The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 2015 07 07 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 7, 2015 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, John Tietz, Nancy Madsen, Steve Weick, and Lisa Hokkanen MEMBERS ABSENT: Maryam Yusuf STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner, Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner, and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: Ray Schenk 1130 Dove Court Mike Glaccum 1510 Lake Lucy Road th Jim Slattery 1990 West 78 Street th Michael Graenez 7600 West 78 Street th Jay Kronick 78 West 78 Street Brian H. Burdick 600 Market Street Judy Anderson 8584 Flamingo Steve Friedrichs 8955 Southwest Village Peter Adolphson 8980 Reflections Road Matt Hanna 8863 Lake Riley Drive Craig Claybaugh 1630 Lake Lucy Road PUBLIC HEARING: CHANHASSEN SPECIALTY RETAIL, PLANNING CASE 2015-17: REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; SUBDIVISION OF APPROXIMATELY THREE ACRES INTO ONE LOT AND ONE OUTLOT TH (VILLAGES ON THE PONDS 11 ADDITION), AND SITE PLAN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A 19,909 SQUARE FOOT SPECIALTY RETAIL BUILDING (TOTAL WINE & MORE) ONPROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) TH AND LOCATED ON OUTLOT B, VILLAGES ON THE PONDS 4 ADDITION. APPLICANT/OWNER: VENTURE PASS PARTNERS, LLC/NORTHCOTT COMPANY. Aanenson: Before you begin Chairman and members of the Planning Commission, again I would remind you within your purview is what we’re to do with the application is the site plan review. There’s actually 3 actions with that for the specialty retail, site plan review, PUD amendment and a subdivision so again any comments on merits of the liquor license is outside of your purview. Again we ask that anybody that has comments on that. Some people have submitted things in writing which we forwarded to you but we’re, it’s also out of your jurisdiction or purview to comment on that so we would be forwarding those to the City Council Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 so anybody that wants to speak on that we would certainly recommend that you attend the City th Council meeting on the 27 and with that I’ll turn it over to Sharmeen to make a presentation. Al-Jaff: Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. The site that we are looking at today is located at the northwest corner of Lake Drive and Main Street. It is within the development of Villages on the Ponds which is a mixed use development encompassing residential, institutional, as well as commercial developments. At this point I will turn it over to Kate Aanenson, the Community Development Director to provide background and history on this development and when she’s done with that part of it we will look specifically at the specialty retail development proposal. Aanenson: Thank you. Because there’s some new planning commissioners I thought I’d just give a brief background of Villages on the Ponds because this is a unique sitting. So in 1995 we started the process of putting together Villages on the Pond. At that time St. Hubert’s Church was looking for some property to provide for an institutional use and they were looking across the street, that 66 acres and so the City had some goals. The developer at that time had some goals and we ventured forth on working together to do a new urbanism project which at the time was pretty unique. We were one of the first communities to go through the Livable Communities at the time through the Met Council. We actually did a horizontal/vertical mix and there’s shared parking throughout this whole project so that’s one of the things that I wanted to explain to you. And also we have private streets in this development. One of the unique attributes of this is that there’s parking on street which we don’t have in other developments and you’ll see this with this application too, there’s opportunities for shared parking and on street parking so in order to do that the engineering department recommended that they be private streets so they maintain internally their own streets except there’s a public loop that goes through that the City does maintain so we’ve looked at institutional uses. Retail uses as a core component and then residential and one of the first ones to go in was the apartments across 101. The Powers Ridge Apartments and then kind of the core was St. Hubert’s Church so we’ve been adding to that. We’ve actually made very few amendments to this which is kind of hard to believe when we put this together in 1995 kind of looking for, we certainly saw there was components that were important. We always saw something unique of kind of a boutique grocery store which is something that came in and then some of the other supporting things such as Presbyterian Homes and opportunities for residents that live within there also to take advantage of you know shopping within and walking so there’s only one fast food drive thru in that which the staff recommended but the council recommended approval for that but there’s only one drive thru restaurant in there. Otherwise it is a unique development so again going back from 1985 to ’96 this also had an Environmental Assessment document on it so when we go through each project we measure to make sure that we’re staying within the industrial commercial institutional quadrants and then checking for the parking and as you see in the staff report tonight we’ll also share with you kind of that tabulation of parking. Those are all the things that we look at with each project that goes forward. So again we created this master PUD which was a couple, a year, year and a half worth of work. Again the design standards the uses, those are all part of the PUD so this use in itself, the 20,000 square foot was one of the things that we said was the maximum to meet within this PUD because we wanted these to be kind of more smaller and not big box type uses so that was the goal on this. And that they also be more 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 highly articulated for this district so with that just wanted to give you that background and how that all works and I’ll turn it back over to Sharmeen. Aller: Thank you. Al-Jaff: Thank you Kate. Briefly so the application before you today is consists of three components. The first one is a subdivision to replat an outlot into a lot and an outlot, there is a site plan for a 19,909 square foot retail building and then a planned unit development amendment to the sign criteria as far as the location of the individual letters as well as the height of each individual letter. This application is going to follow the exact same process that we have gone through in the past since 1995 as each building comes in. So far we’ve had 12 buildings built within Villages on the Pond. Those include retail, residential as well as institutional buildings. So again this application before you is going to follow that exact same process. One of the components of the overall development was, and I apologize if I repeat a few things that Kate already went through. One of the components that was studied with the overall development and through the environmental assessment worksheet for this development was parking. It was intended to always have shared parking and anything that you see on this overall plan for Villages on the Ponds that is highlighted in yellow is shared parking. I need to point out that there are a few buildings, specifically the residential as well as the community bank that has underground parking. Staff has not included those numbers with the overall calculations. The overall development is required to provide 1,631 parking spaces. They have provided 1,712. So the site plan that is before you, and that’s, that will be the first item that we will cover is for a 19,909 square foot retail building. As part of looking at this development and because this is a planned unit development, this site has to comply with the ordinance requirements for Villages on the Ponds. One of the things that they are required to do is not to exceed 70 percent hard surface coverage. Again this is a planned unit development. Whenever we have this type of development, hard surface coverage is calculated over the entire development of Villages on the Pond rather than on each individual site and when this development was approved the City ensured that there was a permanent open space that exceeded 30 percent. The reality is the open space for this overall development exceeds 45 percent. The majority of the parking is located west of the building. The architecture of the building and the design is attractive. It is proposed to be constructed of high quality materials that are complimentary to the surrounding buildings. They include rock face block. Accent block. Concrete utility. There are awnings above all of the, all of the windows with the exception of specifically the ones that are located next to the loading dock and the only reason for that is to ensure this is the elevation where the loading dock is going to be located and it is to avoid any accidents as pick up trucks are backing up. All elevations that can be viewed by the public on all four sides have received equal level of attention. We need to point out that we worked with the applicant for a long time and they have truly cooperated with the City. They have revised the design and basically met the direction that staff asked them to. One of the things that we needed to show you is there is a green wall that is being introduced along the south elevation of the site. All of the, there are areas where they could not put in windows so they put spanrow windows on the building. The roof line there is enough movement and there are pitched elements. It’s a building that meets all of the design criteria. The lights that are proposed on the building are shielded. They meet ordinance requirements. Shoe boxes will be used in the parking lot and again shielded fixtures in, on the building itself. One of the things that the PUD recommended was the use of light fixtures on the 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 building to minimize the number of parking lot lights and that’s exactly what they are doing. The second item that we need to address is signage on the building. The applicant is requesting signage on all four sides of the building which is permitted under the planned unit development. They are also requesting the signage to be located higher than 20 feet above the ground elevation and this is what staff will explain in a moment. Also the signage facing the north and the west elevation, they are requesting that the letters be larger than 30 inches. The limit by ordinance in this planned unit development is 30 inches. So the one thing that we need to also talk about as far as background on this area is the fact that this development when it was first looked at and studied it was divided into four sectors and the ordinances that govern this development were written around those four sectors. They took those sectors into consideration. So Sector 1 which is where this development is located is a mixed use of commercial and residential. Sector 2, which abuts Highway 101 as well as Highway 5 is highway exposure type of development. And then Sector 3 is institutional, which is where you see St. Hubert’s and 4 is strictly residential which is the Lake Susan Apartments. So as I mentioned we’ve got the 4 sectors. When the sign criteria for Sector 2 was written it allowed them to put up signage that was higher, taller than 20 feet and the individual signs, the individual letters within Sector 2 could exceed 30 inches. As staff started looking at Sector 1 and how it compares to Sector 2, specifically when it came to the signage, and looking at previous requests that have come before the City on previous applications on that specific site requesting the exact same variance. Requesting letters that were planed higher than 20 feet above the ground and the size of the letter being taller, we started asking why is this happening and what was it that happened before when we first looked at this development that we didn’t maybe notice at the time. So what we found they did have in common is this site did have exposure to Highway 101. There’s nothing blocking that exposure to Highway 101 or Highway 5. You’ve got that view that continues to those two elevations. In those two directions. The distance is 550 feet from Highway 5. It is 620 from Highway 101. As mentioned earlier, oh initially they came in. They requested a variance and we said rather than applying for a variance, which the City has granted in the past on previous applications, let’s fix the planned unit development and amend it so that anything that we do is going to apply to everyone within this development rather than one individual building. And based on that staff is recommending only the north and west elevations within Sector 1 to be allowed to go above the 20 feet. But in addition to that rather than just saying let them go higher as well as larger letters those, we also added a line that ensures the signage is actually complimenting the architecture of the building. The intent is not to have a specific portion of an architectural feature of the building extending higher than the rest of the building just to advertise the signage. The intent is to have the signage compliment the architecture of the building. And if you look at this building, if you look at this building there is an EIFS band around the entire upper level of the building. The top of the building. It’s framing it and in all honesty this is where the signage belongs. They can meet ordinance requirements. The design of the building will be compromised if you lower the signage. It is staff’s opinion that the location of the proposed signage will compliment the design. Aanenson: And I just want to add a couple more things to that. So they came in with the variance application as Ms. Al-Jaff has stated that in the previous application for specialty grocery the Planning Commission, as did the City Council approved that variance so in that variance situation you’re approving just that one use so instead of doing that we said let’s put everybody in that sector and treat them equally so anybody else in that same situation. What we 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 learned from our previous experience with the Children’s Learning Adventure, when you sometimes have exaggerated architectural elements to accomplish your sign so in this circumstance we put language in this PUD that you wouldn’t have that so it’s really more integral to it. So what we’re doing is instead of just treating this with a variance we’re saying everybody in this same sector would get that same treatment. Al-Jaff: And staff is recommending approval of this planned unit development amendment. The ordinance that would allow this change. The final request is for replat of an outlot into a lot and an outlot. The lot is going to house the building. The retail building and the outlot will contain some parking as well as private streets. Staff is recommending approval of this application including the preliminary plat, planned unit development and site plan request and I’ll be happy to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Aller: Any questions at this time? Commissioner Weick. Weick: Yeah, just a point of clarification moving backwards. Why create the Outlot A and not just have one lot? Is there a reason for that? Al-Jaff: The outlot, whenever you have private streets, there is an option of either having them within an easement or on, within an outlot. In this case we… Aanenson: They’re common to the rest of the HOA. There’s a HOA that governs everything in that association so we’ve kept that all, except for the public streets that we manage. Weick: Thank you. Aller: Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: I have a question about traffic flow and what affect would this anticipated traffic increase have on busy intersections nearby. For example the Lake Drive and 101 intersection on the west side and then the Lake Drive intersection on the east side near by the Marathon gas station. Fauske: If I may answer that question. A detailed traffic analysis was not completed with this development because the use was compatible with what the planned unit development had envisioned for the area. Certainly I think the applicant might be able to speak in greater detail as far as what kind of traffic they anticipate they would capture. Are they getting folks that are already on the roadway and just will stop in on their way to pick up something from their stores or is it a destination? We don’t feel that there’s any, that there would be any negative impacts to those intersections but we will monitor that and you know residents are good about letting us know if there’s an issue and we can address that at the time if need be. Madsen: Okay, thank you. Aller: Commissioner Tietz. 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 Tietz: Yeah, question regarding the parking that would be on Outlot A across from Houlihan’s. South of Houlihan’s and east of Bookoo. Is that then the responsibility of the developer to build and construct because that’s in that private road zone? Al-Jaff: It is intended to be built as part of this. Tietz: Of the development. Al-Jaff: Development, correct. Aller: Would the HOA maintain? Aanenson: Correct. The private streets, that’s correct. Aller: With the lighting, has there been any indication that there would be an impact to safety at all? Is there any concern from the sheriff’s department? Fauske: Not that we’ve been made aware of Chairman Aller. Aller: Otherwise the lighting meets our codes. 90 degree shielded. The amount of parking that was provided has always been the intent so we’re exceeding that right now with the shared parking. Al-Jaff: That’s correct. Aller: The impact on grading and drainage, do we have a SWPPP plan? Aanenson: Yes, we had that in the staff report. The grading and drainage. It’s relatively flat. Did you want to comment on the drainage? How they’re managing that. Fauske: Just an additional comment to add to that Kate. Originally the site, the proposed site development included some underground parking so if you look on the aerial on page 4 of the staff report. Or actually on page 2 as well, it appears as though there’s a pond on the site and that’s simply rain water that went into the excavated area. The area that was excavated for underground parking. It’s not a jurisdictional wetland. It wasn’t intended to be, it was not intended to be a stormwater management pond. It was simply the low area that they had graded in anticipation of the site development that never came to fruition. Aller: And it’s my understanding from the report that the proposed maximum rate of runoff will actually decrease for the entire area as a result of what has been proposed. Fauske: Yes. From the original PUD approval the rules for stormwater management have changed significantly in 20 years and as a development comes through site plan approval and subdivision they are required to meet the current standards for stormwater management and on this site what the applicant has proposed is some pervious pavement within the parking area and then an underground system in order to meet the requirements of the City. And then they will 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 also work with the watershed district to ensure that they meet the watershed district requirements as well. Tietz: Alyson are there examples here in the city where pervious paving has been used and the systems have been effective? Fauske: Yes, actually the public works site has some porous pavement in the parking area just to the south of the building. And then in the 2014 street project we also had a porous pavement parking lot next to Bandimere Park. The west, pardon me. The east side of Bandimere Park. It’s not a fully functional area at this time but we do have some examples where. Tietz: So we have standards that will be enforced and applied to this project? Fauske: Yes. There’s an industry standard within the surface water management community with, as far as void space and it has to infiltrate at a certain rate and there’s, we do have equipment that can measure those quantities. Aller: Then with the modification of the PUD what we’re doing is leveling the playing field basically for anyone else that’s in that first phase or phase 1. Aanenson: That’s correct. Aller: So anyone that wants to modify, as long as it doesn’t, it meets all the criteria of the new PUD requirements can do so at this time without coming in and asking for a variance. Aanenson: That’s correct. Aller: Any additional questions at this time? Hearing none we’ll ask the applicant to come forward if they desire to do so and make a presentation. Welcome sir. State your name and address and representational capacity please. David Carland: Good evening commissioners. My name is David Carland. I’m President of Venture Pass Partners. Our corporate address is 19620 Waterford Court in Shorewood and with me tonight I have Jim Ottenstein and Randy Rauwerdink, also of Venture Pass Partners. This is a re-tooled version of the Traders Joe specialty grocer site plan that the Planning Commission and City Council approved last October. If you recall that was 14,000 square foot grocery building along with 8,000 square feet of associated strip so in terms of overall square footage it’s very close to what was approved previously. You know unfortunately and you know for some complex reasons we weren’t able to put that together and this is kind of the reincarnation for lack of a better term of that. Of that project which we’re of course excited about. We worked long and hard with staff and we’re happy with the finished product and I guess we thank them for the inspiration they gave us. At the end of the day you know for not a whole lot of cost the client thinks the building, it’s an improved building. We think it’s an improved building and city staff does as well so we were happy to go through that process with the City. We believe that the project meets all the zoning ordinances. We believe we meet all the design guidelines. We’ve, you know we’ve submitted this application as a specialty retail building and the building could 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 be a clothing store. Could be a pet supply store. Could be sporting goods or anything that’s a permitted use within the zoning district including a liquor store because there’s a simultaneous application for the same property address for Total Wine we thought that it would be forth coming and above board at least in our planning application to identify that as our contemplated tenant which it is indeed Total Wine and More is the contemplated tenant for the project. In terms of parking they generally, for this size of a store, which is significantly smaller than other stores that they’ve done in the Twin Cities. This is the first store that’s a new construction ground up. The other stores have been you know ones that they’ve inherited from existing shopping centers and previous users. They feel like 80 parking spots would be adequate. By code we’re providing 100 but we’re also, if you count the additional stalls that we’re providing on the outlot we’re providing 158 so we’re actually adding 58 overall parking spots for use within the overall development. I think that’s a good overview. I was going to have Randy who handles our architecture just give you a, maybe just some brief bullet points on some of the architectural enhancements we’ve made to the project if that’s appropriate. Aller: Thank you. Randy Rauwerdink: Thank you Dave. Randy Rauwerdink with Venture Pass Partners. I’ll reiterate what Dave said. We worked very closely with Sharmeen and with our design team from Tushie Montgomery Architects and Sambatek Engineering and it kind of turned into a bit of a design sharret but a very successful one and product that we’re very pleased with. Keeping in mind all of the articulation requirements and sloped roof and glass requirements I think we’ve put together a very attractive building and a very pronounced protruding brick entrance element. Arched, transom glass over the entrance. Featured towers on the corners. EIFS insets and arch work. Multiple different details of protruding awnings both in fabric and standing seam metal. Metal hipped roofs. A lot of architectural interest in terms of texture through pigmented burnish block. Rock faced block. Full brick. EIFS. The metal awnings we discussed. Store front and windows on all four elevations. Details in the cornice work. I think just a lot of very nice detailing that’s consistent on four sides of the building. We also enhance that with vertical landscaping and strategic screening areas, be the loading docks. The trash areas. Trellis roofs over the trash area. Sharmeen mentioned a little bit our, kind of that eco mesh growing or living wall. Just a large curved element on Main Street that’s covered with clematis, flowering vines and just adds additional articulation. And along with bike parking and benches and then back to the watershed issue, that whole parking lot. Following up on the engineer comments here. Really all of the parking stall bays within the interior parking field are all pervious pavers. Contemplated as pavers as opposed to pavement and that’s kind of a direct result of our coordination with Riley-Purgatory watershed district. Very stringent requirements that are really new to 2015 kind of that haven’t been, haven’t been felt by probably any other parcel in this development today. What’s unique about this parking lot is that entire structure underneath our parking field is about a 3 foot deep section of, it’s a heavy rock. Basically 40 percent void space that’s providing a lot of the capacity given soils that aren’t really conducive to infiltration within this development. That’s all laden with a serpentine of perforated drain tile and some kind of proprietary contact type filter structures so there’s a lot of effort. Unfortunately a lot of expense and money into that parking field but that’s what it took to comply with the Riley-Purgatory requirements. And then just following up on the parking again. You know obviously the outlot is Pond Promenade. A road to the north and to the west with extensions of the private road 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 which are bearing almost 70 new improved parking stalls in addition to the 80 plus that we have interior to the parking field so those are really I would say to the benefit of all of those parcels around us and far exceeding what had to be there so yeah Pond Promenade is fully improved surface. Curb and gutter. All new parking in addition to all the improvements to the interior of our lot. I think that’s probably the best highlight. I just want to again thank Sharmeen for her help and for the cooperation that we had with her and our architects on pulling this together. Aller: Great, thank you sir. Aanenson: I just want to add one comment just for some of the new Planning Commissioners that the use of spanrow glass. I just want to, because sometimes people don’t always see where we have a lot of it around town. It’s actually quite a bit of it’s on Houlihan’s. We have it in th Target. Office Max on West 78 Street. There’s quite a bit there and I would say probably another user that has a security issue would be the two more recent Walgreen’s also has quite a bit. The one up on Highway 7 and the one right downtown also has quite a bit of use of the spanrow glass too so it’s an opportunity to get the fenestration that we required and then also adapt to a user that has, whether it’s freezer space or an example of the restaurants where they have cold storage or Walgreen’s that has pharmaceutical areas that they want secure, it is an opportunity to meet our ordinance and still get an attractive building so. We’ve also learned that spanrow glass is different qualities and grades and we’ve got ten really good at making sure we see samples of those before they go on too. Aller: Any additional questions at this time? Okay, hearing none we’ll open the public hearing portion of this matter so anyone wishing to come forward can do so at this time. You can step forward to the podium and state your name and address sir and your position either for or against the item or a comment. Ray Schenk: Thank you. My name’s Ray Schenk. I live at 1130 Dove Court. Aller: Welcome Mr. Schenk. Ray Schenk: I’m a resident of Chanhassen for 22 years and I’d like to thank staff. They seem to represented real well what this development was originally intended to do. Some of the things I remember back when it was first up is that it was going to have this old time feeling like you were in a downtown area. Kind of small town where you’d have apartments upstairs and a shop down below and I don’t think we’ve fulfilled any of those dreams yet. We have some big nice apartments. Some senior living which is really nice. You know I think those are some nice things there but one of my least favorite places to go is over in that area because it’s hard to park. The traffic is not so good. The radiuses on all the corners are much too small. The roads are very narrow. I feel like it will be the same of situation that the Cub Foods where the loading dock has this huge, big concrete post so that the trucks don’t hit it but the radius was never big enough for them to make the turn so you put a post and rocks and they get pushed out of the way by the semi’s and there’s just not good access and then if you’re coming down the main part and you make your right hand turn to get out, you always wind up hitting the curb. You just see, it’s always covered with people’s tire marks because the radiuses aren’t right. This development has many, many features just like that. The on street parking is very difficult when it’s parallel and 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 very tight together and I don’t think that was the original intent when we went through and did the planning years ago. I think you know with some different buildings that got put in I think some of that intent has gone away and I think for people that have been in town a long time, we’ve had a lot of arguments about signage and unfairness about signage so I’m a member of Family of Christ and when they asked for a signage variance they were denied. I know other businesses have asked for signs on multiple sides of the building and have been denied. I would encourage not to have multiple sides on buildings of signage and tall signs and big lights. I don’t like that look. I don’t think it’s fitting of our community. I don’t think it fits what we try to portray and why we’re picked as a great place to live every, you know many times in magazines and things. I mean we’ve done a really good job of planning. I don’t think we should change that. I don’t think we should go for bigger signs and more lights. Less lights. Smaller signs. Smaller buildings. More parking. Bigger radiuses on corners and wider streets so it’s easier to go. If you look at the way this is built, as you drive through all the sight lines changed. It’s made so that you’d park your car and you’d walk through this area and people don’t do that. This isn’t a big store like this won’t make that happen. It’s, I just don’t see that it is what the vision was. I know it fits the numbers and I know they’re being good about that and they’re really watching careful and doing a good accurate job but it wasn’t the original intent and I don’t think that it should continue on and I definitely don’t want any changes on the signage. I just think that’s just totally wrong and unfair to any other business in this town that’s wanted that request. Parking. Added parking spots that you’re talking about right now are gravel by Houlihan’s and they’re full. I drove there before I came here tonight and they’re all full. We’re not adding extra parking. We’re improving it. It’s already very, very busy over there. There’s one spot by Bookoo Bikes that was open. There were 4 spots in that same area and Houlihan’s parking lot was pretty full. Very full actually and then you know down the sides and we don’t have these other new buildings that are going to have people and traffic to even gauge how much that is. It may be meeting our numbers but it isn’t really meeting the use and the intent of what’s happening. We’re overwhelmed already. I just, that’s kind of the way I see it and it’s not my favorite place to go. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Any additional individuals wishing to come forward. Please state your name and address for the record. Brian Burdick: Good evening everyone. Brian Burdick, Burdick Properties, 600 Market Street, Chanhassen. Glad to be here this evening. I have to say I think the gentleman that just spoke did a really excellent job. I hope that all of you will really think about that. He raised some many very valid concerns. I’m sure Total Wine runs a very good operation. I do believe that city staff has gone to a lot of detail and done a nice job with the planning. I don’t doubt that. That’s fine but this is not a good location for a huge 20,000 square foot, big box liquor store. It’s not a good use. It’s not what was originally intended there and I did hear that from staff clearly this evening too going through the proposal, which they seem to be in favor of. That’s fine but I heard also in there that as the gentleman just said, this doesn’t fit the PUD and what was really planned and proposed for this area and I hope all of you will really think about that too. Is this what you want in Chanhassen? Big box liquor store close to a church and school. Making an area that’s already congested more congested. It’s just not a good location. I think some of the, I definitely agree on the signs so I’ll keep it short for all of you. I certainly hope you wouldn’t approve the additional sign. That generally doesn’t happen in Chanhassen from what I know in being a long 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 time building owner and property owner in Chanhassen. And I don’t believe it was, it was pointed out what the current requirements are. I did not hear what the applicant is proposing for the signage which is obviously going to be proposed larger letters than 30 inches in height and higher than 20 feet but it didn’t say how much higher than 20 feet. How much higher than the 30 inches but it doesn’t matter because that should not be compromised. It’s just not fair. Couple other things I heard just maybe for your interest is talking about hard cover. I’m not going to go into details. You are very well versed. I think you should look at that closer. I heard the words of pervious pavement. I don’t know what pervious pavement is. If someone can enlighten me but I’ve never heard of pervious pavement. I’ve heard of pervious surfaces sometimes permitted in cities. I don’t pretend to know the City of Chanhassen’s full ordinance on that. Often times you see pavers or some other permitted pervious surfaces and situations. I don’t know if you do in the commercial district but I’m not sure what pervious pavement is. I already spoke about the clarification for the signage. I think a traffic study would clearly be warranted. My recollection is this kind of brings back some old memories being here this evening from many, many meetings in front of the Planning Commission and council years ago but a traffic analysis should be required period. It would be crazy not to. You’ve heard from people and I’m sure you are all well aware of the area. It is very congested. It’s very awkward. It’s very awkward. This is just going to make that a whole lot worst. There are uses for that site that I think would be very nice for the city. Fit what the city originally intended there. A couple of them were mentioned by the applicant themselves for a clothing store was one. A pet store. Something that could fit in a large building if that should be your decision. Those could be nice but guess what, they don’t have liquor. And this is not the place for a liquor store but for all the other reasons, and I understand too. This is just not a good location for this proposed development. Thank you very much. Aller: Thank you, and for the record we did receive your letter. It will be attached and attached to the package that goes to the City Council regarding other issues. Brian Burdick: Thank you very much for mentioning that. Appreciate it. Aller: Any additional individuals wishing to come forward can do so at this time. Please state your name and address for the record. thth Jay Kronick: Thank you. My name is Jay Kronick. I own property on 78 Street. 78 West 78 th Street and 19900 West 78 Street. Aller: Welcome Mr. Kronick. Jay Kronick: Those parcels. I’ve been in the business community here in Chanhassen since before Village on the Ponds and I remember when that went in, most of what I feel has been said by the two gentlemen before me and so there’s nothing new but I just need to stand up here and tell you that I agree with what has been forth here. This is big box retailing. Make no mistake about it and yes it fits the numbers as Mr. Burdick said but it’s going to change that planned unit development away from the original intent and if that’s where you want to go with it, that’s where it’s going to go but if you want to get back to a livable, walkable, bike friendly shopping area, it’s not the right use there. The parking thing just blows me away that you haven’t looked 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 at that and the traffic with enough scrutiny. My site, which has a building half the size of it which services wines and spirits right now. We have 70 parking spaces there and there are times where it’s not adequate and you already have a parking problem there. It’s just, I can’t see that you just give that. It deserves more scrutiny. The issue with the signage, the gentlemen before me have spoke. I can’t help but agree. The City sets rules up. All the businesses play by those rules. To start changing the rules seems unfair. Many of us have worked diligently within the confines and guidelines of the city for our professional and business careers here and to change the rules because someone feels like they don’t have the visibility they want. We all would like better visibility from our signs and gosh, why don’t we do it everywhere if that’s the case. Everyone should be seen better from the highway than they are. Thanks. Aller: Thank you sir. Any additional comments? Please come forward. State your name and address for the record. Steve Friedrichs: Good evening. My name is Steve Friedrichs. I’m at 8955 Southwest Village Loop. New townhomes right there by Southwest Transit. Actually I was here for, so I’m a new resident of Chan. I was here for the Arbor Glen planning but stayed to listen. So just a couple of things. I’m the president of the homeowners association and traffic flow would be a concern of mine. One of the reasons I moved where I did is I love to bike into downtown and I bike and I go over the bridge to get into downtown. And to get back across I have to go, I think it’s where the Marathon is or whatever and that street, I know we have a bicycle path for us to go through there but it’s very, very congested. Very dangerous and I just think we should do a traffic study. A traffic flow so we can keep Chanhassen what it was designed for and I really do appreciate the opportunity to address the group. Thank you. Aller: Thank you sir and welcome. Peter Adolphson: Good evening Chairman. My name’s Peter Adolphson, 8980 Reflections Road. Having been in the public eye before I find it amazing that staff, while they’ve done their job on the stuff that looks good. Haven’t done their job where they need to and just some rough figuring. For Total Wine to make the kind of volume they want you’re talking about 3,000 cars a day to get in there and as these previous gentlemen have said, it’s already a lousy traffic situation there. I think although you have letters of support in your packet from Houlihan’s and the bike shop. St. Hubert’s I’m sure would not be very happy about this at all, especially when they’ve got Saturday mass going on. The senior center, those people have to walk to where they want to get. If there’s 3,000 extra cars a day in there, they’re going to be looking out for their lives. You only got one traffic light and that’s Highway 7. All the rest are stop signs and it’s hard enough to get onto Market sometimes with the traffic flow we currently have. Other guys both have said, we don’t need another big box store. I agree totally. What are we trying to do to our downtown right now? If we start putting these big box stores around. I know Chanhassen has a history of turning down box stores. You’ve got Fleet Farm. You’ve got Walmart. You guys need to think about that. This is not the image we need for Chanhassen. Thank you. Aller: Thank you sir. Any additional comments? Please state your name and address for the record. 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 Kate McGuire: I’m Kate McGuire and I live at 773 Autumn Ridge Lane, Chanhassen and I guess I just want to reiterate a lot of the items that have been brought to your attention. I definitely think that a traffic study should be done. It is a very congested area, especially at that west entrance which is just controlled by a stop sign. There’s a lot of traffic there during rush hour. You’ve got the big business across the road from there with people coming and going. Of course traffic coming up from 212. School starting. School ending. My daughter works at the salon in there so she’s traveling in there too so that’s a concern as a mother. I know this isn’t really your area to decide on but we already have 7 liquor stores in a town that covers almost 25 miles. I think we have maxed out on our liquor licenses and I know that’s not your area but I just wanted to bring that up too. Aller: Thank you very much. Any additional comments? Questions. Oh, one other individual coming forward. Please state your name and address for the record sir. Craig Claybaugh: My name’s Craig Claybaugh, 1630 Lake Lucy Road in Chanhassen. Aller: Welcome. Craig Claybaugh: It may be in there in looking over the documents but what was the identified hardship for the signage that warranted the variance? Aanenson: What we did is we gave a variance to the previous application and nobody objected to that so instead of saying we’re going to give them a variance we wanted to treat everybody in that same sector equal. Nobody objected to the previous variance on the specialty grocery. The 14,000 plus the additional, and then we have additional square footage with that so. Craig Claybaugh: So what was the hardship on that? Because is that hardship being grandfathered forward? Aanenson: No. No, no, we’re amending the PUD which is a different application and the fact that it applies to everybody in that same sector. Craig Claybaugh: Okay. Am I wrong in assuming there needs to be a hardship for a variance? Aanenson: For a PUD amendment, that’s correct. Aller: For the PUD so. Craig Claybaugh: Alright, thank you for that clarification. Aller: But that’s what we look for in variances so it’s a good question. Thank you sir. Any additional comments? Seeing no one come forward I’ll close the public hearing at this time. Open it up for discussion or questions based on the comments made. Undestad: Alyson, clarify some of the. 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 Aller: Yeah, can you address some of the issues that were brought forward. I guess the first and foremost would be parking and traffic. Fauske: I’ll let the planning department refer to, response to the parking concerns as they’ve done the analysis for the parking on the site. With regards to the traffic, when we look at this site the public infrastructure that serves the entire Villages development is County Road 101 to the west and then Great Plains Boulevard which is, I think there were a couple members of the audience that had spoke to the Marathon station. That’s where Great Plains Boulevard extends to. At this point to be honest I haven’t heard a lot of, this is good information to get from the residents as far as their concerns with traffic. We can take a look at what the traffic counts are doing on some of these roads. Certainly County Road 101 was designed, given the zoning in mind, in place at this development and turn lanes installed both for southbound left turn and northbound right turn. So we can certainly take a look at you know the existing intersection and see if there’s any queuing back into the, into the through lanes. If the level of service is deteriorating at that intersection. That’s certainly something that we can talk to Carver County with regards to on 101 because it is a county road. And you know with regards to the trip generation for this site, I really couldn’t speak to what the trip generation is for this. That wasn’t something that I have in the back of my head to be able to tell you. We can certainly provide that information for the council based on the square footage of the building and what the Institute of Traffic Engineers would anticipate would be a trip generation for that size building. And then with regards to the interior site, you know some of the concerns with regards to the tight radius and the traffic, I know that the City Engineer/Public Works Director has been in contact with the property manager on several occasions throughout the years to discuss some of the concerns that have been brought forward from the residents to the City so he’s been communicating with the property manager on those issues you know hoping to get some resolve with that and being able to make the area a little better drivability for the residents but it’s ultimately an interior non- public system. Aanenson: I guess I would just add to that too. If you go back to the specialty grocery store, if you look at the types of uses and where they would draw from they would be similar types of draw. Probably a little bit larger trade area so you look at the traffic patterns. While that one didn’t have the same visceral feelings about the type of use, it also did have a larger trade area so that one seemed to work so I think to going back and looking at, as the Assistant City Engineer mentioned, looking at kind of the trade draw area turn movements. Peak hours. Those sort of things and quantifying those but certainly we believe that one met the standards there. Again you have access onto the state highway. Highway 5 and coming off of 101 there which would be the public street that we also maintain. Getting access off to that but we certainly can, comparing those two numbers to show you what we had approved previously based on those assumptions and moving forward with that to the City Council. Aller: When the PUD was originally developed the number of parking spots, if you know was that based on the, the intended square footage that was going to be for the entire PUD? Al-Jaff: Yes it was and one of the things that we need to point out as far as the residential portion, it assumed that all of those units were going to be independent living and that’s how the parking was calculated for the overall PUD development. The reality is we do have a large 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 number of senior living within the development and some of those senior living apartments are not just, they’re actually assisted living which means those are individuals that actually don’t have vehicles with them. Yet the number of parking spaces have, that are provided with this development exceeds what was anticipated and what was required by ordinance. The other thing that we need to point out is the highest square footage and the highest user that requires parking would be the office and commercial use and the reality is we are far below what was anticipated for this development and again. Aanenson: Let me just say that a little bit differently. So the original plans anticipated more retail than we have there today so it’s under retailed. And then so we do have some vertical/ horizontal. That would be Presbyterian Homes which has commercial. Yes, is it exactly how we envisioned it? No. I mean when this thing went through a sag big time and without throwing the baby out with the bath we kind of had to retool. Just like people challenge us, why doesn’t Chanhassen’s downtown look like Excelsior? Wayzata. Because it’s built at a different timeframe but I think for the most part we’ve stayed within that framework of what our original envision was. Again we had St. Hubert’s Church which also has a lot of parking. They can provide cross parking in some of those peak times when there’s additional activities so the challenge there is while there might not be parking right in front of where you want to go, you may have to walk. Whether that’s the Legion, walking across maybe from St. Hubert’s or something like that. That’s the envision is that you’re sharing parking in that situation so we believe it does meet those standards and again to be clear, there is plenty of impervious surface. It does meet the hard surface parking. With that PUD they’ve got a lot of open space so it does meet those standards so the challenge there is to make sure that we’ve given you the information and the council regarding again, we believe it met the traffic warrants with the specialty grocery but make sure we’ve quantified that when we move forward to the City Council based on the liquor use. But would it be any different if it was you know a larger trade area or something so we can maybe put a couple different options in there too showing what those different traffic patterns would be. Again we’re under retailed from the original vision that we put in place in the environment assessment document. Aller: With impervious surfaces we exceed what our PUD requirements are? Aanenson: That’s correct. We’re at about 45 percent. Aller: By a good 10 percent. Aanenson: Yes and that’s part of the PUD. We had that with the National Weather Service site too where you have some properties that have more green space and others less but you average it over the entire property so this entire 66 acres has 45 percent. Aller: So regardless of the pervious nature of a material that’s placed and being used for this project, it would still fit the requirements of the PUD? Aanenson: That’s correct. Again that’s part of that you know what we show you the compilation of all the parking, of the hard cover. So we match that up against the original, where we are. Kind of a balance sheet. 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 Aller: Question, Commissioner Undestad. Undestad: The balance sheet. I just, I was going to ask the question earlier about you know a lot of the areas when we go through these we kind of keep tabs on what we thought would go in there when we started and where we’re at mid-stream and where we’re at now. Have you gone through that? Again initially we were going to have a lot of residential above a lot of retail and things are changed. Have you gone through so you can kind of look and say well actually we’re under here. We’re over there. Aanenson: Yep. Yeah we still anticipated two significant office buildings to go on the site and those are still vacant and we also anticipated a lot more institutional type uses so there are other uses that came under what we anticipated. You know we anticipated a lot more vertical. I think the challenge out there is you know the condominium market right now is in the last 10 years has been very challenging. That’s really what we anticipated. They took a long time and the City had provided, you know with the TIF to get the Presbyterian Homes in there and that’s been very successful and it’s a nice anchor. Again the City wanted to have additional property for some retail and that was really one of the drivers we were running on kind of the score here and providing that retail across the street. Undestad: So if we assume that that lot down by St. Hubert’s, the office building goes in there. I think the building that’s under construction now next to Community Bank is a little bit smaller than what was originally, could have been put on there. Aanenson: Right, correct. Undestad: So I guess that’s what I’m trying to just get a feel for is that really we’re probably less than where we thought we would have been. Aanenson: Absolutely. Absolutely. Undestad: In this whole project didn’t we. Aanenson: Yeah. Aller: Additional questions, comments. Undestad: Just following up part to Alyson there too was, again on the traffic piece of it. You know if we looked at this originally and we’ve done some traffic work back when the original project came in, or no? Aller: Let me piggy back on that. Was there an AUAR in the area? Aanenson: Yes there was an original, yeah. For the project. We have an approved Environmental Assessment Worksheet and it looked at all the trip generation and where it was coming from, that’s correct. 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 Undestad: So again we’ve had traffic work done based on. Aanenson: Yes. And again because we’re under that threshold looking at that. Undestad: Okay. Madsen: Does that trip generation worksheet look at all the different access points of the ways that you can turn and when you have to turn left and cross a 4 lane road? All those sorts of intersections. Aanenson: Yes. It looked at directional traffic. Madsen: Okay, thank you. Weick: Regarding the sign amendment. The amendment matches Sector 2, correct? Al-Jaff: Yes. Weick: So Sector 1 would match Sector 2 when it comes to sign requirements, correct? Aanenson: That’s our recommendation. Weick: Okay. I mean I would note, you know Houlihan’s which sits in Sector 2 I believe is right off the corner of this building. I mean the proximity of those buildings and their subsequent proximity to 5 is very similar I will note. Aller: Which goes to my questions earlier that because they would be treated equally even if he was in Section 1. Houlihan’s could then change or modify their signage. Weick: Correct. Aanenson: So if you looked at what American Inn has. AmericInn. That’s a taller sign on there. They have kind of a cupola that. Aller: Any additional comments, questions at this time? Then I’ll entertain a motion if someone wishes to make one. Weick: Actually can I go back? I do. You know at the beginning we said we were looking at three things. One was plat approval. Two was site plan approval and three was the PUD amendment for the signage. Is there any in the first two items, so plat approval and site plan approval, there’s no amendments or variances or anything in those correct? Aanenson: That’s correct. Weick: So everything that’s presented falls within the zoning ordinances. 17 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 Al-Jaff: Exceeds the requirements. Weick: Or exceeds the requirements and so the real question for us is item number 3, is that a fair statement? Aanenson: Yes you have discretion on, you have discretion on the amendment, that’s correct. Weick: Thank you. Aller: Because in denying or approving items 1 and 2, which are the plats and the site plan review, if a property, a request is made and it meets the requirements we must approve so that boils down the reason we ask questions. The reason we want the information and staff does it’s report is so that we can decide whether or not that, those requirements are met. Once a determination is that we feel as though they are met then we must approve. If we feel that they are not met, then you have the ability to deny. So with that any additional questions? Weick: Sorry. Aller: No, that’s fine. Then I’ll entertain a motion. Educated decision. Weick: I’ll make a motion. Aller: Commissioner Weick. Weick: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve the th preliminary plat for Villages on the Ponds 11 Addition, site plan for Chanhassen specialty retail, and planned unit development amendment to the sign criteria subject to the conditions of the staff report and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: For discussion purposes do I have a second? Undestad: Second. Aller: Having a motion by Commissioner Weick and a second by Commissioner Undestad, do we have any further discussion or comment? Weick moved, Undestad seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends th the City Council approve the preliminary plat for Villages on the Ponds 11 Addition subject to the following conditions and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation: Park 1.Full park fees in lieu of additional parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected as a condition of approval for the proposed plat of Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the th Ponds 11 Addition. The park fees will be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat 18 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 submission and approval. Based upon the current commercial park fee rate of $12,500 per acre, the total park fees would be $33,875. Engineering 1.The plat must be revised to include a 10-foot wide perimeter drainage and utility easement on Lot 1, Block 1. 2.The fees collected with the final plat are: Surface Water Management fee, Park Dedication fee, and GIS fee ($25 for the plat + $10/parcel). 3.City water (WAC), city sewer (SAC) and Metropolitan Council sewer (Metro SAC) fees will be collected with the building permit and will be calculated based on the uses within the building. Water Resources 1.An estimated $54,610.02 in storm water utility connection charges shall be due at final plat. 2.The property owner shall execute and record against the property a maintenance agreement in a format provided by the city for the pervious pavement, underground filtration, sump manholes and Contech Jellyfish™ Filter. 3.The applicant shall apply for and procure all other necessary permits. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Weick moved, Undestad seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the site plan to construct a 19,909 square foot specialty retail building on property zoned Planned Unit Development subject to the following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation: Engineering 1.Based on the proposed grading on the north side of site the grading plan may require some revisions in order to maintain drainage from the existing improvements to the north. Building 1.The buildings are required to have automatic fire extinguishing systems. 2.Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 3.Detailed occupancy-related requirements will be addressed when complete building plans are submitted. 4.Provide a 1:200 scale drawing of subdivision. 19 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 5.The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. Fire Marshal 1.Provide a three-foot clear space around fire hydrants. 2.Yellow-painted curb and “No Parking Fire Lane” signs will be required. Applicant shall contact Fire Marshal for specific locations. 3.No P.I.V. (post indicator valve) will be required. Natural Resource Specialist 1.The interior width of all islands must be a minimum of 10 feet. 2.A total of 13 trees must be planted within the vehicular use area. Planning: The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. 1.The street/sidewalk lights along Main Street have to be preserved and operational when the site construction is completed. 2.Approval of the site plan is contingent upon withdrawal of Planning Case 2014-29, approval of the Planned Unit Development amendment and Subdivision. 3.The light poles may not exceed 20 feet in height. 4.All Wall Packs (WPI) shall be replaced with Wall Packs (WP2). Water Resources 1.The Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan with all elements required by the NPDES Construction Permit shall be prepared and supplied to the city for approval prior to any earth- disturbing activities. 2.Proof of the NPDES Construction Permit having been procured by the applicant shall be supplied to the city prior to any earth-disturbing activities. 3.A dewatering plan, specific to the existing pond, shall be prepared and submitted to the city for review and approval prior to any earth-disturbing activities. 20 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 4.Areas immediately tributary to the pervious pavement, including disturbed areas behind the back of curb, must be stabilized within 24 hours of construction of the pervious pavement areas. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Weick moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development amendment in the attached ordinance for Villages on the Ponds to allow signs to be placed higher than 20 feet within Sector I, and for the size of letters to be increased to 48 inches along the west and north elevations as shown below (amendments are shown in bold and highlighted in yellow), and including the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation: Wall Signs 1.The location of letters and logos shall be restricted to the approved building sign bands, the tops of which shall not extend greater than 20 feet above the ground. In Sectors I and II, sign height may be increase based on the criteria that the signage is compatible with and complementary to the building architecture and design. The letters and logos shall be restricted to a maximum of 30 inches in height except along the north and west elevations for buildings within sectors I and II. These letters may be increased to 48 inches. All individual letters and logos comprising each sign shall be constructed of wood, metal, or translucent facing. 2.If illuminated, individual dimensional letters and logos comprising each sign may be any of the following: a. Exposed neon/fiber optic, b. Open channel with exposed neon, c. Channel Letters with acrylic facing, d. Reverse channel letters (halo lighted), or e. Externally illuminated by separate lighting source. 3.Tenant signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant’s proper name and major product or service offered. Corporate logos, emblems and similar identifying devices are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band and do not occupy more than 15% of the sign area unless the logo is the sign. 4.Within Sectors I and II, architecturally, building-integrated panel tenant/logo sign may be permitted based on criteria that the signage is compatible with and complementary to the building design and architecture. Architectural elements specifically created to increase signage height are prohibited. 5.Backlit awnings are prohibited. 21 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Aller: The matter is moved to the City Council. Those individuals wishing to discuss other items with regards to the City Council or follow this item to the City Council for it’s final determination is presently set for July 27, 2015. Thank you all for participating. We’re going to take a minute recess here to allow the room to clear and those individuals that might have been here for item number 3 that was presently on the calendar. Arbor Glen planning case, that matter has been removed from the calendar at their request and that will be extended and heard by this st commission on the 21. The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: GLACCUM SUBDIVISION, PLANNING CASE 2015-18: REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (RR) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (RSF); AND SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES OF APPROXIMATELY THREE ACRES INTO FOUR LOTS ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1510 LAKE LUCY ROAD. APPLICANT/OWNER: ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION/MICHAEL & LEAH GLACCUM. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. As you stated Planning Case 2015-18 is Glaccum Subdivision. Glaccum’s are the property owners for this site and so that’s where the name comes from. Tonight we’re holding the public hearing and this goes to City Council on th July 27. The applicant is Estate Development Corporation and Michael and Leah Glaccum. Again it’s a rezoning of the property from it’s currently zoned rural residential to residential single family or RSF. The property is guided in the Comprehensive Plan for residential low density uses and this means density of 1.2 to 4 units per acre. This development will come in within that range and it complies with all the requirements of the RSF district. The property is located at the northeast corner of Lake Lucy Road and Yosemite. Property address is 1510 Lake Lucy Road. There is an existing single family home on this site as well as a couple out buildings and a little garden. The northwest corner of their property consists of a wetland complex and the one issue we had in here is there’s a small portion of the site meets the city criteria for a bluff and the City defines a bluff as having an elevation change of 25 feet or more and a slope of 30 percent or greater so when it has both those criteria then we consider it a bluff. However this entire ridge area, there’s only a small percentage of this. The development to the east Shadow Ridge has the same slope configuration. However none of that met the bluff criteria so everything around this bluff area could develop except for that specific area behind the existing house. That house does not meet the City’s requirements for setback from a bluff. It’s approximately 10 feet from the top of the bluff. Bluff setbacks are 30 feet. So the applicant, as part of this development with the subdivision is requesting a variance from the bluff setback requirement and in this instance to go to zero setback they want to take out the top of that hill and make the residential area developable. What staff worked with the developer on was trying to preserve the wetland area and the wooded area on the northern, on the north side of this project. Down in the bottom of the bowl if you will. Again this is a rezoning from rural residential to single family residential district and a subdivision of the property into 4 single family lots. As part of the development they would outlot the wetland and they would also 22 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 provide, dedicate the right-of-way for both Yosemite, Lake Lucy Road and the small cul-de-sac that will access the 3 lots on the eastern side of this development. The property on the west side is limited to access off of Yosemite since Lake Lucy Road is classified as an arterial roadway and the city’s hierarchy of road systems and we do not permit direct property access to arterial roads when we can avoid that. That’s why we’re having them put in the public street. That little cul-de-sac bubble. The zoning of the property, for property that’s guided residential low density there are several zoning districts that would be consistent with that. The single family residential district is the most prominent one that we have in the city but also the R-4 district which is low and medium density residential. The RLM district which is residential low and medium density district and a planned unit development residential could all be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. However in this area there’s not single family residential PUD’s immediately surrounding this. The single family properties to the north and east are zoned RSF and on the south side of Lake Lucy Road is also zoned RSF. The large lot developments to the southwest of this are part of, off of Steller Court are part of large developments, 2 ½ acre minimum lot sizes and the rural residential district zoning is consistent with that. However the RSF district is not. What our Comprehensive Plan allows is that we don’t make people rezoning to be consistent with the land use until such time as they propose to intensify or redevelop the property and at that time any approvals by the City must be consistent with that. The RSF district is consistent with that and we are recommending approval of the rezoning which would permit this development. That leads to the subdivision of the property. They are proposing to creating 3, or 4 single family lots. We’re having them outlot the wetland in a separate lot so that that can be dedicated or donated to the City and then we retain control over that. Each of the lots exceeds the minimum requirements of the RSF district. On average the lots are approximately 20,000 square feet in area. RSF district requires a minimum of 15,000 square feet. The house site on Lot 2 is approximately where the existing house is located. They’re just pushing it to the north and northwest slightly and that’s where the bluff area is. To make this site developable that’s what they needed to do. They are providing a stormwater infiltration system between Lots 2 and 3. As part of this project we’re having the project engineer look at the maintenance and repair. Maintenance responsibilities for that providing that to the City. Long term the City will be responsible for maintenance of that public improvement which serves all the lots on the cul- de-sac basically. As part of the plat again they’re dedicating the right-of-way for Lake Lucy Road and Yosemite and the small cul-de-sac bulb that will serve the easterly lots. They are providing large areas of drainage and utility easements including over Outlot A which is the wetland as well as the stormwater conveyance system between 2 and 3 and then we have our standard drainage and utility easements around all the other lots which are 10 feet on the front and rear and 5 feet on the common property lines. Again there’s a small area of this entire ridge area meets the criteria for a bluff. Again the existing house does not meet the bluff setbacks. They could come in and rebuild it. However we wanted to see a uniform development on here. There are some benefits for allowing them to take that out. There’s a lime stone retaining wall along Lake Lucy Road that will be coming down as part of this development proposal. That would be in the City’s right-of-way so in long term the City would have been responsible for maintaining that or getting rid of that. We are providing a larger area buffer around the wetland as part of the development and a conservation easement will be recorded over that. In this grading picture it’s shown as a hatched area around the wetland and along the north property line. The trees within this area will be preserved. The conservation easement will be recorded over that and it will prohibit the property owners from going down and removing those trees. 23 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 Again this is in the bottom of the slope so it’s in the really adjacent to the wetland and it will provide a nice natural area to the north of these house sites. However everything on the top of the bluff and in the back yards of this will be graded as part of the mass grading for the development so. As part of this project the applicant will be providing sewer. Sanitary sewer, water and storm sewer improvements. Again the storm sewer between Lots 2 and 3 is an infiltration system and it meets the new requirements from the watershed district. We’ll get a maintenance schedule for that and long term the City will be maintaining that. They’ll connect to the water that’s in Lake Lucy Road. As part of this project they will extend sanitary sewer to the west end of Lot 1 so. Landscaping for the project meets requirements of the city ordinance for landscaping on residential development including replacement trees. Based on the calculations they needed to provide a total of 26 trees within this development. They’re providing a buffer yard along Lake Lucy Road and there’s also some plantings adjacent to the eastern property line where there are existing homes to the east. One of the requirements is that they provide an access easement across Lot 4. Should the property to the east eventually redevelop or decide that they don’t want to have direct access onto Lake Lucy Road they could come into this cul-de-sac and then have access off of a public street. Again that would improve traffic flow Lake Lucy Road. Staff is recommending approval of the rezoning and approval of the subdivision with the variance to the bluff setback requirements to allow the development to take that bluff out and subject to the conditions of the staff report and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Weick: Was there any study done on what the work on the land would do to the wetland? The impact on that. In other words I imagine there will have to be a significant amount of grading. Aanenson: Right. If you could go back to that grading slide. So typically what we do before those is we’d actually put erosion control up so there’s a no touch zone for all those trees so that would be outside of any, that’s kind of a no touch zone. Yeah. Tietz: Just doing a quick calculation it looks like it could be 7,000 yards of earth that’s going to be taken off. If you take 6 feet off the cap. Aanenson: Yep. Tietz: And then you’re building significant retaining walls down by the wetland just to create the lots. It’s a pretty disruptive proposal. It looks like it’d be better with 3 lots instead of 4. Aller: But in this, and I guess a question, in this process they’ll have to have the NPDES permits. Aanenson: Correct. I think some of the challenges when we looked at this first, Bob if you could go back to the slide that shows there’s different land uses we could have looked at. So you could have done 4 homes that you could have clustered them on smaller lots would have been another too. To develop this to preserving that one area so you just went past it. There you go. So if you look at preserving that lower part and you could have come in, which we’ve done in the past. Some of those smaller lot configurations so clustering that would be another way to get the 4 lots so we did walk the site with, the staff did walk it. The Forester, City Engineer, Water 24 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 Resources Coordinator, Mr. Generous walked that site to look at, to evaluate all that because it is an anomaly out there and going back to looking at, so one of the City’s desired goal is we talked about that retaining wall and that’s failing against the City’s right-of-way so some of the trade off so those are some of the things that we looked at to make sure that we can mitigate for as you indicated a significant amount of grading because it was a challenge. Tietz: But the vegetation it doesn’t look like there’s much of significance. It’s down in the low lands. Mostly box elder and up top there’s a few reasonable trees but they’ll be sacrificed. Aanenson: Right but that was the decision that the Forester made too is looking at the quality of what was on the site so all those things went into the factor to consider that but I would agree that taking that top piece off is, it’s a significant amount of grading, yeah. Tietz: Yeah Bob, I want just a question in the staff report on page 10 of 17, regarding the maintenance of that proposed drainage system. It said if a system is approved it would fall to the City to maintain and operate. The staff is concerned about what liabilities the City might be exposed to. Is the City willing to accept that responsibility and with the design as proposed and? Fauske: That’s an excellent question Commissioner Tietz. As we approach these new rules with the watershed district and we look at the State requirements we’re finding that staff has to play out the worst case scenario in these situations and so the comments made in the staff report is just taking a look at the long term viability of these stormwater management systems and ensuring that the maintenance agreements that have to be in place now would adequately cover staff’s concerns with regards to making sure that this is a maintainable system. The concern stems from, that the proposed stormwater management system is on a 3 to 1 slope that goes between two yards so that’s one of the things that we go through with some of these developers and talking about okay well what’s reasonable. How deep will it be at it’s deepest point? Do we have adequate easement in order to go and maintain that system if the need arises? Generous: And if you would, condition number 44 was put in there specifically addressed to make their engineer determine what those maintenance responsibilities would be. Tietz: But there’s not a homeowners association in this project right? So it would be the responsibility of the City. Generous: Right and also. Tietz: If we accept it. Generous: Right and the City doesn’t do all stormwater management. We have a stormwater utility established to help pay for that. We require the developer to initially install that and then we have to accept it as a public improvement long term. Aller: Any additional questions? 25 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 Madsen: I have a question about the proposed benefit for that access easement with the neighboring lot. So for that to occur does that neighbor have to fund that to build a new driveway to attach to it at some future point? The cost to connect it at this point is not covered within this project. Fauske: At this point the, the existing single family home to the east is not required to make that connection. The staff condition, the condition of approval is just to set up an easement to allow for that to occur in the future if the need arises. As far as who’s responsible for the cost, if it’s, if there’s, the homeowner wishes to do that, that would be their, the onus on them. Another time when that situation might be different is if the City was in there with a street project. Lake Lucy Road was resurfaced back in 2005 so we don’t anticipate that we would be in there with a project in the near future, where we would open up that discussion with a resident. Aanenson: If I may, we found this in situations where we tried to connect these and we want to be clear about our intention because if you don’t the homeowners in there, in the future may say we don’t want that connection and the homeowner that may not be this owner that’s to the east of the site but it might be a future owner that says you know I’d prefer to be able to get to that cul- de-sac because it’s a T intersection there so over time they may want that. So by having that in there it doesn’t prohibit those homeowners to say we don’t want that connection made because now it’s in writing and it’s recorded. So that’s why we put it in place if that makes sense. So just trying to plan ahead as Alyson said. There might be a time in the future where somebody may want to make that change. Madsen: Okay, thank you. Aller: Additional questions at this time. Hearing none if the applicant wishes to come forward and make a presentation that’d be great. Welcome sir. If you could state your name, address and representational capacity. Tom Gonyea: Sure. Good evening members of the commission. Tom Gonyea with Estate Development Corporation, 15250 Wayzata Boulevard, Minnetonka, 55391. I think staff did a good job of explaining the project. One thing I’ll note, with me tonight Mike Glaccum is the owner of the property. His mother lives there and he’s in from out of town for the meeting so if there’s questions of him he’d be available to help us out I’m sure. Couple of quick notes. One, you know we did work with staff quite a while and talked a lot about the access. You know I think the idea and staff’s goal eventually, if you could get all the driveways off Lake Lucy Road that would be a good goal. It’s kind of got to be up to the people but it was important to keep that in a spot where somebody had the option to hook up there if they so desired. Now we’re down the road. You know you’re at the top of a hill so it’s kind of a spot where you want less things coming out onto the road. Not more anyway. One other note as Bob was mentioning the retaining wall. As that comes out you know there will be a new, the trail will probably be sacrificed and so there’ll be a new trail installed along with that for the whole frontage of the property up to the cul-de-sac and on the other side of it. I think it continues the whole way right now, is that correct? Yeah so other than that happy to answer any questions you have. I’ll leave it at that. 26 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 Aller: Looking good, thank you. And at this point in time we’ll open the public hearing. Any individual wishing to come forward and speak either for or against. Craig Claybaugh: Need my name and address again? Aller: Please. Separate hearing. Craig Claybaugh: Craig Claybaugh, 1630 Lake Lucy Road. Aller: Welcome again sir. Craig Claybaugh: Alright. Question I had, and it’s just a question if anybody can address it is the elevation of the sanitary sewer because they extend to the... What the elevation is as it runs parallel to Lake Lucy Road. Aller: While she’s looking for that, is there a concern that you wanted to discuss about that or? Craig Claybaugh: Well it isn’t so much a concern as it is just in terms of how it’s being achieved. How deep it is? Is there any lift stations and houses or how they’re accomplishing that? I own a property just to the west of that, beyond that so I have a vested interest in it so. Aller: Awesome, thank you. Craig Claybaugh: Okay. Tom Gonyea: I could speak to that a little bit if you’d like. Aller: Sure. Tom Gonyea: We did take that into account and staff wanted us to keep it deep enough and stub it the west side of the property. I don’t know the exact depth over there but the idea was to serve a future property. Our houses are all fed gravity sewer. There is no lift stations in the houses or common lift station for all of them at all so. And there might be, Alyson could maybe find the… Aller: And we have standard depth requirements for our system. Fauske: For sanitary sewer we look at the grade of the sanitary sewer pipe. There’s a minimum grade at which we would accept the pipe. We do encourage designers to go, to design a little bit above that grade in order so they can make sure that the constructability of the line isn’t compromised. Just looking at the plan set, the proposed sanitary sewer on the west end of the site is 16 feet deep. It appears that they are running it at a minimum grade so the desire is to try to keep that sanitary sewer as deep as possible so that we can get as many folks on a gravity service as possible. 16 feet is not an excessively deep sanitary sewer. You usually look at sanitary sewer is installed below watermain and watermain is 7 ½ feet deep so the shallowest is usually somewhere around 10 feet so 16 isn’t, is deeper than average but certainly not excessive. 27 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 Craig Claybaugh: The…would be the road surface or a third or? Aller: I’ll repeat the question if I could hear it but I couldn’t hear it so. Craig Claybaugh: The benchmark is 16 feet is the benchmark road surface? Fauske: So the proposed sewer layout is just to give a little bit more background is extending from an existing line in Lakeway Drive up into the cul-de-sac and then also extending to the west and it actually the sewer extension lies north of the existing trail, thank you Bob. So the, with regards to the question as far as what the relative elevation would be it would be the surface elevation at that point to the bottom of the sanitary sewer connection. The sanitary sewer pipe at that location. 16 feet. Tietz: So it’s flowing east to Lakeway Drive and then south on Lakeway. Fauske: Correct. Tietz: Correct so we’re always. Aller: Gravitationally. So you don’t foresee the use of a lift station in that area. Fauske: Not at that location. We’d have to take a look at some of the existing homes on Yosemite. They are larger lots. Some of the homes are set back a little further on the property. Like I said the goal is to have gravity service to as many properties as possible. That being said we realize that when we’re looking at extending sanitary sewer after the lots have been developed with homes on them, that there are some situations where we can’t achieve a gravity service to the property. Aller: Additional questions? Mike Glaccum: Comments to raise other than an opportunity to just thank. Aller: Sir you’re the property. Mike Glaccum: I apologize. Mike Glaccum, 1510 Lake Lucy Road is our family’s property. I’ve not been a resident here for quite some time. I’ve served in the US Military in the Air Force for the last 26 years. I’ve just recently retired in January and we’ve now relocated into the Washington D.C. area which is where I reside now. I would just reflect back on you know purchasing that property, my family in 1965. 50 years ago. I think that qualifies my family as some of the original homeowners at least dating back that far. Certainly it was our intent as a family, my family and I when we purchased that land from my mother 13 years ago to relocate back there ourselves and request to build a new structure roughly where site number 3 is was what we had envisioned. Trying to leave as much space around us as possible to enjoy the size of the lot. You know for reasons that you can all appreciate from our national security situation in the last 15 years my call to serve was strong and I remained on active duty and that delayed and set back our desire to relocate to this area so that I could continue to serve. So the time has 28 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 come now. My mother is retired. It’s time for her to find a different place where she can be more comfortable and we appreciate the effort that’s gone into this building plan. Certainly we appreciate the neighbors and the folks that have lived in the area for quite some time but we do recognize that it’s time for her to move on and so again, thanks to Tom and the team for what they’ve put into this for the work that you’ve all done thus far coming up with this plan and if there’s any questions from me as the property owner I’m happy to entertain those. Aller: So is it your intention then to reside here or are you going to liquidate? Mike Glaccum: No it’s not. We’re selling the land to Tom and to his team and they’ll take it forward for development from there and for the time being we’ll be remaining in the Washington D.C. area. Aller: Any additional questions? Okay, thank you for your service and if you ever want to come to a real city, we’re here. Mike Glaccum: Yes sir. There’s a lot of work left to do in the world so thanks. Aller: Okay we’re going to close the public hearing portion of the meeting and additional comments, questions. Weick: I am always all for single family development, especially in areas where you know it seems difficult to add houses sometime in Chanhassen. However sometimes areas are undeveloped for a reason and I believe this area falls under that category. So my opinion is that due to the presence of the bluff and the amount of disruption to that area that I see anyway, the plan as it exists now is in my opinion too much. So I would not be in favor of a variance to remove the bluff. That’s my opinion. Aller: Additional comments, questions as a result of Commissioner Weick’s comments. Undestad: I think I’m looking at it and part of the comments were made earlier as far as there’s a lot of dirt moving around and things like that. It is a tough site. It’s probably you know you’re right, it’s why it hasn’t been developed for a while but I think that really falls onto what the owners want to spend to create their lots on there. Not so much as it doesn’t make sense. Yeah it costs a little more but you know that’s up to them. And I think there was some tradeoffs being met for the variance on there and taking care of some things on the street out there so. Yeah it’s a lot of work. There’s a lot of dirt moving around. There’s a lot of trees shuffling around but I think at the end of the day it works for me. Aller: Comments. Madsen: Although it would be better if you didn’t need to remove so much dirt for the bluff I do appreciate that there’s going to be improvement into the retaining wall and the permanent green space, or the watershed area will be preserved so I do appreciate that. 29 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 Aller: I’m torn. This is one of those ones where I have always said you know preserve our wetlands. Preserve our bluffs and here it’s kind of a tradeoff and I’m looking at the highest and best use of the property and I’m trying to see whether or not the tradeoffs are sufficient because we’re going to get this sewer and water and they’re great considerations but I’m just, I’m torn. We’re going to protect our wetlands regardless so it’s great that it’s an outlot and it will be protecting it but I think we’d be protecting those anyway. The nature of the bluff, the only thing that sways me a little bit with the nature of the bluff is that it’s such a small bluff that it’s inconsistent with the rest of the community and that our overall plan and goal in the highest and best use if we’re going to grant a variance it would allow for that building to occur with limited. It’s not like a typical bluff where I would expect it to impact the wetland so because of that I would probably support. So based on that. Tietz: Yeah I think, obviously there’s significant change going to occur on the site and it’s a very difficult site but you know in respecting the bluff and the desire to protect those in the community, this is not an extensive bluff line. We’re not down in the Minnesota River. We’re not in an area where we have a mile and a half of bluff with mature oak trees. This is a fragment of a, I would call it a hillside as opposed to a true bluff. The vegetation obviously this area was farmed for many, many years and the trees that have come back are not mature. The disruption is going to be significant and I think that needs to be monitored closely during construction to protect that wetland and I don’t know, has the wetland report come back? It said it would be th July 10. Do we really know the status of that wetland? As a classification, at least in the staff th report it said you wouldn’t have a report until the 10 of July. Aller: I don’t think they have to do a clarification of the waterline. Tietz: Just a clarification of the quality. Was it the waterline? I can’t cite the page but I do recall reading that. Fauske: Yes. The delineation has been, was completed and it was classified as a Manage II within the City’s management classification and I’m just looking to search for the comment that you’re referring to Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: Yeah, I could probably find it Alyson but regardless I think it just needs to be monitored during construction to protect what we do have down there. And as infiltration. Aller: If I could Alyson, is a permit going to be issued by Riley water or DNR or is that shared? It’s not us right? Fauske: It was, I just read it too. It was. Aanenson: I think what the conditions are, the approval that are on there so if the wetland delineation moves at all we’ve got some preliminary delineation. One of the things that we’re requiring is that they put a wetland buffer and that puts the homeowner on notice. These are going to be very large executive homes that there’s no creep into that area so we’d put wetland delineation markers out there but that’s after the homes are built but the challenge is if you look under the conditions then would be that everything is silt fenced and monitored so before we 30 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 authorize construction to begin all that has to take place so that’s actually field walked to make sure all that silt fence is up and that’s in a non-disturbed area so that’d be all those trees and then all the wetlands so what would change would be if the wetland delineation is approved, I’m reading from the conditions of approval, or be modified then the setback and the buffers would be changed so we have, the house plan would be changed. Commissioner would be, you have to meet a setback from that but I think we’re all, all those homes as shown, again these are boxes. Not the actual homes. Tietz: Right, right. Aanenson: So it would, it may modify a home type on there. Whether a deck could go there or something like that so when that would be finalized we would check that to make sure that all those homes meet the setbacks as we do standard with routing of a permit. Tietz: Okay. Aanenson: So that would be the minor change that would occur there. Tietz: And so if I misspoke, it’s on page 5. 5 of 17 under wetland protection and it says that th comments are due by July 10 and that’s from the Minnehaha. The report from Minnehaha so I apologize. That was not accurate. Aanenson: Yeah. Yeah. Hokkanen: On page 14 of 17 are you talking about item number 7, the wetland delineation is approved. Be changed, you’re talking about that one right? Aanenson: That’s what I’m talking about yes. So if the wetland goes 10 feet one direction or another, then that would affect the setback and the buffer treatment that is required. So we would have that before we do a final plat. Again standards with the preliminary plat and then with the final plat that would be modified. Hokkanen: And there is the area of tree conservation in there. Aanenson: Correct and that’s, that would all have to be before grading would be commence. We have to authorize that and that would all be staked and silt fenced and we’d walk that to make sure it’s in the proper place before they would begin grading. Hokkanen: I mean I guess as a part of a bluff or hillside you can tell by the retaining walls that are going to be on two of these lots are significant. They, I mean and staff is fine with. Those are long, tall, bigger than I mean they’re going to be in for 4 feet correct. Aanenson: Yes and they’re dropping. Hokkanen: And they will be the homeowners responsibility. There’s no association. They will have to maintain those boulder walls. 31 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 Aanenson: That’s correct. Hokkanen: I mean that’s a big deal. Aller: Commissioner Weick. Weick: Yeah my concern is and continues to be the proximity to that wetland and you know in my tenure here on the Planning Commission we certainly have precedent to encroach bluff setbacks. To my knowledge we’ve never gone right into the bluff, right and whether or not it’s a significant or insignificant piece of the property, it qualifies as a bluff. I would be concerned about the precedent that that sets especially in the proximity to the wetland you know to take how ever many feet off of that designated bluff area. Aller: Could the house on Lot 2 be built with a variance as to the bluff setbacks without modifying the whole plan? Just as a question. Generous: That house pad starts where the existing house is but then it would go into this bluff area. Additionally you have that stormwater system that’s running right down the middle here. Aller: So you’d lose the stormwater system? Generous: Well yeah. It’d have to be reconfigured probably to the east or to the west. Aanenson: So we started at the same point you did then we said let’s walk it and see what makes sense on the ground with the experts that are in their field and disciplines to say what makes sense. Is it an anomaly? Is it you know? Then we would go the other way and say okay we could do 4 smaller lots on there. Cluster them in a different way so that was a decision made kind of with the disciplines to say where’s the tree preservation? How are we going to manage stormwater? How are you going to preserve the wetland and look at this anomaly of that grading. As was indicated it’d be farmed in the past so because the house was probably here and avoided that one spot but for that. So what are the goals we’re trying to accomplish and that’s kind of where we went from there to say what were the other goals we were trying to accomplish and that was the vegetation adjacent to the wetland. We kind of have corridor of some wildlife moving through there. Deer moving. Generous: And if you would look at the landscaping plan you can see what our required buffer width is. It’s right here. We’re basically extending that out to this area. So anything in this crosshatch would now become a buffer area. A conservation easement. One of the conditions is to make sure that the retaining walls are located and constructed so they’re outside of that easement area also so there will be some slight revisions at that final platting stage. Undestad: I’ll make another comment here. I mean I agree with what you’re saying on the bluff point but you know the significant or insignificant comment, I think when you really go out and look at this, you know the comment was made it’s really just more of a hill with insignificant vegetation on there which is again why staff had walked it and said alright, what do we really 32 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 have here. I’m sure if was again like was stated, if it’s a Minnesota River bluff or some of our larger bluffs along the creeks and that would be something we’re probably definitely going, you know that’s different. That is different so I think if it hadn’t been, everybody hadn’t been out there and really we look at it and go, what’s you know. The word bluff is on the paper but what are we really changing out there and is there a benefit to it? Aller: Any additional comments? Concerns, questions of staff or discussion with each other? In that case I’ll entertain a motion if someone would like to make one. Undestad: I’ll make the motion. That the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve rezoning the property from rural residential district (RR) to single family residential (RSF) and subdivision approval with a variance to the bluff setback to create 4 lots and one outlot subject to the conditions of approval and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Madsen: Second. Aller: Having a motion by Commissioner Undestad and a second by Commissioner Madsen, any additional discussion on the motion? Undestad moved, Madsen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the rezoning from Rural Residential District (RR) to Single Family Residential (RSF) subject to the following condition: 1.Contingent on final plat approval. All voted in favor, except Weick and Hokkanen who opposed. The motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. Undestad moved, Madsen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Subdivision with a Variance to create four lots and one outlot subject to the following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation: Building: 1.Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. 2.Engineered design and building permits are required for retaining walls exceeding four feet in height. 3.Each lot must be provided with a separate sewer and water service. 4.Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures. 33 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 5.Proper removal, abandonment or sealing of storage tanks, on-site septic systems, wells, etc. is required. Permits are required, as applicable. 6.If applicable, existing home(s) affected by the new street will require address changes. Engineering: 1.The existing easements on the property shall be shown on the existing topography page of the plan set. 2.The easement dimensions must be revised over the sanitary sewer to provide adequate area to excavate the pipe for future maintenance at a 1:1 slope (minimum), or a 1:1.5 slope (preferred). 3.The developer shall dedicate a conservation easement over the wooded area being preserved adjacent to the wetland. The conservation easement language must allow the property owner of Lot 3, Block 1 to perform proper maintenance and/or replacement of their lower retaining wall or the conservation easement and/or wall must be shifted to allow enough area for said maintenance. 4.For future benefit, an access easement across Lot 4 must be granted to the property at 1430 Lake Lucy Road, or the portion of Lot 4 that lies between the cul-de-sac and 1430 Lake Lucy Road must be dedicated as public right-of-way. 5.The grading plan must be revised to include the proposed elevations at each lot corner. 6.Lot 1, Block 1 shall require drain tile service to promote drainage from the back to the front of the lot. 7.The wetland delineation is approved or, if need be, modified for approval and the setbacks and buffer areas are changed as necessary. 8.The Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall be modified to include all elements as required in Parts III and IV of the General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity Under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination/State Disposal System. 9.The SWPPP shall list among the quantities the required volume of topsoil to spread six inches on all areas to be sodded or seeded. 10.The retaining walls will be owned and maintained by the individual property owners. 11.The plans shall show the top and bottom wall elevation for all proposed walls. 12.Walls over six feet high shall not be boulder walls. 13.Tiered boulder walls with a combined total height greater than six feet must have adequate spacing between such that they do not structurally impact one another. 14.The vegetation between tiered walls shall be low or no maintenance. 34 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 15.A stop sign shall be installed for traffic on Lakeway Drive before crossing or entering Lake Lucy Road. 16.The plan must show proposed driveway elevations at the center of the proposed driveway at the curb line as well as the maximum slope on each driveway. 17.The maximum allowed driveway grade is 10% at any point on the driveway. The Lot 1 and Lot 4 driveways must be revised to be under that maximum. 18.The plan shall be revised such that there is a five-foot buffer between the trail and traffic on Lake Lucy Road. 19.The pedestrian ramp at the corner of Lake Lucy Road and Yosemite Avenue shall be replaced with an ADA-compliant pedestrian ramp. 20.The City of Chanhassen standard detail plates for pedestrian ramps shall be added to the plan set. 21.The sanitary sewer main on site shall be installed per the City of Chanhassen Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. 22.The eight-inch watermain shall be installed per the City of Chanhassen Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. 23.The proposed sanitary sewer and water main shall become city-owned after construction and acceptance by the City Council. 24.The city shall require the developer to extend the sanitary sewer and water main to the northern property line of Lot 1 for future connection of properties to the west. 25.The detail plates in the plan set must be updated with the most current City of Chanhassen plates. 26.The applicant’s engineer shall provide the anticipated operations and maintenance requirements for the infiltration system and shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city, how maintenance, including excavation can occur. 27.The applicant shall move MH 2 to the curb line and, if need be, move OCS 3 a commensurate distance. 28.The sump depth of MH2 shall be four feet. 29.A total of $14,722.50 in storm water utility connection charges shall be due at time of final plat. 30.The applicant is responsible for procurement of, and compliance with, any other agency approvals that may be necessary. 31.Water and sewer partial hookups are due at the time of final plat. The partial hookup fees will be assessed at the rate in effect at that time. 35 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 Environmental Resources: 1.Tree protection fencing will be required at the construction limits prior to any grading. 2.Lots 1 through 4 will have the following quantities of trees planted, as shown on the landscape plan dated 6/16/15: Lot 1: 4 trees; Lot 2: 3 trees; Lot 3: 3 trees; Lot 4: 4 trees. Bufferyard plantings will be located on Lots 1, 2 and 4. 3.Conservation easement signage shall be installed at property lines and directional changes. 4.All retaining walls must be located outside of the Conservation Easement. Fire: 1.Provide a three-foot clear space around the new fire hydrant. 2.No burning permits will be issued for tree, brush removal. 3.Submit proposed street name to Chanhassen Building Official and Fire Marshal for review and approval. 4.Street name sign shall be installed prior to any building construction. Parks: 1.Full park fees in lieu of additional parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected. One lot is being granted park fee credit in recognition of the existing single-family residence that was on the property. The park fees will be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. All voted in favor, except Weick and Hokkanen who opposed. The motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Undestad noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 2, 2015 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. Aller: I’d just like to say thank you to all the sponsors and workers and volunteers that have th been out here for the Chanhassen 4 of July celebration and you should take a look at the different names and sponsors that were out there and the best way we can say thank you is to go ahead and Buy Chanhassen. Go in and support them. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Aanenson: Subdivision for Moline’s was approved. Resolution, Dayco Concrete, their site plan nd amendment, CUP amendment was also approved and then BeeHive, the 2 Addition was also thnd approved. And that was for June 8 and then on the 22 there was a variance for, that you had 36 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 previously looked at for Lund Food Holding. And then also an interim use permit for grading of over 1,000 square yards on the Holasek property. I think that one should be starting pretty soon I st believe. And then I’ll give you just a quick update then. You do have a meeting on July 21. We have two things on there. A variance and the site plan. Aller: And we’re adding Arbor Glen right? Aanenson: And we’re adding Arbor Glen so you’ll actually have 3 items on that. We’ll reprint that report and, because I think there’ll be some changes. We’re meeting with the developer on that so. And then we do not have a meeting on National Night Out so you can all celebrate with th your neighborhood. Hopefully you’re doing that. And then after that then on August 6 we’ll be having our joint commissions tour with the Park and Rec and the Environmental Commission so. Aller: And for the members we should plan on 5:30. Aanenson: Thank you, yes. We will definitely leave here by 6:00 so if you can get here a little before that and we usually have some light snacks. Some great fun with staff so and other commission members so make that enjoyable so we’re, and we’re working on some other projects. They’re in different stages so we do anticipate a couple of things yet this fall so, and then also on the calendar we would not meet with the school district referendum too so. I also put in your packet, just for your edification too some of the businesses, new signs that are in town too so. With that, that’s all I had Chairman. Aller: Questions, comments. Hokkanen moved, Weick seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 37