Loading...
PC 2015 02 03 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 3, 2015 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Steve Weick, Lisa Hokkanen, and Maryam Yusuh MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad and Kim Tennyson STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Public Works Director PUBLIC PRESENT: Randy Barto 400 Lakota Lane Mike Cohrs 1025 Creekwood Sam Wetterlin 6609 Dakota Trail, Edina Danny Church 608 Flying Cloud Drive Kate & Dan Smith 1020 Hesse Farm Road Stephanie Walsh 10165 Trails End Road Luke Thunberg 1701 Mayapple Pass Paul Beard 10160 Trails End Road PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, PLANNING CASE 2015-04: REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 20-ZONING OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO PERMIT THE SALE OF WINE ON GOLF COURSES LOCATED WITHIN THE AGRICULTURAL ESTATE (A2) DISTRICT. APPLICANT: MIKE COHRS, BLUFF CREEK GOLF COURSE. Aanenson: Thank you Chairman. The zoning ordinance amendment on Chapter 20 is because it’s a zoning ordinance amendment and in this section of the code a public hearing is required before the Planning Commission. There’s also another item that I did cross reference here in the staff report which I’ll discuss in a minute. That’s really under the purview of the City Council but this request, this request is for an applicant amending, to allow the sale of wine at golf courses. Golf courses are permitted in the agricultural zoning district A2 as a conditional use and the current standards addressing golf courses limits the establishment to just malt liquor. 3.2 malt liquor so the City has received a request from Bluff Creek Golf Course to amend the ordinance to allow for the sale of wine at golf courses. And so this amendment would then again, because they are operating a golf course and have seating as a part of their establishment and banqueting they want to be able to provide that. So the, I did cross reference the section of the code for licensing requirements which states you know seating of 25 people or more and there’s a percentage requirement. That’s not again, not under your purview but I wanted to explain it to you because if that was important to you making a zoning decision or not, how that would relate. Staff is recommending approval of the amendment. This would affect two golf Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 3, 2015 courses. The Bluff Creek Golf Course and Halla Greens but both of them would have to apply for that license. It doesn’t automatically grant that so with that we are recommending approval and the ordinance, proposed ordinance amendment is attached so our recommendation would then be to recommend the attached amendment to the City Council. And I’d be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Aller: I don’t have any questions and I appreciate the additional information because we like to make our decisions with all the information available so thank you. Any comments or questions from the other commissioners? Alright. Would open the public hearing on the matter and, unless the applicants wish to come forward. So we’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak either for or against the request for the amendment can do so at this time. Please come forward. State your name and address for the record. Mike Cohrs: My name is Mike Cohrs. I actually work at Bluff Creek Golf. I was the one to turn the request in. The reason that. Aller: Welcome Mr. Cohrs. Mike Cohrs: What’s that? Aller: Welcome. Mike Cohrs: Thank you. The reasons we want it primarily because the customers are demanding a change. The female golfers, we’re getting a larger proportion of them and they’re really requesting it. We really just serve beer right now. They’re kind of thinking it’s almost a discrimination against them because it’s all we serve so we’ve had a lot of requests for it so we’re trying to appease them. Next one would be just to increase our choices. With 3.2 you’ve really just got a few beer companies making 3.2 so we’re hoping to get some local companies in. You know Summit, Surly. Anything kind of Minnesota we’re trying to shoot for and then lastly just to remain competitive. It’s, most of the other courses surrounding us all have liquor license. You know we’re not asking for that but just the ability to serve something a little more that people want so just to remain competitive. Aller: Great. And my understanding is you’ll be applying for the license then if this goes through. Mike Cohrs: Yes. Aller: With the State and the City. Mike Cohrs: Yeah the exact same process, yeah. We’ll try and apply for that one. Aller: With the sales of 3.2 are you subject to spot checks as far as the guys coming in for underage drinking and services? Mike Cohrs: Yep. Yeah, at least once a year we get that. 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 3, 2015 Aller: And this is not an off sale license. This is on premises, consumption. Mike Cohrs: Just on premises only, yep. Aller: Great, thank you. Any other questions? Great, thank you. Any additional individuals wishing to come forward to speak either for or against the item? Seeing no one come forward I’ll close the public hearing. Open it up for comment. Do you feel discriminated against? Hokkanen: I’ll make a motion. Aller: Guys drink wine too. Weick: I was going to say being a heavy wine drinker myself I take note. Aller: I think it’s subject to all the rules and regulations that will be put upon them by the other ordinances and the licensing and so I think as long as they’re going to be competitive and we want people to be competitive and they’re serving alcohol already. Hokkanen: Right. Aller: It seems appropriate. Any other comments? Suggestions. Then I’ll entertain a motion. Hokkanen: I’ll move the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the ordinance amending Sections 20-258(7) of the Chanhassen City Code to permit the sale of wine on golf courses located within the Agricultural Estate District (A-2). Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Yusuf: Second. Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion? Hearing none move to the vote. Hokkanen moved, Yusuf seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the ordinance amending Sections 20-258(7) of the Chanhassen City Code to permit the sale of wine on golf courses located within the Agricultural Estate District (A-2). All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: CSAH 61 CORRIDOR, PLANNING CASE 2015-06: AMENDMENTS TO 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CHAPTER 2, LAND USE (LAND USE MAP AND FIGURES 2-1 AND 2-2). Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. The Planning Case 2015-06 is for land use amendments to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission is holding the 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 3, 2015 public hearing tonight. They act as a gate keeper for the City. One of their roles is to prepare and another is to amend the Comprehensive Plan. This is the Comprehensive Plan provides a vision for the community’s development in the future. Land uses are just guides. The zoning of the property permits the actual use of the land, piece of land. It determines the permitted uses, the setback requirements, site coverage, height, all those things. Specific things for the development of the land but the land use provides a vision, what the community will look like. It’s a general guide frame. The City did submit for jurisdictional review these land use amendments to the surrounding communities back in December. The 60 day review period ends th on February 10. So far we only received a few comments and they’re all supportive of the amendments. This property, the property within the 61 corridor is from the city limits on the east to the west side and the northern boundary of the corridor study area was, is the regional trail. Within this area there are approximately 1,455 gross acres of land. Of that the study, there’s approximately 199 acres of developable land so there’s a significant amount of reduction. Notices for this public hearing were sent to all the property owners who’s lands are specifically th being submitted, proposed for land use amendments and that was sent out on January 9. We also sent notices to everyone who was previously noticed about the corridor study which is beyond our normal limits for amendments but we wanted to, we were directed by council to be as inclusive as possible within this project. The impetus for this was a County State Aid 61 corridor land use and utility study. This was a study undertaken by the City. We had, beginning last summer. There were two open houses that were involved in it. As part of the, the first open house the primary look was at the infrastructure improvements that are involved. The major one is the 101 river crossing which is being raised. It’s one of the flood mitigation projects. It’s being raised out of the 100 year flood elevation. The roadway will be widen to 4 lanes and a bike trail, bike/pedestrian trail will be included as a part of that improvement. The other one is County State Aid Highway and Carver County which is being improved for traffic flow and as part of that there will be two roundabouts provided. One at 101. At the end of 101 at 61 and the other one at Bluff Creek Drive. The City Engineer Paul Oehme is here if anyone has specific questions on that project. The other, County State Aid 61 is also being upgraded in Hennepin County up to Flying Cloud Drive. As part of that project they would improve traffic flow as well as putting portions of the 61 corridor above the 100 year flood elevation. Additionally as part of this study the City looked at extension of utility services down to serve the properties within the Minnesota River Valley. Again this is the study area corridor. It’s from the eastern to the western city boundaries and it uses the rail, or the trail corridor as the north limits and the city’s boundaries on the south side. As I stated there’s approximately 199 developable acres within this corridor. The constraints on most of these properties are there’s a significant bluff areas on the north end of many of the properties. There’s wetlands including the Seminary Fen. The flood plain south of County State Aid 61 and Assumption Creek which runs east and west across the western portion of this property. Again the river crossing and County State Aid 61 project were one of the impetus for this. This will open up southern Chanhassen for transportation corridor and this becomes one of the gateways in the community. The City wanted to look at making this, how we can make this the best gateway that we can on the southern part of the city. Again the flood mitigation project, 4 lanes 101 across the river provides bike and pedestrian path and is above the 100 year flood elevation. The utility study as part of the corridor study was prepared by Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. It looked at the feasibility for extending sewer and water service down to the Minnesota River Valley. As part of that they looked at the capacity that would be needed based on the land uses and what the general, the trunk main infrastructure 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 3, 2015 improvements would be. The study did show that it would be feasible to extend sewer down into the river valley. Additionally as part of the water extension the City would look at providing a loop system so that if one side or the other was ever blocked for a while we would still have flow for emergency purposes and for potable drinking services. Again this looked as to be a feasible alternative and unfortunately this is turned sideways. North is to the right on this but it shows a realignment of 101 down to Minnesota River, into the Minnesota River Valley. The City did submit this and Carver County, in conjunction with Carver County are submitting this for federal funding to get the improvements going forward. If, at the earliest that this project could go forward would be in 2018 if we get federal funding. Otherwise as part of turnback dollars there aren’t any available for the next 10 years so what this does is basically the south end would be moved over to where the roundabout would be as part of the County State Aid 61 improvement project. It would go just to the west of the existing, there’s that dog kennel down in the river valley. Aanenson: Can I just clarify one thing too. Just to that 101 project is no way linked to the land use recommendations that we’re making tonight. We’re still going to go forward with the land use but their timing’s are different. The City Engineer may talk about that in a little bit more detail but they’re independent of each other, those decisions. Generous: Okay and then this is the actual land use amendments that we’re looking at. The top map shows the current land use designation for the property. Oh I should point out that I provided 5 emails that were submitted after our reports went out. Four of the properties deal with the Moon Valley area. The property owner’s preferences would be that this be designated for parks and open space use. However I wanted to point out that this as part of the previous Comprehensive Plan that was approved 10 years ago the land use was high density residential in this area so we’re not proposing any specific changes for the Moon Valley area. They own additional land on the very west end and that’s being included as part of these amendments. In reviewing the potential land uses within this area the City hired Hoisington-Koegler Group to do a parcel by parcel analysis of the land within there looking at the constraints. As part of the land use designation the City uses for residential medium density, densities of 4 to 8 units per net acre so we would take out any undevelopable land in determining the number of units that would be permitted. Again there’s a difference between land use and zoning. Under the residential medium density you could use R-4 zoning would be consistent. R-8 zoning would be consistent. PUD-R would be consistent so it really depends on the specific project as to what the density, or what type of development would take place. At this point we’re not looking at that specific idea. We have some general outlines of how it could develop but we’re not going to control that now. We’re just looking at the guiding of the land. And then finally the mixed use development, the City’s using the idea that it would be a 70 percent residential and 30 percent commercial mix. We’re looking at providing convenience access for residents in that area but again we don’t have any specific development scenarios in mind and that would be in the future when the City would review that when development potential increases with sewer and water. We divided the amendments into 8 areas to make it easier to review. Map area 1 is the most westerly area that’s being proposed for amendments and the north side of Flying Cloud Drive from the city boundary to approximately where the old Assumption Seminary used to be. Within this area there are 5 properties of which 3 are owned by the same firm, High Terrace and they, High Terrace did provide an email to note that they have questions about the Assumption Creek going through 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 3, 2015 their property. At present Assumption Creek is designated as a creek by the DNR and so we’d have to abide by their jurisdictional requirements. And on the very north end there are portions of the Seminary Fen. We are recommending approval of a land use amendment from office to residential medium density for this area. And then we did look at specifically, our preference for development would be that how the development would be maintained south of the creek corridor and that the north end would be preserved as permanent open space. However at this time there’s no way to control that because we would need to wait for the development to actually come in and that’s property owner driven. However there are advantages to compacting this development. They would have reduced infrastructure costs as part of their project and we’d have additional preservation of natural resources on the land by not having to grade on the hillier side of the property which could drain into Assumption Creek. Audience: Could you repeat that last board please? Generous: There are benefits to not developing north of Assumption Creek. They include reduced infrastructure cost and reduced environmental impacts to the property, specifically stormwater runoff and grading issues, erosion issues into the creek for development north of the creek. Additionally this land could be revegetated if you will and turn back into more native species so there are some positive benefits and they could recoup their development costs by transferring density from the north side of the land to the south side. Map area 2 is just to the north, northeast of the map area 1. This area is being proposed from land use amendment from office to parks and open space. Of the 5 properties within this area, 4 are owned by public entities. The City has one and then the DNR has 3 of them. There is one small piece on the immediate, on the east end of this area that is under private ownership but that is in a wetland area. This is where the Seminary Fen is located in the community and so it’s meadow and swamp, shrub swamp wetlands within this area. Okay map area 3 consists of two properties. It’s just north of the previous area. The amendment is from residential large lot to residential medium density. This property has wetlands on the western portion of the property. 25.03505000 is the PID number. Access would be off of Bluff Creek Drive. The second property is the old bed and breakfast site so really this area would make sense to, all of the areas would make sense to be developed in conjunction with each other. Again residential medium density is 4 to 8 units per acre so it’s most likely some type of townhouse project but it could be something else under planned development. Map area 4 is on the east side of Bluff Creek Drive. It consists of two properties. The recommendation is to amend from office to residential medium density. This easterly property is actually connected under the same PID with this westerly piece. There is significant slope area throughout the middle of this property and on the north side of this land so development would be concentrated on the south end and potentially up in the north end of this property. The steep slopes are the significant feature on this site and there’s potentially bluff in that area. Under city ordinances bluff are defined as having an elevation change of 25 feet or more and a slope of 30 percent or greater so it has to have both of those conditions and then there are setback requirements from the top and bottom of a bluff. This is, I put this in this location because it adds map area 4 which was the one we just reviewed and map area 5 which is to the east. It shows a concept development for this area where you’d have medium density on the west end below the bluff and then a mix of multi-family and commercial uses on the east end. Map area 5, which is, there we go. Next it consists of 3 properties. One is the garden center site. The other one is a small homestead which numerous out buildings and 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 3, 2015 then there’s a little remnant piece up in the corner of this. This area is proposed for amendment from office to mixed use. It will really be different because as part of the 101 realignment on the north side the road would come, be pushed over to the east so these properties would actually be connected to the west side without this street in place. As we move to map area 6 this is on the east side of existing 101. It consists of 4 properties. The proposal is to amend from office industrial to mixed use. It consists of, there’s a trailer site in here and some cabins. This little piece we found as part of this process is owned by the DNR and then this is the kennel and then the stable site. Again the realigned 101 will come close to this area into the roundabout which is down in the wye area. The next area is map area 7. It’s to the east of the previous area. It consists of 8 properties and it’s amended from office industrial to residential high density. I put this red line in to show there’s approximately split because on, east of this line it’s already guided for residential high density. West of this line it’s guided for office industrial use. As part of the City’s ongoing review of land uses it’s been determined that we don’t believe we have enough demand for all this industrial. Office and industrial land down here. However we do know that there’s a demand for residential in the community and these are high amenity sites with, on the north end you have steep slopes and then to the south you look across in the Minnesota River Valley. Now the Moon Valley site, while it’s not part of the development sort of provides an idea of how this area could develop. Would be a mix of housing types. In this instance we’re looking at some high density residential apartments or condominiums with a street system in place. This is within, as part of the mining operation at Moon Valley they are creating approximately a 14 acre flat site in the bottom of the slope and then they have 2 ½ to 1 slopes up to the north. Additionally on the south side of this property there is significant hills that would be preserved. As part of the 61 project they would be putting in retaining walls. Additionally as part of the 61 project there’d be a trail system that would connect to the City’s 101 and the new river crossing. This is a general cross section of how that type of development would look. The bluff on the north side would be preserved. The flat area in the middle would be developed with a public street system or even a private street depending on the ultimate development and then preservation of the hilly area or bluff in the front of the property. This just shows immediately to the east of Moon Valley is the Richard T. Anderson Conservation Area in Eden Prairie. This was, we believe it was donated because of the steep slopes. There’s probably bluffs in here and ravine system that was undevelopable so they did development on the top of the bluff and then this is all permanent open space. Aanenson: We put the last two slides in there because the letters that we received is why didn’t the City do the same thing. It has been zoned as high density for quite a while. There was litigation with the Moon Valley site. They have been providing that 14 acre site to try to develop that. That’s always been in their plans. The previous slide tried to show what you’d see on the top and we showed those at the neighborhood meetings too. Can you go back to the other slide quick? So you can see if you’re at the top of Settlers West you’re actually looking over the tops of those buildings for the height requirement and 3 stories so, these are a little bit different. You know the Eden Prairie because at the bluff ordinance that they may have unbuildable then typically we’ve had those situations. Whether it’s a wetland or like that they may dedicate that to the City. The open or count it towards their green space so this is a little bit different in the fact that we’ve already got it high density and we’re not proposing to change. Nor would we recommend down zoning it. There was a question asked, why wouldn’t the City buy the property and it has a lot of value. Someone would also have to go back and try to re-establish 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 3, 2015 those slopes. With the development proposal then you would get part of that reclamation. Re- grading the slopes. It’s our understanding that once the 61 corridor study is, I mean the corridor is constructed then they should be pretty much done with their mining and working on the re- establishment of that reclamation plan and so any proposed development then would be waiting for sewer and water and then they would get the revegetation and get that property in a good stable working order. Generous: My computer’s been slow all day. Map area 8 consists of 2 properties on the south side of Flying Cloud Drive east of the wye. The proposed amendment is from office industrial to parks and open space. Currently one of these properties has a auto dealership and the second property is a motel. Part of the reason for designating this is because this is right adjacent to the flood plain. There have been instances where this area floods out. We believe long term this would be a nice trail head for any people accessing the wildlife areas that surround these properties. Aanenson: Let me just comment too a little bit on that because we’ve been asked this question. Bob and I met with some of the property owners down there. There’s uses down there that would remain the way they are. No one’s intending to buy any properties at this time. They can continue to operate the way they are. They would just become non-conforming which some of them are already so as long as they continued to operate that way. Even if they change hands, someone was to buy them and operate them the same way, they would continue going that way in perpetuity. In the past some of the RGU area, there’s a couple other fish and wild that has property down there, has acquired some of those properties along the corridor and so that’s always a potential that the private property owner would work to have those acquired but it’s not our intent to buy anybody out. They would just continue to operate the way they are and that would be for anybody else that we’re recommending a land use change at this time too. Aller: So just to clarify that for anybody that’s watching or in the room or for us, only if the use changes. Aanenson: That’s correct. Aller: Is there an impact on a non-conforming use. They would be allowed to, for instance the motel would be allowed to operate as a motel for as long as it wants to be a motel and can remain viable for that owner. Aanenson: That’s correct and continue to maintain their property and make changes that they need to. Aller: If they modify the use to some other use, they want to run a car dealership like the guy next door, that’s a different use. Aanenson: Correct. Aller: Then there would be a problem with that use. 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 3, 2015 Aanenson: That’s correct. Aller: Okay. Weick: You could sell, the current owner could sell the property correct? Aanenson: Absolutely. Weick: And the new owner could continue to operate it as a motel. Aanenson: Absolutely, yeah. As long as it stays the way it is, yep. The use. It can change hands. Weick: Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Generous: Then the final area is map area 9. It’s one property. It’s the auto salvage yard on the west end of Flying Cloud Drive. On the south side of Flying Cloud Drive. Or the east end of Flying Cloud Drive, I’m sorry. The proposed amendment is from office industrial to parks and open space. Again for the same reason, this is surrounded by State and Federal wildlife land and we believe that long term this would be a good candidate for being incorporated as part of that. And then the Figure 2-1 of the, is a land use table in 5 year increments. We have to amend this because with the changes to the land use as the totals change by what the specific land use are there so we tracked this out to the 2030. Within the 2030 plan the assumption is full development. However with our update these numbers will be revised. However we will use the total numbers that we have established. And then Figure 2.2 just shows what the cumulative land use of each of the various land uses within the community are. Again this is based on approving the amendments that were proposed as part of the County Road 61 corridor study. And then finally staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of these amendments to City Council. And with that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Aller: Great. Questions from anyone having read the packet? Weick: I do. Aller: Go ahead Commissioner Weick. Weick: Yeah, I have a couple actually. Could we go, to this one if we could. The before and after. I’m unclear on the Moon Valley. Could you point to, is that in 7? Map area 7. Generous: Moon Valley doesn’t even show up on this. Weick: Got it, okay. Generous: It’s this property here and it comes over slightly into this. 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 3, 2015 Weick: Okay. Generous: This is that line that I, that red line that I showed for map area 7. It’s the western edge of the existing high density residential. Weick: Right. Okay. Generous: Which yeah, it would correspond through this line here. Weick: Okay. Generous: Right. Then there is one other thing. An existing land use there’s a little asterisk that’s shown around the wye area. Aanenson: It’s not on this. Generous: It’s not on this map but it shows up and it’s for some support commercial that the City envisioned would be appropriate down in this area but it didn’t specify any specific properties that that would go on. It again would be development driven. The mixed use land use actually picks that idea up and the portions of the properties that are on either side of 101. Weick: And then the, you mentioned that the sewer and water is not related to the land use. Is it related to the 101? Aanenson: No I just wanted to say that we’re going forward with those. We’re not waiting for the road to come through. I think I’ll let the City Engineer talk a little bit about, in order for this to develop, for those land uses to change sewer and water need to be provided and also 101 needs to be upgraded so we’re working on those but I’ll let the City Engineer maybe talk a little bit about. Aller: And before we turn to Paul we did have open houses on the issue of the water and land use as well. Aanenson: Yep. Yes. Aller: Because I remember attending them and they were pretty well attended by our residents which was great. Aanenson: Yep. Aller: So maybe you could address that as well while you go through your presentation. Oehme: So thank you commission members. In conjunction with this corridor study along 61 the city staff did review the feasibility of extending sewer and water along 61 there. The caveat is that 101 up the bluff to Pioneer Trail really needs to be upgraded before any of the utilities or 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 3, 2015 any potential urban development can take place down here. The 101 would serve as our main utility corridor. That’s been planned in our comp plan for 20 years for that so we’ll, we’d have to make those improvements prior to any really improvements on 61 so the City is studying the feasibility of improvements to 101 between Pioneer Trail and 61. We just kicked off a project a couple months ago with the County, Carver County and MnDOT as our partners. We’re going to be having open houses on this corridor here in the near future. Sometime probably actually end of February we’re going to have our first one and we hope to have an alignment, a chosen alignment picked by the end of the year. We are looking at you know several options for alignments to 101. The County, MnDOT have designed the 61 roundabout at the bottom of the bluff to accommodate the connection to 101 going up the bluff. You know obviously that hasn’t been determined yet but it seems logical to tie into that point when 101 is improved so a lot of unknowns yet in terms of when that corridor is going to be reconstructed and improved but again I just wanted to reiterate that that, the 101 corridor really has to be improved before any of the improvements on 61 are taken care of. Aller: So this basically going through the same process we did with the original bridge and the corridor. We’re having meetings. We looking at different options. Oehme: Yep. Aller: And then they’ll be narrowed down by the feasibility studies that are performed. Oehme: Correct. You know we’re going to have a lot of public input in the process as well too so, and just going through the normal process that the City does with, especially this is going to get an environmental assessment worksheet that we’re going to be working through so there’s a lot of steps that we have to follow to get that document approved. Aanenson: If I could add Paul, and you can follow up with what I say but Paul presented the options to the City Council discussing what he’s going to do with this process but also the council did ask if, kind of what we did on 212. We provided some utility sleeves and some piping. It wouldn’t obviously be available because there’s no sewer and water there yet but, so you wouldn’t have to go back and so we’re trying to think ahead to prepare that. If you look at the sewer lines. The other thing that we talked about at the neighborhood meetings too is if the water were to come down Bluff Creek Drive. Now today those larger lots that are in the Hesse Farm area may not need that water but in 10-15-20 years so you know planning, thinking ahead. That provides a secondary access for those so those are some of the thoughts that we had so you can see the loop system. I don’t know if you want to say anything else on that Paul. Oehme: Yeah so the goal is to always try to have a loop system for potable water for development purposes. For redundancy and for water pressure and several other reasons but so this is what’s in our vision to service this area. Obviously we’re still in the beginning stages of it as well. There’s a lot of more study that has to be done with it but under the 61 corridor study we just wanted to get kind of a high level of what if and how much would it cost and is it even cost effective and feasible to bring utilities down to this corridor. 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 3, 2015 Aanenson: And then if I could just add one other thing. The City’s not planning a project. This is all development driven and there’s things that happen, that need to happen north of this area. Some of those properties that are north of this area need to development to provide the municipal services, sewer and water as they work their way down so the City has no plans to say this property is going to develop tomorrow. What we’re doing is providing the platform. Looking at those areas as people are coming across the bridge. Looking at those opportunities for land along the corridor to say we’ve got a plan in place. It may not happen today or tomorrow but we’ve got a longer term vision for that area to look at some of those uses that are down there. Oehme: And then one other point too. 101 between Pioneer Trail and 61 there’s no funding available right now for construction so, and design work so we’re, there’s no tentative date for when that road would be improved so there’s no, there’s no plans for it so that’s something that the City is going to just be monitoring with the County and MnDOT. Aller: Thank you. Questions? Great. With that I’ll open up the public hearing. We have plenty of individuals here today so please take your time. State your name and address for the record. Come forward and let us know how you feel about the project, either for or against or make comments, that would be great. Anyone interested in coming forward? Welcome sir. Paul Beard: Thank you. My name is Paul Beard. I’m one of two property owners that are to the north of Moon Valley. Bob and Kate, I’ve got more questions and comments. Could you explain to a little bit higher degree of specificity relative to the amendment that you’re referring to, how that impacts that. Aanenson: I’m not sure I understand your question. What your question is. Aller: I think the question is, is what is before us today, this amendment going to impact Moon Valley at all and if so how. Aanenson: Well the land use that is there today is what we’re recommending not changing. So it’s high density today. It’s, we’re recommending high density in the future so there’s a 14 acre area that they’ve graded that we anticipate the building footprint would sit on so that wouldn’t be any different than it was in the past. Paul Beard: Okay and who funds the sewer and water to come down? Aanenson: The developer. It’s all development driven. Paul Beard: Okay so it will not be taxpayers? Generous: Property owners. Aanenson: Property owners yeah. Paul Beard: Okay so is that taxable then? 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 3, 2015 Oehme: Did you want to address that Paul? Oehme: So the way the City extends utilities for these type of areas is the City funds typically the trunk oversizing cost for the pipes and sewers and what have you and then the lateral costs are assessed back to the benefiting property owners so the City typically, since there is multi- properties involved with this, it’s typically a larger project that has to come forward. The City may take the lead on a project like that to extend it to this area so typically there’s assessment costs for a majority of that utilities that would go in there. The City would typically pay for the trunk over sizing of the larger pipes that would go in there but that cost is offset by our utility rates for hook-up charges for new developments so typically it would go back to the benefiting property owners when the developer or the builder would come in and connect to our service. That’s how we pay for the trunks. Aller: So what I’m hearing is that the City would almost act like a bank for purposes of financing the construction and then the tie in’s for individual homeowners or the developer comes in and does a building and all the buildings that are tied in, he’ll pay a fee and the City would recoup the money then. Oehme: Correct. The City would recoup the money for the trunk oversizing cost at that time. Aller: And that’s pretty standard for all our developments? Oehme: Yeah this is the same model that we used for the 2005 MUSA area if you recall. Basically the City went and took the lead on extending the sewer and water in that area. Assessed a majority of the utilities and the infrastructure back to the benefiting property owners out there. Developers came in and developed that area and then we recouped those costs through assessments and then hook-up charges. Paul Beard: And you had mentioned, it was real brief, 2 ½ acres on the upper slope. So there’s 14 acres developable at the bottom and then you said 2 ½ on the upward slope. Can you talk to that? Generous: No, 2.5 slope, degree of slope. It’s 2 ½ to 1. It’s pretty steep up there. It’s over 30 percent. Paul Beard: Yeah. Well that’s where my house is. Generous: Yeah and that would be preserved as permanent open space. Paul Beard: Okay. And what, so this is new for me. Had I known this I wouldn’t have bought the lot let alone build the house I built. With that said what is the City willing to do relative to the negative impact it will have on property owners such as myself and my neighbor over here. Aanenson: Sure. That, that was used as a rifle range when that subdivision went in so we cleaned it all up so I think it’s moving in a positive direction. All that was in place. The Moon Valley site was there when you bought your house so. 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 3, 2015 Paul Beard: So I grew up around here. Aanenson: And the mineral extraction has been operating out of that for a long, long time so that hasn’t changed. Paul Beard: I zeroed in rifles there as a boy and the hill that you’re referring to that you cleaned up, it’s impossible. It’s on the upward slope is where you’d fire your gun until, it’s too steep to put anything, any form of a bulldozer or anything like that through it. Had there been environmental studies done? Aanenson: Yes. They’ve actually got, they did clean up, get all the lead out so, so. Aller: And I think what I’m hearing is and what I see this as is a guiding zoning, or guiding ordinance to allow for zoning or allow for someone to come in later on and develop and that developer would then have to clean up or work with the City to clean up to make sure that it’s appropriate. The guidance that we’re giving in that area in this particular instance I believe since we’re upgrading for purposes of open space or down zoning from commercial to a property use that is beneficial to you and hopefully increase your property value. I’m not a soothsayer but I would hope that that’s the general principle that I’m looking at. Paul Beard: Alright and as someone who is in real estate I would typically completely disagree with what you just said because you put high density residential housing in an area that’s directly behind an area of pretty expensive homes and we pay a fair amount of tax dollars to the city and county as a result of that. It could have I mean in the hundreds of thousands and if it were any of your homes I think you’d look at this a lot different so thank you. Aller: Thank you. Yes, Commissioner Hokkanen. Hokkanen: Excuse me… Aanenson: It’s pretty significant and also the distance. Hokkanen: Do we have a feet? Aanenson: Yeah. Generous: Well as part of the review. Hokkanen: I know it’s in here somewhere. Generous: It’s about a hundred foot elevation drop from the top to the bottom. Aanenson: Yeah so. Aller: My understanding is the drawing is fairly to scale. 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 3, 2015 Aanenson: It is. Hokkanen: Yeah. Aanenson: Yes it is. Aller: And you’re looking… Hokkanen: It’s not directly behind. It’s below. Aanenson: Correct. You’re looking over the top of it. You know so if the building top at 35 feet, you’ve still got 50 feet. You’re looking over the top of it so you wouldn’t really see it and then all the landscaping so the separation between the house and the building itself is at least 100 feet also. Hokkanen: So it’s not directly behind. It’s below and behind. Aanenson: Correct. Hokkanen: Just want to clarify. Aller: Thank you. Sir. Dan Smith: Thank you. For the record Dan Smith, 1020 Hesse Farm Road. Aller: Welcome Mr. Smith. Dan Smith: Thank you. And I guess my questions are primarily on the impact to the water table and pumping and additional water demand should the City move to put city water down into that region and the potential impact on our water table and our well so can I get some understanding before I make another statement on the impact on the water table and the aquifer of putting in this kind of an extension on the City’s water system. Oehme: Sure, commission members. Aller: Thank you Mr. Oehme. Oehme: So the, and I’m not sure how deep your well is. Our, the City’s well is, are typically about 500 feet deep. They’re in the Jordan Aquifer. The nearest well in this area is north of Lake Susan Drive. Is not even shown on this map here so north of Lake Susan Drive, off of Lake Drive. Most of our wells are north of Highway 5. Our future well fields are going to be up by Galpin and Highway 41 so not in anywhere in this area. Working with the DNR we are staying off, out of this area just because of potential impacts to the Seminary Fen so there are high capacity wells in this area. I know there’s a couple in Chaska. I know the golf courses have 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 3, 2015 a couple of those so there might be some local draw down’s because of those wells but in terms of impacts from city uses they would be negligible in this area. Dan Smith: Okay. A related question perhaps. There have certainly been rumors that the extension of utilities in the area, particularly water are to a great extent to support the needs of the pickle operation on the western end of the city. Can you give, shed any light on that? Oehme: Sure. So I mean the study that we embarked on with the 61 corridor study was to look at the feasibility of servicing the whole corridor. Not just Gedney Pickle so we looked at everything from the east border of Chanhassen to the west border so it wasn’t specifically to service just one particular property owner or one particular business. It was to service the whole, entire corridor. Dan Smith: Okay. Thank you for the explanations. I would just suggest that for the City Council, you had stated that much of this plan was to an extent or to look at the new entrance into the city from the south. I might suggest that there are members of your population who look at this as an opportunity to preserve wild space and that the extensive development you’re proposing would detract and so I would be disappointed if you move forward with the project as proposed. Aller: Thank you. Just for my clarification. There are no projects now running correct? As far as changing or developing any of these parcels. On any parcels. Aanenson: No. Aller: And is there, I mean technically other than the guidance of the ordinance is there any development that couldn’t be done now? That would be done under these ordinances, if I’m stating that correctly. Is it, are these ordinances stopping anyone from developing? To a higher degree. To a higher level. Aanenson: Yes. Well I mean you have to have municipal services to go to a higher level of degree. That’d be one thing. There is, the BF zoning districts down there now that does allow some storage units and that sort of thing so I think part of the goal there is there’s some uses that have conditional uses or they may have an interim use permit until such time a higher and better use comes along. That was intended. Some uses that, if there were municipal services would be higher degree of architecture. We pointed out one thing in the staff report but some of the vision also was to, you know also you have a different tax base when some of those went in there. Just a cold storage building as opposed to a nice office building with settings and I think, well I know we have a good standard of matching buildings into the settings. You know whether it’s wetlands or slopes. How we minimize grading. Those sort of things so I think we do a good job and through this study and the meetings that we have with the individual property owners showing the three illustratives on those properties and how they could potentially be developed. Again we’re not here to say what exactly is going to happen on those properties. We had requested that we would like senior housing. Well the market kind of looks at some of those things. We’re just saying that this would be the density and this would be the appropriate use. When we did the Comprehensive Plan in 2008 we put a lot of office down there thinking that 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 3, 2015 that might be a good corporate steward. Thinking about, this is even before the Seminary Fen was purchased that we had this in place thinking that maybe an office building would be a good corporate steward of the property. They would have maybe preservation of some of their’s and in looking at that really it was kind of like a holding so we weren’t really sure what was going to happen or could we do something else down there so undertaking this study whether or not municipal services could be provided allowed for some other land uses that would also be a smaller footprint. More flexibility when you look at housing as opposed to a big office, industrial type use and as Bob indicated we do have quite a bit of that already so that was some of the factors that went into that. Aller: Okay thank you because I noted from the report and the study it seemed as though we really narrowly defined what was buildable area here to protect and preserve as much of the fen and as much of the Rice Creek area and the watersheds as we could. So that I thought was a really good analysis. Aanenson: Right. The map that we’re showing there right now is the buildable area. We narrowed that down and we’re very specific on taking out those slopes and those, that was part of the study too. To look at that to say you know, if we take out the, be clear and transparent on what’s buildable on there to show that. You know there’s a lot of acreage that’s unused because of the sensitivity. Aller: Thank you. Any other individuals wishing to come forward, speak either for or against. Thank you. Come on up and state your name and address for the record. Stephanie Walsh: Hi, I’m Stephanie Walsh and I would be against the proposed development and I have some clarifying questions for you. Aller: Okay and did we get a letter from you as well? Stephanie Walsh: Pardon? Aller: Did we get a letter from you as well? Stephanie Walsh: You got a letter from me, yes. Aller: Okay, so that is part of the record so you know we did get it. Stephanie Walsh: Yep, 10165 Trails End Road. I’m the property north of Moon Valley. I’m one of the neighbors of Paul who already spoke. Also just reiterating everything that Paul said. That it would decrease my property values considerably. My other questions are, I keep hearing about the funding on Highway 101 and it’s sort of a big question mark and we’re not getting the funding right now and there’s other sources and then there’s funding that’s not available for 10 years. Am I understanding that correctly and then I read in the, one of the plans that if the funding wasn’t secured or wasn’t possible then the zoning of Moon Valley would go back to residential and use it’s own sewer and water. Do I have that, am I understanding that or can you add some more clarification to the process. 17 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 3, 2015 Aanenson: If in the future sewer and water never got down there, we’d look at something else but we believe it’s going to be. You know our Comprehensive Plan for the next iteration goes out to 2040. The plan we’re working under right now is the 2030 plan so the environmental assessment that Paul, the City Engineer was just talking about was getting the environmental documents in place so we are in alignment for funding. If you look at the, what was done north between Pioneer Trail and Lyman, that section was just rebuilt and they did the same thing. They put the environmental documents together and were able to secure funding for that corridor. You have a lot of trips that are coming up over the river and now cannot go north and if you look at the rest of the city and the potential growth, we talked about the lifestyle center. Some of the regional commercial. There’s a demand to go up that. There’s a lot of accidents on that segment of road so that is a priority to get the funding for that. Stephanie Walsh: Okay. So the next opportunity for looking at any changes would be with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan? Aanenson: Well this is the change right now we’re proposing now in the 20, we’ll be starting the next Comprehensive Plan update and be submitted in 2018. Generous: 2018. Aller: 2018. Aanenson: 2018. We’ll be having hearings before that to review that but part of this is as the road gets opened up there’s going to be a lot of speculation on people trying to come in and have individual parcels and it’s always better to have, look at it as a whole as opposed to individual people trying to come in and make minor changes which could happen. The council saw that as looking at it cohesively. Again the Moon Valley site has been guided high density and we’re not recommending changing that at this time. Stephanie Walsh: The one thing that I do find encouraging is on your map is when you did your first Comprehensive Plan, the western side you had planned for a lot more opportunities of office and you’ve kind of pulled that back so I’m encouraged that actually it’s a guide and there are changes that are happening. I would like to cross my fingers and have you relook at the zoning of Moon Valley. Looking at a 3 story apartment and I think in your graphic on slide 7, if you can go to that. You have, yep. Go back one if you would. You have 4 pretty massive buildings right there and I was just looking around today when I was driving around kind of going what does a 3 story apartment building look like from an elevation standpoint and I was actually pointing out to one of my neighbors, I’m like that’s exactly what would be there. They are huge in elevation so I will be seeing that and I know, I had a conversation with you on the phone because I was also concerned about, we have the trail system. We have the Richard T. Anderson trail system. We already have informal trails that have been off of that so we have you know foot traffic going through to the Settlers West development and you had said that there was no plans on connecting those trails and then today by other comments I heard there were plans on connecting those trails. 18 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 3, 2015 Aanenson: You asked, I think your question was would we be connecting you, this neighborhood to that, to the north. There could be a connection to the trail going, the Hennepin County trail there. Sure, I think we would look at something like that. Stephanie Walsh: Yeah, and then that comes to the right, that comes straight to our development so as far as foot traffic like up to 400 units. 800 to 1,000 people I’m just guessing. Rough math and that is a pretty relatively small area. You know I look out my house and so to look at the impact, that would be a huge impact to not only my house, to our development and so my other question of process is, I know that this is a fluid process but what would it take from a community standpoint to amend it? Can I propose an amendment? Can I petition with my neighbors? I know a lot of people, we had the open houses but there are so many moving parts with these projects of 61, 101. People are getting the little postcard and they have no idea what it, you can’t even see the graphic on what it means or what… Aanenson: Yeah, that’s why we always invite people to call, which you have and we’ve been working on this since, well all summer. I think we had the first open house in the spring so, you certainly can recommend to the Planning Commission that you don’t support the change and they’ll make a recommendation to City Council. Ultimately it’s the City Council that would support that. Whether it be an office park. If it’s 3 or 4 stories which an office park could be also so it’s 14 acres so I’m trying to compare an office park. That’d be something like what CSM might have on the western edge of the city or you know we’ve got other office parks that size so. Stephanie Walsh: So do we have the opportunity to propose an amendment? Aanenson: You can always ask the Planning Commission, yep. Stephanie Walsh: Alright, okay. I’d like to propose an amendment. Can I do that and what would I have to do? Generous: That’s what you’re doing now. Aanenson: Yeah, just tell them that you don’t support that and ask that they change it, yeah. Stephanie Walsh: Okay, yep. I would propose that it be changed to, at a minimum low density residential. You had another scenario that you had with the senior center where you showed one massive building surrounded by villas or townhouses. Generous: That was part of the corridor study. Stephanie Walsh: Yeah, and you know at the worst of any evils that would be less of an impact than 3 to 4 humongous apartment buildings in an area that is, you know we have eagles you know feeding. Deer running everywhere. It’s next to a nature preserve. It’s just going to, it seems like an odd addition. 19 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 3, 2015 Aanenson: Yeah, well I guess what we look at it as a mining operation today so there is mining going on today. An active construction field so we looked at it as, you know again these plans are illustrative. No one’s come forward with that specific plan. We don’t know if a plan would look, how a plan will look because we don’t know what the market’s going to be like in 5 years. We don’t know what the market’s going to be like in 10 years, if this was the one that comes in so we just try to show that really for illustrative purposes. Again, and maybe Paul you could talk about what the dimensions. There’s a big retaining wall in front of the Moon Valley site. That road’s being lifted a couple of feet and how tall is the retaining wall in front of the Moon valley site? Oehme: Approximately 12 feet. Aanenson: 12 feet. And then you know on the top, yes you will see it but you’re over, you know you’re looking over the top of it no matter what would be there so I guess if you wanted to look at a comparison you could probably look at Power Ridge Apartments when you’re driving by those on Powers Boulevard. Those are 3 buildings that are of the same scale. Stephanie Walsh: Okay, alright. And the other thing I just wanted to say is, the point was, I really don’t feel like our development has been well represented because nobody is really, I asked some of the neighbors about the postcards. Did you get the postcard in the mail and they’re like, what was that and they don’t take the time to call and so they’re not aware of what’s going on and if, if there was a better notification system I think you’d have more people from our development here today so those are my final comments and I propose it’s amended to a lesser low density. Aller: Great, thank you. Stephanie Walsh: Thanks. Aller: Appreciate your comments. Any other individuals wishing to come forward? Yes sir. Randy Barto: I do. How you doing? Aller: Your name and address for the record. Randy Barto: Randy Barto, 400 Lakota Lane. I grew up there. I just, it’s my first time at a council meeting so this is interesting how this works but I grew up overlooking the bluffs. I looked down at Moon Valley and the pit all my life. Roamed the hills. I know the area like the back of hand. Night time take you anywhere. Noticed you guys the mining, he made some comments. I don’t understand this bluff. You said 25 feet or more, 30 percent grade. Is that something that can’t be touched or how does that go with the City I guess? What are your rules on that because you said they’re mining. They’re basically taking out the, all the minerals in the hills. They’re taking them right out and then you’ll come in afterwards. Recoup the area and then build on it. Aanenson: Re-establish, no. 20 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 3, 2015 Generous: Well they will re-establish that slope and revegetated it to hold it from erosion purposes. Randy Barto: Yeah. Generous: The slope that was approved as part of their mining operation was a 2 ½ to 1 slope so it’s over 30 percent. Randy Barto: Yep. Yep. No I have video of it. I know. I’ve cut trees up there and I watched the dozer go around and I sell equipment. I understand, yep. Generous: And so the City’s ordinance for bluff protection requires that if you meet the bluff definition you have to maintain a setback from that and you cannot alter the bluff. Randy Barto: Sure, sure. You made another comment on this project. I think it’s down over by the, I think Skip Cook owns the property I believe but there’s a, or maybe Hesse does on the farm area and you said there was a bluff area. That’s actually not a bluff. That would be the railroad bed that was put in by the railroad is what you’re looking on the steep slope side so it’s technically they dug into the hill and put a railroad through there. Richard T. Anderson. Great points. Never met you Paul, right Beard. Yeah, Gary Llano’s my boss. He knows you I think, yep. Dad’s and daughters or something like that but he’s got a great point. Actually that property was owned by the Peterson’s. Daryl Peterson. Cookie was his name. I hunted that property. I grew up. I shot deer in your back yard. Actually probably in your driveway. I used to kill 5-6 deer a year. You know we had a license to do this. Beautiful area. Know it very well. Know the creek beds. Know everything about it. I know the bluff below my hill goes back. I know everything about that. I know Paul Tautens. I know everything that goes on. I think the point that these people, especially when they built their homes, I didn’t see any homes. You guys came in and built beautiful homes overlooking the valley. Hopefully it was your years and years to come planned and the whole thing is, is they just want, they don’t want. You know we’re not looking to have a city below this beautiful you know the last of the last bluff. You know I mean this is what they moved there for. They put their lives into it. It’s gorgeous. My dad’s property, our property that’s in our trust for us kids, anyone I can take up there, put them right in the center and they can look out. You can’t replicate it. But if you put properties like you’re talking about down below, you’ll stare right into the heart of them. I can tell you that right now. When the vegetation comes off the trees, you look right down to the river bottom. You know it’s very, very, very you know surreal when it’s like it is. I also said the Richard T. Anderson was not donated by no means. Daryl Peterson acquired a large sum of money from the City of Eden Prairie. They bought it from him so you might want to dig into that a little bit more. That was not a donation. Aanenson: Yeah but if it’s unbuildable over a certain slope there’s a different cost for that as opposed to a 14 acres that’s buildable. That’s my point. 21 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 3, 2015 Randy Barto: Yeah but they have, go look at Welsh’s home which is another relative of the Llano’s. His house is dug into the hill. I think all that land that is in there very well could have been buildable. Aanenson: Yeah and some cities give variances for slopes and sometimes compensation. If somebody does a tax consequence for that sort of thing. There’s all different ways to do that sort of thing but we’re just saying that the people that own that property, since we’ve given it, since they’ve met with us at the Comprehensive Plan it’s always been shown to be developable. We went through court litigation years ago to, for them to validate what they wanted to build on it. Put a plan in place and that was all ordered through the court process. Randy Barto: And Moon Valley was sold I think you said when the process when the Moon Valley was sold it was 10 years ago, correct? Is that what you guys approved the high density? Generous: No it was in place. Aanenson: It was in place then. Randy Barto: In place then. Aanenson: Yeah the Zwiers family owns, still owns it and they’re the ones that requested the high density on that one. I don’t recall what it was before that but it was in 2008 it was high density back then. It was high density when Settlers West came in so that hadn’t changed. Randy Barto: What are they mining out of there, just curious. Aanenson: Gravel. Oehme: Sand and gravel. Randy Barto: Just sand and gravel? And they’re allowed to take complete hillsides out with mining operations? Oehme: Well the permit. Aanenson: They have a permit that they have to follow the grading limits, correct. Oehme: Right. Randy Barto: Okay. That’s all I got. Aller: Great, thank you very much. Randy Barto: Thanks guys. 22 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 3, 2015 Aller: Any other individual wishing to come forward, speaking for or against or making a general comment? Alright, we’re closing the public hearing. Open it for discussion. Hokkanen: I want to clarify that these are renderings and this is not a development that’s being proposed. I feel like we are missing that point with the public. I mean because is not changing that zoning. That Settlers West when they bought their homes, this is what it was zoned for correct? Aller: That’s my understanding. Hokkanen: I just want to make sure. Aanenson: Guided for, yes. Right. Hokkanen: So it’s not changing the zoning. This, what we’re doing tonight. Aller: Correct. Hokkanen: And those buildings aren’t getting, we’re not approving those buildings. Those are just renderings of what may or may not, like other developments that have come forward with. Aller: Correct and I look at that as a benefit to someone who wants to do a development because it’s kind of already been done for them so they can see that this potentially would work and get… Hokkanen: But it could be senior housing too. Aller: Could be senior housing and it can be less than when you were guiding it 4 to 8. It can be 4 units or 8 units. When it’s high density some of it’s not unusual, well it would be unusual for somebody to come in and do it but if they wanted to they could come in with a low density project and just not use the high density. Hokkanen: Correct. Aanenson: If I may Mr. Chair, just to remind everybody. I think Commissioner Hokkanen’s on a good point and that’s that there’s certain things that need to happen before this would. Development needs to happen above. We talked about Bluff Creek Golf Course or that’s kind of a key piece for that to be developed. We have no idea what the timeframe is. Funding needs to be secured for 101. In addition a developer needs to come forward. Any development in any one of these parcels requires a public hearing so each parcel as it develops would come back to this group for a public hearing and then to the City Council for a hearing so there’s still another review cycle. Again whether the recommendations you make tonight or the neighbors, those get forwarded to the City Council and then when we do the Comprehensive Plan again in, starting which we submit in 2018, that would be an opportunity to comment again on the land uses. Weick: But we’ve been asked to recommend. 23 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 3, 2015 Aller: To include that… Weick: To the City Council that the un-numbered areas here on the map. Aanenson: That’s correct. Weick: Be changed from high density. Aanenson: That’s correct. Weick: Okay. Aller: Okay. And there’s really nothing to stop someone from coming in and requesting a PUD on any of these parcels. Aanenson: Correct. Aller: And creating something wholly unique based on the parcel. Hokkanen: They can request it. Aller: And come in before us and saying this is what we want to do and our expectations would be of a higher grade project because of that. Weick: Well considering that area you know separately when you look at the proposed land use amendment I am very encouraged to see it move from predominantly office and office/industrial, in that area to a mix of low, medium and high density as well as you know some small commercial. I think the, that direction is definitely where we would want to go as a city with something that is potentially a gateway project to the city and so I, I am personally encouraged by the direction away from office/industrial in most of those areas. Hokkanen: I would agree. When and if everything else falls into place. Weick: Right. Aller: Well and that’s, and that’s the way I view this. I view this as an active encouragement to developers in the future as they come into the new gateway to look at what’s there and if they just see it zoned for completely high density. High commercial then that’s what they’re going to think is a major downtown port as opposed to Chanhassen which is a diverse, open space, park minded community and by doing the studies, I think we were, we’re turning the guidance to more park and open space. We’re protecting a lot more of the wetlands than we recently had and I think that’s a positive move as well. So for that reason I would be voting to move this forward and I would like to add the recommendation that they do take a look at Moon Valley for purposes of future use. My recommendation would be for the 2018, does anybody feel differently? Maybe for the future plan because I think this is going to be a long way out. 24 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 3, 2015 Hokkanen: Right. Aller: And they can take their time and as we do these studies they can develop more information on where they want to guide that eastern portion, if that makes sense. Weick: Everybody looks at the land uses differently right. When I saw high density I immediately went to you know senior, senior living in my head and some of the projects that we’ve seen and that’s why I was kind of excited about it because I think that’s an area that we, especially looking into the future that we lack in Chanhassen and so I didn’t even think of you know some of the other. That’s right where my mind went, myself so yeah I think there are high density uses that are you know very much in line with things that the City needs in the future. Maybe not in the next 5 years but maybe in the next 10 years so. Hokkanen: And I think the city as a whole has done a good job with conservation of land and open space and park space and it’s part of what makes Chanhassen you know one of the best places to live in the country so I mean with that being said and going forward I think they’ll keep that in mind with the Moon Valley. You know like saying south of Assumption Creek. You know taking that density over. You know stuff like that that we can do going forward. I know that’s how I would like to see it go. Aller: Well and I, it’s been commented about the trails and I think we have in the past and will continue to do so but if it needs to be said or added then maybe the recommendation, as these projects come forward I think it’s the nature thing that the City of Chanhassen has always looked to do is intertwine these communities and attach those trails so that we have the best trail system as well. Any further discussion or comments? Entertain a motion. Yusuf: I was just going to say one thing. Kate you did mention that any project on any of these parcels will have to go through the hearing. Aanenson: Correct. Yusuf: I think it’s important to just remind everyone of that too. Aanenson: Yep, yep. Yusuf: So they get a chance to review it. Aanenson: So if municipal services are provided down there then any change would have to come back for a public hearing, just as we did on the storage unit. The gentleman there. Remember we talked about that. Wanted to do additional storage unit and we also said keeping in mind that in the future municipal services may become available. You might want to site your buildings in such a way that coming off of 212 and the Chaska portion that those properties could be combined and provide some higher and better uses down there so again trying to plan forward but yes, those would all come back through. Each individual property would come back through for site plan approval. 25 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 3, 2015 Aller: And I would also encourage staff to continue in it’s, it’s practice basically of having those community meetings and open houses and I know that many people don’t feel that the postcards are adequate but that’s the means that we have to get it out there so I’m encouraged by the fact that all these individuals are here in the audience. I think we do our best work when the citizens come forward and give their opinions so that people can hear what’s out there. What’s going on and as a neighbor if you get one of those postcards, if you’re listening out there or watching on TV please knock on your neighbor’s door and talk to them about how they feel about it and if you can bring them down, bring them down. We’d love to hear from each and every one of you in making these decisions which impact all of us. Hokkanen: Well we do appreciate the time you take to come out and we do listen and we read the letters and take all your opinions into consideration for, as we go forward. Aller: Entertain a motion. I can’t make the one. Hokkanen: I already did. Weick: I can do a motion. Do we need to? Aller: Commissioner Weick. You can add as it goes. Weick: What’s that? Aanenson: It’s on the screen. Weick: Okay but we don’t have to mention anything about. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve the land use map amendments within the CSAH 61 corridor and the corresponding amendments to Figures 2-1 and 2-2 of the land use element. Hokkanen: Second. Aller: With the additional recommendation? Weick: With the additional recommendation. Aller: So I have a motion by Commissioner Weick. Seconded by Commissioner Hokkanen. Any further discussion? Weick moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve the Land Use Map Amendments within the CSAH 61 Corridor and the corresponding amendments to Figures 2-1 and 2-2 of the Land Use Element with the recommendation to look at future uses for the Moon Valley site. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. 26 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 3, 2015 Aanenson: This item does go to the City Council. I think it will be on a work session and then if you can check the City’s website, if you want to follow it up to the City Council. When it will be going forward. Aller: So this will be going to a work session followed by a formal hearing by the council. Please follow it for further action at the council. Aanenson: This is just a recommendation so. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Hokkanen noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 20, 2015 as presented. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Aanenson: I didn’t have anything except for the tentative agenda. We do have the lifestyle center concept on for your next meeting so there’ll be a lot of discussion there. Again notices are going out on that. Trying to get information in the paper about that. Again the regional rd significance, we talk about the impact of that. The March 3 one, that application did not come rd in so that one we may not have any items on for March 3. That may get bumped down to th March 17. I know Maryam you will not be here. So we’ll also do our, maybe on that meeting th on March 17 do our interviews for Planning Commission candidates as long as we’re all rd meeting so we’ll try to do those interviews. And then so on the March 3 right now I’m stating th we probably won’t have a meeting. Then on March 17 we have a variance on that and we may th have the daycare site on then and then we’ll kind of do a year end report. And then our April 7 is our typical work session meeting and then we’ll have the introduction of the new commissioners and I know you’re going to be gone in that meeting. Hokkanen: Yes. Aanenson: Okay. Just trying to make sure that we’re juggling that, juggling that quorum. That’s all I had Chair. Aller: Great. For those of you out in the audience or those watching at home, there is the application process for membership in any of the community’s various commissions so please take a look at the different items and commissions that are out there. Whether it be Senior Commission, Planning Commission, Environmental Commission. There’s plenty of work to be done and we appreciate all of the service of our fellow residents so please take a look at it. If you are not interested in doing it but know somebody that is, please have them interview and apply. Then I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. Yusuf moved, Weick 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 8:25 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 27