come back through in their process so I want to make sure the residents understand that. There’s plenty of time to work through some of those issues. Aller: Anything? Tennyson: Well that was a good reminder that it would come forward again and there’s no being stuck with the path that could be taken. Aanenson: Correct, and there’s a lot of other agencies that have review. You know the DNR. Wetland Conservation Act, all those agencies are going to have to weigh in on that so it’s going to be a little bit more work on that. Tennyson: Okay. Aller: Anything further? Hokkanen: It seems to me that it’s going to be difficult at some, I mean with all these agencies and the wetlands, changing it to medium density might be the best and flexible way to do it but I mean a couple of these lots here might not even be able to have, I mean a home based on what I see. So adding I don’t know, I mean you have to explore the options though. It’s the property owner’s right. Aller: And I think that’s, that’s what we’re here for is to comment to the council that if they’re going to redirect this and put it back and consideration could be had for the medium density allows for flexibility which would hopefully leave those areas untouched perhaps but it will depend on what comes back through. Hokkanen: Right. Okay. Aller: Okay. Colopoulos: This will be a free standing development? It’s not going to be part of a nearby association? Al-Jaff: Correct. Colopoulos: Okay. It’s a separate? Al-Jaff: Correct. Colopoulos: Development. Got it. Aller: Okay, I’ll entertain a motion to pass comments to the City Council. Tennyson: I’ll move. I’m reading two different things here. Staff recommends that the Chanhassen Planning Commission provide the City Council with comments and feedback and direct the applicant to address issues raised in the staff report dated January 15, 2013. 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2013 Hokkanen: Second. Aller: Have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Aanenson: Can I make clarification on the motion? Tennyson: Adding the comment about staff report? Aanenson: Did we get medium density in there? Aller: We probably should because there were items in the staff report that we discussed that were not… Aanenson: Okay, I guess just to make sure that we’re clear on that we’re looking at a land use, potential land use amendment, just for clarification. It’s in the staff report but I want to make sure that, I want to make sure you and I understand what you’re recommending, if that’s what your recommendation is. Tennyson: So staff report dated January 15, 2013 along with staff’s proposed comments listed in the staff report. Hokkanen: Second. Aller: And with that we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Tennyson moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission provide the City Council with comments and feedback, and direct the applicant to address issues raised in the staff report dated January 15, 2013 along with staff’s proposed comments listed in the staff report dated January 15, 2013. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Aanenson: And if I may Mr. Chair, just for the residents that are here. This item is going to the City th Council on January 28 I believe. th Al-Jaff: January 28. th Aanenson: 28, yes so these comments will be forwarded to the City Council. Again they’re going to just make a recommendation too and then it’s up to the applicant if he wants to pursue, based on whatever direction that he also gets from the City Council. Aller: So the City Council won’t actually be doing anything as far as an up or down vote unless they decide to…? Aanenson: That’s correct. Correct. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Hokkanen noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated December 4, 2012 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2013 CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE. Aanenson: Couple of things. Since we haven’t met for a month, the Comprehensive Plan regarding, amendment was done regarding the identification the collector arterials was executed. We did approve a metes and bounds subdivision. A metes and bounds subdivision just goes to the City Council if it meets rd all the requirements so we did create another lot up on West 63 Street. We also, the council also approved the Falconer variance which was on the same night as the Chanhassen Apartment. They also gave direction, a little bit more direction on that regarding transfer of density. Maybe not as much density transfer on that so probably reducing the number of units there. And somewhere 150, 160, 175 so I think the applicant is now working on that issue and we’ll see if that comes back again. To see if they work through the, with the bank and working through their Performa to see if that moves forward so, with that then the City Council then approved the fees for the next year was the final thing. I did, if I may Chairman just go through kind of we do have quite a few projects coming forward. Aller: That would be great. Aanenson: I just want to give you an idea of what’s coming forward then. You do have another th subdivision coming forward at your next Planning Commission meeting which would be February 5 so th on the 19 we will be looking at the, probably the property down at the 101/Lyman Boulevard. The Chanhassen Gateway project. We anticipate a neighborhood meeting before that and that’d be the extension of the commercial project there. We also want to kind of do a year end review with the Planning Commission and then we also anticipate doing interviews. You were notified, those of you that are up were notified and hopefully you will be reapplying. There are applications online now. You saw that in there. If you would like to do it that way. You do not have to but if you want to give that a shot, that would be great. And I also want to note that Commissioner Thomas has also stated that she will be resigning at the end of April. You know she has a busy schedule with a second child so we appreciate that she’s sticking through until we get the applicants, so it’s going to be a little challenging. Typically in the past we only have, we interview just the new people. Not the incumbents and the incumbents don’t sit in the interview so we’re going to have kind of a smaller pool. Lisa and Kathleen and Mark will be doing the interviews of the new, of the candidates so hopefully if any, if you know of anybody that’s interested in the commission and want to apply, that would be great. And then typically we have that work session in April so I’ll probably be talking to you about that. You know we’ve done engineering items. We kind of talked about some of the projects that are in the works. We did at the last Planning Commission meeting we talked about the 101 river crossing. You know that’s kind of speeding up so it might be an opportunity to get an update on that. Some other projects that we’re working on so we’ll talk about that in our work session so we’re going to come back with a work plan too for you in March and kind of get some ideas of what we’re doing. It’s going to be a busy year. We have a lot of things in the hopper. Developments. A lot of people kicking dirt around so, not only just residential, which we ended up at 185 this year. 185 single permits so we’re going to see small commercial too this next year so, kind of get everybody up to speed so that’s all I had Chairman. Aller: Great, thank you. Any additional comments? Is there a motion to adjourn? Colopoulos moved, Hokkanen seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 14