Loading...
PC 2017 03 07 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 7, 2017 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Maryam Yusuf, Steve Weick, and Mark Randall MEMBERS ABSENT: Nancy Madsen and John Tietz STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; MacKenzie Walters, Planner; and Stephanie Smith, Project Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: Amber Pass 1392 Ithilien Josh Kimber 2060 Majestic Way Erik Dale 1190 Lyman Boulevard Liz Kozub 8661 Chanhassen Hills Drive No. Luke Thunberg 1701 Mayapple Pass Zhexin Zhang 1455 Bethesda Jon Gilbert 1641 Jeurissen Lane Joe Shamla 1691 Mayapple Pass Kaylene Thompson 1802 Cotton Grass Court Marissa Weber 1190 Lyman Boulevard PUBLIC HEARING: 1392 ITHILIEN – VARIANCE REQUEST FOR IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF. OWNER/APPLICANT: AMBER PASS. Walters: As mentioned this is Planning Case 2017-05. It’s a variance request for 1392 Ithilien. The request is for a 5.5 percent hard cover variance. The applicant has stated the intent of the request is to address drainage issues on the property. The location is shown here. This is the Ithilien subdivision. Subdivided in 1992. Little bit of background. The house was built in 1993. In terms of permits ’97 a permit was filed for the 120 square foot deck and then in ’97 a pool and fence were approved on the property. In 2006 a zoning permit was approved for grading work on the property and we’ll talk about the work that was done at that time later. Regarding what brings us before just a very brief case history is presented. Essentially Inspector Tessman was responding to a neighborhood report of potential construction going on without a permit. Issued a stop work order and in the case of addressing that we discovered that the property had likely exceeded it’s hard cover due to various work done prior to pulling zoning permits. A more detailed timeline is contained in the staff report. So it’s RSF, Residential Single Family district. Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 7, 2017 Maximum zoning is 25 percent lot coverage. 30 foot front and rear setbacks. 10 foot side yard. Minimum lot size is 15,000 square feet. The parcel in question meets all the required setbacks. After stuff’s calculated out it has 14,810 square foot lot so it is right about, a little bit below the usual minimum and it currently has 4,525 square feet of lot coverage for about 30.5 percent. There is some dispute about how much hard cover was pre-existing versus what’s been added. Just so you know if it was held to the 25 percent standard for the district it would be limited to 3,702 square feet. The applicant has stated that the house had a pre-existing hard cover of 4,223 square feet. Staff using the 2006 survey has calculated that at 4,028. Round up 29 square feet of hard cover. Currently as mentioned it has 4,525 and they are requesting a variance to maintain that amount. Staff’s recommendation is that a variance be granted for 4,224 square feet and we’ll explain the rationale behind that in a bit. I should also mention the applicant would like it to be known that the property had about, a little under 800 square feet of impermeable poly around it on the landscaping. The City does consider that impervious surface. However in terms of establishing status as a non-conforming use, because the City was never aware of it and never approved it’s installation it’s not standard practice to credit that as a non-conforming use so that isn’t typically grandfathered in. Essentially we consider what is pre-existing to be what the City knew about and approved at the last time. So to go over the hard cover that would have existing before the improvements were made, staff looked at different aerial photos going from the year 2000 to 2016 and we compared them to the 2006 survey that was on file. We could not detect any noticeable change in hard cover between 2000 and 2016 when the aerials were taken. You’ll notice there’s a thin concrete around the pool, slightly wider in that corner and a thin walkway connecting the pool and the patio in the 2000 aerial. This is the same as is shown in the 2006 survey. The 2005 aerial and the 2016 aerial. That’s why staff feels pretty confident that what’s shown in the 2006 survey is definitive for what was there historically and approved by the City. In terms of what hard cover has been added to the property, in the applicant’s submitted packet they’ve indicated that a sidewalk was installed along the south side of the property. They installed 270 square feet of concrete. Removed approximately 16 square feet so that would be a 250 square foot increase in hard cover. They’ve stated that the driveway was replaced as is and that concrete in the back was replaced as is. When Engineering Technician Ferraro did the grading inspection he observed that it did not look like the rear patio area was at the same dimensions as the aerial photos he had seen. When staff went out to take pictures for this report we confirmed that the sidewalk is expanded as shown. However our observations indicate that hard cover was also increased in the rear patio around that narrow walkway we saw as well as quite a bit of hard cover here inbetween the pool and the house. If you’ll look at the aerial you’ll see the pool hard cover here had stopped right about at the beginning of the tree and as you can see in the photo it now stops much closer to the end of the tree. We don’t know exactly how much was added. Best guess from the aerials would be about 140 to 160 square feet there. Maybe a little more. In terms of the drainage issues that the applicant is trying to address, there are some pretty well documented drainage issues for this property and through the neighborhood. In 2006 because of the very steep slope that you see here the original, I believe original homeowner but previous homeowner constructed an alley way to try to direct water to the back yard and then also constructed an alley way between the pool and the house and installed drain tile with the idea of capturing some of that runoff and diverting it out back. One of staff’s, well 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 7, 2017 first of all the grading improvements conducted by the current owner are reinforcing that alley way. Building a dry creek bed with the goal of increasing infiltration and dealing with the standing water that was pooling in the back yard and then they also poured that southern sidewalk here to prevent water from going into the basement. Because that concrete was poured in this area around the pool staff is concerned that this interferes with the ability of the water to be moved to the back yard and runs the risk of pushing that onto neighboring properties and increasing their water issues. As mentioned the south sidewalk was designed to prevent water from infiltrating into the basement. Speaking with the Water Resources Coordinator staff is of the opinion that the sections along the basement are likely justified by the water issues the property has. We’re of the opinion that about the section from the service door down, about 195 square feet of hard cover that was added are justified based on the unique conditions of the property. That steep slope and the potential for water to pool right along that basement there. Staff’s initial recommendation when speaking with the applicant during the grading permit process had been that they hold off on re-pouring the driveway. Replace this section here with river rock and remove the installed patio area around the pool. That would have brought them to just a little bit over what was the historic non-conforming hard cover and we believe would have adequately addressed the drainage issue by allowing them to retain the sidewalk along the south of the property. In summary there is pre-existing hard cover that would be a non-conforming use on the property. Based on the 2006 survey staff calculated that out to be 27.2 percent so 2.2 percent over the residential district’s 25 percent. Since then the hard cover has been expanded to 30 and a half percent. Staff does believe that a portion of the southern sidewalk is justified by the unique situation of the property with regard to the drainage and staff recommends that a partial variance be granted to accommodate this portion allowing the lot to have up to 28.5 percent hard cover. Staff is very concerned about the potential impact of properties to the north with the extra hard cover here essentially pushing water down that way onto the neighbor’s properties. If you have any questions I would be happy to take them at this time. I know there was a lot of numbers and I can try to break them down as much as I can. Aller: Any questions based on the staff’s presentation at this point? Randall: I guess I had one question for you. Is that considered a flat lot? Walters: So yes it is technically a flag lot. This case started before we passed the recent ordinance that would exclude the section here from the calculations. In this case because at the time the ordinance was silent staff chose not to treat it as a flag lot because it made the situation a little better for the applicant. This is a rare flag lot where the neck actually helps the property because it only has about, I think I calculated around 13 percent coverage within the neck so it helped you know kind of defray some of the hard cover from the pool. So because we had some discretion at the time I chose not to treat it as a hard lot. Cause less hard cover issues. Aller: Okay based on that response any additional questions? Hearing none if we can have the applicant step forward. Yes, now is time for your presentation so if you can state your name and address for the record that would be great. 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 7, 2017 Amber Pass: Okay my name is Amber Pass and my address is 1392 Ithilien. Aller: Welcome. Amber Pass: Thank you. So what I just want to share is that the area that you’re recommending we take out, that was all polyurethane. Hard like not non-permeable polyurethane on top of there with rock and there was a lot more than that section that was, it was impervious surface when we went there and took that out along with a bunch of polyurethane and rock around the side of the house. It actually wrapped all the way over to that little square where the pool heater is so just in reference to worrying about water drainage for the neighbor. There was a lot more impervious surface there before that concrete pad. I know the neighbor’s been concerned about it but there’s a back story to that. I was greeted when I moved in with somebody putting stakes in along what he thought was the lot line my first week there and we had to have the yard surveyed and found out he was about 15 feet off and at that point things went downhill and calls came in to you guys. I did call the day the contractors were scheduled to come for concrete just to double check if I needed a permit and I was told by your office I did not need a permit to pour so I spent $30,000 re-landscaping this yard. Addressing water issues that I was not aware of when I bought the house last spring. I called the City. Additionally this area was all super thick hard plastic with rock so it’s actually less than there was before so I guess I’m asking for a variance to keep this. The house was in really poor shape when we bought it. We did a really good job. We worked really hard on it. We had to obviously address the drainage issue on the side of the house because we were getting water in the basement which wasn’t disclosed when we bought it and again that was already impervious surface so if anything it’s going to be better for the neighbor because there’s less impervious surface now than there was when I got there in that area. Plus I installed a beautiful dry creek bed in back where when we got to the house he couldn’t even mow his lawn. They can actually mow back there. It was so wet so I just, I’m asking to leave my yard the way it is and not have to pay somebody to come back and tear out something. Aller: Any questions of the applicant? Weick: I do if that’s okay. Aller: Commissioner Weick. Weick: Hi. Amber Pass: Hi. Weick: The area that’s kind of in question here between the pool and the house, I notice there’s a section of it that’s kind of up against the deck and then there’s home there. Does this new concrete area like the sidewalk help in any way with drainage away from the house? 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 7, 2017 Amber Pass: If it does it would just kind of go towards the back of the lot where that dry creek bed is. Weick: Okay. Amber Pass: So and we actually had the yard graded really, really nicely so that, because everything would go back to that dry creek bed. The back story on me is my son spent 2 weeks in Children’s because he was bit by a mosquito and got encephalitis of the brain so long story short we almost lost him so when we addressed this water issue it wasn’t just for my yard. We didn’t want standing water next door because that’s how our son got sick and we’re still dealing with the ramifications of that illness so we took care of the water issues. Weick: One other question if that’s okay. I’m also looking at, I’m on page 9 of 11 in the report. Maybe the image. Yeah it’s this image here in the lower right. As you look to the north where the fence is it looks to me like it’s higher than your pool. Does the property go up there? Is there kind of. Amber Pass: Yeah there’s a big like this along the back of our property down to our neighbors and it kind of just tapers off and that’s where we put in that creek bed. I mean it goes the span of our entire back yard. Really nice big thick moss. Weick: And then my reason for that question is to wonder if there is a concern for increased runoff in the north direction. It doesn’t look, it looks to me like there’s natural boundaries from that going straight north into the property. That’s what I’m trying to figure out but thank you. Amber Pass: Thank you. Weick: For your clarification. Aller: Any additional questions at this time? Alright, thank you very much. Amber Pass: Thank you. Aller: At this point we’ll open up the public hearing portion of the item and ask for any individual who wishes to come forward and speak either for or against the request for the variance, they can do so at this time. Seeing no one come forward I’ll close the public hearing and open it up for commissioner discussion and comment. Randall: I guess I kind of, I should have asked how much that new ordinance benefits the applicant. Walters: You’re referring to the classification of flag lots? Essentially the area within the flag would be excluded from both the hard cover calculations and lot area calculations. As I 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 7, 2017 indicated because in this case the flag portion is below the 25 percent it would bounce their hard cover higher. Randall: Okay. Walters: Oh I’m afraid I don’t have the numbers for that off. Randall: That’s okay. Aller: Thoughts? Yusuf: Are there any other options because it seems like? Aller: Well it’s been done so the question becomes whether or not we’re going to reduce it which would require some movement on their part to remove, to come down to a certain extent or whether or not it would remain the same as the request. Weick: I mean I don’t know. In my opinion I’m convinced that there was some type of impervious surface in that area so it was kind of moved from one to another. I’m not wholly convinced that there’s an immediate threat to the directly to the north because of the way that, I am familiar with those properties and they do funnel down to the back and there’s, I don’t know what to call it. I mean they made it a dry creek bed but it extends beyond that you know down the length of these homes. Kind of along that tree line that’s back there so I, I struggle with this one because it’s you know clearly there have been renovations made to improve pretty tough condition on that property. Not just with water draining in the basement but also pooling in the back yard which all have been fixed which I think is good. And I’m not wholly convinced that that small section that’s in question is significantly going to change from past water drainage on the property. Aller: I think when I first read the report I was thinking of course of the old adage about requesting forgiveness instead of permission and sat back and said how am I going to treat this and how am I going to view it and so I wanted to view it in a way that if it came forward today, not having a history which is why I didn’t ask any questions on the history, what would I do and so I think for the purposes of accepting the report and the facts in the report and the facts as stated I’m certainly willing to look at the modified and my only concern and question is the additional so I’m happy certainly with the recommended. Staff’s recommendation at the 28 percent but I’m not, that’s where I’m struggling. The 28 to the 30 and knowing that they got the benefit of the flag lot had they come forward today they actually probably would be receiving less unless there was a real hardship. And in looking at a variance we’re supposed to apply the least onerous modification because otherwise we’re kind of opening Pandora’s Box for anyone that wants a variance to say well you gave them an additional 100 feet. I would like additional 200 feet and then pretty soon we’re giving away the store and we’re creating a situation where 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 7, 2017 our planning isn’t effective. So if anybody has some comments that can help me one way or another on that additional square footage that would be great. Yusuf: Well I think I’m on the same page as you are. I think it makes sense to support the 28.5 but it’s hard to get to 30.5 and justify that. Amber Pass made comments from the audience that were not picked up by the microphone. Aller: And I’m not discounting what you said as a fact. That’s why I wasn’t really. Amber Pass: …I wouldn’t have paid for that and now paying the money to tear it out you know. It would have been nice to have someone come out… Randall: So one question too on the part of the driveway. How much does that lower the percentage? Walters: I’m afraid I’d have to run those numbers because I’d have to measure out that section of the lot and then that subsection of the driveway and I apologize I did not think to do those calculations. Randall: That’s fine. Is that a fairly big section? Walters: It’s not huge no. I mean if you look at the map you’d essentially have this triangle here. Randall: I guess not that. The part that we talked about right here in the back side to cut down the hard. Walters: Oh, that section. You’re talking about the turn around bump out and about the first third here? Randall: Yeah. Walters: Memory tells me that worked out to about, it was going to be like 150 to 180 square foot range. Somewhere in there. Randall: Okay. Would that be, how do got to figure out how much that would take off the percentage? Just that one section. Weick: You talking about the driveway? Randall: Yeah. 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 7, 2017 Aller: And I would tack onto that and ask what direction the water flow or what impact would that have for purposes of? Walters: My memory of the grading is that the water coming here essentially you know runs down the driveway into the street and then the issue is what hits here. The grading plan from, you know talking with the Water Resources Coordinator and Engineering Technician Ferraro who did the grading permit and that inspection, as was mentioned filling is meant for everything to pull to this north and then run down here. That’s one of the reasons why if you look at the, so if you look at the 2006 grading plan they didn’t do any work up here because that water again supposed to, the plan is that it hits the driveway and goes down here. It goes here. It was supposed to be just through the natural slope and the alley way brought it to the back yard and then here it was supposed to be directed from there into the drain tile and conveyed into that section back here and through. So that was the you know original grading plan for the area. Or my understanding of it from conversations I’ve had. Randall: Okay. I was just wondering like because that’s not, that recommendation that you had for that one little area there to take that out, if that would change a lot of the percentage for them. Amber Pass: I would be willing to do that. To take out that back part of the driveway if I have to do something. Walters: Sorry I’m going the wrong direction aren’t I? Yeah that was our, again when Engineering Technician Ferraro and I first spoke with the applicants and when he went out into the field visit it was our belief that they would not even need a variance if this section of the sidewalk was retained. This patio and this driveway was removed. At the time, if memory serves me right the driveway had not been poured. Amber Pass: It’s poured but I would rather, I mean I would like to leave the patio intact because I guess before that was all, there was a lot more…all the way around that. Aanenson: Chairman if you could have the applicant step up to the microphone, sorry. Aller: Yeah please. I’m sorry. Aanenson: It’s hard to hear. Amber Pass: I’m sorry. Aanenson: That’s alright. Amber Pass: I would, I mean if we have to take something out I would be, I mean if that’s what we have to do I’d be open to take the driveway out but like I said that whole area was rock all the way over to the pool heater before with thick black stuff under it so there’s actually now sod 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 7, 2017 between there and our patio where there was even rock and stuff but maybe with taking out the driveway that would get it to the point where you guys are comfortable. Walters: Unfortunately you know we don’t have a good registered land survey of exactly was there before. Aller: Right. Walters: From the aerials you can see the rock section in that lighter brown here and here. The section here where the patio is, to my eye is a green. Amber Pass: It wasn’t. It was rock with some bushes in it. Aller: Okay. Randall: I was hoping that that would be a compromise… Aller: Well I’m just wondering whether or not if there’s, I’m not looking for a compromise. I’m looking for what direction that water’s going and whether or not we can, I mean the whole purpose of a variance is to correct this hardship and I do agree there was a hardship and I do agree that there’s a benefit and I think the City does as well so, so I’m not removing the top of the driveway is going to make a difference and that’s why. Weick: To that point though I don’t, in my opinion I don’t think removing the patio makes a difference either personally. I don’t. Aller: Well I think that that would be the case but I’m comfortable with the fact that, the facts as I would come to them I believe there was some polyurethane there and some rocks and potentially we should give the benefit of the doubt there so I just want to make sure that the water for this property as well as the neighbors that may be impacted and that’s where my shift is. That’s where I want to know whether or not there’s going to be water going somewhere else where we’re creating a problem by trying to fix one and that’s what I’m focusing on at this point. So my big question is will removing any of that driveway be a betterment as far as stormwater drainage for the neighboring properties? And if not I’d just as soon leave it. If it is then I would say, if it was performing before, before it was poured I would say leave it out. Undestad: MacKenzie how, again you just had a rough idea. It was 150, 60 square feet of that driveway? Walters: Yeah. Undestad: On that end. 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 7, 2017 Walters: Gut check 180’ish at most. 160 on the low end for that section of the driveway plus the concrete up to the service door. Undestad: And if they take that out, going backwards on the numbers again but what percentage does that put them at if they take 180 out of the driveway there? Walters: Well I’d have to grab a calculator but it’d be. Undestad: It just looks to me like the grades on the back there, everything kind of, it does, I mean it doesn’t go straight north as you can see by the topography they have there. It kind of kicks down the hill a little bit there but the other thing I’m thinking is taking out that patio down there, you know how much turf and how much is going to get ruined to get down in there to pull that out and what is going to do when we start tearing all that concrete out where I was just trying to see if there was a way to, you know if the driveway removal, if the applicant’s okay with that. If that gets us closer to not doing too much damage in the back yard again. Walters: The driveway would move you to sorry, 29.3 percent. Aller: Any additional questions or comments or concerns or I will entertain a motion from anybody that’s thinking about making one. Weick: The total amount is? I mean I’d make a motion but I don’t think it’s. Aller: Well you can start it and tell us what your idea is and then we’ll go from there. Weick: Well I personally would, I would. Aller: Well you’re going to make a motion. Weick: I will make a motion then. Aller: To? Weick: I would make a motion to increase the hard cover by 5 ½ percent to 30.5 percent. So maintaining. So increasing the variance by 5 ½ percent. Aller: So what does that do to the original motion? Or the potential to do. Weick: Well it wouldn’t be a partial variance. It would be a full variance. Aller: So the full variance is the 3.5 percent? Weick: The full would be 5.5 percent. 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 7, 2017 Walters: Yep. So instead of reading what’s on the screen you would just a 5.5 percent hard cover variance. Aller: Is that your motion? Weick: Well I haven’t technically made it. Aller: Right, I got you. And at that 29.3 percent hard cover that would be an addition of what? Weick: 4.3. Aller: 4.3. Weick: And I would also be okay with that if there was a preference to do that. Aller: Anyone? So I mean I certainly can support the 4.3 right now if somebody has, I mean we can vote on it or have further discussion after the motion’s made. Yusuf: Can we just have one quick discussion? Aller: Absolutely. Yusuf: Mark you wanted to share some opinions on how much work or effort it would take to do some tearing up in the back yard and would that do more damage? Or how significant. Undestad: Well I think it would but I think the track that we’re looking at on the driveway is you know the give and take and it helps as much as we can without going into the back yard and doing damage so. Yusuf: Okay, thank you. Aller: So is there anybody that wouldn’t support a motion for 4.3 at this point? Hearing none is there a strong argument. Weick: Would we have to amend? Aller: No you can just make a, because we haven’t made one yet. Weick: Okay. Aller: And we would just modify that to the. 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 7, 2017 Weick: Because how that’s achieved is up to the homeowner. Okay. Aller: Well it would be the driveway so. So I’ll still entertain a motion. Weick: I’ll propose a motion. Aller: We need a formal motion to act. Weick: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a partial variance request to allow hard cover to exceed 25 percent by 4.3 percent. Aller: Go ahead, to address. Weick: To address drainage issues on 1392 Ithilien subject to the conditions of the staff report and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. Aller: Okay, so now I have a motion. Do I have a second? Yusuf: Second. Randall: Second. Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion to modify the motion at all or to amend or viewpoints? I think we’ve discussed. I think everybody’s fairly confident with this so. Weick moved, Yusuf seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a partial variance request to allow hardcover to exceed 25 percent by 4.3 percent, subject to the following conditions and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision: 1. The property’s hardcover is not to exceed 29.3 percent (4,345 square feet). 2. The applicant must submit a registered land survey showing that the property’s hardcover does not exceed 4,345 square feet. 3. The applicant must apply for and receive a zoning permit. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. AUAR – PUBLIC MEETING FOR THE AVIENDA ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW. AVIENDA (SUBJECT OF THE AUAR) IS LOCATED SOUTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD AND WEST OF POWERS BOULEVARD. 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 7, 2017 Walters: Gut check 180’ish at most. 160 on the low end for that section of the driveway plus the concrete up to the service door. Undestad: And if they take that out, going backwards on the numbers again but what percentage does that put them at if they take 180 out of the driveway there? Walters: Well I’d have to grab a calculator but it’d be. Undestad: It just looks to me like the grades on the back there, everything kind of, it does, I mean it doesn’t go straight north as you can see by the topography they have there. It kind of kicks down the hill a little bit there but the other thing I’m thinking is taking out that patio down there, you know how much turf and how much is going to get ruined to get down in there to pull that out and what is going to do when we start tearing all that concrete out where I was just trying to see if there was a way to, you know if the driveway removal, if the applicant’s okay with that. If that gets us closer to not doing too much damage in the back yard again. Walters: The driveway would move you to sorry, 29.3 percent. Aller: Any additional questions or comments or concerns or I will entertain a motion from anybody that’s thinking about making one. Weick: The total amount is? I mean I’d make a motion but I don’t think it’s. Aller: Well you can start it and tell us what your idea is and then we’ll go from there. Weick: Well I personally would, I would. Aller: Well you’re going to make a motion. Weick: I will make a motion then. Aller: To? Weick: I would make a motion to increase the hard cover by 5 ½ percent to 30.5 percent. So maintaining. So increasing the variance by 5 ½ percent. Aller: So what does that do to the original motion? Or the potential to do. Weick: Well it wouldn’t be a partial variance. It would be a full variance. Aller: So the full variance is the 3.5 percent? Weick: The full would be 5.5 percent. 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 7, 2017 Walters: Yep. So instead of reading what’s on the screen you would just a 5.5 percent hard cover variance. Aller: Is that your motion? Weick: Well I haven’t technically made it. Aller: Right, I got you. And at that 29.3 percent hard cover that would be an addition of what? Weick: 4.3. Aller: 4.3. Weick: And I would also be okay with that if there was a preference to do that. Aller: Anyone? So I mean I certainly can support the 4.3 right now if somebody has, I mean we can vote on it or have further discussion after the motion’s made. Yusuf: Can we just have one quick discussion? Aller: Absolutely. Yusuf: Mark you wanted to share some opinions on how much work or effort it would take to do some tearing up in the back yard and would that do more damage? Or how significant. Undestad: Well I think it would but I think the track that we’re looking at on the driveway is you know the give and take and it helps as much as we can without going into the back yard and doing damage so. Yusuf: Okay, thank you. Aller: So is there anybody that wouldn’t support a motion for 4.3 at this point? Hearing none is there a strong argument. Weick: Would we have to amend? Aller: No you can just make a, because we haven’t made one yet. Weick: Okay. Aller: And we would just modify that to the. 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 7, 2017 Weick: Because how that’s achieved is up to the homeowner. Okay. Aller: Well it would be the driveway so. So I’ll still entertain a motion. Weick: I’ll propose a motion. Aller: We need a formal motion to act. Weick: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a partial variance request to allow hard cover to exceed 25 percent by 4.3 percent. Aller: Go ahead, to address. Weick: To address drainage issues on 1392 Ithilien subject to the conditions of the staff report and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. Aller: Okay, so now I have a motion. Do I have a second? Yusuf: Second. Randall: Second. Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion to modify the motion at all or to amend or viewpoints? I think we’ve discussed. I think everybody’s fairly confident with this so. Weick moved, Yusuf seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a partial variance request to allow hardcover to exceed 25 percent by 4.3 percent, subject to the following conditions and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision: 1. The property’s hardcover is not to exceed 29.3 percent (4,345 square feet). 2. The applicant must submit a registered land survey showing that the property’s hardcover does not exceed 4,345 square feet. 3. The applicant must apply for and receive a zoning permit. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. AUAR – PUBLIC MEETING FOR THE AVIENDA ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW. AVIENDA (SUBJECT OF THE AUAR) IS LOCATED SOUTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD AND WEST OF POWERS BOULEVARD. 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 7, 2017 Aller: I understand that the City has already had an open house on this topic and the information that was achieved and received has been attached to this report and the purpose tonight is to take information on the present status of the draft AUAR and then to receive public comment which would be then handed through to the City Council for further action so at this point we’ll go ahead and address that item. Aanenson: Chair if we could just take a minute to get rid of our green screen here. Aller: For those of you who remember the old green screens, this is just a little retro look. Could be amber. Could be green but no other choices. I guess I’ll take the time to let you know and the public know that’s watching that these reports are on our website so there is a lot of transparency in these hearings. We want to make sure that everybody gets as much information as possible so please feel free to hit the website and get our Minutes. Look at our calendar so that you can come down and make arrangements to be here in person and certainly watch these items on cable. Or You Tube. Do you think it’s going to take a moment? Aanenson: We’ll just go ahead. Stephanie, we’ll just go ahead. I apologize. I don’t know what, how that happened but it’s a little bit more challenging to look at. Alright thank you Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. This is the public comment period for Avienda. The AUAR document. As you stated we did hold an open house last week but before I begin I want to introduce the team so tonight here we have with us Jon Horn with Kimley-Horn who’s been the engineering firm on the project and also Hoisington-Koegler Group is also part of the team putting the AUAR together. That was part of the original team in 2003. Some of us are still here. Still working on this. And then Stephanie Smith from the engineering staff will be the project engineer as this moves forward. Paul Oehme our City Engineer was at the open houses and has been involved in the meetings too, for the open houses and as a part of the document itself. Brad Scheib who is with Kimley, excuse me with Hoisington-Koegler is not able to join us tonight so, but this information that’s presented tonight was presented to the City Council 2 weeks ago. Loose cable, thank you. And so the City Council had seen this. We wanted them to see an opportunity before it went out for the open houses so they’d understand what some of those comments were and then we did have the open house a week ago tonight to get comments. Again the goal of this is to provide an opportunity for the residents to comment on the impacts of it. So we did pass out the AUAR document and I’ll give information on where people can find that document. We will also be putting a copy in the library so anybody that wants to go read it, as opposed to reading online can do to the library to check out a copy and then we’ll also have copies here if somebody’s interested in that. But again the purpose of this meeting is to take public comment. It also will be published in the Environmental Quality Board in April and that’s a 30 day comment period and so that, there’s plenty of opportunities for people to send in comments to us. We’re the regulatory governmental unit reviewing this document so there’s opportunity to send emails to the City for additional comments. We did attach comments that were received at that open house so those are a part of your packet tonight but the goal here tonight is to go through, we’ll kind of tag team on this, the appropriate person to respond to the comments and at the end too I will review the schedule where we go from here but again this is 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 7, 2017 not our typical public hearing in that sense but to take those comments. Those comments will be forwarded to the City Council who then authorize publication of it and that kind of kicks off the more formal review process once it gets published. So with that we’ll start the review. So we talked a little bit about the purpose of the AUAR. We’ll talk about that in a minute. Again this project, the 2005 AUAR was done with the first project that went in was Liberty on Bluff Creek so we had one project that required an Environmental Assessment document. Instead of looking at the one project we did the whole 600 acres and looked at all that so within that now we’ve had 3 other developments. Camden Ridge, The Preserve and Pioneer Pass so there’s been quite a bit of residential development but now we’re looking at the western side. So this document looks at the existing conditions. It looks at the alternatives so there’s 2 alternative scenarios in there. Neither of which would may be something that comes forward but to assess the magnitude. Looking at traffic and transportation, which we know is a concern for the adjoining property owners. The infrastructure. Does it meet capacity for this proposed development. How are we going to manage storm water and drainage and then the environmental and natural resources out there. And again as I mentioned the next steps we presented at the end of it. So as we said you know this analyzed what the areawide review does is looked at the potential for impacts resulting from this development so because this document was done a number of years ago and it’s been 5 years since any activity has happened on the site it is required to be updated and I think we brought that to your attention when we looked at the preliminary concept for the PUD. So in order for the preliminary plat to go forward this document needs to be done. We also put out there on our website and with the information we’re not going to be talking about what’s the architecture going to look like. How many office buildings? That sort of thing. That’s not a part of this specific review although the quantitative elements are shown to represent the threshold that could be developed on the property. So again we have to do this because it’s been a long time since it’s been, any development’s happened out there so it does trigger the warrant so again we’re measuring the magnitude. So this shows the 2005 AUAR and as you can see it’s significantly different than when it was originally proposed. One of the big differences, on the first iteration we actually contemplated a potential high school and as you know that was moved across the street and I think we got stumped when someone at the City Council asked how big it was and it’s over 300,000… (Due to technical difficulties a portion of the staff report was not recorded.) Aanenson: …on this site so this overall 600 medium and high density residential. Again what we put into the PUD residential zoning district, the intent of that was up to 20 percent residential and the reason that was done is that, the goal was to have this as a mixed use development. Having 50 percent residential probably wouldn’t meet that goal and that’s why it was also dual guided for the office park. So they looked at that and then also the square feet of business and then some support retail so this is a true mix of residential, retail and office so that would be one concept. And here it is again illustratively shown how it would be laid out. And then the second concept would be contemplated with the preservation of the wetland and 400 medium or high density residential districts and then a million square feet of business and 250 square feet of retail so this one contemplates less retail development. And that’s how this one would lay out. So 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 7, 2017 again as part of their requirements they have to go through to, which their proposal would contemplate wetlands. They have to go through any wetland permitting and follow the requirements that will be part of the AUAR as that’s a separate permitting process. They would have to do in order for you to approve any preliminary PUD, those permits would have to be in place first. So I’ll turn it over to Jon Horn. Jon Horn: So the AUAR process does include an analysis of infrastructure so I’ll walk you through some of the infrastructure that’s in place to support the redevelopment of the AUAR area. This is surface water management plan. Generally drainage within the area goes to Bluff Creek which runs through the site at this location with the exception of a small area in the far northeast corner that goes to Lake Susan. One of the significant changes that has happened in terms of requirements over the last 10 years since the original AUAR was done was in terms of how storm water management is handled so the requirement for the development areas that they would need to maintain drainage patterns in terms of where the water ultimately ends up, either to Lake Susan or Bluff Creek. They would need to abstract or basically infiltrate the first inch and 1.1 inches of runoff from the new impervious surface. We’d need to maintain discharge rates to below the current levels. We need to remove phosphorus and total suspended solids. They would need to look for ways to pre-treat and infiltrate or filtrate the runoff and then any construction would need to be done in accordance with the storm water pollution prevention plan. There’s been a number of investments over the last 10 years in terms of supporting the sanitary sewer and water service needs of the site so let’s talk about sanitary sewer first. So everything within green shows all the infrastructure that’s been built over the last 10 to 12 years to support the needs of the area. Basically it’s been stubbed out at this location. The development of the Avienda site would require sanitary sewer within this area and again all the existing infrastructure that was built and planned 10 to 12 years ago all has adequate capacity to serve the needs of the proposed development, either Concept A or Concept B. The demands that were identified as a part of the new development proposals are actually less than those that were contemplated as a part of the original AUAR. This graphic shows water service to the area so everything in red is existing watermain facilities. Blue shows the proposed facilities that would be required again to meet the needs of development and those water system demands are less than those that were contemplated as a part of the original AUAR process. So the infrastructure that’s been planned and built over the years is certainly well positioned to serve the needs of any development within the AUAR area. So traffic is, was a big issue 10 to 12 years ago and continues to be a concern of the area. This graphic shows existing traffic volumes so all these traffic volumes are basically 2 directional traffic volumes on all of the existing roadways within the site based upon existing traffic counts. The areas highlighted in the dashed are the development areas so basically what’s been done as a part of the AUAR process in this graphic is looked at each of those individual development areas. Looked at the 2 options for the development. Identified trip generation, traffic generated from each of those areas and then put that traffic on the surrounding roadway system to understand what those impacts would be in a future condition with build out of the AUAR area. We did look at generally how traffic would access the site and just from a general perspective it’s anticipated that about 50 percent of the traffic to and from the development area would come from the northeast. About 25 percent from 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 7, 2017 the southwest and less, about 13 and 12 percent from the northwest and southeast areas. So what does that mean? You take that traffic. You put it onto the adjacent roadway system in terms of what would the impacts be so this basically shows what the traffic volumes would be for Concept A here as well as Concept B. One of the things you’ll see is that there’s not appreciable differences between the traffic generated and the traffic impacts to the surrounding roadway systems for either A or B. There are generally increases certainly because of the development of the area as well as just general background traffic growth. Traffic increases range from you know 20 to 25 percent to about 65 percent at the high end and one of the significant discussions has been over time the impact in particular to Bluff Creek Drive. Bluff Creek Boulevard so existing traffic volumes along Bluff Creek Boulevard today are about 2,200 closes to Audubon and about 1,600 as you approach the dead end at that location. Under the proposed development scenario those increase to about 36 and 3 or 32 and 26 so about 50 to 76 percent increases in those traffic volumes. A lot of consideration way back in the original infrastructure in terms of what to do traffic calming to try to limit those traffic volumes. If you go back and look at the original AUAR the traffic volumes that were projected as a part of that for the year 2010 at this location was about 45 and 84 so the traffic volumes that we’re seeing today and the projected traffic volumes that are anticipated as a part of development are less than those were contemplated as a part of the original AUAR for the year 2010. We have looked at impacts to the surrounding roadway system a part of the AUAR process to look at, is to look at mitigation measures so we basically looked at all of the intersecting roadways that would provide access into the development area. Basically those things shown in black are the existing configurations. Anything shown in red would need to be added so it shows a major entrance into the site which would occur here at Powers Boulevard and the ramps off of 212. Improvements would be necessary at that location as well as accesses at these locations. It is anticipated that with the growth of the development area and the growth of traffic that potentially traffic signals could be warranted at this location, this location and that location and those are certainly things that would need to be monitored as development occurs. Aanenson: Jon would you just mind mentioning what streets those are just in case they can’t see. Jon Horn: Yeah I’m sorry. Yep so this is Audubon Road to the north. Lyman at this location and this is Sunset at this location. Lyman and this is Powers and Pioneer Trail at that location. So again potential traffic signals at those 3 locations. Accesses at this location on Powers Boulevard and this on Pioneer Trail for development in this area. Potential access through this area off Bluff Creek Drive for development here and then a loop road that would connect between Audubon and Lyman Boulevard at this location to serve development in this area. Aanenson: Alright so the next steps on this, as we open up…and then if you wanted to open it up for comments. I think we’ll do our best to try to answer some of the simple ones. Otherwise we’re going to take notes and follow up and all the comments will be addressed as kind of the compilation as we move forward so we had the open house. This is the public comment period. The full AUAR is available on the City’s website so if you just type in the City’s website and then just do an AUAR update, that will bring you right to that site so again the full draft will be 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 7, 2017 th going to the City Council on March 13. We’re just going to give them a summary. They won’t be holding comments at that. They’ll be holding their comments at the end of the comment thrd period on May 8 so it will get, our goal is to publish in the EQB Monitor on April 3. There’s nd a 30 day comment period so that would comment period ends on May 2 so anybody that wants to give us some additional feedback, has questions they’re certainly welcome to provide those th comments. And then the goal then is for the council to give consideration on May 8 and that date’s flexible. So the other agencies that will be commenting on this, it’s in your staff report that would have jurisdiction would be the Army Corps, the DNR, MnDOT, county agencies, so they would all have an opportunity also to provide comment and that’s some of this. The school districts so they have the right to ask for additional 15 days beyond the 30 days so we’re just putting that in as a place holder but we’ll certainly keep people informed of if that meeting date moved. So again this is just a comment period. If we can answer some questions we will. Some that we can’t we’ll just keep track of those and be forwarding those on with the other comments that we receive and we’re tracking all those comments. We’ve already gotten a number of emails that we’ve been addressing too. So Chairman Aller if you just want to ask questions amongst yourselves or if you just want to open comments to the public and then just close the comment period and that would close this item. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Well there’s a lot to digest here. I don’t know if anybody can see the draft so good night time, bedtime reading. Please remember the dates that were just given and that the report is on the website. That we can receive comment and that the City is requesting and th looking for your comments and that date again would be before the March 7? Aanenson: Pardon me? th Aller: The Planning Commission public hearing. So March 15. Aanenson: Yeah. Aller: So please keep that date in mind and make sure that we get all our comments in by then. I would prefer to open up and let the public come forward. Address the issues and comments that they’ve come here to make. Make that part of the record and then forward those on for review and comment by the City Council in consideration so let’s go ahead and open the public hearing which is actually a time for public comment. So any individual wishing to comment on the status of the AUAR or the project can please do so. Come forward. State your name and address for the record and let us know what you think. Erik Dale: Hello. My name is Erik Dale. I am the owner at 1190 Lyman Boulevard with my wife Marissa. So the northeast corner that was represented there and the drainage situation is very much a part of our daily lives so part of the wetlands, part of the reason we moved here. I’ve lived here in this community for 27 of 32 years so I’ve seen Chanhassen grow from getting our first Target to where we are today so as I had mentioned in the open house and I believe my comments are also in the draft. Part of the whole reason we moved here was you know start a 17 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 7, 2017 family. The same reason my parents did so I’ve seen the city do a very good job planning these things. The fact that I get to hike with my dog and we own the acreage, I always knew this was going to be developed. The question is what’s it’s primary use and how do you manage residential, commercial without a vulgar display of power and I know that’s, you know the office complex that’s at a different meeting. I guess the fact that the storm water’s an issue. The quality of water is an issue. A big concern of mine is, I brought up there’s a bald eagle next across from our property which we’re very happy to have. Bringing that up and having nobody know about it makes me concerned about the wildlife in the area significantly. Aller: Great. Erik Dale: So I think that piece I believe the City will do a good job. I’m not opposed to progress. It’s a great place. I would just take into account the animals that are there. The people that are there and why we chose to be a part of it. Aller: Can you let us know some of the animals that you’ve seen in your? Erik Dale: Oh yeah. On a daily basis so I hike the 4.6 acres we have and then the Millers are our only neighbors. They have the other 4 right on the corner of Lyman and Powers. Deer, coyotes unfortunately, which that’s maybe a different topic for a different day. Rabbits, squirrels, 13 line ground squirrels, red squirrels. We have 2 different species of falcons. We also have broad tail hawks. We have, or broad wing hawks, excuse me and red tail hawks that frequent the whole intersection hoping that something is going to get hit. Obviously crows. Geese have been an issue. That’s probably another topic but you know we have a significant ecosystem going in our back yard so if you expand it to all of what’s going on there, when my wife and I looked and we saw that parks was designated at zero percentage you know that’s, it’s a concern. And I’m just a compassionate conservative. You know I like my land. We hike. We hunt. We do those things so it’s not like I want to hug every tree. I understand things have to be changed and moved but I think doing so reasonably is the most important piece so. Aller: Thank you. Thank you for your participation and coming to the open house. Yes ma’am. Liz Kozub: Hi good evening. My name’s Liz Kozub. Formally Ms. Elizabeth. I live at 8661 Chanhassen Hills Drive North. We’re in Chanhassen Hills off of Lyman Boulevard and there are just some concerns that I have. My husband and I moved here 9 months ago so we don’t have a whole lot of time in Chanhassen. We are both from the Midwest and really, what drew us to looking at Minnetonka, Eden Prairie and some of the other areas was the amount of wildlife and nature that Chanhassen has that the other communities have just developed so much that it’s neighborhood after neighborhood with a pond here and pond there without as much deliberate how are we protecting our natural environment for everyone’s use. Not just to have farm fields but how are we as a community and that’s one of the things that really drew us to Chanhassen. The parks. All the paths and the, not just building up like we see in Bloomington and other areas across the metro area and I think that’s one distinction that I think Chanhassen should be proud 18 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 7, 2017 of and not disregard that into well we have to build. We have to build. At some point we need to do it responsibly and not overwhelmingly that we lose kind of, we have a leaf right there. Are we going to maintain that nature aspect of our community? So one of my concerns is just the sheer volume of both of the proposals for what would be developed. I know in talking I had some conversations last week at the open house, and I appreciate that but I feel like some of the planning did not look at bigger pictures. It just looked at this land but not how it’s impacting the greater Chanhassen community. For instance coming out of our neighborhood onto Lyman. If you’re trying to take a left and there’s that bridge that goes over 212, that is already I feel pretty dangerous and sometimes just already with the traffic that already is, there’s not a stop light there. Not proposing we need a stop light. I just think that wasn’t taken into consideration about adding more volume onto Lyman. What’s that looking like already for our neighborhood with cars going really fast and going over the hill. They come really fast and you have to be really careful about that so I don’t think, I would like that addressed. Looking at Powers and Lyman, it is a busy intersection already and I know, I was talking to I think it was this gentleman last week. Looking at Powers it was going to increase from 9,000 to 15,000 cars. That’s a lot but what is it also adding to 212? I don’t know if any of you guys commute into Minneapolis. I’m normally at work, this morning I was at work at 6:00 in the morning but if I go in at 7:00 or 7:15 then the traffic commute is just terrible and I know we have the bus that some people can take. I work at Abbott and the bus does not serve other areas unless you work downtown Minneapolis and so how are we contributing to the overall traffic patterns on 212 and I don’t know if that has addressed that. Other concerns that I have are north on Powers off of West Lake Drive. So right now that’s where the big apartment condo complexes are. If you’re trying to take a left to get back onto Powers it is, you have to sometimes wait several minutes because of how fast the cars go and again adding increased traffic patterns. It’s only looking at this little area around it. Not looking how is it contributing to greater Chanhassen so those are things I would like to be investigated more and not have such a tunnel vision regarding the development but how are we contributing to the greater community. My last point would be to look at how are we currently making sure that all of our current developments are staying occupied? I love our Cub Foods. That’s my favorite grocery store so one of those stores are vacant and so before we go on building and building more things to have them new and fancy, what are we doing for our current businesses that are unoccupied and I just saw just the other day, I love that we have our auto shop. I was there last week, like Thursday night at 8:55 right before it closed and I’m glad we have that access but right next door now there’s another building vacant so we’re really excited about building all these new fancy things but what are we doing, I would hate to see our more historic Chanhassen just kind of go down by the wayside and what’s going to happen there so those are my thoughts. Aller: Great. Liz Kozub: Thank you. 19 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 7, 2017 Aller: Thank you and welcome to the community and I hope we don’t disappoint you. By the end of this process you’ll feel that we’ve lived us to the hype that we were actually listening to you as new members of the community. Anyone else wishing to come forward? Marissa Weber: Hi. My name is Marissa Weber. I live at 1190 Lyman Boulevard and you had the pleasure of hearing my husband a bit earlier. Aller: Welcome. Marissa Weber: I did not grow in the neighborhood. I grew up in Wisconsin. Right on the Mississippi and I feel incredibly lucky that I got to see bald eagles and deer and I got to see everything and I moved to Minnesota in 2002 and I moved to Minneapolis in 2004. I lived in downtown Minneapolis for 6 years and then I moved to Richfield and I was a part of that community for I believe another 5 or 6 years. I owned a home there for 2 ½ years and my husband, we got married a year ago, convinced me a year and a half ago that we’re going to move to the suburbs and we went to Prior Lake. We went to Minnetonka. We went everywhere and I’m looking online. I’m trying to find that perfect house and our house was there and I called him at 2:00 in the morning and I’m like I found our house. This is where we’re going to be and I started sending him pictures and it’s beautiful and we’re part of this ecosystem that’s really phenomenal. I’m blessed. I get to look out every morning at the Lake Susan Wildlife Preserve. This morning I was talking to my mom and I’m just looking out and I’m like I am so, so, so lucky. And then I took my dog for a walk and I walk out and I’m right on Lyman and I looked to the left and then I’m like, I start walking towards the development of where it could be and I’m like awesome. So my husband moves us here and I get to live in downtown Minneapolis again. I get to look at buildings. I get to look at people driving like jerks because they already do. I’m not against this development at all. I love the idea of being able to walk and get a glass of wine. Maybe get some groceries. Maybe buy a new pair of shoes. I think it’s great but I really do think that we need to keep in mind what it is going to look like for all of us who live there and what we’re going to be looking at because currently when I’m driving home and if I get off of 212 and I get off at Powers, I drive by Kwik Trip and I take a right onto Lyman. I put my blinker on before the, what is your development called? Erik Dale: We have a private driveway that nobody knows. Liz Kozub: Chanhassen Hills. Marissa Weber: So before I get to Chanhassen Hills I put my blinker on and last summer, I drive a sports car during the summer and some person is tailing me so close that I clip into my driveway and rip off my front bumper. I am scared when I accidentally get off on that exit because people are on my butt. So my question is, I don’t have children now but I do have a dog in my car sometimes and I get actually concerned that someone’s going to rear end me if I don’t put her in her seatbelt first because the amount of time that I’ve actually accelerated into my driveway because someone is following me so closely is, I can’t even count it anymore. It’s 20 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 7, 2017 people not taking consideration for other people’s lives, safety, any of those things so my question then is, if you’re adding this development and you’re bringing more people into our community and this I guess is a topic for another meeting, what are you doing with police force to take care of the people who live in this community? I assume you all live in Chanhassen. Do you guys live somewhere near where this development is? Are you going to be looking at it when you walk out of your driveway? Because if I can’t get people to consider me and where I’m turning, I put my turn signal on and if people can’t be considerate enough with half of the traffic that’s on there, who’s taking care of us because I moved here, I wanted this community. I love going to the Legion and people are like oh you bought Dewey’s old place. I love that. I went to the hardware store and I’m from a town of, I’m a fifth generation in my town. My family built my town. I can go down entire streets that my great-grandfather built and when I go to the grocery store everyone says oh you’re one of the Grannum girls and I always laugh and I say I’ve never been a Grannum. That’s my mom’s maiden name but everyone knows who I am and I love that I went into the hardware store and I’m like we’re just doing a little project. I just moved here. Oh where did you move? Oh right on Lyman. Oh you bought Dewey’s old place. I love that. I love that I’m part of a community that’s small enough that they know where I live. That they appreciate, oh we were so happy to hear that a young couple bought the house. We were so excited to hear that there’d be a new family in town and I love that. I love that I get a piece of being at home here and I fear that if you start expanding into this metropolis of Minnetonka that we’re going to lose what that is to live in a town where I’m at the Legion and people know who we are. People smile at me at the gas station. They know who we are and I don’t want to get so big that I want to leave here to go find somewhere else because it’s not what I bought into. Thank you. Aller: Great, thank you for sharing. Anyone else wishing to come forward? Now’s your opportunity to speak either for or against the project or give us your opinions on what you’d like to see. What you might not want to see. Joe Shamla: Good evening. Joe Shamla, 1691 Mayapple Pass, Chanhassen. Aller: Welcome. Joe Shamla: Thank you. So I live in the Pioneer Pass development which is separated from Pioneer Pass Park by Bluff Creek Boulevard so my concerns are based on the increase in traffic. I don’t know the exact numbers there in the sketches that were presented earlier. That particular section does not have the existing and proposed. I don’t know if that’s something we can get at some point but due to the nature of our neighborhood when people moved in, they have a lot of young kids so I’m concerned about the number of young kids accessing Pioneer Pass Park. Now we’re dumping double the amount of traffic along that corridor so trying to keep Bluff Creek Drive safe, especially in the park area. Maybe doing some traffic calming techniques to slow down traffic especially along Pioneer Pass Park. My next comment is that I do like Option 2 or Concept 2 that was presented. It’s nice that the wetlands were able to be preserved in Concept number 2 and I think those could be implemented into the development. The first option 21 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 7, 2017 basically blasted the wetland. Had no consideration for what the existing land to look like. With the second option actually used it as an asset and I think the people that were around that wetland I think would really enjoy the views and the nature that would be existing there. That’s about it. Aller: Great. Thank you very much. Joe Shamla: Thank you. Aller: Good evening. Please state your name and address for the record. Kaylene Thompson: Kaylene Thompson. I’m at 1802 Cotton Grass Court. Aller: Welcome. Kaylene Thompson: So I’m part of Pioneer Pass. He guys. And we have a very close knit neighborhood and a number of kids. Young kids. Very young families in the neighborhood which makes it a really fun place to live. Just for an example we have 2 school buses that come every day to pick up our children to go to one elementary school in Chanhassen. That’s how many kids are there. I have young kids. I back to the roundabout that actually is sited on one of the plots so I get to stare at the cars out of my morning room towards that roundabout every day and see the traffic that goes by. We have spoke with the City previously about the traffic concerns going to the park. Our kids all use the park every day and the traffic there is quite fast and it’s not cited on there, the entrance from, that goes past our entire neighborhood is really coming from the corner of Pioneer Trail and up to Bluff Creek and then it connects at that roundabout and continues down that pass right there is cited at 35 miles an hour. Cars tend to go a little faster than that to be honest. And then it slows down once it goes past that roundabout down into the rest of the neighborhood area so we have a strong concern in that area. There was a concrete barrier that was put in this summer as an attempt to try and slow some of the traffic down there. It’s helped some but unfortunately if you spend some time sitting in that park parking lot you’ll see that speeds are still a concern. Cars tend not to stop. There’s no stops in that park so the idea of opening that up is great for me because I currently pass 212 twice in order to get into my house so I of course am open to having a direct way to my house but just wanting to be mindful that the speed is kept low and that something is done to try and protect our kids that are crossing that street every day. Aller: Great, thank you. Kaylene Thompson: Thank you. Aller: Any additional comments? Welcome sir. Come forward. State your name and address for the record. 22 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 7, 2017 Jon Gilbert: Yeah good evening. My name is Jon Gilbert. I’m at 1641 Jeurissen Lane. It’s about the geographic center of that, of those images in the southwest corner of the Bluff Creek Overlay there. I agree with many of the comments that the previous speakers, the Weber’s made and others about traffic and about the environment. I’ve seen the eagles. The coyotes. Turkeys in our back yard. Deer. Everything that he listed except I think the falcons. The eagles sometimes perch up in the wood line behind our house eying our cat when the cat’s inside the slider. There’s just a fear that whether they succumb to the coyotes or the red tail hawk, it’s going to be one or the other I suspect but with the development they’ll be pressured to look for food wherever they can get it. Speaking to the AUAR and what we’re here about tonight, I think there are some environmental concerns that will be addressed or have been addressed. The traffic concerns have been raised by others and by the developers. I think there’s a 50 to 75 percent increase mentioned for the boulevard. I think, I’m not sure if that was during peak hours but a 50 to 75 percent increase would be significant I think for the area for all the reasons that the previous speaker just mentioned. It’s difficult to get in and out and people certainly aren’t obeying all the rules, et cetera so anything that can be done to slow things down coming through the proposed development would be great. Back to some of the environmental concerns. I looked at the AUAR and how it was represented at the open house. I looked at some of the Concept A and Concept B. During the meeting there were discussions about additional concepts which the public hasn’t seen but they were discussed. They were mentioned as being some hybrid of Concept A, which I think preserved more of the wetlands so it’s hard for us to understand, are the concerns in the AUAR or the designs that are described for the AUAR being properly addressed if the developer’s already changing some of that so if you’re giving approval to move forward what’s it based upon? Is it worst case scenario? Is it bracketed properly when the developer might be changing some of that up as we speak? We don’t know that as a public so I’m trusting that the different commissions and the City and then the outside agencies, the Army Corps of Engineers and the water quality boards are looking to get things answered based upon let’s say worst case scenarios and I heard some statements that we are actually presenting a worst case scenario than what was proposed in the 2005 AUAR so I know there were comments at a Planning Commission meeting last year by the water quality board that raised questions about or comments that were made that the developer did not meet the requirements. The State requirements for water. I’ll just call it water control or water quality so I’m not sure if those are being addressed in the meantime or if any of the agencies or commissions respond to that so that’s a question I have. You know when these comments come in from these outside boards are they getting answered because it’s not transparent to the public if they are or aren’t or if they will be done during this next comment period so that’s just a. Aanenson: If I can just answer that one because I think that might be some other people’s comments. Aller: Thank you. 23 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 7, 2017 Aanenson: So that’s part of the jurisdictional review so that’s going out to the other agencies so when that comes back then goes before the City Council, all those comments will be addressed at that point. Jon Gilbert: Okay. Aanenson: So that would be storm water. Yeah watershed district. The DNR. The Army Corps. Those sort of permits. Agencies are commenting so that’s what this document is going out to those agencies. Jon Gilbert: Very good. Aller: And again all those documents will be on the City’s website as part of the package that goes to City Council so you’ll be able to review those. Aanenson: To read all their comments if they have significant… Jon Gilbert: And talking among our neighbors, my neighbors they want to be able to see the document. Review it before everything gets approved as opposed to other government documents which get passed and then you’re told then you can read it so I’ll just make a comment on that. Regarding magnitude and developing constraints, the wetlands seem to be taken into consideration more since the first time it was presented to the different committees. The area in the southwest there I think yeah that’s, alright that’s Concept A so I’m in favor of Concept B. However in looking at how the calculations are made the color coding’s suggest that values for density and for, I don’t know if it’s impervious surface. Looks like in particular in the Bluff Creek Overlay that there are excursions with far greater into the Bluff Creek Overlay compared to when the calculations are made so I’m kind of at a disconnect between the AUAR addressing the square footage or the real estate when the color coding seems to suggest it’s working outside of the Bluff Creek Overlay. In fact I think the statement is that it didn’t take into consideration the wetlands. It didn’t take into consideration Bluff Creek Overlay or any plattable land so when I look at this image I’m thinking well who’s taking a look at the lime green area which is going into the Bluff Creek Overlay which the City says in the 2030 plan is supposed to be protected which the water resources group says it’s not being properly, well I guess the development’s not following the rules. It doesn’t seem to be adhering to the rules for water quality. So having said that you’ve got these trees that this area that I’m believing is supposed to be protected in the primary zone and in the secondary zone with the appropriate setbacks yet we’re seeing illustrations where it doesn’t look like it’s being protected so I see this disconnect between the 2030 plan, the vision of the Bluff Creek Overlay and the developer. And what’s being considered as part of the AUAR so there’s just some things that I’m hoping will come out and I think we will have time to, another opportunity to comment on it depending on what we see as a result of these meetings and what the City Council proposes. I’ve had some discussions with different committee members about the density requirements. By calculations for the areas of medium density versus high density it looks like for those particular acreages 24 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 7, 2017 they are in excess of what the City guides for, for medium density and high density. My understanding though is that for a PUD it’s a 20 percent residential. You can’t exceed 20 percent residential and that seems to be the over arching principle for determining what, how much land will be used for residential. So I just want that to be looked at carefully because I thought there were some regulations or guidance’s that suggested you had to have certain buffers between low and high density areas or low and medium density. Just a comment out there. So living down in that south, well in that southwest corner next to the forested area I’d like to see that maintained. I know there are goals or plans to put an emergency road through there which I think kind of breaks things up. I think there may be some alternatives of just doing a straight shot north but I know that may cost more in terms of having to cut into the bluff itself but I think maybe that’s an expense that’s well worth it to maintain the integrity of the environmental, well the environment that you have there. There is one area that I do have a concern where I hear the developer reference the types of trees that are up there that may be harvested or may be impacted and when I hear, and maybe it’s just, maybe I heard it wrong but the comment of well the significant number of trees seems to be small. There aren’t that many that are over 8 inch diameters. Having walked back there, having gotten permission from the first investor and then having talked with Braham about wanting to be able to continue to walk back there, there are many trees that are in excess of 100-150 years old. 12 foot diameters. 12 foot circumference. 9 foot circumference. Now what does that mean? They’re big trees. What do they support? A lot. The edge effect of having the trees, the forest, the wetland and the field is significant for the wildlife that’s there. Can it be maintained? Can you work with it? Yeah there are ways that you can develop it. I just think that the environmental assessments will probably address that. I hope that they address it because I haven’t really seen the true mitigation plans to date for the wetlands or the number of trees that are going to be removed. The concern at the last, I think it was the planning committee meeting. I don’t think it was the city meeting, a gentleman said you’re going to pancake the entire area. In order for this to be functional you have to pancake the whole thing. It looks like they’ve come up with some solutions. I think the developer heard some of those comments and they’ve taken them into consideration. I hope to hear the rest of the comments and take them into consideration as you move forward. Thank you. Aller: Great, thank you. Welcome, state your name and address for the record please. Zhexin Zhang: Sure. Zhexin Zhang, 1455 Bethesda Circle so kind of right off the corner. Left side corner there. I don’t think I’m going to be commenting on anything new. Everybody hasn’t heard before. My main concern is the traffic so my back yard faces the Bluff Creek and so you know hearing the traffic going up. I don’t know the exact number but 30 percent up to 70 percent, that is a major concern especially considering all the kids that are back there playing right now. Obviously that will change once the road opens up a little bit but you know these are still little kids. I think everybody in the neighborhood shares that concern. We already have traffic problems with people kind of cutting through trying to make the diagonal cut between the, kind of the rectangular footprint if you will of the area between Lyman, Bluff Creek, Audubon and Pioneer and so my concern is, if you open up this Bluff Creek all the way to 212 it’s a straight diagonal shot. Shortest distance and people hearing 30 percent of the traffic is maybe 25 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 7, 2017 coming from the southwest, well that’s a lot of, that’s a lot for traffic going through a low density residential area to bear. I understand the City Council has said that we would be looking into, and the Planning Commission has said they will be looking into traffic calming. I don’t know how effective that would be as someone here previously mentioned Bluff Creek when we, by the park an island was put in to try and calm the traffic. It hasn’t really done much. I personally drive up that road every day for work commute. You see cars going through much faster than the speed limit. I try to even go under the speed limit just because there are cars. It’s a blind cliff you’re driving up a hill. You just often times don’t see everything but my concern is you open this up to non-residents right. People outside of Chanhassen have no tail in the game for the community, for the residents. I’m just concerned of the safety factor there. Kind of switching topics, I’m more in favor of Concept B. I understand it is fewer retail space but if you kind of look at our market place today, I look at Target’s most recent quarterly reports. Costco, Walmart, all their stores are, their sales are dropping. Their revenues are dropping. What consumers go out to, go out to the retail now is not so much purchase. Well it’s as much as the purchase but it’s even more so the experience. You can get almost anything online. It’s more conveniently. Sometimes more easily. But you go to the stores for the experience. I think if you look at downtown Excelsior, what they’ve done there is they’ve built a hub where you can come in and you can experience something. It’s going to be something you remember when you go. And that’s what my family does a lot is we drive all the way up to Excelsior. It’s walkable with little kids. You can take the stroller along. You can have the kids walk beside you and not be too concerned. The speed limits are low and I would much rather see that being developed in this area because my concern is if you put a big box in there’s just no guarantees that it’s going to stay profitable with the way our economy is moving and so just my two cents. And I think I mentioned this before, and I think Jon kind of alluded to it too, I mean it just makes no sense to me to connect an off ramp of 212 directly into this development and then right to a residential area. I understand it would be much higher cost to route it somewhere else. I understand we need another, the neighborhood needs another fire, emergency exit but I just don’t, I just can’t, you know we’re driving around the Twin Cities I just don’t see any other area where you have an off ramp go into a high development retail space, office space and then immediately to a low residential neighborhood. I just don’t see it. Especially with the speed limits that are proposed and are in place right now so that’s it. Aller: Great. Zhexin Zhang: Thank you. Aller: Thank you very much. Any additional comments from the public at this point? Seeing no one come forward I’m going to go ahead and close the public comment session and thank everyone for their participation. Kate if you could just go ahead for the record and remind everybody about those next steps and what’s coming up again. Aanenson: So we’ll share with the council comments that were presented tonight as well as the comments that we received at the open house. And then see if the council is ready to authorize 26 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 7, 2017 the publication of the document into the EQB Monitor and then that opens up the formal 30 day process for comments but we certainly, if people have thoughts they want to email us now that’s nd fine but we do have that comment period ending approximately May 2. And then depending on our ability to respond to all those comments and everybody meeting the deadline. If not th asking for additional time. The tentative date for consideration on the AUAR would be May 8. And if that date changes we’d certainly keep it posted so. Aller: Great. Any additional comments at this point? Hearing none we’ll go ahead and move onto item D on the agenda which is approval of minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Yusuf noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated February 21, 2017 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Aanenson: Chair Aller I’ll give the council update as well as the future schedule. So right now for the update we did do all the code amendments. The ones that MacKenzie worked on so I think the one that we’re still working on and we’ve had a couple of them would be the people on the, that had the horse stables so. Walters: Yeah we’ve, I’ve spoken on the phone with one resident and met with another one. Everyone’s been notified and encouraged to get in touch. We have a meeting next Wednesday so hopefully in the next week or two we can get everyone comfortable with that and then move forward with it again. Aller: Great. Aanenson: So and then also Tweet Dental was approved by the City Council so they’re working through some architectural issues on their’s but hopefully that will keep going here shortly. I did put together the upcoming meetings. We’re trying to also fill in the Comprehensive Plan updates st too so right now the, you’re meeting on March 21. We have a 2 lot subdivision and then Arbor Glen. You had approved that before. That’s a subdivision. Smaller lot subdivision on Lyman and 101. In order to accommodate the watershed district, I spent a lot of time down there working through all the issues. We’re going to make those lots a little bit shorter on the back to accommodate, a buffer that the watershed district wants so we’re coming back for a minor PUD amendment on that and then that project will go to final plat for City Council. The nice thing with that project being platted it gets a continuation of that trail along 101 so as we go to the new Fox Woods subdivision that trail and then the underpass going over to Bandimere Park so that it th makes that trail complete so I think that will be a nice community asset. So April 4 is our work session. The council should be appointing their new, have the full compliment of the Planning Commission for moving forward for 2017 so we will have our work session and we’re going to 27 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 7, 2017 spend most the time of comp plan. You might think of a couple other issues to put on there but we’re going to give you an update, kind of we have the traffic analysis stones. We have our land use done. And then so we’ll be able to go through each chapter, kind of tell you where we’re at. th Sewer, water and so we’ll break that all down. And then on the 18 Avienda is proposing to come forward for preliminary. We’ll see if they make that date. If it’s a complete application but we have other applications also coming forward. We don’t want to say don’t submit another application in case something falls off but we are working on Great Plains. There’s a subdivision going in there. That would be where the pumpkin stand is. A subdivision there. And then Mission Hills Senior Housing is also coming forward with an amendment to, that was approved for a senior housing but they want to add a daycare as a component to that, which we think makes a nice mix. They’ve done that in another location too so just do that formal amendment and get that project going so that will kind of takes us through the next month. With that Chairman, members of the commission be happy to answer any questions you have but that’s all I have. Aller: Any questions? Hearing none I’d like to thank Mr. Horn for his presence tonight and I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Yusuf moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was non-debatable and the Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 28