Loading...
PC Minutes 06-06-17CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 6, 2017 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 Mark Randall MEMBERS ABSENT: Maryam Yusuf STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: Doug and Lynn Nodland 8391 Rosewood Drive Jayne JP Meyer 9440 River Rock Drive So. Jon Gilbert 1641 Jeurissen Lane Erick & Marissa Dale 1190 Lyman Boulevard Susan O’Brien 9476 River Rock Drive So. David Morris 9459 River Rock Drive So. Zhexin Zhang 1455 Bethesda Circle PUBLIC HEARING: AVIENDA – PRELIMINARY PUD APPROVAL, WAP, CUP AND VARIANCES. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) REZONING FOR A REGIONAL DESTINATION, LIFESTYLE AND MIXED USE CENTER (AVIENDA) WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT AND VARIANCES ON FIVE PARCELS TOTALING 118 ACRES ON PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT (A-2) WITH A LAND USE DESIGNATION OF REGIONAL COMMERCIAL OR OFFICE USE, AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LYMAN AND POWERS BOULEVARDS. THE CONCEPT PLAN INCLUDES RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, HOTEL, AND OFFICE USES. APPLICANT: LANDFORM PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, LLC. OWNER: LEVEL 7 DEVELOPMENT. Aller: Tonight we have one item before us on our major agenda and that’s Avienda. This is our second session in which this project is coming before this Planning Commission. The first provided us with a good overview of the project and the status of information that was expected to be received and the process as it was at that time and where we would hope to be tonight is a little further down that road. Review and comment will be made again at the end of this second session. This is a large project with regional input and many moving parts need to be considered Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 2 so I would appreciate it if staff when it goes through it’s presentation will take the time at the conclusion of the presentation to indicate and highlight for us those items which are different than were presented the last time and I would ask the same of the applicant during it’s presentation so that we can highlight for the public and those individuals here and watching at home as well as for me and the rest of the commissioners those items that are modified. Have been modified and that we should be looking forward to tonight for further discussion. And with that we can open up with item 1 on the agenda which is Avienda. Aanenson: Thank you Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. Thanks for that direction also Chair to proceed with this. As you indicated this is a second hearing on this one. The first an overview. The second meeting tonight here then is more discussing the wetland alteration permit, the conditional use permit and the Bluff Creek Overlay District but the variance for the Bluff Creek Overlay District. I want to introduce to you Shawn Williams who is with WSB, Senior Environmental Specialist so he will be presenting on the wetland so he’ll come up to the podium and he has prepared slides then. It’s in the staff report but he’ll go through the narrative. I know there was questions on that too so that’s one of the significant changes from last time. Again just for anybody that’s new to the project we’ve included the parcel size and location. Approximately 115 acres for Level 7 Development. 118 is what we had totaled. That’d be the gross net 115. There’s the one parcel on the other side of Powers Boulevard that will not be developing in the preservation area. So again just for the background, we’ve had numerous meetings on this including the conceptual before this project went forward to give some directions on what expectations were because it is going for a regional commercial zoning district and that we wanted to give ideas and direction on how we saw this going. The council also authorized the areawide review. Open houses were held on the environmental documents in the update. The Planning Commission forwarded those comments to City Council. They were published in the EQB Monitor and then they ultimately we adopted a final resolution and mitigation plan and part of the mitigation plan is what we’ll be talking about with the Bluff Creek Overlay District. So with that we held a meeting on May 16th and then this is a continuation then tonight. So there’s actually a number of motions here tonight that really should be carried forward together. That’s a rezoning to PUD Regional Commercial including the PUD Design Standards so the PUD does give the City Council and the Planning Commission a lot of discretion in the uses. When we get to that section we did put the intent of what we saw as a regional draw. What made it different. I just want to talk a little bit about, I didn’t put in the McComb’s study. It’s in your packet but I didn’t put it into the slide. Again that was one of the things we asked the developer to give us a little bit more information on which we didn’t because the McComb’s study talks a lot about maximum was 400,000 square feet. This is a million square feet, square foot of uses and how those, this is different or how this regional draw is and just still trying to wrap our arms around how place making for this differentiating from downtown and where they’re drawing their residents. If that trade area is changing a lot so just some questions that we had asked for a little bit more clarification on. Also with it is a preliminary plat, a wetland alteration permit, a conditional use permit for development in the Bluff Creek Overlay District, and then a variance for construction within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. So with that the development data as you see here, this is shown illustratively Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 3 so you’ve got the completion of Bluff Creek Boulevard and they’ve identified each parcel with a gross square footage. For us based on this it was easier to translate that into specific lot and block and this would also tie to the preliminary plat. We also tried to calculate then by number of units. Lot width and depth, making sure it would meet the underlying zoning district. So again as part of the PUD not only you’re looking at uses that would go in there, you’d also look at the prescriptive, what the setbacks would be. The height regulations and the like. So this document really relates back to the preliminary plat. How big would each lot be so there’s the 3 outlots. Outlot A, B and C. B would have the drainage and utility easement over it. Outlot A would be the Bluff Creek and Outlot C would be the wetland here so this is Outlot B and this would be Outlot A. So then we gave the parcel size. If you look at the original PUD we put together the regional commercial zoning district, we made an assumption of 20 percent of the area. Using 16 units and acre. Taking 20 percent of the square footage area for number of units and that came out to 370 so looking at this project, one of the things that they requested was closer to a higher number which would be closer to the 30 percent. Staff would support that but that’s also combined with the other conditions that we’ve added in the staff report regarding the wetland, the conditional use, variance and the PUD standards. So that’s also reflected in that Attachment A. The design standards for the PUD and the PUD ordinance itself. So again the framework for the PUD. This is in your staff report but this is again making this district distinctive, unique. Attributes which they have directed with the private streets in the middle. The architecture. The uses. The mix of uses. Again we’re not, we’re putting together in that document the square footage. Not the square footage but the uses. We’re trying to have a mix of uses and trying to put, trying to tie them back to square footage that we think are reasonable to give them flexibility but that we don’t have unintended consequences. Again with this PUD as we have with for example Villages on the Pond we know something may come into the marketplace that we hadn’t anticipated so this just required not a rezoning but an amendment to the PUD so each project that would come forward after this is platted would have to come in for site plan approval. If there are minor amendments that need to be made to the PUD we would do that at the same time we would be looking at the PUD so you’re not doing it in a vacuum. You’re doing it project specific. Again the goal is to get to as close as we think the market is now so with that they put together how they describe their project would be district master plan so you’ve got the village retail district, the multi-family district which is closer to the Bluff Creek Overlay District, the hospitality district, and then the office district and then the low density housing. One of the things that we changed in the low housing district is, you know we wanted 4 to 8 units an acre. We also wanted a good transition between the detached single family already existing immediately to the west so we lowered that to 3 to I think 6 or 7 and that would allow them because they were just close to that 4 and we do want them to have a product as they’ve represented there. We think that’s a good transition within that development so. So again these sub-districts are also translated into the design standards. We talk about some of the signage relates to the different districts and we can go through that in a little bit more detail too. Sign plan. Actually these are the different types of signs. So this is the entrance one. One of the ones on the west end, coming in off of Bluff Creek Drive from the neighborhood was one we thought was kind of visually, didn’t need. We put them on both entrances coming in off of Lyman on the corner of Powers and Lyman and Bluff Creek Drive and then there’s one on the Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 4 south side here on the wall. So there’s also informational signage. We’ve identified that. Those are all illustrated. Maps are included in the design standards and then each tenant can have wall signage and those are specified too per our city ordinance. We also added projecting signs which we’ve done on Villages on the Pond, especially when you get into the village district. Projecting signs are for more of the more walkable area. We think that’s appropriate scale so those standards we added too. The other thing we added in our design standards to their proposal was where we have light poles, if they want to do festive flags and banners we thought that would be appropriate too to add some changeable copy. If they want to change out things that are happening. Seasonal. We also commented on some of these other signs that are on the wall. That we would just want the identification sign of Avienda on the wall that would be facing 212. So with that we have the preliminary lots. As I mentioned there’s 17-18 lots with the outlots. All lots as we indicated on this meet the standards of the district that we had created. So one of the other things that came up on the design standards itself is one of the conditions that was in the staff report which we would like the Planning Commission to give some consideration to is they spent a lot of time doing traffic calming. I’m sorry I’m bouncing around with the slides. Whoops, I want to go back to you know putting a median in here, along there. This is how Bluff Creek is designed all the way through the project. The Fire Marshall commented that he’d like to eliminate the median for traffic purposes. That is a condition of approval. There’s different schools of thought on that amongst the staff. We like the traffic calming aspect. I know that was one of the concerns of the neighbors is that you wouldn’t have a 20 foot wide lane but rather 16 feet so that’s something that we’d like you to give recommendation on that specific comment so when we get to that point that’d be helpful and maybe the applicant would want to address that one too. So that was one of their early on designs is bringing on a group that would actually look at traffic calming so. I’ll let, maybe let Alyson talk a little bit more about stormwater, grading. Fauske: Thank you Kate. As we mentioned at the last meeting and as a refresher for the Planning Commission and folks in the audience that perhaps weren’t here last meeting, the applicant proposes grading of the site ultimately of the entire site as shown here to accommodate their proposed building pads. The development team can speak to a little more with regards to their stormwater system. If you have any questions this evening regarding that I would encourage you to ask their development team what their surface water management plan is. We did talk about that last time as well that they are proposing some re-use on the site. Aanenson: Alyson if I could just add one thing on the surface water. That is a report in here that says that that is deficient on how they’re managing that. That’s one of the concerns that we still have moving forward so. Fauske: Thank you Kate. Another item as it pertains to grading is retaining walls. As we had discussed and for refresher there’s some retaining walls proposed on the site. One being on the west side of Sunset Trail here. That’s a shorter one. That proposed length is, there’s my notes. 310 feet by 19, and 19 ½ feet tall. With this one here 980 feet long, 15.3 feet high. Another one here next to the pond. That’s a shorter one that was I believe 4 feet tall and then this one here on the southern end of the site, that one and as a point of clarification, last time we had discussed Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 5 this I think we were talking about the height being 19 feet. My recollection on the grading plan is that one’s actually a little bit higher than that. About 20 feet tall and I believe later on in Kate’s presentation she has some renderings to address some of the concerns that the Planning Commission had raised with regards to the escapes coming along some of the roadways with the wall height and then adding the building height so I can let Kate speak to that in the future. Aanenson: Thank you. I was just going to add too on that, when we talked about the conditional use for the Bluff Creek Overlay District we said you, for the conditional use to be grading there are criteria with that so that would have to be evaluated and how this wall is related to the Bluff Creek Overlay District so I just wanted to point that out too. If that would be wrapping around the one wetland that’s being preserved there so there are criteria in there. Fauske: And then the utility plan just for the commission’s reference point, they do propose some public system. Public sanitary sewer and watermain within the site. A looped system for the watermain to ensure safety and pressure when it comes to fire fighting abilities and also keeping folks in service should there be a watermain break or a valve leaking that they would have to repair. Aanenson: So I’m going to invite Shawn Williams to come up now and go through the wetland. Aller: Thank you. Shawn Williams: Hello, good evening. My name is Shawn Williams. Again I’m with WSB and Associates. I work in the environmental planning and natural resources department and here to discuss of course the Wetland Conservation Act permit application that was submitted by the applicant earlier this year. So regarding a bit of the background, the applicant had submitted the wetland replacement plan application on February 15, 2017 and shortly thereafter they had also provided some preliminary stormwater modeling information. The City had reviewed that information and determined that the application was incomplete at that time on March 10th and had reviewed that information and discussed with the applicant the deficiencies in the application so shortly thereafter revisions were submitted on March 14, 2017 and based on the review of that information the application checklist, you know per the WCA application checklist the City had determined that the application was technically complete at that time so the notice of application was then sent out to the Technical Evaluation Panel on March 17th. Of course with the application submittal the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was also notified of the application and they had their review underway as well and there was a meeting with the Army Corps of Engineers on April 6th of 2017 which at that time of course they had indicated that they were requiring additional information for determination of whether or not they would be able to issue a permit for the project. And just recently on May 3rd there was a letter from the Army Corps of Engineers outlining the additional data needs for the project review. So again of course here is the image of the site and the delineated wetland boundaries are depicted in yellow and then of course there are a few intermittent drainage ways that are depicted in the blue and I know you can’t see the ID’s on there but the better part of the wetlands depicted on this image are proposed Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 6 for impact for the project. Wetland 3 which is on the center left would be avoided. Wetland 10 down in the woodland area on the lower, lower southwest portion would also be avoided. And then there’s discussion ongoing with Wetland 4 there in terms of a discrepancy there. In the initial application that was depicted as being impacted but per the recent development plan that came through in March that of course was depicted as being avoided with the retaining wall so there will still be some discussion on Wetland 4. And then this table provides an overview of the wetland ID. The type of wetland that it is. The total wetland acreage and then the proposed impacts in acres. Whether it’s fill or excavation. And then on the far right the wetland management class and of course you know Preserve is the highest quality and then from there on down Manage 1, 2, 3. So approximately 4.4 plus acres of the wetland, of the 5.2 wetland acres delineated on site are proposed to be impacted as a result of the development. The second bullet there of course I had just discussed that slight discrepancy that will be sorted out as further discussion and review of the permit application ensues. But based on the information that was reviewed we did highlight and determine some additional analysis that still needs to be completed as to whether the application truly meets the requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act so additional analysis needed includes supporting documentation that avoidance and minimization has been met per the Wetland Conservation Act requirements. And I know there was some information regarding some market study and other lifestyle centers around the Twin Cities area and I don’t think the TEP is necessarily confident at this point in time that just that single study or other such associated information is enough quite yet to document that the avoidance minimization requirements have been met so there will be further discussion on that matter forthcoming Technical Evaluation Panel meeting. And then of course evaluation that the loss functions and values of the wetlands will be replaced. Of course that’s a requirement and primarily in this case with the wetlands, the wetlands are situated kind of higher up in the I guess the water, the headwaters within the watershed so the wetlands on this site primarily provide stormwater storage and stormwater treatment functions within the watershed. And then going back, so the final bullet here that we have in regards to additional analysis needed is impacts, or information regarding potential secondary wetland impacts and then again that’s in regard to Wetland 3 on the center left. You know although the wetland is shown as being physically avoided there could be secondary wetland impacts in terms of like wetland hydrology being cut off from the development to the surrounding northeast and south sides of that wetland. And then as well as Wetland 4 and the stormwater characteristics of that flowing down to the MnDOT wetland mitigation site to the lower right. So there’s some off site wetland impacts, or potential wetland impacts that need to be considered as well and again I think that also kind of goes back to the preliminary stormwater analysis with, that was completed by WSB. And that was indicated in a May 1st WSB Stormwater Memorandum regarding the potential effects to the off site MnDOT wetland. So wetland functions, evaluations, so again the Wetland Conservation Act requires that the wetland replacement must replace the public value of the wetlands lost because when impact so how do you really determine what the value of each wetland is? Well of course there’s the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method or MnRAM which assesses the functions and values of each wetland you’re probably aware that the City of course has completed a city wide MnRAM assessment for wetlands throughout the city and of course the applicant had also completed a MnRAM as part of their review and application and Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 7 their results were pretty similar or maybe even slightly higher in quality. So again Preserve is the very high quality wetland and then Manage 1 would be you know still very high quality but not quite pristine type wetland and then so on down the line so Manage 2 and Manage 3 are more degraded wetland classifications so the wetlands that are proposed for impact in this site are either Manage 2 or Manage 3 you know so of course with like the agricultural use and the degradation from maybe invasive species and sedimentation and so forth, things of that nature so. So keep in mind that you know yeah there are quite a large number of wetlands and a pretty decent area of total wetlands in all but most of them do come in there at the Manage 2 or Manage 3 classification. So then of course the wetlands on site like I mentioned earlier they do serve that stormwater and water quality treatment functions and it is important to note that the downstream waters are impaired waters per the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency designation so Bluff Creek is listed as impaired as well as Lake Susan and I think maybe you’re aware but the site is basically bisected with the, I guess the southwest portion the watershed is leaving towards Bluff Creek and then the north and east half more or less drains over toward Lake Susan. So then looking at then if the project meets the Wetland Conservation Act sequencing and shows that the wetland impacts need to occur for the project and they can be you know justified and the argument made, if the project meets the Wetland Conservation Act avoidance and minimization requirements then really the rest of the review going forward is really then dependent on the wetland replacement and how that picture will come together. And I apologize for the large amount of text on here. So currently the applicant is proposing mitigation through the purchase of wetland bank credits from 3 wetland banks located in Blue Earth County, Stevens and Rice County so those are of course you know physically quite far from the city of Chanhassen here. However they do follow the requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act and would be in the same bank service area and, but only one is located within the same major watershed and of course replacement would be required at a 2 to 1 ratio with the part of the state that we’re in and the types of wetlands that are being impacted. So again a very important aspect here to consider and keep in mind is that you know the replacement would technically satisfy the requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act but we’re still losing the water quality and treatment functions that the wetlands provide within the important location that they are in being with those impaired watersheds. So there are options that the applicant and City can consider here. There’s of course on site mitigation could be an option where new wetlands are created or restored within the project area and again that could potentially address the replacing the functions that are right here but the current layout that we see doesn’t show a specific location or provide an area for that at this time based on the plans that we’ve seen. And then of course there’s risk with taking time to get them established and maintaining them and making sure that they function per the requirements. So then of course well then if maybe not on site well then potentially we could consider replacement within the same sub watershed somewhere nearby but at a different location and that would be, you know so again the functions and values would be replaced locally here but would be off site. And then of course as I just mentioned the applicant has proposed the purchase of wetland bank credits through the state wetland bank program and that is generally the preferred method through the state program but again there’s considerations and open opportunity for providing wetland replacement locally as well. And then there could be a combination of the mitigation either off site or banking or on site so all these things, all these Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 8 things an eligible project could also use a combination of these mitigation options. So kind of tying this all together, looking at recommendations and potential next steps. So as I mentioned the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has a review of the application ongoing concurrently with the City’s review and they had requested additional information from the applicant. The Wetland Conservation Act 60 day decision date on the application had been now extended to July 12th so I think it was back in March or April at some point there was a formal review extension made. And now going forward the applicant needs to supply the needed additional information to the City and the additional information is needed to determine if the project meets the Wetland Conservation Act requirements. And as I mentioned there will be a Technical Evaluation Panel convened one more time before that decision date to review the final information that the applicant will follow up with and provide. So you know the, so City staff or I guess you know if our evaluation at WSB, you know we’ve been in coordination with the City and the Technical Evaluation Panel members. We’ve reviewed mitigation options and I think at this point the staff was recommending that the applicant provide wetland mitigation via the purchase of the wetland bank credits through the State wetland bank program to satisfy all of the impacted wetlands so that we know that the credits, they’re established. They’re there. They’re approved and all of the impacts if we get to that point and they’re approved, that the credits would be, you know the loss functions and values would be replaced effectively there. And then in addition to the wetland bank credits the City staff recommends that a condition of approval perhaps be included with the applicant to provide a site specific water quality improvement project within the watershed here to mitigate the quality, the water quality impacts locally. As I had mentioned before that the site is located upstream of the impaired waters and you know the site specific mitigation could occur either on site or in an agreed upon feasible location within the local watershed and details could potentially be coordinated with the applicant in that regard. So at this time my understanding is that I think we want to hold off on making any recommendations to the City Council until the additional information has been received by the applicant and that forthcoming Technical Evaluation Panel meeting has been held and all the final details are reviewed and then from there we could look at potentially providing a recommendation to the City Council so. So that’s all I have at this point. I don’t know take questions later on or? Aanenson: Sure. We’ll kind of go through all of them I think, yeah. Thanks Shawn. Shawn Williams: Okay, thank you. Aanenson: The next thing that we, for your consideration is the Bluff Creek Overlay District. A conditional use. So we asked the applicant to show us illustratively the impacts that they were looking at in the Bluff Creek Overlay District. There was city impacts also by placing this road, a fire lane actually into the site because to make the grades work it actually, the road ended up being a lot wider to make the grades. Originally when this street was stubbed it was intended to go along the bottom of the slope but there’s a pretty substantial retaining wall built there so that didn’t work anymore. After meeting internally the staff has removed that wall. That drive. Fire lane drive so met with the Fire Marshall so that’s been eliminated from the site. So there’s still almost 4 acres of wetland impact for the grading. For the Camden Ridge neighborhood then Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 9 we’ll go back and look at that because that was a sub-street and we’re revising that street and making it a pathway and the Park and Recreation Commission is then looking at kind of what we’re looking at Fox Wood which is more just the bark chip trails and informal. The Park Director and myself and the City Forester did walk that site again last week or the week before just revisiting the impacts to the slope so we will be not making that connection. And one of the, this is a picture we took out the day we were out there. So if you look at the conditions of the AUAR one of the things that the City adopted for the mitigation strategies for the approval of the AUAR was that we would follow the City’s zoning regulations which included the Bluff Creek Overlay District and the staff’s position is if there, those wetlands are being filled the balance of that should be preserving the Bluff Creek Overlay District. We did meet with the developer and asked them to revise some of the site plan itself but we also looked at the variance request which is actually constructing within the Overlay District so if you look at you actually have buildings constructed in the Overlay District so the staff position, this is another illustrative way to show where those buildings would be. We asked that those buildings be reshaped. From the beginning we said that the senior, the assisted, the developer is committed to the senior assisted project. We’re saying that we don’t see that in the marketplace right now but they’re, that’s something that they desire but our position was too, it’s the most active as far as vertical height. Activity level that would be associated with it and a very imposing and also into the Bluff Creek and also to the neighborhood so we asked them to reconsider and redraw those. Re-position those. To date we have not seen that but we are recommending against the variance. It doesn’t meet any of the criteria for the variance and that they stay out of the Bluff Creek Overla y District. There are conditions within that they can grade within the Bluff Creek Overlay District but they need to meet those criteria and those are spelled out in the staff report. That would include that retaining wall coming around that wetland. We’d have to look and see what grades they’re at and what that implication would be as far as structure setbacks so these are the standards here that they would have to follow for the grading but we are recommending against, denial of construction within the Overlay District. We did ask them for some perspectives around the site. These were sent in. Maybe the applicant has some too but we got them in one format. We tried to put them into a power point so we’ll kind of walk through different perspectives of what you’d see. We did create a model. I’m going to go over to that a little bit for us as we’re reviewing it. We created that internally just to give us an understanding of what’s going on on the site. But just to give you some perspectives of the view itself. So this is the view. We’ve seen a lot. I think it’s on one of their cover reports so this is coming into the main entrance. These are the entrance monument signs that we talked about. These taller signs here were the signs that were actually placed on the wall on the back that we said would be eliminated. We do support these in spots. We’ve identified those, we call them I guess sail signs. Flag signs. But this is the median strip so this was to be the traffic calming as far as turning lanes. I didn’t put all the traffic back in there. There’s a lot of slides on that. I have it at the end if there’s particular questions on that. So there’s two main connections. One coming off of Lyman at Sunset Trail. Coming back through and then another stub street off of the street to the west on the north. Mills Drive, thank you. And so otherwise we have a private street that would come through so you’d have a circle road so this is the one that the fire department would like to see this median eliminated. Again there’s two schools of thought on that. That median Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 10 runs the length of the project and so some of the staff would like to see that remain for traffic calming. I think that was one of the concerns that the resident had too so we’d like the Planning Commission to weigh in on that as this project moves forward. This is off the bridge on Powers Boulevard looking at this to the west. These are those kind of the sail signs that we were talking about that we recommend eliminating. We did put a sign, approval on this sign. The Avienda identification sign. I think the standard that we have might be small. I think the applicant should look at the scale of that. We don’t have it to scale. We put one on our’s. It looks pretty small. Again a perspective on 212. These would be those projecting signs that we would say should be eliminated. This is another view so this is looking across. This is the MnDOT wetland that Shawn was talking about. That’s where some of that drainage comes in off of the Bluff Creek Overlay District into these two ponds so one of the concerns we’ve had from the beginning is that is a large wall. It does require fencing. That’s one of the conditions of the engineering department in there. We’d like to see something decorative because you have a very substantial wall. Then you have the height of the buildings and little room for landscaping because there’s a service drive around the back and obviously there’ll be signs or something in the back but there’s not a lot of warmth back there. We think that’s something that should be beefed up with some architectural. This is coming in Bluff Creek Drive. Heading east. Coming in here. And this is the wetland that’s being preserved. The other half of it. And this is Sunset Trail/Lyman Boulevard. Again it’s hard to see at this scale because the retaining wall is on the other side. It’s actually on the south side of Lyman Boulevard but that’s also as Alyson pointed out a pretty substantial wall from the inside there so you’re looking more at the roof tops. I think in the original iteration we had put 2 stories on there. The applicant says I would like the option of 3 stories. They have enough parking there. We didn’t make that amendment to potential 3 stories there. We wanted to see how much of that top story you would see from Lyman Boulevard and I’m hopeful that’s what these drawings are reflecting. And this is the entrance off of, looking at yeah, Lyman to Powers. The intersection right there. So again these would be the office buildings. I’m assuming these are the taller, as the wall goes down towards Sunset Trail. So I did want to also mention we have the streets here for you. There is still some moving parts on this. There’s a lot to take in. It’s the biggest project we’ve done in the city and we want to make sure we’ve got everything addressed from both sides so we have all the motions here but Chairman I’d like to let the applicant make their presentation and then open the public hearing or take your questions. Aller: Great. Does anyone have questions of staff at this point in time or would you like to wait for the applicant’s? Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: I just have a, Shawn I have a question about the mitigation. I know we talk about if there is an alternative position within the watershed. Have we ever considered a potential replacement of some sensitive area adjacent to wetlands such as steep slopes that could require, may benefit from protecting steep slopes adjacent to a wetland? It’s not a traditional wetland but it does protect, personally I’d like to see whatever we do within the Purgatory Creek watershed as opposed to another county. Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 11 Shawn Williams: Right and I think under certain scenarios there are opportunities to obtain credit through improving upland habitat but there’s, I think there’s a lot of dynamics and you know moving parts within that review process but I think that could be considered as an option as part of the mitigation. The wetland mitigation as well. Tietz: I could be considered? Shawn Williams: Yeah. And also too but then looking at the Army Corps of Engineers and the federal program in terms of what they would allow as well in terms of their replacement program so. Tietz: Okay but it may be worth investigating? Maybe staff, maybe there are some areas within the city adjacent to the creek within the watershed that could be beneficial to all? Shawn Williams: It could be. It could be an opportunity but again I think making sure that the wetland acres that are impacted are replaced 2 to 1 for sure through the wetland bank then you know that all the replacement credit is satisfied and then from there you know again but I think there is certainly opportunities within the local watershed here and I think that discussion could be forthcoming at the next Technical Evaluation Panel meeting and I could probably jot a note too and make sure that we have that discussion at the next meeting. Tietz: Thanks Shawn. Shawn Williams: Yep, you’re welcome. Aller: Well I’m just going to piggy back on that too Mr. Williams while you’re here and I thought I heard you say that that banking was the preferred method. Is that through TEP? The City? Is that your…preference? Shawn Williams: That was through the discussion with my colleague Andi Moffat and Paul Oehme with the City and we had a phone conversation and the understanding a few days back when we had that conversation was that the recommendation would be to have the wetland replacement credits purchased through the wetland bank and then in addition make sure that there was a condition of approval that some local water quality project be included with the, as part of that approval for the wetland replacement plan so again because we don’t want to lose those local water quality treatment functions and values. Aller: Okay and that’s the dichotomy that I was looking at. That it just seemed to be something that would make more sense to have the watershed protected to begin with rather than to go outside and bank. Is that still the preferred way of handling any development? Shawn Williams: Yeah. Generally statewide you know the Board of Water and Soil Resources, and again through, because then you know with that program as well the, if it’s an Army Corps Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 12 of Engineers approved wetland bank then their credit requirements would be satisfied as well so that was more recently within the last I would say 5 years or so that the Board of Water and Soil Resources as well as Army Corps of Engineers I think have pushed more towards banking because then they know that the credits that are there are approved. They’re of adequate quality where at times you know we’ve seen in the past where on site wetland mitigation projects get underway and then there’s often times hardships and struggles throughout the years trying to get those established or the credits don’t all quite develop and come through and then they have to turn around and look at potentially replacing or purchasing credits down the line because the on site mitigation maybe didn’t quite come in as desired so. Aller: Who assumes the risk of that? Does the City assume the risk of that or does the applicant assume the risk of that if? Shawn Williams: The applicant would be responsible for making sure that in the end all of the wetland replacement credits are accounted for and provided. Aller: Okay thank you. Fauske: Chairman Aller, if I may provide some additional information. Through the Wetland Conservation Act and the replacement they do have a protocol and inspections and ensuring doing follow up inspections after the mitigation’s done and then staff also collects a financial security that’s held until we have verification that the wetland mitigation has been satisfied. Shawn Williams: Good point Alyson. Yep that’s true. Aller: Any additional questions based on that at this time? Okay. Shawn Williams: I guess just one other item that I guess I should offer too is, as you know there’s two concurrent programs that are underway for the wetland review so of course the City and State Wetland Conservation Act and the Army Corps of Engineers so I guess I would just like to offer too that within the memorandum that I read that was provided from the Army Corps of Engineers dated May 3rd I think it was, is that it didn’t seem that there were substantial data or information requests and additional information that was going to be required from the applicant to the Army Corps of Engineers in regards to that review so you know I guess that’s, just so you’re aware that that’s going to be pretty complex and a pretty big undertaking to get through that process for what it’s worth here so. Aller: Thank you. Shawn Williams: Yep. Aller: At this time we’ll have the applicant come forward and can begin it’s presentation. Thank you for being here. Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 13 Darren Lazan: Thank you. Okay how do I turn the laser on, do you know? Do you know how you turn the laser on? Aanenson: It’s on the power point. Darren Lazan: Oh it’s on the power point. Aanenson: Yeah. Darren Lazan: Alright I’ll try to, sorry about that. Alright, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission my name is Darren Lazan. I’m with Landform Professional Services and I represent Level 7, the applicant on the item before you tonight. We appreciate your time again tonight. It’s good to be back. It’s been, as Kate walked through a fairly long journey over a handful of years and we’re excited to have what we hope is the additional information you folks need to consider our application tonight. We have supplemented quite a bit of information in our presentation, both information that’s provided to staff previously, or in the last couple weeks and some additional information here. I’ll try to call that out along the way per your request. Aller: Please. Darren Lazan: So I went to this last meeting, Level 7, the ownership lead is Bahram Akradi. Development management is by Launch Properties and Mark Nordland who is here with me as well today. Real estate is being managed by Colliers and Tom Palmquist. Architecture and RSP Architects by Jeff Hysjulien who’s also here today and Landform provides the engineering, planning and landscape architecture on the project so we have a team that’s pretty extensive and has been involved with this project some of us for, coming up on our fourth year. Three plus years so very familiar with the site and kind of the iterations that we’ve gone through on this one. Little bit of background and I thought I took this slide out so I’m nervous that we have the wrong file up there but we’ll find out. Kate went through that background so I’m going to skip over that one here. Little bit on the site constraints that we have here and I will try to keep this equally brief. You’ve been through this a number of times. You’re familiar with where the site is but we took a look originally and started to assess some of these. We have access points here, here, here and here that the roadway systems are required to make connections to. We have the wetlands that you’ve heard quite a bit about today and then we have the Bluff Creek component here and then the MnDOT pond that’s on this site as well surrounded by the roadways that have been in place anticipating this project for a while now and recent upgrades to Lyman last year. Can you check this file to make sure it’s the 6-6 file? Are you, what’s that? This is the one alright. I’m going to get really in trouble pretty soon. As Kate had mentioned we’ve gone through and really for the purpose of just setting the stage for this discussion today we’ve divided into districts and this will carry through in some of the design guidelines, signage criteria, use components. They’ll all kind of carry through different districts so we just wanted to make sure that we touched on that again to talk about the 5 different districts and then major Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 14 roadways running through there. Site plan has been developed. This is the same, this specific site plan is the same 5.2 that we presented 2 weeks ago. We have a couple proposed modifications to talk about today but this is the original site plan. Contemplates a connection of Bluff Creek Boulevard through to the adjacent neighborhood. That was a component of the City’s traffic management plan and contemplated as a collector to make that connection back through here so we are fulfilling that per the requirements of that plan. And then we’re installing our own loop road to serve the site that comes around and connects in two points with roundabouts for our traffic calming. One of our traffic calming components. We make the Mills connection here pursuant to the City’s requirements and then we make the connection back up to Lyman here as well. Alright so this is our, a lot of the, a good portion of the site focuses on this walkable component in the center. The village component and that extends from the pond and the plaza space between the restaurants here that we’ll have some imagery on shortly, through the site. Through the small shop retail comparison shopping components and then it’s terminus here at the far west end with the retail and multi-family housing component as well. Yeah this is not the right file Kate. Can I pause for one quick second Mr. Chair to make sure we have the right information? Not Kate’s fault. Aller: You want a couple minutes recess? Why don’t we go into recess for 5 minutes. (There was a short recess at this point in the meeting.) Aller: Okay we’re coming back on the record. Thank you we’re coming back on the record. If you’d like to proceed that’d be great. Darren Lazan: Mr. Chair, I appreciate that. I think if I’m not mistaken…try to pick up. I had one slide in here. I think it’s important to understand the vision that Bahram has set for this project. It comes from the Business Journal just last week I believe. It talks about the types of uses and his vision for the size. The healthy living lifestyle. Healthy aging. Senior housing. Apartments. Medical office, shops and retail. Groceries all in one place similar to what he’s been doing with some of his Life Time locations and I think again it speaks to something that is carried through this entire project and his search for the entertainment and a high end timeless elegance. Something he wants to do as a legacy project. He doesn’t want to build a shopping mall. He wants to build something where 50 years from now people walk through and say it’s still very beautiful so we’re carrying that vision through everything we do and from Bahram’s perspective that’s his marching orders. So we talk about these constraints. I want to talk a little bit about grading. We had some discussion on the retaining walls systems. Total grade change across this site and this is just for context so we can start to understand is at certain points from the very highest to very lowest is over 72 feet. That’s a significant grade change. A significant challenge to try to design a site to. If you took your average grade north to south it would be 3 ½ percent just natural grade from the highest point on the north to the lowest point on the south. Of course you know 3 to 5 percent is an acceptable grade for parking and so forth but of course we have flat buildings. We have ADA requirements. We have to be under 2 percent. We have roadways and so forth so it’s nearly impossible, if not impossible to transition this site from Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 15 north to south without significant grading to meet those constraints. Average grade east to west is almost identical. If you look at some of the high points across here to the low points there, and it’s just by measure to try to look at the challenges associated with grading this site and the retaining walls are a result of that and our attempt to try to balance. Minimizing the walls. They’re very expensive. They’re tough to construct but we also need to get the square footage of users in here to make it a regional center. We need to get the roadways meeting minimum requirements. We need to get sidewalks and parking areas meeting minimum requirements and it results in quite a bit of grading but this is just a, kind of a sensitivity map showing the highest points along the north edge. Much of this has been taken down for the Lyman work that was done last season as well. There’s a high point right at this adjacent to this neighborhood which comes into play with our townhomes that work up and down this hillside and some of the discussions last meeting about the retaining walls on the neighbor’s property. The bluff is of course high and then in general this is the lowest portion of the site across the southern half. SO we went through the districts and the structures associated with those. We talked about the overall site plan. I want to talk a little bit about some of the overall site plan components. We had talked a little bit about this traffic calming and this median that’s in the middle. There’s also a condition in the staff report that the boulevard trees be removed and we’re concerned about that comment and recommendation as well as the removal of the median. We’ve had 3 neighborhood meetings. A couple additional AUAR meetings and several public hearings where we’ve heard endlessly that traffic is the number one concern of the neighbors. We set out to engage a designer tool to bring aboard the team. They specialize in pedestrian interfaces and roadways and making pedestrians and vehicles work collectively instead of in conflict. This is the design we with Toole created for this parkway so it has some protected zones for pedestrian crossing on the top. This section through here with the boulevard trees and the medians and the street widths we proposed meet the requirements for the MSA road standard. We for a while sough to narrow those lanes even further through a variance. Decided against that and went with the requirement, the MDA requirements there. As a team we believe this roadway section represents our best ability to calm traffic as it moves through our project into the neighborhood. It also very closely resembles the section that exists today through the neighborhood so we’re really just continuing the design that started on the south in the neighborhoods, around to the north and then we’ve added those roundabouts as well to add in the calming and the traffic movement through there. We talked a little bit about the signage and the project identity. Avienda is a prominent brand for this project so we’re looking for that signage at the major entrance points and one of the most visible components to the project. And then there’s the proposed trail connector and the character of that piece to the south into the Bluff Creek area which we’ll talk again about in a little bit but this is some of the imagery of that designed intent and again this was something we worked through with our team, Toole, Landform and the architects to come up with all of these components to help blend that pedestrian and vehicle harmony I guess. This is, as we talked about the village component. This is the heart of the project starting from the far east side. The fountains and the water feature that are prominent from the entrance through the plazas between the restaurants. Through the comparison shopping and high amenity landscape components of the village and ending in the market rate multi-family housing project on the far west side, and a couple sight lines on those. So as we stand, we’ve got a couple bird’s eye and then a bunch of Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 16 ground level shots. So as we look at this far east side looking through. That’s that long run terminating on that structure on the back side. This is the water feature with the plaza space engaging on the start of that component. This is standing on that plaza space. Very pedestrian scale. Space that could be programmed. Space that could be used for the restaurants. Exterior dining with the water fountains in the background on the terminus of that view. This again from the seating area you can see the directional indication of where this shot is and which way you’re facing but some of the seating components with the water and the entrance to the project in the background there. We move up into the next block. Start to look at some of the pockets of landscape area that exist between the buildings. This one is adjacent to this pond on the south side and the green area between the road and the first building so we start to engage some pedestrian scale spaces where we can have some active or passive uses in there that exist along there. That helps add to the walkable component of this village piece of the project. Again some more images of the opposite side of the main street here. Some spaces adjacent to the retail that had some dining and other activities. This is the pond that’s on the south side at the main entrance at the first roundabout approach from Main Street down to that water feature. Moving to the next intersection again we have some of these walkable components adjacent to the retail landscape amenities. Active spaces here that can be engaged by some of the establishments on the main street or on the street frontage. More images of the street and the landscapes associated there. And again. And the last of this kind of ends at that piece. We talked a little bit about this piece last meeting. This is one of our larger pieces. It exists between the multi-family mixed use building and the main street. It’s a space that could be programmed for activities. It could be open space. Just recreational space. There’s a water feature contemplated on this one. We won’t know until the final design is done but again the retail restaurant uses or other retail uses could spill out onto this space. Utilize that for outdoor dining as well. Another image of that space. And I think the final image is the piece in front of the multi-family housing. There is some retail on the ground level with units above here so it has a true vertical mix use component. That space could be used for amenity. Gathering space for the apartments or for the retail users along there, either one. So I want to walk quickly through some. Spend a little bit more time on others on the exterior sight lines. Kate hit on those but we did this week go out and get some additional photography and infill some of these so I want to update you on that. Main entrance stays relatively the same. These are the entrance identification components and the restaurant piece of your right. We’ve infilled the, these are some of the, from the photos today that we added today that were taken earlier this week. This is some existing vegetation that exists in front of those walls so as original sight lines we took the aerial photo. Dropped it in and then dropped our model in. Kind of a worst case scenario so now we’ve gone back and taken a look at some of this and we can see how much of this wall gets broken up by the existing vegetation. This is the same 212 bridge overpass location as the previous example but it has much of this western half of the wall pretty substantially broken up by existing vegetation there. And again from 212 looking back again, there’s quite a bit along the base here that that does some significant screening of that from 212. This is from the neighborhood to the south. I’m not sure who’s home that is but the first couple homes after you pass the bluff. Kate had this up here earlier. These are existing trees in here now that provide a fair amount of screening that we didn’t include in the original sight lines so we’ve looked at, on the face of this wall we’ve added Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 17 some landscaping to the base in addition to what we see here today. We’ve also added some landscaping that can spill over the wall and start to break that edge up so if you’re seeing it from the road at a different angle that wall itself will get broken up a little more as well. This is as we travel up Bluff Creek Boulevard into the project, these are existing homes on the right and left and you start to get a view of the senior building that’s proposed on the current plan. This is from the adjacent neighborhood to the west. Just before you get to the roadway connection further north of here but this is looking over the existing wetland, through the existing vegetation. I think we shot this over again as well today so we start to get a little bit more sight line broken up on this side but this is that 3 story component on the west side of our project. And then this is the same as Kate had in her file earlier and so is this so those two haven’t changed so that’s just a bit of an update on the sight lines based on a little bit more current information. Project identity. Kate touched on this a little bit. I think it’s critical to the project. I think we can, every retail development’s going to have this discussion with you folks. Every project. Signing is critical. Getting those folks awareness in the market so that they’re successful as businesses and makes the project successful as a business. We did have a number of those key locations where we identified the Avienda signage at the main entrances. I’m not sure this was one of those. Kate caught that and maybe it shouldn’t have been. I think we’re more than happy to look at removing the Avienda larger sign from this end of the project. I think that having the visibility from 212, from Powers at the main entrance to the project at the corner and on the north entrance is certainly sufficient for that. But those blade signs that were added there, they’re two fold on the wall. One is to break up that elevation and create a little bit more architectural interest. Two is to generate visibility and awareness for the major tenants from 212. This distance across as we saw in the sight lines that we did, potentially some of these users would have some signage opportunities on the back of their building but none of the internal users would so we’re really looking to try to get that awareness and that visibility and that branding out on this to catch that 212 traffic. This is a regional center. I think we need some regional awareness and our hope is that we can hold onto those. Kate went over this. This is an excerpt from the design guidelines. There were a handful of signage components that were in the staff report. I’m not going to drag those out and go through them tonight unless you want to but I think we’d like the opportunity to continue to work with staff on the overall signage plan and those requirements. This tenant sign of 20 feet max. I think it’s 18 feet actually, is we feel, and the architect feels is appropriate to scale for the size of the entrance. The size of the project. That it’s a key part of that project identity next to the Avienda sign. You can see it’s scale seems appropriate next to the architecture. It’s appropriate again signage is kind of the life blood of retail so we want to try to help those guys get that awareness and have that identity piece. And there’s another angle of that Avienda component on the wall with the blade signs behind with the tenant signage. And then this internally this is the more pedestrian scale signage that we talked about proposing other than at the key nodes on Bluff Creek but within the project at a more pedestrian scale where it’s, where we have some interaction with people walking and cars in close proximity. And then the building signage, one component in the staff report was the condition that we have two sided. Two sides of the building be signed. I think it’s very important to understand the character of this project. This is four sided architecture. We are improving all four sides of this building. There’s really no back of house, especially in the Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 18 village area. We, our parking is distributed behind the buildings by it’s very nature to provide that small shop space. That pedestrian area in the middle. When we park on the back side of these buildings we need signage to be able to draw that way finding so folks can find out who’s in which building and where they’re going so we would respectfully request you consider, if not for the whole project for sure the village allowing four sides of signage at the same scale. Same size but allow us to do all four sides of the building so it’s conducive with the four sides of architecture. This is another example of the signage component from the design guidelines. So tonight there really are just a handful of items that we wanted your consideration of. Kate has raised a couple more that we’re more than happy to help and address and answer questions on as well. For us the senior housing as an allowed use is a considerable component and that kind of goes hand in hand with that Bluff Creek Overlay District piece so I wanted to walk through those quickly and then circle back on the Bluff Creek stuff. So senior housing with services is a pretty significant component of this project and not only do we believe it’s a great fit and great place to, great user in our project. The market believes so too because we’ve had significant interest in senior housing with services for the very reason that they want to be part of the village. They want to have a connection to spaces that are engaged. They want to have that mobility and take advantage of those components. Even in the assisted living they have, they have adult children that come visit and want to spend time in spaces like this so this use to fulfil Bahram’s vision for a full life cycle product and village. A healthy way of life village to have senior component even assisted is critical to that vision. The market’s telling us that’s where they want to be and they want to be part of the village and part of this component. We know that there’s other sites that are zoned for this use and they are perfectly acceptable for that use but they’re not necessarily part of this village and they don’t extend the village to have that life cycle component. This daycare provider has an opportunity for intergenerational care with these facilities here where the children can be part of that interaction with the seniors and the seniors get to have that interaction with the children. Very critical to that proximity is very critical to this component as well so we would respectfully request your further discussion and consideration of our desire to have both a senior marketed rental or ownership product that has no services and the component here that has some services provided. The Bluff Creek Overlay District is going to be, is a very complex discussion and I want to try to walk through it a couple components with this. This is the original Bluff Creek Overlay District pre-2006 with the 2006 changes overlaid on there. As you can see development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District is not a foreign concept. This entire project at one point fell within the secondary district which would have precluded the density of the development that occurred there. Even after this line was redefined a fair portion, to pull areas out of the Bluff Creek, there are 8 or 10 lots along this edge that are roughly an acre plus of encroachment into the Bluff Creek Overlay District with these lots along this far western side so again we look at, there was an effort at some point to revise this line to account for this development. It made sense at that point and even after the line was redefined there was some process we assumed but there was encroachments into the Bluff Creek Overlay District associated with this project. I don’t bring that up to say they did it, we should get to do it but the concept of being, of developing in those districts seems not to be as foreign as one might think. This is the 2000, it says so right down here 12 Kate? It’s the 2012, beginning of an AUAR. A study done by Hoisington to take a look at this project. It’s hard to find where we’re at but this is Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 19 the project site. This line going from the corner of the propert y to the intersection of the right-of- way with Bluff Creek Boulevard. That was contemplated in that AUAR project along that edge. So we started this project with that line in mind and it was the subject of our concept plan that was heard by the council not only, Planning Commission and Council not only in 2015 but again last year. This idea of encroaching on a straight line across from the corner of the property to the right-of-way. That produces about 6 acres of impacts. If we look back at this line itself we’ve done a fair amount of work to study the north side of this Bluff Creek area where we’re likely to make impacts and the topography starts high with the bluff. Heads south, or heads north and comes downhill to a point, the wetland sits right here. To a point roughly the southern edge of that pink area. Then it turns and comes back up again so this northern fringe of the Bluff Creek Overlay District is geographically distinct from the rest of the bluff that starts at the high point and travels down to the end and is the definition of that edge and you can see from a 1991 aerial photo where that edge of the bluff really originally was and is still today here. These trees have filled over the years to now complete that tree cover in that area but it kind of shows to follow that this edge really is the bottom of the bluff and then when you go north from there it’s part of the northern half of the site. So we’ve come back, this diagonal line was in our original 6 acre impacts up to the north. At some point there was this roadway from the south that’s still in the exhibits because it just went away Friday which we’ve very excited about. We support staff’s decision on that wholeheartedly. Our impacts as presented previously are roughly this line here which resulted in about 3 acres so what’s before you today is roughly half of what was originally contemplated through concept and in the original applications. So we’re down to 3 acres of impact including over half of it being that area north of that natural base of the bluff. But we have heard from residents. We’ve heard from you and I think the Chair’s comments closing the last hearing that he would like to see the impacts reduced if not eliminated. We’ve taken the work over the last week and we’ve worked to move some of these components that were previously down here, up and away from the bluff so we’re out of the bluff on this eastern, or western third of that area. Our impacts are limited to roughly the parking components in here and then we’re back to preserving the wetland on this side. The impacts on this potential alternate plan are roughly an acre and a half so we’ve gone from 6 acres that was contemplated several times previously to 3 acres in the application that was made prior to this hearing and now this concept gets it down to an acre and a half. We believe, and we also preserve probably the most critical portion which is this western edge that provides the screening to the adjacent residents so now this building sits probably 120-200 feet northwest of, northeast of where it originally was sited and is closer to the road with the parking on the back side. So with that we do have a handful of items from the staff comments. I can go through those and address some of those as well. I think probably the most critical just to give you an update on is our wetland process. We either yesterday or today, I’m not sure which day it went in officially but we have completed the response and resubmitted to the Corps and we will be submitting to the City for the Wetland Conservation Act as well. It’s been a challenge for us because we’re trying to keep the Corps and the City’s Wetland Conservation Act process in sync. When we need both the Corps permit and the Wetland Conservation Act permit it’s, we’re challenged to want to respond to the City quicker and get an answer back again and then we get a different set of comments from the Corps so then we provide the Corps different material and the City says well why didn’t Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 20 we get that material so from the beginning we’ve set out to try to keep those sync’d. We, as the timeline Shawn provided indicated we waited about a month for the Corps letter. What we got was fairly extensive and we’ve been working hard the last several weeks to put that response together. We have that and that is in or will be, went in today or will be in shortly to the City as well on that front. So that coordination is, that’s the status update. That’s our coordination challenge. I think most would agree it’s probably best to keep those coordinated so we’re not sending different information to different agencies. The replacement challenge, we did start locally. We started on site. We moved to adjacent sites. We own a piece of property in the southeast quadrant of Lyman and Powers that we explored extensively. Doing some remediation up there. That takes most of the roadway drainage on that piece of property. We weren’t able to come up with anything that we could hydraulically, hydrologically support and maintain. We did ask the City for a number of sample projects they would like to see within the watershed understanding that our first choice is to get projects within the watershed and then move outward from there. We did receive a handful of those. Those all have been explored by Kjolhaug and Associates, our wetland consultant. If I had known we were going to go this deep into that today I would have had them come. My apologies. But most of those, well they were all ruled out for any sort of credits. None can generate credits necessary to meet both the Corps and Wetland Conservation Act requirements but further I’m certain I’ve had this discussion with Melissa, none of them really even were eligible for improvements that would make a significant difference and quite often could be counter productive to restoration. We’ll renew that request if there’s a project that the City has. A demonstration project. Something that we can make improvements in the watershed we’d be more than happy to work with the City to work through those and also more than happy to share the ones that we’ve been given previously and work through why we didn’t think those were viable so we will continue that effort with staff on that front. And as Shawn mentioned too the mitigation options really we’re not necessarily at odds but the Corps definitely prefers and wants to see bank credits run through that State program and it’s tough to try to convince the Corps that some more obscure project should be eligible for those or may not be eligible so any of those efforts we would do would be in addition to the 2 to 1 credits that we’re proposing to purchase so we’re going to look to our bank credits. Those are the closest and most efficient use of credits. We’re going to look to those for our 2 to 1 but we’re more than happy to work with staff on additional improvements in the district to address the water quality components. So with that I think we will stand for any questions you may have and also as the previous meeting if you’d like we can take notes at resident comments and address those after those are complete as well. Tietz: Real quick if I could. Aller: That application went forward, do you agree with the City’s presentation that you should receive a response on or before July 12th? For the Army Corps of Engineers. Darren Lazan: Do we agree with the City’s? Aller: And that staff would you have all the information by that date? Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 21 Darren Lazan: We have all the information in and complete today. The question is will there be additional information required after they review the information they have. I believe that was the City’s request for 60 day that took it to that date so we still have the ability to add time to that as well and we would certainly do so if necessary. Aller: Any additional questions at this point? Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: With the amended plan for the senior housing area, could you just clarify how many of the primary zone acres would be impacted? And then there’s kind of an outer zone as well. Darren Lazan: Right. So the, we’re proposing about an acre and a half of impacts into the primary zone, which would be predominantly in this area in front of you here and then depending on what impacts are, we don’t have any building in the primary or secondary. We cut it short at this edge and at this edge so it would be landscaped improvements. A little bit of parking here in that secondary but we pulled the building all the way out of the secondary zone as well. Madsen: Great, thank you. Randall: One question on, can you pull up the slide from the view from looking over 212? Where the trees actually had quite a bit. Darren Lazan: Right here? Randall: Next one. The one from Powers. That one. Darren Lazan: Here. Randall: So on that, if those are the backs of retail buildings will you be able to see like semi trucks that are delivering products to those retail areas or is it going to be shielded by some of that? Darren Lazan: Yeah I think to say they’ll be completely shielded, truck traffic that moves through here will be visible at times. I think each of these users may have docks that have screen walls associated with their construction. Randall: Okay. Darren Lazan: And then we do a plantings at the top of the wall that in time will provide a fair amount of screening but to Kate’s point I think from time to time even when those trees get to some level of maturity you’re going to see some movement of vehicles back here but it will be fairly screened. Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 22 Randall: And what was the issue with the fire department and the boulevard? Having a median. Aanenson: Just the amount of commercial space there. They wanted if someone…fire truck pulls in and someone might just pull over then they’re blocked. So that was their issue as opposed to going around somebody. That’s what we have downtown. Darren Lazan: So in this slide their concern was this width would not be sufficient if someone were to pull over on this side and the truck? Aanenson: But you’re at the widest part of the entrance. I’m not sure if that’s 16 all the way what you’re depicting there. It’s wider at the entrance. Darren Lazan: Yeah. This is mid but it’s pretty close. Aanenson: At 16 with a car pulled over that was their point. Darren Lazan: Yeah. Tietz: Is that street width similar to or what’s on Market? What’s on? Aanenson: It’s the same. You’ve got. Tietz: It’s the same so we have retail on both sides of Market and we have a median with trees in it. And I don’t know, I guess I’m, I think there’s, I probably shouldn’t place to make a comment but I think it’s really an advantage to this development to have that median. To have the trees. Both aesthetically and long term. I think there is a, I don’t know about the traffic calming aspect but I think that the identity of this development and the enhancement of having a median is beneficial. Darren Lazan: Well we know from experience and from working with our consultants that wider roads, open roadways promote higher speeds so the thought was to create the narrower roadways which aren’t narrower. They match the Bluff Creek Boulevard to the south as it moves through that neighborhood and creating the trees and the visual interest in there that provides traffic calming. We’re less inclined to go fast through areas where that design is employed. Aller: What other options were considered for traffic calming? And I know that this one was selected as the primary or best one in their opinion but what others did they present? Darren Lazan: This in conjunction with the roundabouts was really everything we could throw at this. We had looked at narrower roadways. Went back and said that probably would be more frustrating to the fire department but also involves a variance. Then we’d be narrower than the remainder of Bluff Creek so we discounted that so really we, you know between the landscaping, Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 23 the roadway width and the roundabouts I’ve kind of thrown everything at trying to calm the traffic as it moves through our project and into the neighbors. Fauske: Chairman Aller? Aller: Yes. Fauske: Can I provide some clarification with regards to street widths? I heard the commission discuss Market Boulevard here in downtown. Currently from Highway 5 to West 78th Street it is two lanes each direction to just provide a point of clarification. I’m not sure if I misheard but it’s two lanes each direction and I know West 78th Street we do go down to one lane each direction and I don’t know off the top of my head what the width is but we could certainly, if the Planning Commission would like some in place examples of reduced widths we could certainly provide that to the Planning Commission. Aller: That would be great. As well as some additional input from the fire department as to the particular streets that we’re looking at, whether or not they’ve had problems with that before. Fauske: If I could. Aller: So any anecdotal evidence that they have that they may have answered a call and had problems or that they prefer a certain street over another and take that route for those reasons. Fauske: Okay. I do recall that there has been some issues with that. I can’t pinpoint and I believe it’s on Bluff Creek Boulevard but we can certainly get that information for the Planning Commission. Aller: Right, thank you. Tietz: Kate another question. Clarification. Could you help me with the scale of the roundabouts. I hope they’re not like Southdale’s. Darren Lazan: So I’ve got a unique perspective on roundabouts. I don’t like to use them where they’re done for fun. I like to use them where they’re functional and if they’re going to be there they need to be the full geometry so people aren’t cutting across. Tietz: So these are? Darren Lazan: So this is the full blown, it’s actually not only a full dimensionally this meets that state aid standard for those roundabouts as well. It has the runoff areas around the perimeter so if the trucks move through they’re not bound by that and then again the radius is large enough that you can move through there at a prescribed rate and not be cutting people off and so forth. So these are the full blown roundabouts both east and west intersections with Avienda Parkway. Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 24 Aller: Am I correct in assuming that because they’re full blown roundabouts and the full width that there would be less problems with queuing behind that if they’re close to the entrances and exits? Darren Lazan: Yeah there’s a number of things. We talked about using them when they make good sense. This is a great example on this first one on the east side. If this was a four way controlled intersection of sorts it would stack back here and start to impede or come out onto Powers or into this intersection which is a MnDOT intersection so this allows them to keep moving through there. Whether they’re going straight, up or coming out again without that queuing occurring behind. That’s one of the primary functions of a roundabout really besides there’s some safety components that reduces accidents at higher rates of speed but really reducing the queuing is where we’re seeing the most effective in retail centers so that you don’t get the first intersection that halfway through the project and these retailers don’t have access. This allows us to have that access at a proximity to Powers that wouldn’t otherwise be acceptable. Aanenson: Chairman can I ask a question? Aller: Yes. Aanenson: Can we go back to the last set, so I’m driving. The last slide. There we are. Which showed the change. Darren Lazan: The senior? Aanenson: Yeah. So I’m going the right way correct? Darren Lazan: Yep, one more. Two more. Aanenson: Once we’re past it, can we just talk about this briefly? The difference here between the name of that plat is? Pioneer Pass? No Preserve. Generous: Preserve. Aanenson: Preserve doesn’t have the trees so that was the big driver so when you look at what qualifies for the Bluff Creek there’s scientific data on that so that was the trees and if you look at the, I don’t have my pointer but if you look at the project on the right that wetland was preserved so what we’re saying is because we, the AUAR said and that’s what we’re presenting to the Army Corps as part of that mitigation strategy that we would preserve the trees so I do appreciate that you moved the building but I do have a question on it and I appreciate that. Just want to look at that closer. I think that’s satisfying one of our concerns as far as the tree loss there. What happened to the hotel? I’m just trying to see what block’s changed or? Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 25 Darren Lazan: This concept would assume the hotel either moves or goes away. Don’t know at this point if it could move to this location and the retail could go away. It could move to this location. Aanenson: Okay so it looks like where that pond is that you reconfigured that. Took square footage off the other end of that, is that right? Darren Lazan: Yeah we lost one retailer here. Aanenson: Okay. I’m just trying to see what happened there. Darren Lazan: Yep. And this, and just for clarification, that line that went from the corner of the property to, up to the intersection of the right-of-way was about here. This is the wetland as we delineated it at the start of this project. It was in that area impacted so but it wasn’t delineated at that point. I’m sure they didn’t know it was there so. Aanenson: Well it showed up on, yeah. So that’s how we drew it on our, if we go to what we kind of illustratively tried to show on the model there. So by looking at that, I think this is illustrative just to show the impact… So if you look at how this, so this is how it changes. We’ll look at that by preserving those and moving the buildings over…moving it over and preserving that… That was one of the goals that we had in the staff report. Again just looking at where that grading…looking at that in a little bit more detail where that falls, that falls under the conditional use permit which does allow some of that grading so we want to look at that in a little more grading but that was what we had requested so thank you. Tietz: Darren I have a question. Maybe it’s more pointed to Mark but in terms of phasing of development, it seems like my observation is that the senior housing goes well when there’s access to retail. If you are projecting a very high demand for senior housing, and if that is first phase of construction when does the retail occur? How fast is that village going to develop and will you have the support for the folks who you are counting on to be part of the active community? Darren Lazan: Sure, I’ll take a shot at it and if Mark wants to fill in he can certainly do so but just as a maybe a little bit of background and reminder as far as phasing. Our plan is to build all of the infrastructure in the first phase and create those pads so all that infrastructure piece will be in and utilities will be in place and so forth so an y of these pads could go forward after the initial infrastructure and grading program. I think Mark can talk about sequencing of interest but I just wanted from an engineering perspective and a planning perspective there’s really no sequencing to that construction once we get the major. Tietz: Well we’ll get back to that. We’ll let Mark talk about sequencing and infrastructure is all in place and we all may have questions but I certainly have follow up questions to the Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 26 stormwater issue and how you’re going to deal with that and if that’s all going to be put in place initially but we’ll let Mark kind of update us on the sequencing. Mark Nordland: Yeah from a sequencing standpoint, as Darren mentioned, one of the beauties of working with a very well capitalized owner is that we’re going to go ahead and do all of this at once. The infrastructure. The roads. Utilities. The grading and so forth can all go in at once. There’s no need to phase the project from that standpoint. Your question hits on though what’s the market for it and what’s going to happen right away. We have, I have a 17 page prospect list that I go through every week with the Colliers team and try to you know herd the cats and get everybody kind of lined up and figured out. I would tell you greater than 50 percent, approaching 75 percent of the development is and I’m using air quotes here, spoken for. I mean we’ve got letters of intent. People that want to go in. Retailers. Housing. The senior components. The daycare. We’re working with some office users right now so there’s a very high percentage of the development that will in the, you know it’s a big project so it’s probably the first 2 years as these things come online and we’ve got a good you know 6 plus months of grading and infrastructure work before we can even start to go vertical with buildings but we feel great about the reception that the marketplace has had for this. There’s a lot of talk and the report we provided for Mr. McComb’s about the evolution of retail and you know you pick up the paper every day and there’s another retailer that’s going bankrupt and retail is dead and what not and I’m actually speaking on a panel tomorrow morning about retail development and what’s working and projects like this work. This is one of my case studies, of course it’s my project but as to what the retailers want to see right now and what works. Department stores aren’t there, and aren’t drawing people to them but this experiential retail and creating a village like this with a mix of uses and that’s, and I’m going to slightly off topic but that’s part of the reason for the senior component. You know it’s easy to say well geez why do you need senior with services to make your retail development work? And it’s really about just the combustion that happens when you get all of the different uses in there together and so if we lose the senior with services then the senior independent has a lot to offer time right because when seniors are going to either buy or rent a place they really like to know that they can also age in place. Whether it’s in that actual unit and building that they’re in or whether it’s across the parking lot in another facility or if one of the spouses has issues and they can easily co-exist in that area and trying to get the right now of you know, you say well it shouldn’t be a housing development. It’s not really a housing development. It’s a mixed use project that puts all these uses together to work and if we only had one or two types of housing that we could do then we’re taking bites out of that same apple and you’re just not going to be able to fill that. But if you can come at it with some detached single family that’s a great buffer to the single family to the west, and then market rate apartments right at the core of the project and then you can do senior independent and then the senior with services. I think is it 130 units that we’ve got shown right now of senior with services. It’s not a large number but it’s just an important component of the project and so a lot longer answer than you wanted but that’s our thinking behind it and that’s why it’s important to us and you know a related but different issue is the bluff and the hotel isn’t shown on that latest plan that you just saw because we’re trying to move the senior to get it back so it fits and it works with the neighbors and their concerns about it but it also hits the bluff less than it did Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 27 before and so we lose an acre and a half of what was development before. Something has to go. Hopefully we’ll find a different home for that but we’re just trying to hit on this issue right now but it’s not losing those units. It’s losing that mix of uses that’s most important to us. Aller: If I could piggyback on that a little because it has to do with the bluff and the senior center and then the intergenerational suggestion that was used before. It seems to me that we’ve seen intergenerational and I’m all for intergenerational concepts and interplay amongst our residents but it seems in this particular scenario you’ve got kids that are on the far side of the complex which would have to travel either through traffic, walked or driven or whatever over to the senior center because they’re not going to be as mobile and you won’t get that same connection so I don’t see the intergenerational aspect of it unless you were to move the senior center over towards the children’s daycare. Mark Nordland: You’re right. I mean in an ideal world they’d be right next to each other but as the site was laying itself out and as the uses, I mean the senior component works well down near the residential to the west because there’s less traffic coming to and from that space. The daycare has people coming in every morning and every evening to pick up their children and drop them off. It wants to be near an entrance to the main road so you can kind of come in and come out and not have to go down near the neighborhood there. We still think there can be interplay but it’s not as direct as if it were next to each other. I think the more important interplay is the senior services with the senior independent because then you can, it’s not an interplay as much as it’s a life cycle or it’s an aging in place kind of a concept. Aller: Thank you. Additional questions at this point? Tietz: I think Darren was going to tell us about the stormwater. Darren Lazan: Thanks. The only thing I’d add to Mark’s comment on that intergenerational component is that we just got approval and are breaking ground on a project in Stillwater that is next to a school and has a campus, all these same components and the school door to that facility and the distance from the daycare to this facility are almost identical. This is a distance they travel. They enjoy. They were putting kids on buses previously and taking them down to Boutwells, which is in Oak Park Heights. Now it’s immediately next door so they’re fairly excited. I don’t know that that’s a distance that’s troubling to them. I think they like to get those kids out so we look forward to exploring that and certainly right next door would be ideal but I don’t think it precludes it. Stormwater and phasing. So we are looking at a number of best management practices to treat the stormwater on this site and this too is a pretty complex component. So we have a number of requirements. We have our water quality and quantity requirements has been typical for years and we also have this abstraction component where we have to take the first 1.1 inches of rain and hold it on site. It’s not allowed to leave the site so those are now the 3 components of stormwater that we work hard to manage. We are looking at deploying as many and as much of a number of BMP’s as possible to meet that criteria. I can tell today it’s unlikely we’ll hit the 1.1. I think some of the representative projects in the city where Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 28 we deal with the same soils, these D soils. These soils that don’t infiltrate or poorly infiltrate, but there’s been reductions in the 1.1. As low as .5 inches of abstraction so we’re going to be looking for that same discussion with the watershed and arriving at a series of best management practices that display the best practical solution for treating the stormwater to the highest extent possible. That includes use of pervious pavers extensively used on a couple other projects in Chanhassen. We’re going to look at deploying pervious pavers to the extent possible. We have challenges with that. You have D soils that aren’t infiltrating. You’re holding water there and you have pervious pavers above. You have the freeze thaw cycle. It tends to blow up those pervious pavers or pervious pavements so it starts to limit the extent that you can use those maybe at the higher areas where you’re not going to hold the water. We’re also going to look at deploying some water reuse and we originally attacked it as a whole system water reuse where we do a distribution main all the way around the project. We have one set of telemetry and pumps and reservoirs to hold that and feed that. What we found is that if we irrigated the entire site it only addressed about 15 percent of the stormwater requirements because there’s literally not enough area. Then we kind of backed into an exercise where we said well what would work and it was a ridiculous number. If we built 25 percent of the site and landscaped the remaining 75 percent of the site we could get pretty close to our stormwater requirements. Well of course that’s not practical. It can’t be done so we got some little bit of eye opening on reuse water components but we still plan to deploy those. Use those throughout the project and then again we’re going to be layering in these pervious pavements but this is kind of an interactive process with the watershed. We’ll be making our application and drilling down on those as we go forward after we get through this process and dialing that in but they have criteria. They have review standards. They have the ability to measure what we’re doing and make the determination that we’ve made the most practical solutions and that’s what we’re looking forward to. Tietz: Again I want to follow, I know we’ve talked about this the last 2 meetings but when you’ve got nearly I believe in the report it says 70 percent hard surfaces. 70 acres, excuse me. 70 acres of 118, 119 acres and you can’t get there with the 1.1. You know the soils are the soils. I mean we’ve got to find a solution. We can’t just dump all that water into, and it looks like the only source that you’re going to is really the Purgatory Creek side. It looks like the Lake Susan side is completely cut off because of the way the topography or you flatten it. I don’t see any, well maybe I missed something but I didn’t see any discharge into the current route that goes to Lake Susan so yeah it’s a huge problem and I hope there’s a creative solution that you and your other fellow engineers come up with. Darren Lazan: Sure. Tietz: That will work because we do have Chanhassen clay. Darren Lazan: Yep. Tietz: And you’re, you know it’s exciting to see what the solution is. Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 29 Darren Lazan: Yep. I think on that maybe a couple thoughts on your comments. One is that we are replicating the existing drainage patterns so any water that currently flows out of base and out of district to the north, northeast or south, we actually go to 3. That same district and same volume of water is being replicated so we’re not pulling any water out of one district and sending it to another. We still are proposing to meet all of the retention, detention requirements so that the discharge rates meet the requirements. So we’re not sending any water quicker to those districts. More water will go. That’s the nature of development but we’re not sending it there any quicker and we’re still meeting the quality requirements required in the bases that we’ll construct to meet that. It’s an substraction piece where it’s the piece that you’re required to infiltrate that is a challenge in these soils. It’s a challenge in any D soils anywhere in the metro area and what we end up doing is deploying the best practices possible to meet as much of that and we got a handful of sample projects from other Chanhassen sites, recent Chanhassen sites and they’ve deployed much of the same. They had permeable pavement systems. They had reductions of about 50 percent in their required abstraction and they were approved and went forward because the watershed said you know this is the best that can be accomplished on this site so we’re looking at layering some water reuse on top of that. In addition to what’s been done previously in Chanhassen and we’re hopeful that we’ll get to those, address those requirements and have some pretty solutions. As far as the amount of pervious area, let’s exclude the pervious pavers for a minute because they tend, they would by definition be taken out of that. Let’s just assume all the pavement on this project is impervious and the roof tops of course are impervious. We preserve about 18 to 20 acres of Bluff Creek. By definition in your code that starts a process of cluster development where you get more density on the remainder of the site in exchange for preserving the open areas in the Bluff Creek. When we apply the coverage areas over the entire project we’re about 40 percent green so we’re on average for the entire site we’re relatively high amount of green area or low area percentage wise of impervious area. I think what you see is the cluster or condensed areas looks pretty daunting when you see it in scale but if you look at the whole project we’re right around 40 percent which is pretty, a pretty fair amount of green space for a project of this scale. For whatever that’s worth. Aller: Any additional questions at this point? Okay. Darren Lazan: If you have any more from residents we’d be happy to answer them. Aller: Thank you. At this point in time I’m going to open up the public hearing so that individuals who are present can come forward and state your positions either for or against the matter before us or provide your comments. If you would you can give us your comments directly to us and as in the past we will attempt to get them answered in a form or fashion that’s acceptable to all. Good to see you again. Welcome. Jon Gilbert: My name’s Jon Gilbert. I’m at 1641 Jeurissen Lane. Thank you Chairman Aller and commission for hearing me again. I like what I see. I’m for some things. I’m against some things. I’m encouraged with the process and the progress. I’ve seen some changes which I like Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 30 and I think there’s still room for additional discussions and improvements. I’m going go for my notes. During the early discussions there was, the four things that I want to talk about is the Bluff Creek Overlay, the wetlands, the density and the senior housing. I agree with the change that the City has noted for the roadway through the forested area or the bluff. I understand the City made a recommendation to change density from 4 to 8 to 3 to 6 for the housing. It seems to conflict with the other statement of changing or supporting going from a 20 percent density to a 30 percent within the PUD so I have some thoughts about that. It seems to make sense that if they were to be allowed to continue with the senior housing, to either go more vertically but certainly out of the Bluff Creek Overlay District that they would need more density, or would be willing to trade for higher density in the development. Whether or not they move, add more storage or not you’d need a variance for that so I’m a little confused about how you can make a recommendation for decreasing from 4 to 8 to 3 to 6 for the housing at the same time support an increase from 20 to 30 percent. On the wetlands the guest speaker had mentioned wetlands not impacted I believe was number 3, 4 and 10. 3 being on the west side and 4 being down at the corner of the wall. When you walk that property you do see connectivity between I think 3 and 4 certainly. You can walk back there now and sink up to mid-shin. It’s wet there. The comment was made that with some of this imperviousness or some of the drainage you may have an unintended consequence to Wetland 3. If you have an unintended consequence to Wetland 3 it’s going to impact I think Wetland 4. There certainly is some drainage coming off of the bluff itself but by moving the senior housing, the building itself out of the primary zone and into the secondary zone with less impact you still have an impact I think to that wetland and that connectivity so going back to the slides of 2006 where it’s great precedent to see those slides and to understand what had been allowed before and I appreciate the clarification on why that may have been allowed then. Those are decisions for then. This is now. Sometimes you make decisions then that do not apply to now so I think it’s important to having said that to try to maintain that connectivity between the remaining wetlands, and on those slides that were shown there were large wetlands still intact in those slides as well that weren’t disrupted so in this case the wetlands are being filled in. On the mitigation of the wetlands I support trying to keep or mitigate within the watershed. If they can keep it to Purgatory Creek and uplands great. If there’s a discussion that needs to occur with Army Corps of Engineers by all means have it. They should be open to working with the City and the City with the Feds, the Corps of Engineers is the Feds, to support the City’s wishes. I think that’s where citizens and we would expect you to step up and push for that. I’d like to cite page 37 of the staff report of 59 where it states the City of Chanhassen established the Bluff Creek Overlay District by ordinance number, codified Article, Chapter, Code. The primary zone includes the forested area in the southwest corner of the site and the wetlands contained therein. Basically I think it was said preserve it so if there’s a way that you’re going to exchange density for the wetlands or the Bluff Creek Overlay, which I believe was identified as a preserve even before the land was bought. It was something that I assumed was going to be around for quite a while and if a developer were to come in they would have to recognize that. I understand counting it as 40 percent of the green space but I think we have to work at somehow either going vertical to give you some of the density that you may need to go vertical and if that includes having similar residential units above some of the retail like you have in the larger unit to the west, perhaps that would work. Don’t know. We’ll leave that Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 31 for a later discussions. Not sure that I really appreciated all the signage discussion today. I think it takes away from some of these larger issues. That’s just a side comment. There are variances that will be allowed. I hope the process really looks at them carefully and I think that was it. Density, senior housing. Senior housing, I’m for it. I think there’s a place for it. I think there’s value for all interested parties. Certainly it can, well it will provide value for all interested parties. And that’s it. If you have any questions I’m happy to answer any. Aller: Thank you sir. Aanenson: Chairman can I answer a couple questions? Aller: Yes. Aanenson: I think just for everybody’s, the density issue. So when this project came forward looking at the density we had capped at 20 percent when we put the PUD district together because there’s a lot of interest in doing just housing on this and when we said we want to do a regional commercial we wanted to be a mix of the residential that would support. Not that that’d be the dominant element with some support. If it was really going to be a regional draw so we put 20 percent in there as a placeholder and as this plan evolved we recognize that based on what they were proposing, setting aside what the type of higher density would be. So to take that 16 percent over that, 16 units an acre over that 30 percent. That’s how we got to the 500. Capping the low density was to ensure that that doesn’t become a high density on that side so that specific low density district, the 3 to 6 was to make sure that that was a good transition between the single family that’s already there. So that’s to ensure that if they sell that off that that’s what that can be because we’re representing it that way. The rest of it how they spread that out over there, and again we’re talking about when we say senior housing, I want to be clear on this, you know we say high density but within that there’s an array of condominiums, senior coop, assisted, what we would call service enriched. The product that we were saying we were challenged on was the service enriched. Not senior housing. Senior housing, there’s a lot of different menus within that. That was our only comment on that so I hope that made sense. Jon Gilbert: It does and I think that the developer and the City can come up with a definition or come up with a project that meets the requirements of the PUD that benefits everybody. Aanenson: Yeah so having said that, so that’s why we did agree to up from 20 percent to 30 percent which capped that at 500 units okay so to that point, keeping the lower density within that. That still counts for units. To us the sign part of it is very important because that’s a visual aspect that we’ve learned the importance of signs on some of the projects that we’ve approved when we may not have paid as much attention. We think it’s an important element and the PUD and the design standards do get approved as a part of this project. So if we stay silent on it then it becomes something, part of the record so we want to be sure that we’ve addressed that now and make that part of the standards that’s why it’s being addressed, yeah. Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 32 Jon Gilbert: Okay, appreciate that. Thank you. Aanenson: It’s one of those little nuances we get caught up in the wetland discussion and the stormwater but this is also an important part. And as we said before there’s a lot of moving parts. A lot to take in. Aller: Thank you for that clarification. Welcome sir. If you could state your name and address for the record. Erik Dale: Hello, good to see you again. How are you? Aller: Good. Erik Dale: Yeah my name is Erik Dale, owner at 1190 Lyman Boulevard with my wife Marissa who’s also here. Aller: Welcome. Erik Dale: So we had talked before about the flora and the fauna of the population area. We have 3 ½ acres on the northeast corner and 2 culverts both of which that are located on our property so we have one that east to west and then what’s being called a holding pond on the south side is actually, also has a culverts that dumps into our property. We currently have about 1.2 acres that are under water. Completely used to be mowed. Used to be plowed. Taken care of. It’s not being taken care of. Talked to Three Rivers Park District. The City worked with Melissa. We’ll talk about that more in the banking situation here. So I’ve approached this because I singlehandedly take care of this. So you know if a tree goes down the City doesn’t come out to take care of that. That’s on my land. We don’t have a problem hosting that. The problem is there’s a significant back up. Shawn you can maybe speak to this. I believe that the wetlands are supposed to move at 10 meters a week, does that sound accurate? Shawn Williams: In terms of the flow rate? Erik Dale: Yeah the flow rate. Shawn Williams: I think there’s various factors. Soil type and slope and what not… Erik Dale: Sure. So that aside you know we have people over and they say oh that’s so nice that the lake is right there. We have muskrats now. We have beavers running across the property. Swimming on what I used to cut so just a little bit of background. I spent 27 of my 31 years in Chanhassen so it was pretty exciting when we were a kid and we got a target. Like that was big news so I don’t see this as adversarial. Like us versus them situation. What I see is this might be an answer to a question that I don’t know who asked. I see the multi-use. I see the function of it. I’m more concerned what’s the fallout? The fact that I haven’t seen anybody from the project, Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 33 the Corps of Engineers or anybody tells me that they’re not on my land looking, doing UV dye tests. Things like that to see what impact there’s actually going to be, or how bad the situation currently is and that’s a little concerning. So that’s kind of my points there of you know working with them to see hey what can we do because you know Blue Earth County is knocking our door down to buy credits here nor are they asking for this project in Blue Earth. You know looking at it was economically extremely disadvantageous to try to do the banking program so you have land in Blue Earth that is not quite as valuable as our’s obviously but it’s between 60 and 300,000 for me to put my land into that banking credit but that would help mitigate some of these issues but where’s incentive to do it? That’s the difficult part. Melissa had mentioned she hadn’t really worked with the banking credits before so I kind of looked into it more. In talking to all those places of seeing how are we going to manage what’s going through. Last but not least I think yeah I think the concern is just, there’s no local contact. You know I work the land every single day. I’m out there. My dog and I. I go on the south side and hike. I get up in the Avienda area occasionally. The amount of wetland and life that could be affected, it’s a little disappointing that nobody’s contacted you know me or the Miller’s, my neighbors to see what’s actually existing on that land so that’s it. If you have any questions, concerns or apprehensions. Aller: Great, thank you. So I guess one of the questions that I would have is if a resident requests someone to take a look at their property for purposes of designation and delineation as a wetland what process would he go through? Shawn Williams: Yeah, thank you for that question. So I guess first of all in regards to this application that’s underway, I believe the citizens do have the right to be notified of the public notices that are issued for the wetland review process and so forth so if the resident who’s concerned here would like. Aanenson: This is the public hearing for that particular item, yes. Shawn Williams: Yep, yep so they could request to be included on the public notifications for the, as the documents come together for the wetland review. Aller: Right but in a secondary issue that I’m hearing is if any resident in the city of Chanhassen has a piece of property and they want to have it reviewed for purposes of wetland delineation purposes would they come to the City? Would they come to see you? Would they have a private engineer and what’s the process for a resident to do that? Shawn Williams: Yeah so if they wanted to have an official wetlands delineation and classification of the aquatic resources completed on their property, typically the landowner or property owner would be responsible to hire a consultant or someone to come out there and help them and complete that process and prepare a wetland delineation report. Get the approvals for the landowner. Now I do know that the Soil and Water Conservation District they often have staff who the property owner could reach out to Soil and Water Conservation District staff and have a brief site visit with them and maybe discuss their concerns and from there they could Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 34 offer technical guidance or other resources that the property owner could consider but in terms of actually like defining wetland boundaries and getting those approved through that process, typically the property owner would have to look at hiring a consultant. Aller: Great, thank you. I just wanted to get that out so that people who are watching or people in the audience that are interested in doing that would have that information. Fauske: Chairman Aller? Aller: Yes. Fauske: If I may also expand on that. As mentioned previously and that Shawn mentioned previously that the City has a wetland classification system. That differs from a delineation. The wetland classification goes based off of soil types and aerial photos as far as where you see standing water, certain soil types and identifies approximately where we believe wetland conditions are but does not specifically delineate the edge of that wetland. Shawn Williams: Right, correct and that’s like the DNR, National Wetland Inventory that’s available online for anybody to view as well as the web soil survey could be another resource to look at where the hydric soil classifications exist within the city so. Aller: Great, thank you for that input. Shawn Williams: Yep, thank you. Aller: Any additional comments or concerns? Please step forward. State your name and address for the record. Marissa Weber: Marissa Weber, 1190 Lyman Boulevard. Aller: Good to see you again. Marissa Weber: Hello everybody. So I guess I am more of an aesthetic person. What am I going to be looking at when I’m walking my dog in the morning and I really, really, really love summer, as everyone does and it lasts roughly 3 to 4 months and every picture that was shown was summer. It’s beautiful. What is it going to actually look like though when there isn’t foliage on the trees blocking the retaining wall? Blocking our view. I’m I guess a little bit disappointed. I feel like the development is being plopped down into a residential area. My hope was that maybe that there’d be a little bit of a better blend from this into our homes. I guess I didn’t think that I’d be walking out and seeing the West End or Maple Grove in my front yard. That’s a little bit disappointing to me. I’m going to be looking at the offices and a parking lot which I get is super exciting for some people. Currently I get to look at a beautiful grassy area and I’m all for it. I actually, my husband and I have arguments constantly, I’d like to move back Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 35 to downtown Minneapolis. I love it there but I signed up to live there. I didn’t sign up to live here. I didn’t sign up to look at a parking lot. I signed up to live in a beautiful area and I’m not against this. I like to shop. I mean that also kind of goes into the winter part of this. Is this going to die like it does in Maple Grove? The West whatever in St. Louis Park does a great job with underground parking and those things so people do tend to shop there year round. Maple Grove I could shoot a cannon through most days of winter and it is dead. But I don’t know I guess I just was really hoping that this would do a better job integrating this into our neighborhood because right now I feel like this was sort of vomited onto my neighborhood. So that is all. Thank you. Aller: Great, thank you very much. Yes sir if you’d come forward and state your name and address for the record. Zhexin Zhang: Hi, Zhexin Zhang, 1455 Bethesda Circle. Aller: Welcome. Zhexin Zhang: Thanks for letting me speak again. So I think I’ll just stick to the main topics that we discussed tonight already. The Bluff Creek Overlay I’ll go over first. I totally agree with the idea of the assisted senior living and the mixed use. I think there’s definitely a need for it. I guess my question is why can’t we save that immediate place next to the primary zone and the secondary zone for a little green space and move the senior housing a little bit further in because my thought is you know we have the senior housing there. Two buildings. The high density apartments as well as the townhomes. I’m assuming there’s going to be kids at least in those townhomes as well as apartments, and I’m sure the seniors will want to have a nice open green space as well and so my thought is you know in looking at this development plan right now there’s really no parks for those kids. There’s no real open green space for them to run around in and so that’s a real concern to me and so when I look at the Bluff Creek Overlay, you know how great is it if we could just maintain that primary and secondary zone and keep that more of a scenic green space for those kids to have a place to run and play. As well as for seniors to stroll through as these beautiful days that we’ve been getting this past week. So my other concern is everything we discussed, the median. I definitely think we should keep the median. If we’re trying to build a walkable space here. I mean you’re going to have cars driving through this area at the same time people are crossing. Having that median there will help mitigate potential conflicts between cars and pedestrian traffic. That being said I don’t think just having a median there will, and the roundabouts be enough to traffic calm the Bluff Creek traffic. We have that sort of already along sections of Bluff Creek. There’s roundabouts obviously and there’s still cut through traffic at quite high speeds. To me it’s just having those two combinations it’s insufficient to traffic calm to the speed that I’m concerned with coming out of this development into the residential to the southwest of this development so I’m wondering if there’s any additional strategies we could use. You know speed limit changes into the residential or maybe even a speed bump from between the residential and the development area. I don’t know but I just know that the, just having roundabouts, just having the median is not enough. And then the Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 36 signage along the, I am a little concerned for the signage, especially on the southern retaining wall, and I guess throughout the development. Any signage that’s kind of facing the residential areas. I’m assuming they’re going to be lit at night and so there’s going to be a lot of light pollution especially for those large signs along the southern retaining wall for the nei ghborhood just to the south of it so again I guess I don’t really see a sign, or need for those signs along the retaining wall and especially on the south side. In the era of Google Maps you’re going to know where you’re going, right? You’re just going to plug in to GPS. It’s going to take you to where it is. You’re not going to lose yourself trying to find this spot. And then I just had a question in terms of the, I know that the developer mentioned about 50 to 70 percent of the developed buildings are spoken for. If you take out the office space, the residential space like the senior housing and apartments, the townhouses, what percent of the actual retail space has been spoken for? Darren Lazan: About the same percent. Zhexin Zhang: Okay, that’s great to hear because that’s one of my concerns is you know I think the worst would be to build this up and then have vacant lots. And then I just had, and maybe I’m missing, just don’t really understand what was discussed. How is the water mitigation going to, you mentioned that this land would be different structure would be laid in and the road would be laid in and then before the buildings go up is the water mitigation going to be built as part of the infrastructure? The initial infrastructure in terms of the roads because my concern is if that water mitigation is in there already and we have roads and parking lots built, how are you addressing the water so. And I think that’s it for me. Thank you for your time. Aller: Thank you sir. Additional comments or questions at this time? Seeing no one coming forward I’m going to close the public hearing portion of this item and we’ll move onto commissioner comments, questions, additional information. Concerns, questions, comments. Weick: I’ll start, if that’s okay down on my end. Aller: Commissioner Weick. Weick: I think the point that was made about the winter use is interesting. I hadn’t thought about that. Hopefully the high density of, I shouldn’t say that. Scratch that. Hopefully the residential component that’s being built up around this, around the lifestyle center if you will, will help keep some of those businesses busy in the winter time. I think that that might be different than some of the other lifestyle centers because really the lifestyle center is the part in the middle right. The village and then the rest of it is businesses and houses and senior living and things like that so hopefully that stuff that’s around it will help. The signs is interesting because I go back and forth in my head on that, and I view it as that traffic I guess on 212 is important to advertise to that traffic I think. I mean that’s how I view those signs and not necessarily as directional but advertising right so people that are zooming up and down 212, oh I new whatever is on the sign so something to consider there. I would defer to the residents in the Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 37 area that have to look at it though right to, as the really guiding opinion on those. I guess that’s all I have on it right now. Aller: Anyone else? Well my comment on the signs is I think we should leave the ordinances as regarding the signs. I think we’ve got a proven track record. We look at safety. The ordinance is there because of the safety. Because of the cutoff’s. Because of the lighting that’s been done and we’ve been burnt on some variances that have been approved before and a variance could possibly be granted in the future if one is sought and is deemed to be necessary. This would protect the residents around them from having unneeded signage and having those unintended consequences and again I think the whole idea of this being a regional center is that it’s a destination. It’s not just a drive through so I think people that are actually coming here are going to know it’s here and are intending to be there to go shop. To go visit. To do things other than just the neighborhood which of course will know it’s there as well. Comments on signage or anything else? Undestad: Not necessarily the signs on there but just kind of looking and back tracking through there. My comments on some of this stuff, I mean I like the idea of the islands and the additional trees and the boulevard trees and I think that’s going to make a big difference on the appearance of the development and potentially the success of the development. I like the senior and the services aspect on there. I’d like to see the developers try to get that completely out of the Bluff Creek Overlay District. I know it’s, you guys got a lot of work with the Army Corps and the wetlands and the watershed. I mean it’s a big project and as Kate mentioned it’s probably the biggest project we’ve had in Chanhassen here so I think we have to also keep in mind on the upside to that is, as Mark said they have sources that can get these projects done where some of these developments they try to come out. They try to do what they want to do. They get a certain distance down the road and then that didn’t work. That tenant didn’t come. This didn’t happen and they don’t have the resources to do this like they want to do it. Get it all put together in the front end and so I think we got, we should try to keep that in mind that we have the resources there to make this a good project and you know not to try to set them up for failure by limiting certain uses and things that I think they’ve done a lot of research to find out what they need to make this work so, but like I said I’d like to see them try to stay out of the bluff area on there. My little pet peeve on there is I like the water feature you’re putting on the other end that you said maybe or maybe not going to be there in front of the loft I think it was so I’d like to see that down there and maybe that green area in front of the loft down there with that water feature may be a little bit bigger too for sitting and people gathering around there. But overall again like I say I think with what’s being put in here this is going to be a very high quality project. You know yes we still have some tweaking to do and you know but overall I think what we’re looking at here I think is what we want in the city. I think it’s going to do well. So that’s my opinion. My comments. Aller: Awesome, thank you. Any additional? I still stand by I would love to see this completely out of the bluff and maintain as much water as possible. I understand too that this is an in progress situation with as we’ve stated many times a number of moving parts but I’d really like Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 38 to see as many water features as possible come in and of course my major concern right now is the, we don’t have the information from the watershed district and the Corps of Army Engineers as to whether or not certain items would even be feasible on this property at this point so we’re hoping that that application is going to fit the bill and that it will come back with a proper recommendations on it which would allow, which would allow it to move forward but again I don’t want to put the cart before the horse on these things so I would just caution us to either you know move forward carefully or wait for that other information to come forward. That which has also been suggested by the City so. Thoughts regarding water? Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: I won’t talk about water or stormwater anymore but I think that’s been hit hard enough tonight but I think your design standards appear really solid and I think it could really be an enhancement to this whole area and be very attractive area to participate in. I still have a real problem. I’m assuming that the 98,000 square foot retail is going to at least have 24 foot base in it for height. Is that accurate or? So you add that to 20 foot retaining wall and now we’re, you know the top of that building, even though we’re going to have four sided architecture the back will be very well done I’m certain but it seems like we’ve got a significant wall on that south side and that is your view. I appreciate the images because I think that really helps us to understand and it’s a good deal I think that you’re able to get those images. But maybe in working with MnDOT some additional vegetation would be worked into their property. I understand you’re building right to the property line and you can’t really move that wall back or potentially can’t because of the loading dock requirements. You can’t articulate that wall which may be something to consider so it’s not just a flat wall for what, 900 feet or whatever it was. 800 and some feet but maybe there’s a way to work cooperatively with MnDOT and assuming that that soil isn’t all muck and all wet some additional plantings of lowland vegetation or something could be done to further soften that wall from the south but I think you know there’s a lot of real positive things. I think we’re moving in a good direction. Oh the pervious pavers. I know we’ve got clay but you can’t tell me that there isn’t an engineering way to put a medium below that. Not 6 inches or one foot but 5 feet of filtration medium and piping underneath to collect the excess. You know it’s not a dollar a square foot. It’s not like putting down asphalt but this is really important and if there’s a way to integrate more pervious pavers and put the appropriate into the depth of that medium beneath it, you know I think that’s going to may, and it sounds like you’ve really researched this aspect because it has been a thorn in your side but I urge you to take another look at what could be done. Aller: Well that sounds like rate and extraction right? Tietz: Pardon? Aller: Rate and extraction which is going to be a headache for any developer at this point. Tietz: Yeah. Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 39 Darren Lazan: I did highlight a couple comments if you want to finish up your’s and I can go through that and answer any other. Aller: Any other comments or, please. Darren Lazan: Okay. Mr. Chair, members of the commission thank you again. Handful of resident comments I just wanted to get clarification or maybe some comments with Mr. Dale had a concern on his property. I just want to clarify that and he was looking for a contact at the City. We’ve had a number of discussions with residents when they’ve come to several neighborhood meetings so to the extent that our neighbors want to chat about opportunities to make improvements or how we work together or how we may affect, we’re more than happy to do that but I wasn’t 100 percent clear on his concern. If he was looking for the City’s help on his property or if he was looking towards us, I didn’t understand that. Aller: Well what I’m hearing is that you’re willing to work with residents in the surrounding areas so for those individuals at home or for those that are here that would like to contact these individuals and to have further discussions it sounds like they’re open to doing that as they move forward. Darren Lazan: Absolutely. Aller: Thank you. Darren Lazan: These are not as critical. So the commissioners questions, again Commissioner Weick spoke a little bit to the synergy and I think we kind of blew through that today and talked only a little bit about it last meeting we had. All of that is kind of baked in. This was all absolutely at the core of this project as we take a lifestyle component that everybody wants. They want that comparison shopping. We want that the water features and the landscape components and everything else and we’ve infused and surrounded it with drivers. It used to be you had anchors that you dropped in whether at department stores or otherwise. The retail environment has changed so rapidly that we look at successful centers today and we infuse those with businesses. With housing is a big driver almost to an anchor status for us to be able to have that big multi-family housing component right in the village. That puts 300 to 500 bodies there every morning and night. Businesses puts an equal number there for lunch so that synergy is really important to the overall project’s success and I don’t want to keep beating up on the senior but Mark talked a little bit about it. That senior with services to the senior housing component next to it that they know they can move here and age in place and start to take advantage of some of those services. That again all drives that component so that was a big part and I appreciate your comment on that. We skipped over that quite a bit tonight. Corps of Engineer, Mr. Chair your comment and the Wetland Conservation Act. In a perfect world we would get everything line up and then come stand before you but unfortunately there’s a little bit of iterative process with some of the agencies but also a requisite process. The watershed wants to see that we’re here and approved and have correct zoning before they lean fully into review and approvals on Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 40 our side. We’ve had a number of preliminary comments with them and meetings with them and conversations with them. We kind of know where we’re going. We know where we want to get but until we get our approvals that’s when we start that watershed process and go in on that so it is a little bit of a chicken and egg there to get our zoning and land use in line and then go make our application. Same with the Corps of Engineers. That all is running concurrently. Commissioner Tietz on your comment on the wall. I just wanted to be clear, we do have a terraced wall. It is in two tiers so it’s not just one monolith facing that side and we’re planting at the base. We do have room to plant at the base. We’re planting at the mid and we’re planting at the top so we are trying to break that up a fair amount with plants at all three of those locations so again we kind of felt some of the signage components of stone were more articulation but those aren’t being heard as favorably as we thought but again that’s our effort so again we appreciate your time and if you have any other questions we’ll certainly stand for those and look forward to your feedback. Aller: Thank you. Okay, any additional comments based on information received? Otherwise I’ll entertain any motions that someone would like to make or further discussions. Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: Are we going to collect more information on medians in Chanhassen and the width of the roads or do we have enough information at this point to make a decision on the median question? Aller: I think that’s up to us right now. Aanenson: It’s up to you. Yeah again speaking to the City Engineer, myself you know the fire department has one perspective. We’d like to see some of the traffic calming and some of the landscape part of it so but we certainly want to respect what the fire department’s done so if you want that additional information that would be something that I’d recommend that you table and wait until we get that information back because you should give direction on that to the City Council. Weick: Hearing though that everybody is in favor of medians and trees. I mean I haven’t heard an opinion otherwise so I’m not sure if gathering more information. Aller: Well I guess the question is, I haven’t heard any evidence that, other than the fact that the fire department has indicated they don’t. Weick: Right. Aller: Peaks my interest as to why a professional organization that’s in charge of the safety of our citizens would make that recommendation so based on that, that’s why I was requesting that we should look into that additional information because the way I see what we’re doing here today is to hear comments from the citizens. Comments from staff. Comments from the Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 41 applicant and then trying to come to the best decision that we can and if we don’t have that information then we should just not make a decision until we do. Weick: It meets code though right? Like there’s no. Aanenson: No. Weick: The street’s not too narrow. It’s not too wide. Aanenson: No but he’s saying for safety purposes. Weick: Right. Aanenson: And if you have to look at too the acquiesce on the other fire emergency so he, I don’t want to dismiss his concern of putting that in there. I’m just saying there’s other perspectives too and you can’t just look at the aesthetic. There’s the traffic calming but the emergency does, so I think if to Alyson’s point maybe giving some other scenarios. Undestad: Then don’t Kate with the change in the bluff, they’ve already made some revisions on there. Don’t we kind of need to wait until that’s all finalized too before… Aanenson: Well I’m saying so when we got in a room and presented our perspectives then the fire chief did acquiesce on that connection to preserve the Bluff Creek and so then the discussion became but he felt strongly about the other, but clearly the neighbors wanted traffic calming. The developers did. City staff did but the fire department comes from a different perspective and I think to your point Chairman. Aller: I don’t think that…calming. Aanenson: We didn’t hear that perspective. Aller: I think they would want access. Aanenson: Correct. Aller: And protection and safety for themselves so the fact that we’re losing an access down south too peaked my interest in where are we going to go from. Aanenson: Yeah we just had some discussions on there’s better access now off of Lyman. There’s also via access if you had to go up to that northern part of the Preserve neighborhood you could get in through Mills Drive if you know where that’s a long dead end cul-de-sac there so I think I’m just, I don’t want to dismiss just so lightly his comments that’s all. I just wanted you to know that there was different perspectives. Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 42 Weick: Then I would say though the answer isn’t get rid of the median in my opinion. The answer might be we need an extra foot on both sides and that I haven’t heard right. Like to me it’s not no median or median. To me it’s there’s a passing issue and so if there’s a passing issue then if the street was 12 inches wider on each side potentially that issue goes away so I’d rather not have it be get rid of them or have them and make someone angry. Aanenson: I don’t want to get into the nitty gritty details. There’s a minimum that you need for landscaping, da, da, da, da, so I’m not sure we have all that information. Weick: I just don’t want to. Aller: And in order to do that we may have to create a variance for purposes of the widening of the road and so we wouldn’t have the information to grant a variance at this point. Weick: Understood. I just don’t want the ultimate decision to be yes or no on a median because of that. I’d rather talk about how to make it work for both because. Aller: And without hearing anything else I would agree with you totally. Fauske: Chairman Aller? Aller: Yes. Fauske: If I may further muddy the waters with this discussion too, and the development team can certainly correct me if I’m wrong. My understanding too they had some discussions with regards to widening the lanes through there and as we already know there’s a stormwater management challenge and then I believe the team that was looking at the traffic calming measures also took a look at, you widen the pavement and you’ve lost some of the traffic calming measures with you know going, it’s very slight but you know a foot and I would certainly leave that to the experts to have their input and. Aller: And it may increase our problem with the water runoff. Fauske: So there’s a lot of things that play here with public safety and then with environmental impacts and trying to provide the traffic calming. Undestad: Alyson is surmountable curb allowed in the median areas? Fauske: Well the concern with, and I went along the same route too is there a way. The challenge, they’re so heavy is if you have a landscaped median can, and they ride up on the surmountable curb are you then creating an issue with getting the fire truck stuck at that point. It would certainly be dependent on the weather if we certainly, if we’ve gone through a period of Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 43 extended rain and you had soft soils and then yes it would be susceptible to sinking. I think there’s some alternatives that have been explored that perhaps I haven’t been a part of having not been heavily involved in the plan review. There’s a lot of moving parts to this discussion certainly. Undestad: …quick question for you too though. On the preliminary plat and PUD and what not, if they adjust some of that housing to get out of the bluff area. They’ve eliminated the hotel somewhere. This doesn’t specifically restrict any of these individual lots from then this hotel coming up somewhere else. Aanenson: No, we can put hotels as a permitted use in that entertainment district but I think it may have to move out of that district and that would be one of my questions because now we’ve, if their intent was to have 18 lots or whatever we’ve got, if we’ve changed that number and would a hotel go somewhere else because I think right now we have hotel in, I think it’s in the hospitality district, correct? So I don’t know if I have that map up, yeah. So that’s in the hospitality district so now this multi-family district would move and so is it all doable? Yeah but I think it’d be nice to take a little closer look at that, yeah. We’ve always said a hotel’s a great use. You know where it switches up and what the transitions are. Who was looking at so I think that was also just 3 stories so. Aller: Concerns? More concerns? I just don’t want to put the cart before the horse and move too quickly with a big regional impact and I’d love to have, and I know it’s difficult to conceive of but we can certainly attempt to have as much information as possible in front of us before we made the decision so. There are a bunch of options here. People can make motions on these items separately. They can make motions to lay an item on the table. They can make a motion to continue to a date certain. They can, I guess that would be the 3 different options. Undestad: I think we almost have to get the information because you look through the items here and we really can’t. Aller: So if there’s a motion to lay the item which is before us on the table, that’s non-debatable which means that the person making the motion would make the motion indicating the reason for the motion to show that it’s a valid reason and then without further discussion there would be a vote. If there’s a motion to continue to a date certain it’s, I believe that is debatable. You can talk about the date and you can talk about the reasons and then there would be a vote. Or you can go item by item but if an item is laid on the table or continued all the other items, sub issues of that would go with it. Undestad: So when if we table this. Aller: So usually it would be the next hearing. Unless you continue it to a date certain which would be a date where, and that was originally why I asked so that the options are available to Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 44 us, what date would be potentially have that information back. Or maybe some additional approvals. Weick: And what’s driving not being able to, like what are the specific points that we’re looking to get more information on, just for clarification. Aller: Well I’d like more information on the safety for the planning issues. I would like more information and potentially the information from the Corps of Army Engineers because there were a number of items that could impact a lot of issues here as to whether or not that moves forward. And then would also potentially impact the bluff or the location of some of these different retail stores and so now we’re talking about moving all the chess pieces on the board and so I think it’s fair to the City and it’s residents that we consider that information and I think it’s fair to the applicant that they have that information and the opportunity to move the chess pieces on the board if necessary. And it may not happen. They may come in and say this is great. This is good but then we have the information and we can move forward with whatever action we want to take at that point. And again if somebody wants to move forward with a motion then it would be the normal motion, second, discussion and vote. If you want to lay something on the table then you would lay it on the table. That would typically go to the next available presentation date and then if you wanted to continue a date certain that would be to a date that’s convenient for everyone. Tietz: Will we have resolution from the Corps by the 12th of July? You know that’s a problem if we have a date certain. Weick: That wasn’t the Corps date though. Tietz: It could, we don’t. Aller: Yeah it sounds to me like there was a potential date and that’s why I was just looking for a date. Tietz: Yeah. Shawn Williams: And that was for the City…Corps of Engineer their review could extend well beyond that. Tietz: Yeah. Aller: Well and I understand that. I mean the way I look at this if the Corps Engineer comes in and continues on it’s path the way it’s written now and doesn’t change anything then there’s a lot of different items that have to be corrected by the applicant in order to move forward. Shawn Williams: Yeah the letter that I saw date May 3rd had a pretty substantial… Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 45 Aller: And would impact our request for certain standards to apply to that in the PUD because we want to do this once and not have. Aanenson: Pardon me, Shawn you need to be at a microphone. They can’t hear… Aller: Oh yep, thank you. He’s much louder than I am. Shawn Williams: Yeah so regarding the Army Corps of Engineers review, so yeah so the July 12th date that’s for the Wetland Conservation Act City review. The Army Corps of Engineers can extend the review past that date but as Andi Moffatt and we had discussed earlier is that ideally the review will occur concurrently but there’s no guarantees that the Army Corps of Engineers will have their decision at that time and I know that they’ve had to coordinate with EPA in Chicago with interagency coordination there regarding the proposed wetland impacts and so forth so, and again I know the applicant has just recently responded with their follow up to the data request that the Corps of Engineers did provide in their May 3rd letter so. So I would say the wetlands review is likely going to be probably a month, two months. I mean I can’t give a specific date here but I think it’s going to be several weeks. Not just going to be something that’s going to come to a quick resolution in my opinion. Tietz: But aren’t there a number of issues related to that? You know if we started approving elements we’re going to get backed into a corner of well we can only do this and so we have the wetland replacement is the only thing we can do. I want to encourage continual discussions on these topics so that we get the best resolution for Chanhassen. Whether it’s through mitigation. I think someone, I don’t know maybe Jon spoke to that or Shawn did too, the suggestion that you can push, I mean we have to push back on the Corps and look at alternatives so that we can widen a zone within the watershed as opposed to just look for a management type of wetland in Benton County. I mean it’s, that’s the easy way out. Let’s just go buy some wetland. It’s not protecting or helping us in Chanhassen. It’s helping to save wetlands someplace in the state of Minnesota. Is that what we’re trying to do? Aller: And that’s why I ask the question earlier is I think it shows that the State is interested in keeping those benefits in the state, which is great but it’s not targeted towards the City of Chanhassen which is where our hearts are. Shawn Williams: And I guess maybe I can also offer here too is that you know by federal law the Army Corps of Engineers and that federal program they are required to review the application and then of course look for the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative or LEDPA I think it’s referred to as so again I mean the, for all we know you know the total site configuration might have to change for federal approval. You know I don’t know what was recently included in that response that was just provided back to the Corps but just keep in mind that there’s still a lot of room I think from the federal program that could throw some surprises in the project. Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 46 Aller: Well and I don’t want anybody to infer that I’m against the project at all. I think it’s a great project and I think it will be a good addition. I’m just concerned that on behalf of the applicant as well if we start piecemealing and the Army Corps comes back and does say you have to change it, we’ve already basically limited their options and I’m not necessarily sure that that’s a good idea. Mark Nordland: Mr. Chair? Aller: Yes please. Mark Nordland: So it’s very customary for projects to be approved at the city level and then to get their Army Corps permit subsequent to that as well as their Wetland Conservation Act permit and in this case it’s actually important to them because we brought Mrs. Aanenson and City Manager Todd both to, Todd Gerhardt both to the meetings to help represent the City and to explain what the City wants to see here and they’re limited as to what they can say because they’re staff and they represent the City but they are very appropriately so cautious to speak on behalf of the council and on behalf of things and so getting an approval for the project is a big important piece of our approvals from the wetland standpoint because it shows that that’s what the City really wants to see here because part of that whole sequencing argument is that this is what is desired to be here and now we need to find the least impactful way on the wetlands to create that. And if the Army Corps of the Wetland Conservation Act permit process doesn’t allow us to mitigate some of the wetlands at the center of the site, we won’t be back before you because we won’t have a project. We can’t create a regional commercial development on the site and build them around them. At that point it’s a single family residential development or something else where you can scatter things that don’t have to have integrated uses where people can go from one store to the next and they’re connected. And so it’s really important for us to get this approval from both the recommendation from the Planning Commission and the approval from City Council as we’re going through these processes and I don’t think that’s putting the cart ahead of the horse. There’s some other issues that I know you know trying to figure out a solution with the bluff and trying to figure out a solution with senior housing and trying to figure out a solution with the boulevards that very well warrant tabling it to the next meeting and having some discussion with staff and maybe we and our consultants meet the fire department and the staff and everybody and we try to come up with a practical solution that allows us to make a beautiful development but I, we would very much appreciate getting approval ahead of the Army Corps process that as we all know, I mean I’ve been involved with processes that have lasted over a year sometimes. It’s a long process. Undestad: And Kate isn’t? Aanenson: Yeah I would agree with that process. We did go to the Army Corps but again what we represented is that we’re preserving the Bluff Creek which we’re moving towards so I would appreciate the extra week. We can see where that sits. Get the fire department. Get through the Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 47 code things. I want to send this up to the City Council where we agree on you know 99 percent of it and I think we’d be happy with that and so if that means, you know that’s a quick turn around. That’s the first time I saw the change was tonight right before, at the meeting so if we could make some of those and come back with specifics too, I think we’ve got a pretty good laundry list of things that we just need some further clarification on that we agree. Undestad: So if we tabled this for the next meeting, which is a couple weeks. Tietz: Two weeks. Undestad: And then come back and we can take care of this stuff. The watershed, the wetland alteration permit and things that all go with Army Corps. Aanenson: Correct. Undestad: No matter what we decide at the end of the day the Army Corps and Riley-Purgatory and everybody else is going to have that laundry list. Aanenson: Right. Undestad: That either they do this or they don’t do this. Aanenson: Right. So it is a condition of approval. So they have to meet every other jurisdiction whether it’s MnDOT approvals or watershed approvals that’s in the condition. I was asked about regarding the Findings of Fact and those things too. All of those are conditioned upon the whole staff report so they’ve got a laundry list of things they need to tick through so we’ve got that but there’s just some things that aren’t quite aligned. If we could take some time to get those ironed out I think that would be beneficial for everybody. Undestad: I just wanted to clarify we don’t necessarily have to wait until July or whenever the Army Corps finally does. Aanenson: No. And to their point we often do that in a project we’ll say subject but we want to make sure we’re close on these other things. The problem is there’s so many moving parts that we don’t want to overlook something and that’s, I don’t want to come back to say well why didn’t we talk about that in greater detail so if we could take the time to do that, that would be great. That’s incumbent upon them to get everything back to us sooner. I would say Chair you did close the public hearing. We wouldn’t have a public hearing next time. We would just put together for you the changes. We have a big agenda next week too. Two big projects so we would just kind of keep it succinctly to these are the issues that we saw. Here’s how we’ve addressed them and come back to a recommendations that we have because right now the recommendations regarding the Bluff Creek address, there might be some minor tweaking based on their changes. We can look at that so. Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 48 Aller: Because from what I’m hearing the commissioners are certainly moving towards positions so I don’t see that as being a major problem as long as that’s the intent of the commission then somebody just has to make a motion to do that. Weick: Can I just very quickly Chairman Aller? Aller: Yes Commissioner Weick. Weick: If I can get on the record, I had asked question about the width of the streets and it’s actually included in the report and I apologize for not reading all the way through the report but it is on page 55 of 59 and the recommendation, I just want to be on the record. The recommendation from the fire department is to increase it from 16 to 20 feet curb to curb and I had asked that to be added and we don’t need to do that. It’s clear what the fire department’s asking us to do and we just need to make a determination. Aanenson: And that’s why I brought it up because it’s a condition of approval so if you were to approve the conditions that’s left in there. Weick: This would be left in. Aanenson: Correct. Weick: Right so I just wanted to get that on the record. Aller: So this leaves them, if someone were to make a motion to table this until the next hearing then that would be open for discussion and if there’s an agreement on it then, unless we find some reason to oppose it. At least that’s to that issue that we move forward. Undestad: Okay. Then I’ll make a motion. Aller: Commissioner Undestad. Undestad: I’ll make a motion that we table the Avienda project til our next meeting. Tietz: June 20th. Undestad: June 20th. Aller: And so that would be, and for the reasons that have been stated which are to gather more information allowing the City and the applicant to continue their discussions and come back to us with clearer picture for a vote. Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 49 Undestad: Yes. Tietz: Chairman Aller? Could we also see some of the conditions that have been listed in, I mean there’s so many conditions that are listed. I’d like to see some of those addressed by the team before the 20th. I think we have an opportunity to, some of the questions that we have tonight are result of incomplete information and if more of those conditions can be addressed with meetings of staff and presentations to us I think it’d be advantageous. I don’t know how we add that to the. Aller: You just did. That’s just another, additional reason for. Tietz: Additional reason, yeah. Aller: Okay it’s non-debatable so all those in favor signify by saying aye. Commissioner Undestad moved to table action on the Avienda project to the June 20, 2017 Planning Commission meeting for the reasons stated in the discussion. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Aller: The motion is approved and the matter is tabled until our next hearing which is the 20th. Aanenson: I just want to clarify. So the public hearing on this topic is closed so we’re not going to put as much stuff in the next packet so anybody that wants to track is welcomed to pull up this staff report that will go out next time but it won’t be as robust as the past ones. Aller: And the only other question I have is then the matter would go before City Council. Would it remain on calendar? Aanenson: We can see. It’s depending on. Darren Lazan: It’s tight. Aanenson: It’s tight, yeah. We’ll see. Depending on how long the discussion is because we have to turn around minutes so. Aller: Right. So it would probably be advantageous to move it forward at that point. Aanenson: Yep. Aller: Alright thank you very much. Moving onto item number 2. Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 50 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Weick noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting date May 16, 2017 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Aller: City Council update? Aanenson: Yeah City Council update. So we’ve got approval of a sign variance for Camp Tanadoona. That was on consent. That’s all we had because we’ve been spending a lot of time on Avienda and we haven’t moved anything forward but we do have a couple other projects coming in. So I’m going to jump down to agenda. So on your 20th we’ll put this on. I’m not sure where it’s going to fall on the agenda because we do have 3 other items on. A variance and then we’ve got the project, The View. The Venue. Venue which is the apartments and grocer in downtown and then we also have West Park which is the Klingelhutz property on 86th Street across from Mission Hills. That senior housing project you just approved so. Aller: So plan on the meeting being a little bit longer. Aanenson: Yeah, might be. Yep so we’ll have sustenance here for you, how about that? Aller: Great. And is that it on the agenda? Any additional comments before? Aanenson: I do have one other thing. I was going to say we are putting together a joint tour again so I think that’s August 8th is what we’re looking at so put that on your calendar. I think we’ll go look at one of the items that we’ll look at is Fox Woods. That one will have a woodchip trail. Kind of what we’re looking at for, through the woods here on Avienda so we’ve got a couple other things. We’ll have some projects that we’ve approved recently to go visit that will be underway and so also between now and the next couple months or if you think of some other project you want to go look at. Aller: On that joint who will be attending? Aanenson: It will be the Senior Commission, the Park and Recreation Commission, Environmental Commission and us and then engineering staff and so it’s always good to, there might be a street project where they’re doing something creative so we’ll kind of put a diverse list together. We’ve tried doing it in September and it’s always kind of iffy when it gets dark earlier and it can be really cold so I think that August date is kind of a better date. Little bit longer. Randall: With the mosquitoes? Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 6, 2017 51 Aanenson: Oh bring mosquito spray this year. It was bad last year. Randall: What about that baseball game that’s coming up? Is that? Do we need to talk about, is that a City? Undestad: The Red Birds game for Chanhassen. Tietz: The 29th or something. Randall: Or the 19th? Aller: Yeah there was a city night at the Red Birds. Tietz: The 29th of July. Or June. Undestad: No June, yeah. Aller: So many individuals from the city will be appearing at the Red Birds to hear the mayor announce and watch our team play so take a look at the website. Take a look at the Tweets and show up and support the Red Birds. With that I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. Madsen moved, Randall 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 10:00 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim