PC 2017 06 20
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 20, 2017
Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, John Tietz, Maryam Yusuf, Nancy
Madsen, Steve Weick, and Mark Randall
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior
Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; MacKenzie Walters, Planner; Alyson Fauske,
Assistant City Engineer; and Stephanie Smith, Project Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Jeff Kamrath 2731 Orchard Lane
Liz Kozub 8661 Chanhassen Hills Drive
Beth & Jerry Cone 6320 Minnewashta Woods Drive
Aaron Stephan 8661 Chanhassen Hills Drive North
Breanna Boudreau-Landis 960 Saddlebrook Curve
Jon Gilbert 1641 Jeurissen Lane
Michelle Smith 7487 Saratoga Curve
Zhexin Zhang 1455 Bethesda Circle
Patrick Haney 30 Sandy Hook Road
Dr. Pamela McGrann 6540 Fox Path
Scott Mayer 7506 Erie Avenue
Aller: So tonight we have one matter for old business and that’s Avienda. We’ve already had
public hearings on that matter and then we have 3 public hearings. They would be 2740
Orchard Lane. The second item would be West Park at 8601 Great Plains Boulevard and the
third is Venue/Aldi with United Properties. My suggestion tonight to the commissioners is that
we go ahead and review the old business first and then item 1 which is hopefully a fairly short
matter and then we’ll see on items 2 and 3 for public hearings how many individuals are present
and we can see whether or not that should be shifted in order so that we can deal with the most
people when we make that presentation or the longer presentation first. Okay with that we’ll
start with old business, Avienda.
OLD BUSINESS:
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
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
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.
APPLICANT: LANDFORM PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, LLC. OWNER: LEVEL 7
DEVELOPMENT.
Aanenson: Thank you Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. This is our third
go around on this item. It was tabled at the last meeting for some additional follow up so public
thth
hearings were held on May 16 and June 6 so at this time we’re not holding a public hearing.
We did receive some additional comments which we’ll discuss as we move along but this item is
th
scheduled then, based on your recommendation for City Council on July 10. Again 115 acres.
118 gross. Parcel’s there located at the corner of Lyman and Powers Boulevard. Background we
did the AUAR update. We had open houses. We went through the Planning Commission
meetings that we’ve had already so lengthy background on this project. And so there is 5 actions
that we’re looking at rezoning to the PUD. Regional commercial including the PUD design
standards, the preliminary plat approval, wetland alteration permit, conditional use for
development in the Bluff Creek and variance for construction in the Bluff Creek. Again the
PUD design standards, we didn’t make too many changes from last time so, except for the sign
ordinance. The applicant wanted some additional. Now those blades signs we’re not
recommending approval of that at this time so that’s something they wanted to make another
argument for that. That’s fine but that’s how we’ve got the PUD standards put in place. So the
development data changed a little bit from last time. One of the things that they showed at the
end of the meeting was the movement outside of the Bluff Creek Overlay District. Narrowing
that area that was shown in, this area in here so I’ll go into a little bit more detail about that in a
minute but there was some changes in order to accommodate pushing that out as I indicated.
That cut this building short and also moved the hotel over to this site and I’ll show that in a little
bit greater detail on the overhead in a minute. So we went from 18 lots to 17 so that’s what the
computation on the preliminary plat will show. 17 lots, 3 outlots. Again the 3outlots were the
wetland, the Overlay District and then the drainage and utility easement on the remnant piece.
Again this is the plat. The supporting documents will need to be updated. That would be the
grading and utilities. Those really didn’t change. What the significant change then was these 3
lots in here. How those changed but so those will all have to match the ultimate, the grading in
this area would change slightly but the overall utility plan should remain pretty consistent. I’d
like to just go through on the executive summary, those are the items that we directed the
developer to follow up on and the issues that we addressed in our staff report update. One was
the Planning Commission recommended on the wetland replacement that somehow that we
incorporate, because with the Army Corps permit they were replacing the wetlands outside of the
watershed. Not only outside of the city but outside of the watershed district so the responses that
the applicant demonstrate in good faith. They did send us a letter stating that, we didn’t include
it in the packet but to our satisfaction demonstrated that the projects that they were directed to
didn’t work so we’re saying instead of trying to find a project at this time that we would take that
money and put it into one of the projects in the watershed district. Now there’s some discussion
about whether that’s the appropriate amount. Again we did receive some input from people that
2
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
read the letter that figured based on the value of going further out into a different county would
be cheaper than trying to replace in this city so we’ve agreed to let them give us some data points
that would show what those replacement costs would be but for now we want to leave that as a
place holder but are willing to look at some numbers and that would probably occur between
now and potentially the City Council for preliminary review or even potentially by the time we
go for final plat. This other one was the retaining wall along the south wall. It does have two
tiers and I’ll show that in a minute. The landscaping. We talked about the size of that wall.
That wall also has changed a little bit. If we look at this drawing here now that wall, instead of
coming across is actually going around this pond so there are two tiers and I’ll show that in a
minute. I know the applicant also has slides showing that. The break in the wall and then one of
our conditions still is we don’t know the construction material and type but that was one of the
conditions we also had in there. One of the other concerns there was a lot of discussion on was
the travel lanes on Bluff Creek Boulevard. The 16 feet right-of-way in here, and I’ve got that in
a little, a slide in a minute and we’ll talk about that but the fire chief definitely wanted those
roads wider. We, in talking with the applicant are willing to look at when we get to that section
I’ll have Stephanie talk a little bit more about some alternative designs and we are looking at
ways that we can potentially incorporate. We will not have that decision made here tonight but
we’re saying we’re willing to work at that to additional lane width. I think the developer’s goal,
as was planning staff’s and I think what we heard from the commission is that you wanted to
keep that landscape island in the middle so we’re looking at other ways to make the lanes wider
and accommodate fire truck traffic so we’re working on that and the developer has agreed to
work on that so if you look at the executive summary on page 2, engineering’s comments on
those. The traffic calming which is one of the issues we heard from the neighbors and where do
we put the most intensity of the, we’ve got the wider lanes here. Is it just through the middle
segments so those are the things we want to work at. We’ll talk a little bit more about that when
we get to those slides but again we talked about signage. The staff agrees that if we were to have
a bigger sign that the tasteful one should be on the wall sign, Avienda. That would be the bigger
sign there rather than the smaller blade signs that were shown on top of the wall because that
becomes a big distraction when you add in all the signs that will be on those buildings and I’ll
show that again in a little bit more detail. So there’s a couple other miscellaneous items as we
stated that the Overlay District has been preserved. Senior assisted living we agreed could be a
permitted use but we’ll talk about the impacts of that in a little bit more detail and then changes
from the staff report are shown in bold so we keep cleaning it every time so the changes are there
and as a I mentioned the lot number went down so, from 18 to 17 so I’ll just take a minute and
kind of go through some of the changes. We talked about the plat already. So this is the
compliance table. We went through and looked at that. As it was pointed out there’s a
difference in some of the plans. We got these plans late. The goal here is we said that the 30
percent was the maximum is 533. You know we added those up and it appears that some
additional single family homes in that one area, we said that was the 3 to 6. That’s the area up
by Mill Street providing that transition to individual small lots and whether or not, so that would
add, make this number bigger so that would be something that we would finalize before it goes
to City Council. But other than that the one that did move was the hotel. The hotel moved out.
As I mentioned the retail got smaller in the area next to the supermarket and the hotel was moved
3
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
to the east. So again we are rezoning. The rezoning here is following the intent of the
development. The PUD zoning district was to be regional commercial, lifestyle center so that
incorporates all the design standards which have unique attributes to this site. So not only do we
call out the uses but we also call out sign package, architectural controls, so again this is the
framework so when each project comes in, we’re not approving any one project tonight. We’re
just setting up the framework for utilities, streets. Each project would then have to come in
separately and go through a site plan review which would require public hearing on each one of
those projects. Bluff Creek Overlay District. So this plan I have we’re down to the 1 ½ acres.
We were significantly higher than that. The City acquiesced and we took the fire lane out and
then the developer moved the senior housing, both types of product and so we’re down to an acre
and a half. The city staff still feels like, so this is the Overlay District. Based on that this area in
the project is way over parked and we still believe that we can stay out of the Overlay District
and don’t support the variances on those two items. Again this is a site plan that has no standing.
This is just an iteration of how that could work for the 150 units. If it ends up a little bit smaller
than that, that may have to happen or stacking the 4 stories over here but we believe there’s
enough parking, over parked that this road could even turn so we believe they can be met on that
and I think the applicant may have a little bit more detail on that. So that was our
recommendation on the denial of the variance. The other thing which doesn’t show up in here is
there’s a cross section in here so one of the things the park and rec comments that you saw was
to get the neighborhood that’s immediately to the west access to, be able to walk to this area.
Cut through this area. Right now with the trail access you have to come around and get up on
this and there’s a cross section here in that. Again another pretty significant retaining wall on
that side so those are some of the things that we’re trying to minimize. So again went back
through the rationale for why we recommended against the construction, except for the access
driveway. Recognizing that to get to the senior housing that driveway intrude into the secondary
zone. So again allowing for the grading but not for the variance of construction there. So this
slide goes to the design of the streets itself. I don’t know if you wanted to add anything on that
Stephanie regarding the design alternatives that we looked at or are recommending and we’re
going to continue to talk about.
Smith: Some ideas that have come up have been just ways of providing traffic calming other
than having the narrower lanes. Things that can make the lane look more narrow without
actually decreasing the amount of pavement width that you have. Things like paint stripes.
Possibly having a bike lane or extended concrete gutters. Those types of things. Things that can
be looked at still.
Aanenson: Thank you. So in your staff report, if you look starting on the recommendations.
The recommended changes. I’m just going to kind of go through those really quickly. We put
those in bold. We talked about them briefly. Revise grading plan to show Wall E on the top
and bottom elevations. And then also the wall maintenance where we showed that pond at the
bottom. Just how would we get to that pond at the bottom of the site. Go back to that. This
pond has a wall around it and if you’re familiar with how we saw those perspectives before, I’ll
show those again in a minute. It’s at the bottom so just making sure that there’s access to that so
4
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
that was an added condition. And then we talked about the road impact fees. Those were
discussed last time and signalization cost and then the dedication of the conservation easement
and landscaping right-of-way within the, within the right-of-way or the median is the developer’s
responsibility. I know the applicant has some slides on this, on the walls too but since they were
submitted to us so this is showing one perspective with the landscaping in the middle and so
these were the blade signs that we didn’t support but we think that if they want to do something
bigger with the Avienda would support that. Again the different perspectives so this shows more
detail of that retaining wall. So before we get to the recommendations these were the same
recommendations that were in the last time. I’d just like to kind of go over to the model. Just
again just kind of showing the change. I think this is more illustrative. I give Sharmeen on our
staff here credit for putting the model together. So this is the Overlay District here. Bluff Creek
Overlay District line so if you looked at this you can see the impact here and we’re saying try to
stay out of that area. So what the developer came back with is this. We moved the hotel over to
here. We cut out some of this square footage here and we ended up with the pond down here
with the retaining wall coming around. What we’re saying is that this area is still over parked
and we believe if you overlay it this way which moves, you can see better how it is. We just feel
it’s important as part of the AUAR and that we would follow those rules. Stay out of that and we
can, the developer can reshape this. Again this is their attempt at you know for the purposes but
it’s not the site plan approval so we would like to see those changes made. So with that staff is
recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report and adoption of the Findings of
Fact. We have a lot of records that we’ve been reproducing but those all become part of the
record that goes to City Council so that would be the market study. The design standards. The
development data and also all the preliminary plat requirements so those are all part of the record
and the Findings of Fact which are dated and mapped so some of those plans came in as late as
th
June 12 so with that I’d be happy to answer any questions. I know the developer I think wants
to make a quick review of their comments too.
Aller: Any questions at this point? Seeing none, welcome sir. Good to see you again.
Darren Lazan: Thank you. Mr. Chair, members of the commission. My name is Darren Lazan.
I’m with Landform Professional Services. Mark Nordland’s with us as well with Launch
Properties and we represent Level 7 Development, the applicant on the item before you tonight.
We want to thank the Planning Commission for time again tonight. Very generous with your
time. This is our third straight Planning Commission meeting and we also want to thank staff
once again for the work over the last couple weeks. We appreciate how important this is to both
staff and the commissions and council. This site has been in the making for long before I
worked on it and I know for several staff members it’s probably a good chunk of their career.
We recognize how important this is to the city and we are happy to be a part of bringing this to
fruition for the City of Chanhassen. As Kate mentioned we really want to keep it brief. We have
6 items following the staff report, or the staff report that came out. These are the 6 you sent us
back to get to work on and for the most part we’ve been very successful with coming up with
solutions or at least getting close enough where staff is comfortable continuing to work on those
as the final plans are developed but I wanted to walk through a couple of those very quickly if I
5
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
can here. So in your packet for recommendation of approval we had a new condition this time
around looking for a contribution to water quality projects within the city of Chanhassen and
while certainly are not opposed to the concept we think the ability to mitigate and do local
projects is important. We offered that from the beginning and we’re more than happy to
participate. Where we probably deviate on that right now is the amount of the contribution.
Right now the staff report has an amount in there of $300,000 and just so you’re aware in
comparison, our entire cost to mitigate 10 acres of wetland elsewhere through the banking that’s
required with the state and federal program is $425,000 so you’re looking at a significant add to
the cost of mitigation. None of that $300,000 gets us credit towards our mitigation. It’s simply
demonstration projects within the city to help mitigate the function and value of the existing
wetlands that are lost so again we’re not opposed to the concept. I think there’s some more work
to be done on an appropriate value and some data points on what that value should be but we
look forward to working with staff on that going forward. Bluff Creek Overlay District. This
may be one of the tougher ones to deal with tonight but we’ll try to keep it super quick. So
here’s the original Bluff Creek Overlay District. This is a slide we had previously prior to the
subdivision to our west. The green and blue line work, not the shading underneath is the
adjustments that were made to the Bluff Creek Overlay District as that development came
forward and you can see there were impacts into the primary zone for residential homes on the
far west side so we only bring this up to demonstrate that minor impacts into this bluff Overlay
District is not a unique concept and we understand that that’s a protected area and the goals of
that district are important but I think we’ve done a fair amount to mitigate what’s been talked
about in the past as far as the amount of impacts. A slide from last time shows an older aerial
photo and this I bring up only to remind and demonstrate that the northern portion of this bluff,
essentially the area where we’re proposing to make impacts really is geographically and
topographically distinct from the rest of the bluff. This is a, the pink area is a continuation of the
downward slope from the current farm field. It kind of follows the old tree line. You can kind of
see it from quite a few years ago and then when it hits the end of that pink area then the bluff
begins and it starts to come back up and there’s a distinct channel or drainageway along that
border between the pink line, the southern pink line so we really worked hard to look at the trees,
the topography, and the intent of that district in evaluating impacts along there. This goes very
quickly through and I’m going to skip through these slides because Kate already went through
that. Our original concept plan approved previously had impacts basically in a straight line
across from the corner of the property to where the right-of-way meets on the left. We modified
that with the submitted plan to reduce those impacts. You can kind of see that line move
northward and then we preserve the wetland. This is the plan that was resubmitted to the city
that shows now we’ve removed the entire building from the primary and secondary zones so the
only impacts we have are the roadway and parking and site improvements. And then this is the
current plan after discussions just prior to resubmitting last week where we got rid of some
parking along the southern side and moved everything north. And you know there’s been a lot of
discussion about retaining walls on this project but this retaining wall along the south edge of the
proposed parking is there to preserve and prevent further encroachment into the bluff Overlay
District. The retaining wall allows us to preserve more of that district so that’s the purpose for
that wall. And again this is the overall plan with that new plan in there so by way of very quick
6
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
comparison our original concept plan apples to apples contemplated 4.4 acres of private
development encroachment into the bluff. We worked through that on 5.2 and we’re down to 2.9
acres of private encroachment. The plan that was presented at the last meeting goes to 1.5 acres
of private impacts with the road. The public portion’s out now and our current proposal which I
just shared and removes the parking as discussed with staff. We’re down to 1.3 acres with the
retaining walls that avoid an additional .3 so without the wall it would be 1.6 acres of impacts.
So as the applicants we’re respectfully requesting the Planning Commission recommendation for
approval of up to 1.3 acres of impact in the Bluff Creek Overlay District and further limited to
site impacts only. So it’s just drives, parking and retaining wall, landscape areas and so forth so
all of our buildings are out of the primary and secondary districts. So I want to talk a little bit
about the southern retaining wall that you asked us to take a look at and Kate shared most of
those so we can move quickly through here. I’m going to put the sight line overview up here just
to call your attention to the 3 views on the far south. This is from the roadway showing the
existing road, or existing road. Existing highway, existing trees on the far side of the highway
and then the proposed development beyond that with the wall with the Avienda signage and so
forth. On the eastbound 212 road lane you can see the amount of screening that takes place from
the existing trees and the amount of building and signage that remains visible from this direction.
And then this is the one that I wanted to bring tonight to talk about because there was some
discussion about the tiered wall and what that would look like and how it would work and you
can see that we hold that wall back, I think it’s about 10 feet from the property line. The yellow
line in the grass at the bottom of the wall is our proposed property line. If you look at the far end
of this perspective you can see where there’s no architectural articulation in that wall. We plant
the base of the wall to create additional screening and then as it moves this way we only plant the
middle of the terrace, stepped wall. There is some opportunity to do some more plantings on the
top of the wall as that site plan develops so we would certainly look at working that in but I think
there’s some question about this wall. The terracing. What that looks like. How it sits at the
base so I think this perspective does a pretty healthy job of sharing that for you. The Bluff Creek
Boulevard lane width. We did have a very good conference call with the Fire Chief today. The
project ownership and development team had good discussions with the Fire Chief I guess and I
wanted to talk just a very little bit about the background on this and how we got here. We’ve
worked on this project for over 2 years now. A number of neighborhood meetings. A number of
informal meetings. A lot of public hearings. By far the top concern we heard over and over and
over was traffic. Traffic speeds. Speed moving into the neighborhoods. Speed causing conflicts
with pedestrian in the adjacent neighborhoods so when we set out to put this roadway design
together we pulled in a nationally recognized team that works specifically on pedestrian/vehicle
conflicts and solving for traffic calming. We added them to our team so that they could add their
expertise and we worked with staff here in Chanhassen for the better part of the last 6-8 months
developing this roadway section. This roadway alignment and these methodologies. We believe
pretty strongly and we provided another memo supporting where we’re at, that this is the best
balance of access for safety for the fire trucks. The turning movements. The turning radiuses are
all intact. We believe this is the best balance with resolving the neighborhood’s concern for
pedestrian/vehicle conflicts and speed through this area but, and again it also adds to the overall
project aesthetic and it matches, it’s important to understand that it matches the existing Bluff
7
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
Creek Boulevard section. This is a continuation of the exact roadway section you guys have
built and continues all the way through those neighborhoods. It’s a MSA roadway. It meets
MSA standards for engineering components and again we look forward to continuing our efforts
working with the Fire Chief to solve for some of his concerns. The only piece that I think I have
to add to this is that there are only a handful of sections where the one lane wide section exists.
If you look at where we come in from east to west, all the way to the roundabout those are all 2
lane sections through that entire area, both east and west bound so we have the required widths
through that area. There’s a section through the middle where we have a pinch point where it’s
one lane each direction but then it opens it up for left turn lanes and right turn lanes through there
so we again have that required width at a 50 percent of that section. And then as we move to the
neighborhood now, I don’t think that’s as much a concern with the Fire Chief as we move to the
neighborhood west of the second roundabout. I think that matches the existing Bluff Creek
Boulevard so I think with a handful of suggestions, a handful of design ideas, perhaps opening
up another right-in/right-out to the south, then adding those turn lanes we can get to where the
vast majority of this roadway section meets his and addresses his concern so we look forward to
working with the Fire Chief on that moving forward and respectfully request your
recommendation for approval tonight with the condition that we continue working on that with
the Fire Chief. Signage. So I’ll just blow through these signs really quickly. What we’ve done
is side by side comparison of what we had asked for in our design standards and what staff has
recommended in the packet before you tonight and there’s a fair amount of pretty considerable
differences here and as we worked through that over the last 2 weeks and again today we came to
the conclusion that we really, this is something that needs a lot more thought and context as the
projects come in and we know exactly what we’re working with. We believe pretty strongly that
additional signage beyond what staff has recommended is critical to the project. We think the
design intent needs to be better conveyed and coordinated with staff so what we’d like to talk
about, and I’ll just go through these slides really quickly. We broke down where the Avienda
project signage goes. Where the directory signage goes. Where the monument signs in front of
those uses go. Where our way finding goes and then ultimately our building signage as well.
Again the building signage too, especially in the center of the project. The nature of this
development with a village in the middle, parking behind the building. Needing to maintain
visibility from both sides and from the ends as the traffic moves in. This type of development is
especially hard to only sign on one or two sides of a building. We really need that identity all the
way around these components in the village. I think some of the outside perimeter stores we
could talk about reducing the number of elevations that have signage but we really want to work
with staff on this center village and make sure we get that right and that includes some of their
suggestions on projection signage and other components. So we would like to ask tonight is for
your consideration for future discussion. We’d like to come back. Work with staff and come
back during the development stage, the first development stage plan and present you a more
comprehensive sign package that considers additional signage above what’s currently allowed by
code so we’re willing to accept for our recommendation of approval tonight staff’s
recommendation but with the understanding that we’d like to come back and make our case for
additional signage to make this a successful project. And then there was I think, this is the last
one. There was a request at the last meeting for what, to address what we are proposing for some
8
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
temporary and permanent stormwater measures. This was in the original development package.
This is the infrastructure portion around the perimeter and the roadways and it outlines a number
of, many temporary basins that will be located on the future development pads so the roadway
goes in. All the infrastructure goes in. The stormwater leaves that corridor and goes into
temporary drainage basins. It’s treated to the full extent required in those temporary drainage
basins and then discharges to it’s ultimate locations and then as each pad site comes in, in their
development stage planning they develop their stormwater components. They add their
stormwater components. They eliminate the temporary basins and you have a final solution in
place so this was addressed in the original submittal. I think there was some comments curious
as to how we were going to address that but, and we kind of skipped over that at the last meeting
but this document is in this set and for your reference if you have any questions on that we can
certainly address it. And I think the final stormwater piece was some related questions last week
or 2 weeks ago on our permanent stormwater solution. So we are currently looking to work
through the watershed who’s the permitting authority on these components. City reviews this as
well. We’ve been provided a number of example projects in Chanhassen that use permeable
pavers or permeable pavement systems. We are looking at extensive use of a permeable
pavement system to meet the stormwater conditions as outlined in the code. We will look to
work with the watershed to come up with the most practical solution deploying these solutions as
well as others. Right now we’re able to meet the entire stormwater treatment requirements if we
use permeable pavers to this extent. This is significant amount of permeable pavers and they are
problematic. They deteriorate. They break up. Where there’s ground water they’re very
problematic. We’re going to work through those components and determine how much of this
treatment method we can use. Supplement with other treatment components and we’ll be back to
the watershed and ultimately back to you folks with our development stage components but we
feel very comfortable that we have the tools we need. We can use these going forward to meet
the stormwater requirements as outlined today. So that, Mark’s here as well. We’ll stand for any
questions. We look forward to moving forward and your recommendation tonight. I think the
only item that we probably need time discussing is the variance request for the Bluff Creek
Overlay District impacts. We welcome your questions on that but certainly a big part of our
project.
Aller: Thank you. Based on that presentation does anyone have any questions at this point in
time?
Weick: I do, if I may.
Aller: Commissioner Wick. Weick, I’m sorry.
Weick: That’s okay. This is in reference to the Bluff Creek Overlay District. Are there
considerations in a senior housing site, whether it be, whatever it might be specific to that use
that would dictate square footage or layout as opposed to, I mean some of the other uses within
this? You know it seems like you can easily shape, shift those and not lose a lot. I’m just
curious if there’s considerations in senior living that requires a particular type of layout.
9
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
Darren Lazan: Great question. So we talked a little bit at previous meetings about kind of the
more recent evolution of senior care. The combination of those uses and how they’re
interdependent and they prefer to be part of a campus setting. How there’s intergenerational
components and so forth. But there are a number of conditions related to hallway lengths.
Proximity to a center corridor where services can be provided and where services are provided so
seniors aren’t traveling great distances. This is about the max that most providers are
comfortable as far as the length of the building. They prefer a star shape over a you know an H
shape so that they can centrally locate those services so we believe we’ve spread this out along
that area to the north of our parcel here to provide that. We have certain requirements for
gardens. Memory care gardens and other spaces that senior facilities need so you can see we’ve
built a few of those in on the south side. That prevents us from moving the roadway up tighter to
the building if it were an office building for instance. We think that our practical difficulty here
relates to a number of things but predominantly the roadway alignment that we’ve been provided
to the west. That is where it is. It needs to continue. The wetland to the north prevents the road
from moving any further north without those impacts. The need for the traffic calming
components like the roundabout and that through fare really establishes an envelope south of the
roadway. It isn’t sufficient for much of any use by the time you get a building and it’s parking in
so it puts us in a really rough spot. I don’t know that the senior is any more expansive. It’s
slightly more than a small office building possibly with the gardens and some of those but we,
and with respect to staff’s comments about parking. The feedback we’re getting from folks
interested in the site and folks in this area of practice is that they do need a fair amount of surface
parking. The independent living and assisted living mix fluctuates and assisted folks need
parking and need more of it so we’ve really tried to keep a number there that we think represents
exactly where the potential users want to be, and again you’ll see those when they come in for
development stage. You’ll see the exact product and configuration. Exact unit mix. All of those
components and quite frankly if there’s an opportunity to pull those in tighter, get rid of retaining
wall, that just reduces site expense and I’m certain that that entity will be looking to do that.
Weick: Okay.
Darren Lazan: So that’s our thought. That’s why we’re again respectfully requesting your
support of a variance from, down from a little over 5 acres to 1.3 acres. We’ve had a number of
evolutions of that site plan and we’ve very comfortable that we’ve gotten down to probably the
tightest configuration we can get.
Weick: Okay.
Aanenson: If I may Chairman Aller I’d like to just comment if I can go back to our slide show
on that. As you recall we just recently approved the Mission Hills Senior Housing which had
143 units. Not all of them were inside the senior housing. Some of those were the twin homes
but this is significantly over parked and if this was coming in for a site plan and we were looking
at whether or not that should impact the Bluff Creek Overlay we’d say you’ve got too much
10
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
parking. That’s a way to reduce it. First of all there has to be underground parking to
accommodate that. This is guest parking so that’s the ratio. That’s what we’re trying to
understand how that works. I’m going to go back to what we had here. What we showed for
guest parking. So they’re over by 87 stalls even on this product over here it’s significantly over
parked. Again the one that we just approved for Ebenezer we revisited that when we actually
added the daycare so additional parking was provided for the daycare but looking at the number
of parking stalls, that’s what we’re just trying to say we’re making a decision based on a site plan
we haven’t seen yet and that’s a pretty big impact, an acre and a half. You know if that’s
something you want to put in abeyance when that comes in you may consider it when it comes
in. If it makes sense that’s the best shape but we’re just saying right out the gate that we’re
saying well that’s the only way it can work because it can be reshaped somewhere else. I agree
with some of the long corridors as a design issue for senior housing but we’ve got 150 units in
there. We’re already acquiescing. We didn’t need that many senior housing but we heard from
you that you felt that might be a good use but we’re trying to make it fit on the best way we can
and parking has to be underground for the residents and this is guest parking that we’re talking
about so we just want to work together in good faith and do the best we can but this isn’t the
ultimate site plan. This is illustrative of how it could be laid on the site. That was our position
on that.
Darren Lazan: Mr. Chair if I may.
Aller: Please.
Darren Lazan: I don’t disagree with Kate necessarily. I think it’s important that we leave the
ability for a successful project here and underground parking is provided at a 1 to 1 for residents.
We still have staff. We still have visitors and we have a fair amount of IL or independent living
folks that may have more than one vehicle so we have 1.25 for those units so that spills out from
the underground out onto that street and then we have guests so again Kate’s absolutely right.
Until we have the user in place and we can put this project together we don’t know exactly how
many stalls we can trim off of there, if any. Again what we’re looking for tonight is setting a
foundation or setting the framework for this project and we believe the 1.3 number represents the
workable project and we can work with a user to go forward. If we can reduce that we certainly
will but we have to have something to rely on to go forward to put that user in play and you’ll
have a successful project.
Mark Nordland: Just to add, we’d be okay with it saying not more than 1.3 acres and then have
that be dependent on our site plan when we come in and we can have the parking discussion once
we actually have a user and an operator here that can fend for their needs and why they need
them and their history with their other facilities in the community.
Weick: We can also grant a variance at that time, correct?
11
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
Aanenson: Correct, that’s what I’m saying too because we have 2 senior housing, Presbyterian
Homes and Mission Hills which you just approved. Neither of them had this kind of parking and
same type of facility so I’m just trying to understand, is it something, a product that, is it assisted
living or is it independent? Maybe we getting some branding mixing up here but obviously they
don’t want to over park it and put a retaining wall in. We both want the best project. Again
we’ve already acquiesced which we didn’t want the assisted living in there to say now it works
but that’s what forcing this big significant impact and we’re just trying to say let’s look at maybe
in light of a site plan or a little bit more detail on that. Maybe that’s something we can work out
between now and City Council, even final plat.
Darren Lazan: Sure.
Tietz: Yeah Kate it appears in the current layout, I appreciate that it’s kind of a wedding cake
approach. It’s a tiered building but it also spreads it out further. Maybe through that, you know
the next phase when the architect takes a good hard look at it and makes it possibly more
efficient and consolidates some of it, it could create more area within the zone that’s outside of
the Bluff Creek for that parking. And then given the proof of parking that something could occur
through, as Steve suggested possibly with looking at a variance at that time. You know that edge
zone is, you know I’ve walked that a few times and that edge zone when you look back at air
photos the only reason it wasn’t farmed I think is, even back in the 30’s and 40’s in those air
photos is that’s wet periodically. It has lowland vegetation and now you’re putting, you have to
put a 17 foot retaining wall at one point along that extent to make that parking work and I just
think that we can find a more creative solution in that area and minimize if not stay out of the
Bluff Creek Overlay zone.
Aller: Any additional questions? Commissioner Randall.
Randall: You mind if I put you on the spot for a minute here?
Darren Lazan: Sure.
Randall: Okay. So we talked about the, on Bluff Creek the traffic calming techniques and things
like that. I totally agree with you. I mean that was a huge concern of everyone that came here.
However we know that with senior housing we’re going to have more public safety calls for
service granted. The location of that where it’s located on the site plan, if you had a family
member or a friend that was in that senior housing would you feel comfortable that public safety
could get them on a really busy day in your whole development?
Darren Lazan: Yeah I absolutely do for a number of reasons and I can…
Randall: And also too like in the winter time when you’ve lost maybe 8 inches on each side to a
snowbank and that type of thing too.
12
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
Darren Lazan: Yeah remember the lane width and that roadway width meeting all the turning
criteria requirements for this largest vehicle so we’re talking about police cars, ambulances,
rescue trucks, a whole host of items have absolutely no problem getting through there and don’t
have access. We’re talking about the aerial tower so this aerial tower’s a big rig and it needs
access. It needs a little bit more room and my understanding is the concern is if somebody
doesn’t fully pull over to the right they get blocked. Understood. So as I mentioned before there
are a number of places where we have 2 and 3 lanes wide, not just a single lane and we can look
to add to those so we have some additional capacity and the last I’ve been schooled by a number
of architects in the last handful of years that, that while the aerial truck it good to have and I’m
sure the fire department appreciates having it to fight fires, rescue is not done with an aerial truck
and they fight from protected zones within the building. Moving through and pulling folks
through that way so I don’t, you know I’m not the Fire Chief so I’m not going to speak for him
but I know that by 90 plus percent of measure we provide emergency access to this entire project
very effectively.
Randall: Okay, that was my only concern that I had.
Mark Nordland: Just one last comment too, I was on the call today with Chief Johnson and I
think there’s some middle ground to be had, and I presume he talked to you folks afterwards and
it’s, we’ve got an 80 foot wide section there total for the roadway and medians and bike lanes
and trails and all those things and it feels like there’s room to keep the calming influences but at
the same time maybe have some pavers on the edges of the medians you know or cement apron
or something like that. Surmountable curbs, things like that because his biggest concern was
when people pull over, you know per the law they’re supposed to pull over to the right and stop
and he said if people do that and I’ve only got 8 feet to get you know my aerial apparatus
through there, that’s tight and he needs to be able to go around so I think we’ll be able to come to
a solution between now and council.
Randall: And you know I was looking at it too there’s different approaches. You don’t always
have to come down Bluff Creek with that. If they know that they need that for that call there’s
different ways to come in so thank you, I appreciate it.
Darren Lazan: Thank you.
Aller: Any additional questions at this point? Seeing none, and thank you. Okay we’ll open up
to commissioner discussions. We’ve already had 2 public hearings on this and received input.
We’ve had it before us for the last almost 2 months considering the packages that we’ve received
and then through today’s date. I’ll go first. I think this is a really good effort at a regional
project. I think that the impact is going to be that regional. As I’ve stated before my major
concern, biggest major concern here was the overlay district. I think that if we’re going to move
forward with this in concept and hand it over to the City Council I think it’s in pretty good shape
but I think we can do so without granting a variance at this point in time and leaving the bluff
district intact and there’s nothing that will put more pressure on an architect than having to work
13
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
around the fact that there is no variance and see what we can come up with. If that’s the case and
the City Council wants to move forward at that point in time then we can look at it as a variance
or they can look at it and basically the application’s been made. If it’s denied it would go to
them at that point in time as an appeal so they could over rule us and go ahead and grant a
variance in whatever form or fashion they want to so that’s my first fore into my thoughts.
Anyone else?
Weick: I think the only question in my mind is whether not granting a variance of up to 1.3
acres hinders the ability to use the land. You know to get a tenant to build, right? If there’s
question there as to whether there could or could not be a variance would that scare someone
away? And I think if we all believe that that’s not an issue then we move forward as you
suggested. I think that’s really the only question in my mind is does it unfairly hinder the ability
to fill that space as proposed and I’m not sure it does but that’s the question.
Aller: Commissioner Madsen.
Madsen: I’m a little bit more flexible on that 1.3 acres just because personal situation with my
parents in assisted, in living and I have to park near and bring groceries every day and I have to
get in there and a lot of times it’s a different facility obviously I mean but sometimes parking is
tight so, and there’s a lot of variation with different buildings and so forth but there are a lot of
restrictions on how these can be built and seniors walking these long hallways and people
carrying you know things, long hallways to help these seniors out. So I wouldn’t want to hinder
an owner attending to that property too much. 1.3 acres doesn’t seem like a whole lot. It’s really
gone down. I didn’t want to have the bluff impact that we originally had had but I don’t want to
hinder you know that possible tenant with the restrictions that they have on the long hallways
and the way that those buildings need to be built.
Aller: Other comments, considerations?
Undestad: I think I would agree with Nancy on the 1.3 as far as what they can do I guess. I
don’t know if they looked at even minimizing one row of that parking to the south what that
would do but again if they’re kind of looking at the number of stalls they need for that particular
unit, you know if you look at 1 acre or 1.3 acres I think if it gets that project done and like Nancy
said there’s more reasoning for that to have that parking in front there so.
Aller: Commissioner Tietz.
Tietz: You know I have to comment. I think this is a concept plan. It illustrates blocking of
masses. It does not indicate architecture. That site is irregular. It’s not the most, probably the
highest most desirable site for development but I think with a creative solution you can
accommodate the parking and the appropriate number of units on that parcel of land and you
know because it is concept and blocking stage it’s just, it’s too early I think to give away land.
14
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
Aller: Anyone else? Any comments on any of the other items?
Weick: Is the, for the interior buildings is the building sign on all 4 sides, is that in question or
do we have to resolve that?
Aanenson: No, I think what we agree, that’s the first I heard that that they’re willing to work
with us on that. We added some additional signage. Some projecting signs. I think we also
added some flag banners that weren’t in their original proposal but again you’re not looking at
this, when you’re looking at that wall sign seeing the supermarket with their’s and the tenants so
I think it’s hard to look at it in a vacuum. I agree with the applicant that we should spend some
more time going through that and I would certainly have you make that a recommendation as far
as the, when you approve the design standards which is A, that we look at the sign package with
the developer. Certainly agree to that. I think it’s a good idea.
Weick: And the only other comment regarding the road widths that I would like to get on the
record is, there’s a new, there’s new roundabouts in Golden Valley and they’re single lane
roundabouts and then they I guess, I think someone called them ramped curbs or they’re gradual
curbs that go then into the center island. And the way they’re landscaped and kind of the use of
the concrete and things like that, they’re very pretty but they also would allow someone to go
around in an emergency up, you know because it’s a gradual curve and maybe there’s, curb.
And maybe there’s ways to look at that type of thing as well in the single lane road areas where
you might not have enough for someone to get by. It sure seems like there’s a reasonable way
to, I don’t want to vote for anything that it goes against the Fire Marshal to be honest. That’s not
in our best interest and if there’s a way to work around that we need to encourage that with the
developer.
Aller: Additional comments?
Tietz: Chairman?
Aller: Yes, Commissioner Tietz.
Tietz: I just want to comment again. We’ve had a lot of discussion about stormwater drainage
and stormwater retention and I appreciate the exploration that the development team has gone
through. You know this is, has been purported as a model project. The highest quality and I
don’t want to look at down the road, you know practical solutions that are minimum solutions to
satisfy the requirements. This is a pretty significant issue. This is a lot of site coverage. Granted
you’re protecting a major portion of the southwest corner of the property by setting it aside in the
overlay district and that’s greatly appreciated but then you look at the rest of the site and how
much hard surface there is there. We just have to do the best job possible. The highest quality
solution and if it requires taking out more clay and putting in more basin material that allows
those pervious pavers to work then that’s what we have to do but we have to find a good solution
for that because that threatens everything downstream.
15
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
Aller: Okay. Well I’ll entertain a motion. We can do it so if people feel like doing it piecemeal
they can do it piecemeal. The recommendation from the City would include a denial of the
variance so if you want to take that separately that could be done separately. If you think that
there’s going to be an issue or we could take the whole thing at once so any comments on that?
Or you can just make a motion and we’ll see how it falls out.
Undestad: I guess I’ll make a motion but I would like to separate the Bluff Creek Overlay
variance as a separate motion.
Aller: Okay so make your motion.
Undestad: So I recommend that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve the rezoning of 115.519 acres from Agricultural Estate District (A-2), PUD
Regional Commercial excluding Exhibit A, Avienda Design Standards. Including Exhibit A. B.
The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the
Subdivision Preliminary Plat creating 17 lots, 3 outlots and dedication of public right-of-way as
th
shown in plans prepared by Landform dated April 14 and June 12, 2017 subject to the
conditions in the staff report. C. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve the Conditional Use Permit to encroach into the primary zone and required
buffer for the construction of Bluff Creek Boulevard, subject to the conditions of the staff report.
Aanenson: If I may modify that? If you’re going to skip the variance there’s a modifier for that.
Undestad: Okay.
Aanenson: Because that’s just for Bluff Creek Boulevard only.
Undestad: Oh for C. Okay I got you.
Aanenson: Yeah.
Undestad: So we’ll do A, B.
Aanenson: Whoops, sorry. That should be E and F. Sorry.
Undestad: Okay where am I at now?
Aanenson: You’re right here.
Undestad: Alright. So the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council
approve the Wetland Alteration Permit to 4.4659 acres of permanent wetland impacts subject to
16
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
conditions of the staff report. And the Planning Commission also adopts the attached Findings
of Fact and Recommendations.
Aller: You have a motion. Do I have a second?
Yusuf: Second.
Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion?
Weick: Will we be voting on the variance this evening?
Aller: If you want to make a motion.
Weick: After this?
Aller: (Yes).
Weick: Okay.
Aller: So having any other discussion?
Yusuf: Just one more comment. Kate did you want us to add reviewing the sign package?
Aanenson: Yes. That would be a modifier under A.
Yusuf: On A.
Aller: So that would be a friendly amendment.
Yusuf: I’d like to make a friendly amendment to Motion A to review the sign package with the
developer and staff.
Aller: Okay, any further discussion?
Undestad moved, Yusuf seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
that City Council approve the Rezoning of 115.54 acres, from Agricultural Estate District,
A2, to PUD Regional Commercial including “Exhibit A Avienda Design Standards ”
(attachment #1) with an amendment that the developer and staff review the signage
package. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Undestad moved, Yusuf seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that
City Council approve the Subdivision Preliminary Plat creating 17 lots, 3 outlots and dedication of
17
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
public right-of-way, plans prepared by Landform dated April 14, 2017 and June 12, 2017 , subject
to the following conditions:
Engineering
1. Top and bottom elevations for all retaining walls shall be labeled on the plan set.
2. A fence or other barrier is required at any location where a wall is greater than 6 feet tall
and within 10 feet of a public right of way.
3. The following wall materials are prohibited: smooth face, poured in place concrete
(stamped or patterned is acceptable), masonry, railroad ties, or timber. Boulder walls are
prohibited if the maximum height is greater than 6 feet.
4. All retaining walls shall be owned and maintained by a property-owners association.
5. The applicant shall submit a revised grading plan to show Wall E, including top and
bottom wall elevations.
6. As large, landscaped boulevards are proposed, the applicant shall add a note to the typical
sections to identify a corridor for installation of private utilities such as power,
communication, gas, etc.
7. The applicant shall show the road profiles and a horizontal alignment table in the plan set
for all public roads prior to final plat.
8. The public roads constructed with this development are: Bluff Creek Boulevard, Avienda
Parkway, Sunset Trail and Mills Drive. All other roads and drives constructed with this
development will be privately owned and maintained.
9. The applicant proposes an Ultimate Plan for the Bluff Creek intersection with Powers
Boulevard that includes two-lane entry into the roundabout. The City requires this
Ultimate Plan be constructed at this time, but the roadway can be striped for one-lane
only.
10. The applicant shall remove pavement and expand the median on the southern leg of the
Powers Boulevard/Bluff Creek Boulevard intersection to remove the second left-turn lane
from northbound Powers Blvd to westbound Bluff Creek Blvd.
11. Staff recommends the applicant add traffic calming measures to Avienda Parkway West
near the residential areas of development. Specifically, the applicant shall incorporate
pedestrian-friendly crossing features to the intersection at Mills Drive and Avienda
Parkway West.
12. The applicant shall revise the width of Mills Drive to correspond with the existing Mills
Drive section in The Preserve at Bluff Creek.
18
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
13. The applicant shall align the intersection of Mills Drive and the access to the apartment
building with the parking ramp to form an intersection rather than offset as the current
plan shows.
14. Sunset Trail will become a private roadway from Avienda Parkway to Bluff Creek
Boulevard as it winds through the center of the development. When Block 5 and/or Lot 2,
Block apply for site plan approval, this private road shall be constructed.
15. The plan for concrete sidewalk on the inside of Avienda Parkway shall be revised to a 5-
foot width.
16. ADA-compliant pedestrian ramps shall be constructed at all intersections and median
refuges per the MnDOT standard details.
17. The sanitary stub from MH 25 shall be no larger than the 8” downstream pipe and the
slope shall be adjusted accordingly.
18. Sanitary service stubs shall be provided for the six twin home units proposed on Mills
Drive.
19. Sanitary structures shall be moved out of the landscaped median and into the center of
lanes for improved future maintenance access.
20. All sanitary sewer main constructed within the right-of-way in this project shall be
publically owned and maintained.
21. Private sanitary main must be constructed to meet the City’s requirements for public
utilities.
22. The plan shall use 2017 Chanhassen standard detail plates, which are available on the
City’s website.
23. The proposed water main connection 570 feet north of the Bluff Creek Blvd/Powers Blvd
intersection shall be removed. A water main connection from Avienda Parkway to
Lyman Boulevard through the parking lot of Lot 3, Block 4 shall be installed. The
applicant shall grant a drainage and utility easement for this publically owned and
maintained connection.
24. Water service stubs shall be provided for the six twin home units proposed on Mills
Drive.
25. Additional water main stubs shall be provided at the accesses for Lot 1, Block 4 and Lot
1, Block 5.
26. All water main constructed within the right-of-way in this project shall be publically
owned and maintained. Private sanitary and water main must be constructed to meet the
City’s requirements for public utilities.
19
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
27. The applicant must show a maintenance access route for the pond at the bottom of
Wall D.
28. The applicant must provide the total disturbed area of the proposed development.
29. Permanent stormwater management controls for Volume, Rate, and Water Quality are required
per the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District (RPBCWD) rules.
30. The applicant must provide a figure clearly identifying the areas to be irrigated with areas
quantified, which is not included in the current plans.
31. The proposed reuse system does not provide sufficient volume reduction per RPBCWD rules. It
is recommended that the irrigation system is revised to provide further volume reduction.
32. The applicant must provide documentation that each of these ponds meets the Level 1, 2, and 3
criteria per the Minnesota Stormwater Manual to ensure that they will produce the calculated
water quality benefits.
33. The applicant must provide the annual runoff volumes to each wetland for the pre- and post-
project conditions.
34. The applicant must provide further information on the bounce and inundation periods for each of
the identified critical wetlands. The bounce and inundation changes caused by the project must be
in compliance with WCA requirements.
35. The twin home units must pay a water and sanitary service partial hook-up fee when Lot
1, Block 2 and Lot 1, Block 3 are replatted at the rate in place at that time. The
remaining hook-up fees would be paid with the building permits.
36. The developer shall work with the Building Department to determine the City SAC and
WAC fees for commercial and multi-family buildings. The hook-up fees for commercial
and multi-family buildings are due with the building permit at the rate in place at that
time.
37. The developer shall pay this site’s portion of the 2005 AUAR costs- which is $25,836.70
with the final plat.
38. Collector and Arterial Roadway Traffic Impact Zone fees will be collected with the
final plat. The fee will be based on the commercial rate of $3,600 per acre and a
residential rate of 2,400 per acres.
39. The developer shall escrow funds for installation of traffic signals at Sunset Trail,
Powers Boulevard and Audubon Road. The escrow amount shall be based on the
Carver County’s cost participation policy as published on their website.
40. The proposed redevelopment will need a Riley-Purgatory –Bluff-Creek Watershed
District (RPBCWD) permit prior to beginning construction activities.
41. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that permits are received from all other
agencies with jurisdiction over the project (i.e., Army Corps of Engineers, DNR,
20
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
MnDOT, Carver County, RPBC Watershed District, Board of Water and Soil Resources,
PCA, etc.).
42. A drainage and utility easement shall be placed over Outlot B.
43. The developer shall dedicate the Conservation Easement containing the Bluff Creek Primary
Zone to the City.
44. Provide a cross access easement to Lot 4, Block 1.
Landscaping
1. No development encroachment on the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone shall be
allowed nor fragmentation of the primary zone area.
2. The access route shall follow the shortest route from Camden Ridge to the proposed
development.
3. The applicant shall submit an overall landscape plan that shows proposed landscaping for
the overall site including items such as parking lots, perimeter, foundation and open
space areas.
4. Parking lot islands shall be linear areas incorporating planting area and stormwater
management.
5. If the applicant chooses to install the minimum requirement sizes of parking lot
landscaping islands, then if the proposed plan remains committed to individual landscape
islands, then silva cells, engineered soil or other accommodations must be used in order
to insure the survival of the trees.
6. No more than 20% of the total trees should be from any one genus and no more than 10%
should be from any one species.
7. A reuse watering system should be considered to irrigate all plantings within the site.
8. Drought tolerant plants shall be incorporate into the overall landscape plan.
9. Proposed landscaping plant materials shall be selected based on site conditions.
10. At a minimum, overall tree cover should be at least 20-25% or higher in commercial
areas and a minimum of 30-35% or higher in residential areas.
11. Any landscaping located within the ROW or the median shall be covered by an
encroachment and maintenance agreement
21
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
Park and Trail
1. Incorporate meaningful park-like places, including the provision of appropriate recreation
equipment, site furnishings, and landscaping adjacent to residential components.
2. Preserve the woodlands identified in the Bluff Creek Overlay District. Provide a blanket
trail easement over the entire preserved area to accommodate the installation of natural
surface public trails.
3. Provide an attractive public trail connection from the north entering the Bluff Creek
Overlay District.
4. Incorporate traffic calming into all pedestrian crossing locations.
5. Full park dedication fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of requiring
parkland dedication.
Building Official Comments
1. The buildings are required to have automatic fire extinguishing systems.
2. Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota.
3. Soil evaluation (geo-technical) report required.
4. Retaining walls over four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a permit must be
obtained prior to construction.
Fire Department Comments
The east and west bound driving lanes of Bluff Creek Boulevard extending from Powers Boulevard to the
existing Bluff Creek Boulevard be increased from 16 feet to 20 feet curb to curb. This is in order for
emergency apparatus to safely pass cars and trucks once they pull over and stop.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Undestad moved, Yusuf seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that
the City Council approve the Wetland Alteration Permit to 4.4659 acres of permanent
wetland impacts subject to the following conditions:
The applicant needs to supply the needed additional information to the city. The additional
information is needed to determine if the project meets the WCA requirements.
A Technical Evaluation Panel meeting is needed to review the application.
22
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
If the application is deemed to meet the avoidance and minimization criteria of the WCA, a
mitigation plan that adequately replaces wetland functions and values is needed.
City Staff has reviewed mitigation options. City Staff recommends the applicant provide
wetland mitigation via the purchase of wetland bank credits, at a ratio of 2:1, in accordance
with WCA requirements.
The applicant shall contribute $300,000 to the city for water quality improvement
projects within the watershed.
Wetland Functions and Mitigation
If the project meets the WCA sequencing and shows that the wetland impacts need to occur for
the project (i.e. if the project meets wetland avoidance and minimization requirements), the rest
of the WCA review for this project is dependent on wetland replacement.
The WCA requires that wetland replacement must replace the public value of wetlands lost
because of an impact. The public value of wetlands is generally based on the functions of
wetlands including: water quality, flood water attenuation, public recreation and education, and
fish/wildlife/plant habitats. The WCA uses the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method
(MnRAM) to determine functions and values. The City completed a citywide MnRAM in 2006.
The applicant has completed MnRAM as part of the application process. For the onsite wetlands
that were previously evaluated by the City, the applicant’s MnRAM has either the same result or
a slightly higher quality results for the wetlands.
The table above shows the wetland management categories from the application. The standard
categories that the city uses, which are in conformance with state guidance, is as follows:
Preserve: These are the highest quality wetlands and have high quality habitat and native
vegetative diversity.
Manage 1: These are a lower quality than Preserve, but still show high habitat quality and
plant diversity.
Manage 2: These wetlands have been impacted by stormwater, invasive species, or other
impacts and are lower quality than Manage 1. They likely still provide some habitat and
may have some native plant species.
Manage 3: These wetlands have been impacted the most and may provide a stormwater
treatment function and have minimal native plants. These are the lowest quality wetlands.
The wetlands proposed to be impacted by the project are either Manage 2 or Manage 3 wetlands.
Some have historically been excavated. These wetlands do not contain a diversity of native
plants. They do provide stormwater and floodplain treatment for downstream wetlands as they
23
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
are at the headwaters of the Bluff Creek and Lake Susan watersheds. Downstream waters are
impaired for water quality.
Wetland mitigation that replaces wetland functions and values at a minimum of a 2:1 ratio is
required and can be met in a variety of ways:
Onsite mitigation: New wetlands are created or restored within a project area. This could
address replacing functions and values in the same area, but the current layout does not
provide opportunity for a reasonable creation or restoration project. Also, creating new
wetlands takes time and there are many factors to consider for its success.
Replacement in the same subwatershed: New wetlands are created or restored within the
same minor or major subwatershed as the project. This would allow wetland functions
and values to be replaced within the subwatershed where the project is located and the
project layout would not have to be altered to fit mitigation on site. However, a suitable
site would need to be located.
Purchase of wetland credits from a wetland bank: There are several wetland banks in the
state and applicants can purchase credit from these already created wetland areas. It is
preferred in the WCA rules that a bank within the same bank service area be chosen to
purchase credit for a project.
Some combination of these mitigation options: An eligible project can also use a
combination of these mitigation options.
As stated, if the project is determined to have met the avoidance and minimization criteria for the
wetland impact, wetland mitigation for the lost functions and values would be required at a
minimum of a 2:1 ratio. Currently, the applicant is proposing mitigation through the purchase of
credit from three wetland banks in Blue Earth, Stevens, and Rice Counties. These banks are in
the same bank service area, and only one is in the same major watershed area.
In addition to the wetland bank credits, City staff recommends that a condition of
approval that the applicant shall contribute $300,000 to the city for water quality
improvement projects within the watershed.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Undestad moved, Yusuf seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission adopts the
attached Findings of Fact and Recommendations. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Aller: That motion carries. Any additional motions regarding Avienda?
24
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
Undestad: Okay, go to the next motion here. C. That the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit to encroach into the
primary zone and required buffer for the construction of Bluff Creek Boulevard subject to the
conditions of the staff. And D. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve the Variance to encroach into the primary zone and required buffer for the
construction of development.
Aanenson: For the modified development plan. Is that where you’re going?
Undestad: Modified development plan, yes.
Aanenson: The 1.3 acres.
Undestad: 1.3 acres.
Aller: Not to exceed.
Undestad: If we want to do the not to exceed 1.3 acres, yeah.
Aller: Does everybody understand the motion?
Aanenson: So that’s, so with that we would modify the Findings of Fact to state that.
Aller: And then any modified findings.
Undestad: That adopts the modified Findings of Fact and Recommendations.
Aller: So I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Randall: Second.
Aller: Having a motion and a second. Any further discussion? I’m still opposed to the fact that
we are granting a variance for this particular item at this point in time because I don’t see it as
being necessary for that, the function of that use at this time. That it’s definitely a unique
property that the AUAR has found that we were to preserve that and we were supposed to stick
with the guidelines and the zoning which had already been in existence with regards to Bluff
Creek and so I think that we should be following that path at this point in time and should the
need arise then we can grant a variance or the City could grant a variance. The council could
grant a variance at it’s hearing as an appeal of a denial here. So I’ll be voting against.
Yusuf: I just have to agree with you. I look at the progression of this whole project and faced
with all the challenges and looking at how far we’ve come, they have come up with some pretty
25
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
creative solution thus far so I feel like just granting this variance is premature. I do think so, so I
will also be voting against it.
Weick: A couple questions and points perhaps. To that I would argue there is some creativity in
the 1.3 acres from what we originally viewed. Not sure how I’m voting so I’m trying to delay
this a little bit. So that’s one thing. The other thing is, Chairman Aller are variance decisions by
the Planning Commission final or are they debatable in front of the City Council?
Aanenson: They go up to City Council.
Weick: They are?
Aanenson: Yes.
Weick: Okay. Okay, I still need a minute. Is that okay? If we just take a minute to think about
it?
Aller: Sure, absolutely.
Tietz: Well while Steve’s thinking I just have to reiterate my earlier comments and support the
Chairman’s comments too. I think it’s premature at this point to be granting, even if it’s up to
1.3 acres until we see solid plans prepared by an architect with a solid solution that reflects the
needs of the proposed owner of the facility.
Aller: Any additional questions or comments? Conversation amongst ourselves. Hearing none
put the matter to a vote.
Undestad moved, Randall seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit to encroach into the
primary zone and required buffer for the construction of Bluff Creek Boulevard, subject to
the following conditions:
1. The developer shall dedicate the Conservation Easement containing the Bluff Creek Primary
Zone to the City.
2. The Developer shall provide the city with a management for the area and submit to the city
for review.
3. Monuments indicating the Bluff Creek Overlay District shall be placed at every other
property corner and at an angle of deflection greater than seven percent, but in no case
shall they be greater than 150 feet apart.
26
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
4. The developer shall not encroach into the Bluff Creek Primary Zone.
5. The developer shall comply with the with the 40 foot primary zone setback and preserve or
create a 20 foot buffer from the primary zone.
6. The buffer will be required to have a vegetation management plan and soil amendments.
7. The plans shall be revised to remove any structure in the BCOD.
Commissioners Undestad, Randall and Madsen voted in favor. Commissioners Aller,
Yusuf, Tietz and Weick voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 3 to 4.
Undestad moved, Randall seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends the City Council approve the Variance to encroach, not to exceed 1.3 acres,
into the primary zone and required buffer for the construction of the development; and
adopts the amended Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Commissioners Undestad,
Randall and Madsen voted in favor. Commissioners Aller, Yusuf, Tietz and Weick voted
in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 3 to 4.
Aller: The motion does not carry. And that finishes Avienda at this point in time and they’ll of
course be back after their consideration with the City Council on future items. Before you go
gentlemen I want to thank you again for your presentations and for your continued efforts in
working with the City and we look forward to seeing you as the project progresses.
Darren Lazan: Thanks for your time.
Mark Nordland: Thank you very much.
PUBLIC HEARING:
2740 ORCHARD LAND: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR A SECOND DRIVEWAY
ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND LOCATED AT
2740 ORCHARD LANE. APPLICANT/OWNER: FAYE KAMRATH.
Walters: Alrighty whenever you’re ready.
Aller: We’re ready.
Walters: So this is Planning Case 2017-13, 2740 Orchard Lane variance. It will go if appealed
th
before the City Council on the 10. It’s the applicant and owner Faye Kamrath is proposing a
second driveway access for her property. The property is zoned Residential Single Family and I
have the minimum criteria for that zoning standard up here. 15,000 square foot lot, 30 foot front
yard setback, 10 foot side yard. It needs to have a 40 foot setback from the Manage 2 wetland to
the north of the property. It’s limited to 25 percent hard cover and our code limits every
27
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
residential property to a single driveway access. This parcel is about 4.4 acres and currently has
about 2.6 percent impervious surface. This right here is a picture of the site conditions. As you
can see the rear of the property has a very large wetland. There is a rental, a house that is
currently being rented out to a tenant here which is served by an existing gravel driveway. There
is no garage on the house and then there’s a detached garage that is being used for storage by the
property’s owner. Currently it’s accessed by driving over the grass which has basically created a
dirt way and the variance is to allow them to have a paved driveway to better access that
detached garage. It is within the shoreland overlay district of Lake Minnewashta and we had
approved the detached garage to be built without a driveway in 2013. The applicant is proposing
the second driveway. One of the big reasons they’re asking for it is because it would result in a
lot less impervious surface for the lot. They do have because it’s such a large property they
could connect the proposed garage to the existing gravel driveway. Doing so would require at
least 3,800 square feet of impervious surface. A second driveway access would require a 1,440
square feet of impervious surface. The other factor to consider is this is a very large property. It
has about 350 feet of lot frontage. That allows for quite a bit of space between the existing
driveway and the proposed driveway. I believe it actually works out to 215 feet separation
between the existing gravel driveway and the proposed second driveway so typically you know
you have a minimum 90 foot frontage in single family lots so the gap would be larger than you’d
see generally between driveways in this district. The alternative of building a frontage style road
paralleling Orchard Lane would have a larger visual impact on the neighborhood so they are
proposing constructing a 32 by 30 foot apron and serving it by a 30 foot by 16 foot driveway.
The area here in the right-of-way does not count towards the property hard cover and again that
would be 1,440 square feet. So staff looked it over. It’s indisputable that it would result in
significantly less impervious surface and less stormwater runoff possibly being directed into the
wetland. Just for fun I sketched out two alternatives that they could do that meet code.
Alternative 1 as I mentioned ended up being at 3,828 square feet of impervious surface.
Alternative 2 looping behind the house past 5,000 square feet of impervious surface so it would
have a lot less impact in terms of stormwater generation to do the second driveway. As
mentioned the main reason we restrict the amount of number of driveway accesses is to create a
situation where you have lots of cars entering in a short space. There is a lot of spacing between
the comprehensive plan’s guidelines are 40 feet of spacing. At 215 it’s well in excess of that.
Looking around at the neighborhood we found 4 other properties starred here within 500 feet that
also have a second driveway access. Those are all legal non-conforming’s so because it seems to
comply with the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan would result in substantially less
impervious surface being constructed and we don’t believe that the spacing would create any
safety issues, as well as having less of a visual impact on the character of the neighborhood staff
does support this variance request. I would be happy to take any questions at this time.
Aller: Can you tell us what if any way the use of the garage would have on our deliberations?
Walters: We were contacted as was in the staff report by resident’s concern that the garage was
being used to run a home occupation. That would not be allowed by city code. The applicant
has been informed of this. They have stated that it is not being used for that purpose. That it’s
28
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
all personal storage. Staff is recommending just to make certain it’s clear that a condition be
placed that the property not be used for a home occupation. But ultimately the property’s
compliance with that aspect of the code is viewed as a separate issue from the variance. Staff
will enforce city code whether this variance is granted or not and in neither event this property
would not be allowed to have a home occupation run out of the garage.
Aller: And that same result would be utilized with any of the other properties that have legal
non-conforming uses within 500 feet for instance if there was a business being run out of there.
It would not be permitted and a neighbor could potentially bring that to the City’s attention and
then the City would have to act.
Walters: Yep, just like any property in the city whether they have one driveway or two
driveways. If I get a call saying there’s a home occupation we investigate. We do our due
diligence and if we find out that there’s reason to believe there is one we work with the property
owner to bring it into compliance. Yep.
Aller: Thank you. Any additional questions of staff at this point in time?
Weick: When you say home occupation you mean a business out of the home?
Walters: Yeah. So without going too deep into the weeds the city code does not allow any type
of business to be run out of a detached accessory structure so no garages. It doesn’t matter
where, the only exception are existing agricultural uses.
Weick: I was just confused by that terminology. I’d never seen that before.
Walters: Yep.
Aller: Great, okay. We’ll move on. If the applicant would like to come forward and make a
presentation that would be great. If you could step up and state your name and address for the
record sir and then tell us about your project.
Jeff Kamrath: Okay. I’m Jeff Kamrath. I live at 2731 Orchard Lane which is across the road
from this piece of property. My wife actually owns the property. We bought the property
approximately 10 years ago. The lady who lived there was a 86 year old widow. The property
had gone into quite a state of disrepair. It was very over grown with brush and trees and
buckthorn. We spent 2 years cleaning up the property. Cleaning up the brush. Mitigated a lot of
buckthorn that’s in the woods on the property. We also went ahead and did the buckthorn along
Sandpiper Trail even though it’s not our property. It enhanced the appearance of the property so
we cleaned that up as well. My wife has planted many gardens there and improved a lot of the
landscaping with shrubs and we view it as kind of a unique piece of property. It’s a large piece
of property. It’s very visible because it’s the biggest piece of property when you come into the
neighborhood so we’ve tried to be good neighbors and keep it up and improve it and make it
29
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
look well. We’ve gotten many comments from other neighbors along that line that appreciate
what we’ve done here. I built the garage 4 years ago with the full understanding that you know
we would not be allowed to have a second driveway. We’ve just been driving across the grass
and thus created basically a dirt road to the garage is what’s happened. The issue of the
driveway actually came up, the road contractor who’s doing the streets there needed a place to
store materials and to store equipment. It was very convenient for him because we have a large
piece of property and he said if we would allow him to do that he would put a driveway in for us
so that’s why we’re applying for the variance. Trying to take advantage of an opportunity here
to be very truthful about that so. But the driveway seems to fit in with the neighborhood. It
doesn’t seem to create any issues that staff has found and again it’s a much better option than try
to build a driveway from all the way across from the east side of the property and we just think it
would enhance the property. Enhance it’s appearance and enhance the use of the property for us.
Aller: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Seeing none thank you sir.
Jeff Kamrath: Thank you.
Aller: Okay at this point in time I’ll open up the public hearing portion of this item so again this
is an opportunity for any individual that’s present to come forward and state their position or ask
questions or comment on the matter before us. Seeing no one come forward I will close the
public hearing. Open it up for commissioner comments.
Tietz: Well I understand the situation. I tried to bike down that road the other day and almost
had to walk my bike down the road so I understand the situation over there but it seems like a
good solution.
Aller: Any other comments? Questions? Again thank you for the report. It’s very clear and
again for those at home these reports that we receive are on the website so feel free to go take a
look at them. With that I’ll entertain a motion.
Madsen: I’ll make a motion.
Aller: Commissioner Madsen.
Madsen: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a variance request to
allow for a second driveway access at 2740 Orchard Lane subject to the conditions of approval
and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision.
Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Yusuf: Second.
30
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion? Hearing none I’ll put the matter to
a vote.
Madsen moved, Yusuf seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments
approves a variance request to allow for a second driveway access at 2740 Orchard Lane,
subject to the following conditions and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Decision:
1. The applicant must apply for and receive a driveway permit.
2. Tree protection fencing shall be installed around existing trees prior to any construction
activities.
3. Double silt fence must be in place to protect the wetland prior to any excavation of the
site.
4. The driveway must be constructed in accordance with current construction
requirements/details as well as the requirements in City Code Section 20-122 Access and
Driveways.
5. The driveway shall be surfaced with bituminous, concrete or paver surface.
6. As stipulated by City Code Section 20-977 the detached garage may not be use to operate
or store material for a home occupation.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Aller: Okay we have two other items coming before us for public hearing. With the
commissioners permission I’d like to kind of take a poll and see who’s here on what and try to
deal with the one with the biggest impact first or second, whichever way we’d like to do it so by
a raise of hands those individual who are here for item 2, West Park. I have 2, 4, 6, 7. And item
3, the Venue at Aldi. 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Probably just take them as is. There doesn’t seem to be
a big significant difference. Is staff ready to go with item 2 which is West Park?
PUBLIC HEARING:
WEST PARK, 8601 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD: REZONING, SITE PLAN
REVIEW, SUBDIVISION, AND VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH VARIANCES
ON PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AND SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN 82 UNIT TOWNHOME
DEVELOPMENT AND LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF WATERS EDGE DRIVE, WEST
OF GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD, NORTH OF HIGHWAY 212 AND BISECTED BY
LAKE SUSAN DRIVE. APPLICANT: PULTE HOMES. OWNER: BRIAN
KLINGELHUTZ.
31
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
Al-Jaff: Good evening Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. The application
before you is for West Park which entails a rezoning of property, a site plan review approval, a
subdivision, a variance and a vacation of right-of-way. The vacation is something that is voted
on by the City Council only. However as an informational item we’re including it in this
request. Briefly the site is located south of Waters Edge Drive, north of Highway 212, west of
Great Plains Boulevard and it’s bisected by Lake Susan Drive. It has an area of 9.8 acres. Just a
brief background. So there are, in 2006 the City approved a planned unit development
application. That really encompassed properties located north as well as south of Highway 212.
The southern piece of, the piece that lies south of 212 was mainly commercial types of uses. The
area that is north of Highway 212 was guided residential. It is mixed use residential, or mixed
use land use which means you may have high density residential on these properties. That
allows up to 16 units per acre. We have an apartment building that was built, Gateway Place,
Sand’s Company which is located at the northwest intersection of 212 and 101. The remaining
parcels have always been viewed as a transition area. If we look at the area to the north of, and
west of this site it’s mainly residential single family homes. When the subject site came in,
which is what you see before you in this slide. As I mentioned it is north of the apartment
building, west of Highway 212 and then you have the residential single family homes north and
west of that portion. We immediately and with every developer that we talk to we said it has to
be a transition area between all of these elements meaning the density that you have within that
section and the type of housing has to be between residential single family and high density
which leads us to townhouse development. Another thing that constrains the site is the fact that
it is located within the shoreland overlay district of Lake Susan. Any development, so it’s the
northern portion of the site that lies within Lake Susan’s Overlay District. Anything within the
shoreland Overlay District has to maintain 50 percent open space. Any structure built within that
area may not exceed 35 feet in height. The land uses within this area. So the northeasterly
portion is medium density which allows 8 units per acre maximum. Then you have the
northwesterly portion which allows 4 units per acre maximum. Anything that is shown in red,
which is the mixed use, up to 16 units per acre. When we looked at the number of acres that we
have and the land uses, total number of units that are permitted on this site is 99 units. What the
applicant came in with was a townhouse development, and before I get into this application.
Over the last I would like to say 5 or 6 years we have met with truly a number of developers that
have come in with apartment buildings. Units that preserve the existing, there’s a barn on the
site. The proposals have called for turning it into a community space. We’ve looked at
iterations that included potential clinics and quite a few apartment buildings on that site as well.
Staff has always maintained that we need that transition zone between the high density, the
highway and the single family units that are out there. One of the other things that we talked to
the developer about was trying to orient the front of the homes towards the residential single
family low density homes and the garages to keep the doors to the garages internal. We wanted
to ensure that there is minimal traffic conflict with the existing road systems that are out there.
The application before you is for 82 units. The density is below 8 units per acre. Access to the
site is gained off of Lake Susan Drive. One of the things that they, that the developer attempted
to do and was able to work with the apartment buildings owners is to utilize the same access
point to serve the southerly portion of the site. As far as materials that will be used on the
32
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
exterior of the homes, it is a combination of lapped siding as well as cultured stone. And the
applicant did submit architectural plans. However at this time, at this moment they are building
extremely similar units in the city of Plymouth. They provided us with pictures of these units
and what we will have different than what is being built in the city of Plymouth is different
garage doors. As you can see these garage doors are just plain versus the ones in Chanhassen
will have windows on them as well as decorative handles. Our color palette is going to be larger.
More variety. No two units will be the same next to each other and since this is a planned unit
development we are able to create design criteria for it and all of the design criteria has basically
prescribed that these design elements be implemented that I was just going over. Some of the
amenities that you will find within this development include decorative light fixtures. Pedestrian
scaled light fixtures. Gathering areas with a fire pit. This cultured stone that you will see. So
this is the cultured stone that you will see throughout the development on the buildings
themselves as well as the other elements that I will be going through in a moment. Okay. So
they will be used on the fire pit. Potential seating areas. The entrance into the development
there will be monument signs that will be utilizing that stone. The community mailboxes, the
base for them will be using that cultured stone and then also to define the corners into this
development or the corner properties of this overall development the applicant will be utilizing
pillars with wrought iron fencing and again that stone. The theme of the stone is going to be
carried through again. To accommodate all of this the applicant is proposing to subdivide the
property into 82 lots and 8 outlots. This is really a straight forward subdivision. The parcels will
accommodate the townhouses and then the outlots are mainly for community spaces, the private
streets as well as storm ponds. The parks that will be serving this community that are located
within half a mile of the site are Lake Susan Park as well as Bandimere Community Park. One
thing that I neglected to mention is the variance that staff is recommending approval of. When
we were looking at this application, and because the façade of these buildings really does not
contain anything other than a patio. A sun room. Windows. There are no garages. There are no
driveways. We asked the applicant to put the buildings closer to the street. Actually 25 feet
from the property line. The ordinance requires a 50 foot setback when it’s a planned unit
development. 50 foot setback from the exterior of a planned unit development parcel. In this
case the 25 foot is adequate. It provides for more room for longer driveways to accommodate
cars to be parked internally. And with that staff is recommending approval of this application for
the preliminary plat, site plan, variance and rezoning and the Findings of Fact and Decision.
Aanenson: If I may Mr. Chairman, I’m just going to add a couple things. Can you go back to
the very beginning. Keep going. All the different land uses. I just want to tell you a little bit
more about the history on this. I mean Sharmeen’s work on this property for, has probably seen
so many projects on here. I just want to go we have the different land uses. The density and I
just want to give a little bit of history of context of how we got here. What she didn’t mention
was the Mission Hills which you recently approved across the street. So you have to remember
how this density all came about. It was originally what we called a mixed use district. We had
two of them in the city and so some of it became commercial. Some of it became different
medium and low densities under when the Klingelhutz family had this and the Curry family. So
over the years we actually worked with SRF and actually did some design scenarios at this
33
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
intersections because even when we did the Kwik Trip center there was a lot of consternation
within the neighborhood so we kind of looked through all those properties and at the time that
we were doing that there was reluctance on the Klingelhutz family to change some of those land
uses because we had some other recommendations and because of that it forced some more
vertical product in there and we just didn’t feel like that was a good fit and nothing seemed to
ever really work well. With the impediment of the shoreland district and try to blend between
the commercial, as Sharmeen mentioned, the existing apartments which met the criteria which
could have been more vertical on this property and then the senior Mission Hills project across
the street which I think they were hopeful would get commercial zoning but really again even an
office use on that was difficult because as you know the turn movements coming out of that so
we are really pleased to have a project that we think makes a good transition for the
neighborhood and like I said Sharmeen’s worked on a number of projects on this and actually
spent a lot of time with the developer on this really fine tuning it so I just wanted to give you a
little more context. So when 101 moved over we still had this kind of funny, fuzzy different land
uses on that property so that’s what led to compiling all those densities together to as Sharmeen
showed you what the ultimate mix would be. That’s because there was 3 or 4 different land uses
underneath that so the total density, this project comes underneath that total density and it’s a
lower height and lower impact as we saw it into the neighborhood so we are happy to get this
project to this point and thank the developer for working hard to do that.
Aller: Okay, thank you. Any questions of staff at this point? Commissioner Weick.
Weick: If you could actually go back to that page 6 of 41 with the total units allowed. I’m just
looking for clarification of, it shows as mixed use on page 5 in that chart and then in this chart it
says high density. So is this a worst case of what could be built in mixed use?
Aanenson: …high density. That’s the mixed use part of it. It could be commercial or could be
high density.
Weick: Commercial or high density.
Aanenson: Correct.
Weick: Could it be anything? Could it be single family?
Aanenson: Yes but that, yeah. Well it allows up to 6…I don’t think anyone would bring that
into the marketplace.
Weick: What, say that again.
Aanenson: Nobody was going to bring that to the marketplace based on the surrounding
properties.
34
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
Weick: Okay.
Aanenson: Like I say we’ve looked at a number of projects over the time so yeah.
Weick: Okay. Thank you. And then the second question was on, and I’m sorry my notes got
mixed up. Bear with me for a second. Page 23. Oh could you just point out, I know you
described one area where the variance to the 25 feet. Is that the only area?
Al-Jaff: Yes. Well it’s the, what we recommended is that the parameter of the planned unit
development.
Weick: Okay.
Al-Jaff: Maintains a 25 foot setback.
Weick: Okay, okay. So you were just pointing out where it’s especially important on the north
side.
Al-Jaff: Exactly.
Weick: Okay.
Al-Jaff: And there are existing trees that the applicant has truly made an effort to save along the
northern portion of the property. Another thing we need to bear in mind for instance Highway
101, the right-of-way is substantial in width and there are areas where, if you give me one
moment. Right here. This illustrates what’s happening along the east portion of the property.
The actual highway sits right here. At some point in the future MnDOT could potentially turn
this over to the City. There might be a potential for vacation but there is a substantial distance
between the actual pavement of a highway and where those units are going to be located.
Weick: Okay, thank you.
Aller: Any additional questions?
Tietz: Just a question. Is it assumed in a planned unit development such as this that all the
visitor or a majority of the visitor parking is in the driveways of each unit because I see very few
stalls that would provide additional parking other than adjacent to the units. Is that accurate or
am I just misreading it?
Al-Jaff: So when we calculate the parking we assume that everything will be accommodated
within the guest parking that the applicant is required to provide as part of the site plan, which
they have. They meet the requirements but in addition to that, let’s say somebody has a party.
35
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
They will be able to park in the driveway and this way you’re avoiding the public street parking
so it’s just an alternative.
Tietz: Yeah. I know it’s a difficult situation to provide additional parking. I know we visited
friends who are in similar type settings and you have a group of 8 or 10 folks and 6 cars and
there’s a driveway big enough for 2 cars and somebody else down the lane is having 6 or 8 folks
over and all of a sudden, and the roads within these areas are quite narrow. They’re private and
as I understand this is all private road system.
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Tietz: So then where do people park? It just seemed, you know it’s a challenge obviously but I
don’t see a resolution in this particular plan.
Al-Jaff: There is guest parking that is available within this development.
Tietz: Yeah, pretty limited.
Aller: Additional questions? Hearing none we’ll have the applicant come forward and make a
presentation. Welcome sir. If you’d state your name and address for the record and your
representational capacity if any that would be great.
Paul Heuer: Thank you, good evening. I’m Paul Heuer with Pulte Homes, 7500 Office Ridge
Circle, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344. We’re happy to be here this evening. We have Clark
Wickland with Alliant Engineering so he might answer a couple questions if I get stuck on
something. Also Eric Paget from our office at Pulte Homes. I’d like to just have a short
presentation that covers some of the things that Sharmeen didn’t cover. She did a great job
covering everything related to zoning and your issues but you might have questions on the
market we’re after and things like that, price point so I’d just like to cover those things briefly.
So we build about 500 homes in the Twin Cities a year and pretty large builder. We built in
Chanhassen in the past and have had success here. We love your city. When we look at what we
are trying to imagine for a vision for this particular site it was really to create a neighborhood
that had a sense of place and it would be a good place for first time homeowners that would be
near amenities and the things really going for it is the school district is very strong here. You do
have a number of amenities nearby within walking distance. The transit station. The retail to the
south. A park just to the southwest. A great trail system so really a number of things that are
really attractive to folks. As far as our homes and our buyers we’re looking for primarily singles
and young couples. Maybe some young families. These are two story homes. We occasionally
get some empty nesters too in these sorts of homes but it’s really aimed at kind of a younger
group. We do expect that the price points would be somewhere between the mid $200,000’s and
the mid $300,000’s. The sizes of the homes start at about 1,850 feet. Square feet. There are
options where they can actually have more versatility to the home. Have more room. For
36
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
instance there’s a half story above the second story that could be finished as a bonus room and
there’s another unique offering which is a rear rooftop terrace where there’s kind of a cut into the
rooftop there and an outdoor terrace as well so pretty versatile housing product that appeals to a
wide variety of people but again we believe will primarily have singles, young couples, those
sorts of people. Let’s see and the neighborhood itself. We focused really hard on the sidewalk
connections to the local amenities. We mentioned the playground. The retail. The transit center
so you’ll notice that we’ve got some internal private sidewalks that really strategically guide
each homeowner to trails on the perimeter of the site that guide them to those amenities. And
th
lastly in terms of coordination, we did have a neighborhood meeting back on May 11. We met
with the Sand’s Company as Sharmeen has mentioned. They wholeheartedly support the shared
entrance on the south side of Lake Susan Drive and they support our project too. And finally
we’ve been coordinating with a couple of other developers you’ve been dealing with just on
construction issues. Dirt work. Foxwood as well as Mission Hills. We’ve been in contact with
both of those folks. They both seem to have some excess dirt on their properties and we’re a
little bit short so we’ve been coordinating to try to have very efficient kind of short hauls of dirt
from local developments. So that’s really it. In terms of phasing and schedule, our plan is to
develop the north property in 2017, this year and the southern property in 2018 and we anticipate
building out entirely probably around the year 2020. That’s really it. I’d be happy to take any
questions.
Aller: Okay, I’m sure that the questions during your meetings, and thank you for having them
with the community because I think that’s super important that the community have some input
into all the development in the area. What did you hear about traffic concerns and what were
your responses regarding traffic and then also the impact that this price point would have on the
surrounding homes that are already in existence?
Paul Heuer: Okay first we’ll cover parking. You’re talking about parking right when you say
traffic?
Aller: Traffic and parking.
Paul Heuer: Yeah. You know over the decades these sorts of attached row home units have
been built in cities throughout the Twin Cities and throughout the country and over time cities
have developed ordinances that require specific amount of parking per unit and they found a
point where it works and for each of these units of course there’s 2 stalls in the garage, 2 on the
driveway and we’ve got guest stalls which if you look at the site plan they’re strategically placed
so people don’t have to walk too far so I think it’s safe to say that this is not like a single family
home where you can have a graduation party and people can line up and down the streets
parking. You know you can’t have a graduation party in a row home and I think people
generally understand that but if you have 4 or 5 people over there’s room for that certainly. So if
we felt we would have a problem with that and our customers would complain you know we
wouldn’t be building them. We make sure we have enough that we feel comfortable and when
we, when we build homes we find that many times our customers are referred from previous
37
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
customers or they’re our past customers. They buy 2, 3, 4, even 5 homes from us over the life’s
that they have so we don’t have an interest in making our customers feel like they’ve been taken.
We have a long term interest in having these relationships with these customers because we
know we rely on them to refer people and to continue buying from us so we’ve built many of
these townhomes. Less in the last 10 years since, long story but we haven’t seen many
townhomes in the Twin Cities for about the last 10 to 12 years but we’re starting to explore that
market again. We’re starting to see some success and we’re building them basically with the
same layouts in terms of parking but with much more versatile architecture. You might have
noticed in the past, just quickly, I know I’m getting off track just a bit.
Aller: No, no, that’s fine.
Paul Heuer: But in the past they all used to be the same color and the same architecture and as a
council in another city once said, you know after I have a couple wines I want to know which
home is mine. But now it’s kind of Version 2.0 where we really do have more effort being
made to have each one of these units architecturally stylized and individualized so that they look
good. In terms of the parking this is what we’ve been doing for decades and it’s proven to work.
The other issue, I’m sorry. There was two questions you had.
Aller: There was parking, traffic and then valuation.
Paul Heuer: Valuation.
Aller: Surrounding valuation.
Paul Heuer: Yeah and this is always difficult to describe. The way I look at land, as we look for
land to buy across the Twin Cities is every land, every piece of land wants to be something. You
know you can’t force a Holiday station store a mile off the main highway unless there’s a lot of
traffic going there. There’s certain characteristics that really make land want to be something.
In this particular case, I mentioned all the positive traits. The parks. The retail. The transit
station. The great access to the road. Those are all great traits but of course there are constraints
too and in this particular case the one big constraint is you’ve got some major roadways right
there. You’ve got Highway 212 and Highway 101. You’ve got an intersection there that’s very
busy right outside of this so this is not a place where you’d really be able to sell very expensive
homes so it wants to be something that is more dense than single family homes. It really doesn’t
want to be apartments because you have single family homes right across a residential street to
the west and to the north so this really does fit in terms of what the land wants to be. What it can
best accommodate and the best use of the land. You know that’s kind of side stepping of your
question but I think it’s related because the land can only be what it can be so therefore as long
as you’re not trying to force fit something on that land that it doesn’t want to be then you’re not
harming valuations.
38
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
Aller: Great. Any additional questions? Thank you sir. At this point in time I’ll open up the
public hearing portion of this item. It’s an opportunity for those individuals, jump right up there,
to speak either for or against.
Liz Kozub: It’s my bedtime so I need to get home. So my name is Elizabeth, Liz Kozub.
Address 8661 Chanhassen Hills Drive North, Chanhassen, Minnesota. So first I do want to
appreciate having these online meetings throughout the month of May when I haven’t been able
to make it to the meetings. I appreciate being able to watch them. I do hope over time
Chanhassen could figure out a way to be more interactive. That even if you can’t spend 2 hours
of your night and having to pay a babysitter to watch your kids for 2 hours of a night to be here
that we could still have some interaction. So thoughts for future involvement. Couple things
that I wanted to bring up. So I do overall like the townhome idea so I’m not fully against but
there are some things I do want to consider. If you could go to the picture one. Next one.
Where it looks, what it currently looks like. So there’s just some things that, of the map. Yeah.
So there are some things that I want to discuss. One of the May meetings Kate I think you
brought up that when the exit ramp from 212 was added to our neighborhood there was some
concern of cut through and that was never found to be true, and I don’t know if a traffic analysis
survey has been done but I know when we go on nightly walks I see people cut through there all
the time. You can see where the trail is right outside the yellow line. That’s how you get to the
trail which is a great place when your kids are learning how to ride their bikes. I see cars go past
there 45-50 miles every single day and it concerns me to now add 82 homes to an already
populated area where people don’t live in our neighborhood. They cut through all the way to
Lyman and back. I know all the cars in our neighborhood that I would want to look at how are
we trying to avoid extra traffic. Are we going to have speed humps and try to avoid more
additional cut through. I know at one of the meetings you said that the people cutting through
are the people in the neighborhood and they’re not. The people in our neighborhood, because a
lot of us have young kids or know the neighbors have young kids, we drive slow and so I want to
be concerned about that main thoroughfare right there in the neighborhood. Another concern
that I have is just the design of the townhomes. Have there been consideration of also single
level townhomes? I know from family members trying to buy downsize. They don’t want to go
to a senior living apartment. There are really hard, there’s not a whole lot of availability for one
level townhomes and having this be a mixed use project why can’t we have some single family
townhomes and not just two story on this plot as well? I know that it doesn’t allow for profits
because you have to have less homes on that area but I think when we look at our whole
community, not just young families but we want all of those generations to be in the
neighborhood together. Two other questions that I have, or three. I didn’t know about a
community meeting and I’m pretty active. Now this is my second time coming here to speak.
How was that advertised and how was input selected? I, talking to our neighbors at the park this
last week no one knew about this development and so how was that involvement done? I am
shocked because I was here the whole month of May and didn’t know anything about it. Our
park, one of our swings is broken. Can we get that fixed? Because if we’re going to be adding
more kids you’re talking about 82 new families, we don’t even have enough swings right now.
We have 3 out of the 4 in use. Can we double the amount of swings? And lastly after every
39
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
construction project the roads get worst because of all the heavy machinery going in there.
What’s going to be the long term plan to repair the roads after all the heavy machinery leaves?
Those are my questions and thoughts. And when you look at the land you have the pumpkin
patch right there so we’re getting rid of the pumpkin patch, which is fine. I know that can’t stay
forever and I do like all the greenery that is there. I still don’t think that 25 feet, it feels too
metro to me. It feels too claustrophobic and we don’t live in downtown Minneapolis that we
want buildings right on top of the road. That you want to have it more suburban and not urban
feel so that’s my thoughts.
Aller: Thank you. Before somebody else gets up, Kate did you want to address notice issues or
tell us how the notices provided on these projects?
Aanenson: I’m assuming that the mailing list the developer got was the same mailing list that
the neighborhood got. Our ordinance, the State law is 300 feet. We do 500 feet within the
subject site so typically the developer’s given that same list so it should have been the same.
Aller: Okay. And then for active individuals or people that are just interested in it again on the
website we do list all the projects that are upcoming as they’re coming along so it’s great that
you’re keeping an eye on that. And of course there are contact information so that you can hit
our parks and recs director and make suggestions about swings.
Aanenson: I would also add too, yeah. We also have a site on that you can go right into the
City’s portal and any issues that you have, whether it’s a stop sign that’s down or swing that’s
broken. You put that in and someone will respond to you right away and so please do that.
Liz Kozub: Okay, I’ll do that but I think when you’re talking about you like the spot because it’s
by the parks, well then how are we investing in our current parks to expand if we anticipate 82
new families with potentially young kids to be there? Our current park isn’t allowed, the
capacity isn’t for that so as a developer who will be profiting from this, how are you going to be
giving back to our community to make it better than when you leave?
Aanenson: Mr. Chair we can answer that question too. We are requiring park and trail fees
being dedicated to help supplement the infrastructure so that is a condition of approval.
Aller: And ongoing right now I understand there’s a major project where we’re looking at all
our parks and they’re doing review of the status of our parks.
Aanenson: Correct. So the Park and Recreation Commission reviewed this project. They make
a recommendation. Their recommendation was not to take land but take, so in every project you
can take land or take cash in lieu of so I’d have to look up that exact number but that is a
condition of approval is to take that and that would be built into existing or for future parks.
Aller: Right.
40
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
Aanenson: And then as far as traffic I’ll let engineering staff answer those questions.
Aller: Thank you.
Fauske: Thank you. Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission, a good point
brought up with the 212 ramp and that was certainly some of the feedback that staff heard from
the neighborhood when 212 was under construction. My understanding is there was some
monitoring of traffic movement through the neighborhood and they at that time did not see any
cut through traffic. Perhaps people have changed some driving patterns and are now seeing this
as an attractive alternative. With regards to the speed that some of the residents have witnessed,
we can certainly get some, it’s not a speed trailer out there anymore but we do have one of those
signs that posts the speed limit and will show drivers what their speed is and if there’s a speeding
issue in there then we can work with the sheriff’s department to address that. Another concern
that a resident brought up was with regards to the long term repairs to the roadway system. Just
very quickly for the Planning Commission and for the resident’s knowledge based here, the City
does invest in getting the street conditions surveyed every 3 years and we monitor that in the
engineering department and make recommendations to the council for capital improvement plans
for resurfacing streets. At this time there is nothing planned in the 5 year capital improvement
plan for this area but we do monitor the pavement condition and start to utilize methods other
than maintenance such as sealcoating. A structural project such as a mill and overlay can be
recommended to council for budgetary needs if we see that pavement deteriorate to a point
where it would warrant that.
Aller: Okay, thank you. Okay moving on any additional comments? Please sir. Come on
forward and state your name and address for the record.
Aaron Stephan: Hi, my name is Aaron Stephan. I’m also at 8661 Chanhassen Hills Drive North.
I live in the same house as her. So I just wanted to add on a few additional points. I just wanted
to clarify when she was describing the two parks that would serve this community. She
mentioned that it was Lake Susan Park but it’s actually Chanhassen Hills Park. Lake Susan Park
is on the north end of the lake.
Aanenson: I stand corrected.
Aaron Stephan: Yes. Yeah okay just making sure because my understanding, so he was
mentioning that there’s a beautiful park to the southwest. He was referring to Bandimere Park
which is a wonderful park. My inclination is to think that most people living in that community
will use the Chanhassen Hills Park which is a much smaller park and much fewer amenities
compared to Bandimere so if we’re thinking of diverting some of those funds I would divert
more of those towards Chanhassen Hills Park. Yeah as has been mentioned it’s nearly doubling
the number of houses in the community and I am also concerned about the traffic coming
through on the main thoroughfare. The Lake Susan Drive especially from the, is it west side? If
41
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
there is plans for traffic mitigation that would be really helpful because I’ve seen people driving
50 miles an hour readily through that neighborhood. Overall I do like the design and structure of
the townhouses and I agree that it’s a perfect transition from the Gateway Apartments that are
there to the rest of the residential homes that are there. The apartments that are there, related to
the parks again is the fact that there are a lot of kids that live in the Gateway Apartments. There
will be more kids that move into that community and the way for them to get to either of those
parks is quite a long haul. Walk so I don’t know if they’ve considered adding at least some sort
of playground directly on site. I don’t know if that’s a consideration. If not we might want to
consider some sort of like path or walkway to the local park because otherwise I’m afraid people,
you’re just going to have too many people walking along the road to get there. It’s really
probably inconvenient for people to go to Bandimere just simply because you’re crossing 212
and you’re going over the bridge and there’s just this like feeling of a barrier to walk and I think
most people won’t use it. My only other big point that I wanted to make was regarding the
stormwater runoff. I read through some of those documents. There’s a lot I don’t understand in
it but I’m interested and concerned a little bit because if you look at the current land as it stands
there’s a very deep ditch and it’s clearly maintaining a lot of stormwater runoff. The way the
stormwater management analysis was done shows that the water runs in three different directions
off of that property. My concern is mostly from the north end of things. They said or they
showed basically that they plan to install, it’s like 2 to 3 NURP ponds I believe.
Smith: Were you talking, the ditch? Were you talking about the southern parcel or the northern
parcel?
Aaron Stephan: No I’m talking about the northern parcel.
Smith: Okay. I just want to make sure I have the right thing up on the screen.
Aaron Stephan: So right now the northern parcel is anticipated, or right now it’s estimated to
have 1.190 cubic feet per second or whatever the units are, and that’s anticipated to be changed
according to developing that. And rightfully so there’s going to be this development of a large
pond in the middle it looks like and then another pond to the south, on the southern side of Lake
Susan Drive. So the issue I have or questions are that we, I know Chanhassen used to have a
person in charge of stormwater runoff. Jeffery’s I think his name. Terry Jeffery and I was in
contact with him because we also have stormwater runoff pond behind our property and it’s
actually dealing with some of the runoff that comes straight off of Waters Edge Drive and he was
going to come and do an analysis and help us understand how development could affect some of
the water in that back because I’ve been told at times it can dry out completely and other times
now it’s higher than it’s ever been and so any change whatsoever to the runoff nearby is going to
affect that water level. And as we all know all these NURP ponds are breeding grounds for our
state bird and just wondering if there could possibly be some kind of provision to help with
aeration or something like that to keep the new storm ponds aerated in a way that keeps those
mosquitoes from breeding. In addition to keeping the mosquitoes away it also is a great way to
reduce phosphorus. 85 percent reduction with aeration so I’m just a proponent of that if possible.
42
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
And then the last point was basically again about this 25 foot variance. I’m strongly opposed to
the 25 foot variance. I think it’d be in everybody’s best interest to lower the density of housing
by 10 or 20 percent but stick to the 50 foot setback that’s currently in law. I’m sorry?
Aanenson: I think I just want to give the rational basis for that was that because we had so many
vertical projects because that’s what you’re forcing then is because, that was our position on that.
Aaron Stephan: Right. Sure.
Aanenson: And a typical home has a driveway of, a home setback is 30 feet so if you look at
that, that was our basis for that so this is 25 foot as opposed to a typical home which is 30 feet.
Aaron Stephan: Okay well 30 feet would be better than the 25, whatever.
Aanenson: Yeah.
Aaron Stephan: So if you go kitty corner across the property to the Southwest Village
townhomes that were developed not so long ago, those townhomes also do not have a garage in
the front and they’re also very close to the road and it gives me a claustrophobic feel when I
drive by and to me I would hate for me to drive into my own neighborhood and feel that same
claustra, I mean it’s just something to think about. Setting back, having some green space ahead
of the homes, inbetween the homes and the road. The more green space I think the better off the
feel is and help the flow of the feel so those are my points.
Aller: Thank you sir. Anyone else from 8661 that wants to? How about a neighbor?
Susan Sura: I do not live with them. My name is Susan Sura. I live at 8524 Waters Edge Drive,
Chanhassen.
Aller: Welcome.
Susan Sura: Thank you. Thank you so much for having us and thank you Pulte for holding the
meetings last month for us so that we could understand more clearly what was occurring in our
neighborhood. I live directly across the street from the proposed development on the north
parcel and I again as well as these people would like to voice a strong dissent against 25 foot
variance. I think that it is definitely an urban feel and if you look at the community out on
Waters Edge Drive it is a beautiful piece of property. It’s nature. It’s Chanhassen at it’s best and
although the property screams to you to not be single family homes, it actually screams to me to
be a single family home so we have two different opinions on that. I do appreciate the fact that
we do have new development coming in but I would really encourage you to please not go with
the 25 foot variance and stick with the 50 feet. As well as I’d like to know what happens to Lake
Susan on this development because I do live on the lake. The lake is a mess. It’s had a lot of
problems in the past with various storm drainage problems and literally the little retention ponds
43
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
you could walk across them on water they are so green and awful so please address those as well.
Thank you.
Aller: Thank you. Any additional comments?
Leslie Tidstrom: Hi. I’m Leslie Tidstrom. I live at 8679 Chanhassen Hills Drive. I’ve lived
here for over 24 years and it is very sad to think that our neighborhood with beautiful homes.
She mentioned the space. The free. The trees. We’re growers here. Yeah we used to farm.
We’re not farming anymore but I think this area, I’ve seen Apple Tree Estates go up. Homes
went up. They’re a little nice homes. Fresh homes. I’d like to see fresh single family homes or
maybe duplexes or something like that go in that still keep the same family feel. When you go
through I could name all the families. All the scout families. All the school families that our
kids go to school with all the kids and you know them. You see it on Halloween. Everybody’s
going door to door. They know each other so I strongly oppose this many, this much
development going into our neighborhood with the big trees. And the water runoff we really
have to seriously think about what’s going to happen downstream of this project because the
lake’s right there and people are on top of springs and their sump pumps are running all the time
so we’d better know what’s going on underneath this development. Thank you.
Aller: Thank you. Any additional comments? Yes sir.
Tony Pavlovich: Good evening. Tony Pavlovich, 8640 Apple Tree Lane. I hope that each of
the commissioners received the letter that I dropped off previously so you have a sense for some
of my concerns which I’m echoing a lot of what has already been stated here but as a 30 year
resident of Chanhassen, 3 years ago my wife and I decided to build a new home and we had a
number of options that were available to us and what we decided to do is we knew we wanted to
stay in Chanhassen. This is our home. This is where we belong. This is where our roots are in
all of our associations. In looking around Chanhassen there wasn’t a whole lot of options on
where to look and then we found this slice, this area that again has provided us what I believe
and was commented over here, a quality of life. And that quality of life means a lot to us and I
believe that quality of life is at risk here and is going to be disrupted by the development of 82
units right across the street from us. So I’m also concerned as you know in the letter that I
dropped off, again as part of that decision to stay in Chanhassen was to make for us the
significant investment in the home that we built on Apple Tree Lane and from a property value
standpoint that’s a meaningful concern for me and I’m not sure of any developer, any home
builder that would place a $250,000 townhome across the street from a $600,000 single family
home. I haven’t seen it so that certainly is a concern for me. Equally the 25 foot setback. Again
that urbanization feel that it’s going to feel for us like those townhouses are right on top of where
we are. That’s not something that I appreciate. All along one of the most significant or one of
the reasons, there’s a whole host of reasons why we ended up deciding to build in Chanhassen
and stay here. However the piece of property that we chose was certainly contingent upon the
understanding of what could be developed on the Klingelhutz Farm. We absolutely support
development. We knew development would happen there someday. We anticipated that but we
44
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
anticipate that it would be single family homes, not what’s being proposed here today. So
appreciate the time.
Aller: Thankyou sir.
Anthony Dunham: Good evening. Anthony Dunham, 8650 Apple Tree Lane.
Aller: Welcome.
Anthony Dunham: The property just adjacent northeast, or the northwest corner of this property,
or this development. Reiterating a couple of the points that have already been made. The
stormwater runoff. You know that with the 25 foot setback concerns me because as somebody
already mentioned my home is the most recent home that was built right there and my sump
pump runs nonstop. It’s going all the time so my concern is that this 25 foot setback then with
that stormwater runoff, how’s that going to impact my home and our community? And as the
previous gentleman had stated you know we moved into or built on this property with the
understanding that you know there was a certain level of, there’s a certain level of home that we
had to build to fit into that neighborhood and we made a large investment into this property with
it being kind of our forever home. Knowing we’re going to probably stay there until we retire
and just that concern now of this many units being built directly across the street from where
we’re at concerns me. Thanks.
Aller: Thank you sir. Welcome.
Eric Chinnock: Good evening. My name is Eric Chinnock and I live at 8600 Apple Tree Lane
and I would like to just kind of echo all the same comments from my friends and neighbors here.
Specifically the north parcel I believe is currently zoned for 54 units and the current proposal is
64 units so I just thought it was interesting that we should increase it that much. I also purchased
my home 4 years ago so just increasing that many more homes than were currently zoned there is
different than what I expected. And the 25 foot setback I think is extremely concerning. If you
walk by the townhouses that are over by Southwest Station it feels really claustrophobic and for
point of reference the barn that’s currently there is back significantly further than 25 feet so the
homes that would be there would be closer than the barn is today. I’m not sure if you’re familiar
with the corner but the barn’s pretty close to the corner. It’s also in the inside of the corner so if
you have children or anything, people go around there pretty fast the way it is. Now to all of a
sudden impair the line of sight around an interior corner like that seems not like the right choice.
And then to your point about what a property wants to be. If you look at the existing zoning I
think that’s kind of exactly how it speaks to now. So having you know maybe higher volume,
denser townhouses closer and then tapering out into something like the single family retirement
homes or duplexes or something like that to kind of transition the property and not have such a
drastic change. But obviously on board with having development overall and I think townhouses
is a good transition but I think it’s just too many houses in that small of an area given the current
neighborhood and really the 25 foot variance I think is too tight. Thank you.
45
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
Aller: Thank you sir. Any additional comments? Seeing no one come forward I will close the
public hearing. Open it up for commissioner comments and discussion. Anyone?
Fauske: Mr. Chair? If I may it seems that there were a few comments with some questions with
regards to stormwater drainage. If it’s alright with you Mr. Chair perhaps the applicant’s
engineer would be able to speak to some of the surface water management that’s proposed on the
site with regards to the neighborhood’s concerns.
Aller: Excellent thought. So without opposition from the commissioners we’ll ask the applicant
to come forward.
Tietz: Yeah Alyson do you know is there a perched water table in that area? I mean some of
those homes are pretty high but I’m assuming there must be a perched with all the clay maybe
it’s a perched water table. Maybe we’ll find out.
Fauske: Yeah and throughout Chanhassen we see sump pumps going on the highest point in
Chanhassen. We’re certainly in the tight clays so it’s not unusual for sump pumps unfortunately
in Chanhassen to be running year round and that’s a ground water which is highly variable. Not
something that you can necessarily go and model based on what you see. I mean a soil boring
will only give you the information at that location so there’s certainly information that
developer’s gather that we utilize to set low floor elevations so that to the best of our ability we
can provide some separation so that’s what we do with the ground water component and then
Mr. Wickland and Pulte could certainly speak to their surface water management plan.
Aller: And in that same vein, if I could just butt in for a second. If the setback requirements that
we’re talking about are from dry land locations such as streets, as far as the setback. It’s not
from any delineated watershed or water district.
Fauske: Yeah so the separation is from the lowest floor elevation to the highest known ground
water elevation and it’s the best that we can do based on the information we get and you know
there’s certainly building techniques that give the perimeter draintile so we do our best to get that
separation and we’re hopeful that for these homeowners that we provide some relief but it’s
certainly to go and impose a long term monitoring program on some of these sites before they
can build on it is certainly not something that developers would be very happy with nor do we
have the authority to do so.
Tietz: And these appear to be all slab on grade is that correct? There’s no walkout’s. It’s all
slab on grade.
Paul Heuer: That’s correct.
46
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
Tietz: So we would not be pumping anything from a lower level up to the surface and increasing
the surface water, correct?
Fauske: Correct. Ground water and surface water are certainly treated differently so I heard two
different.
Tietz: Right but I mean we wouldn’t be adding to when you pump it out of your sump pump it’s
going someplace.
Fauske: Yes.
Tietz: And so these homes would not have sump pumps.
Fauske: And from what I gleaned from the public hearing was that some of the residents
indicated that they already have concerns with their sump pumps going and so if there’s certain
techniques that are being proposed with this development that might look for infiltration, that
would exasperate that. I would leave that to Mr. Wickland to provide an answer.
Aller: Thank you.
Paul Heuer: Paul Heuer again. I’m just going to set some context and then let our engineer talk
a little bit more. We never used to have stormwater ponds until the 1980’s and then we realized
we were flooding people downstream so we got smarter and now for about 30 years we’ve had
gradual evolution of our regulations in stormwater, both for rate control so you prevent flooding
but also water quality so that our water bodies are protected in terms of their quality and we’ve
reached the point where we have it down scientifically pretty well. We know it works and the
regulations are quite strict these days. In this particular case the north half of the north property
falls within the shoreland district for Lake Susan so in that area we have even stronger
requirements so regardless of the amount of setback we have we had to have 50 percent of that
area within the shoreland district as open space. In addition we are actually re-using surface
water so we’re having a pump in the pond on the north side to use as irrigation for everything on
the north side so we recirculate that water over and over. On the south side we’re actually
infiltrating because we have some soils on the south side that let us infiltrate water. If we could
do that on the north side we’d do that as well but we just don’t have the soils that allow the water
to percolate easily so we spread it out over the lawn in terms of irrigation and let it really get
absorbed by the plant material. So that’s a little background so I think it’s important to keep in
mind that in this particular project we have much more stringent stormwater requirements than
what is typical and we’re dealing with them in a way that is really, really effective. Infiltration
on the south side and stormwater re-use for irrigation on the north side.
Clark Wickland: Well that was pretty thorough.
Paul Heuer: Sorry I didn’t mean to…
47
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
Clark Wickland: Well I think relative to the issues I’ve heard I think we can kind of speak to the
plan as it’s been developed and am I able to operate the cursor from up here? Well let’s just
maybe use the plan that’s available right now and consider the north half of the property. As part
of our analysis required by the City and required by the watershed district we are required to
analyze rate of runoff, direction of runoff, water quality and volume reduction. And I’ll share I
guess a good thing relative to one of the resident’s comments. Terry Jeffery kind of remains
within the watershed though at Riley-Purgatory Watershed so he is performing all the review of
our analysis modeling. We’ve made initial submittal to him. At the same time we made
submittal to the City. He’s already responded with review comments. We’ve responded to
those. Nothing is of significance. That will go before the Board of Manager’s meeting in mid-
July. So specific to this project the project currently as depicted up there, all of that red area is
essentially the watershed as it exists today on the left side and as you can see the lion share of it
is central to the project which ultimately all drains easterly towards an inlet pipe that exists today
that goes out to 212 or out to Highway 101. The proposed condition is depicted on the right of
course with the outline of the units. The drainage area to the north, which is also depicted on the
existing is slightly smaller so a greater area will go northerly or easterly into that central basin
area. Now that central basin area essentially receives runoff from all of the property. As Mr.
Heuer had shared we are going to reclaim water from there for irrigation of the project which is a
pretty common technique supported by the watershed and most communities. It’s been analyzed
for rate going to the east for volume. For water quality, for what goes off site. It has certain
requirements such as TSF removal. Phosphorus removal and such. It provides for all those
conditions required of both the city and watershed. If we look at the property to the south,
maybe not as relevant to tonight’s meeting but as Mr. Heuer had shared, well this property too
considering the existing watershed again delineated in red, all of it currently drains to an already
existing basin at the very south end of that property. We are proposing to just expand onto that
and make modification to it to provide the infiltration requirement for the project in that area
since the subgrade material is suitable for that. Primarily sand so from a stormwater perspective
and since the lion share of the site currently and is proposed to drain easterly away from the
existing residential neighborhood to the west I would not feel that this would change anything
hydrologically in that area. Does that answer the question?
Aller: Yes. Any additional comments? Questions of staff? Questions of the applicant?
Discussion.
Randall: I’ve got one.
Aller: Commissioner Randall.
Randall: One of the questions I have, do we have any other areas that have the variance for the
25 foot setback within the city or is it something that’s pretty new for us?
Al-Jaff: The development at Southwest Village actually has a 10 foot front yard setback.
48
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
Randall: Okay. I guess some of the concerns that I had with that, if you look at the pictures of
the examples, you know it looked like in the rear people will have access to their somewhat back
yard or whatever. That’s not a lot of feet I guess if you’re doing anything back there you know.
I don’t know are they going to have patios back there or are they going to have, were they going
to have a grill or that type of thing or I don’t know. That’s the only concern I really had.
Aller: Can the applicant respond to that and give us an idea of what it would look like in the
back yards?
Paul Heuer: Yes. Patios are an option and sunrooms are an option off the rear and could I
address the setback issue?
Aller: Please.
Paul Heuer: As I understand it we’re asking for a variance from the 50 foot setback from arterial
roads which I’m assuming includes 101 and maybe Lake Susan Drive. When I look at Lake
Susan Drive and how far the apartment building across the street is set back from the right-of-
way line, if I’m recalling it correctly it’s about what we’re asking for, 25 feet so there’s really no
impact to anybody along there. In fact it makes for a more coherent consistent feel as you drive
down Lake Susan Drive. The other area that we’re asking for that variance from is along 101
and it was shown earlier the right-of-way line for 101 veers so far into where this development
will be that honestly one of our big struggles is visibility. We try to create a neighborhood that’s
going to look cohesive and look right and when you enter that intersection, you take the exit
ramp from 212 and you hit the intersection of 101 and Lake Susan Drive really and you see our
development it’s far back and even more so we have a pond there so there’s kind of a gapping
gap between the actual roadway of 101 and that intersection of 101 and Lake Susan Drive and
the homes so from our standpoint it feels a little weird and we struggle and that’s one of the
reasons we wanted to put some columns, you know pillars to make it look like there’s an identity
that this is really a place here. You’re not just seeing a gap of right-of-way there that’s mowed
by the State so we really struggle with how far back that neighborhood is from that road. And
granted it’s a constraint in some way because it’s loud but there’s so much space there that it is
somewhat of an obstacle in terms of people trying to figure out visually what am I seeing here?
What’s going on here? Who owns this land? So we really see no impact to anybody for a
variance along 101 and Lake Susan Drive to the 25 feet.
Aller: Commissioner Madsen.
Madsen: Is there also a request for the 25 feet on Waters Edge Drive or is that at the 50 feet?
Paul Heuer: I’d have to ask staff.
Aller: I think it’s all the way around isn’t it? It’s 25 all the way around as I understand it.
49
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
Al-Jaff: The setback along.
Madsen: Waters Edge Drive. Does that also require a variance to be 25 feet?
Paul Heuer: Is that from 30 to 25 along Waters Edge?
Al-Jaff: From 30 to 25, collector streets, collector roads would have to maintain a 50 foot
setback.
Madsen: And is a collector road Waters Edge Drive?
Al-Jaff: Waters Edge is a local street. It’s not a collector so it is a 30.
Paul Heuer: So Waters Edge is from 30 to 25.
Madsen: Okay.
Paul Heuer: So if I could add one more thing, excuse me. So when we started laying out this
development one option was for us to make use of Waters Edge Drive and have driveways right
off of there. When you have driveways right off of there that’s where you get the standard 30
foot setbacks so you have sufficient room for cars parked in the driveway and maybe a sidewalk
since sometimes there’s sidewalks. In this case at the urging of staff we agreed, the whole
neighborhood would look a whole lot better if you did not see garages from the perimeter. A
row of garages so instead we pushed all the garages to the interior so you don’t need the space
anymore between the right-of-way line of Waters Edge Drive and the homes. And we do have a
25 foot setback we’re asking for. Some people may not choose the option of a sunroom in which
case it increases a bit so it varies depending on the options that are chosen but we would like to
have that opportunity to have sunrooms in the rear.
Madsen: Thank you.
Paul Heuer: You’re welcomed.
Tietz: Then the sunroom would encroach into the 25 foot zone.
Paul Heuer: No.
Tietz: No?
Paul Heuer: We have designed it so that sunrooms would never encroach. There are 10 units.
Tietz: So then your standard property, your building is actually further back than the 25 feet?
50
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
Paul Heuer: Yes.
Tietz: So your setback from the road is greater than 25 feet yet you’re asking for a 25 foot
setback. Is that to allow for future sunrooms?
Paul Heuer: Yeah. Not future. What we found, we just started selling this product in Plymouth
recently. It’s the only neighborhood we’ve been selling it and we’ve been really surprised that
the percentage of people buying the sunroom option is really high. You know typically this is a
first time homebuyer so they don’t have the excess funds to buy the options but they’ve been
loving the sunrooms so much that it’s been a 40 to 60 percent option rate so we would like to
offer that option to as many people as possible. Many won’t entertain that option in which case
the setback is likely to be around 35 feet. Some will in which case it would be 25 feet.
Tietz: So on this Sheet L-1 showing a typical layout of 4 units, 5 units and 6 units, because it’s
saw toothed, they’re staggered, the deepest unit would never be even with it’s sunroom would
never, or porch or whatever would never be closer than 25 feet, is that accurate? Because
otherwise we’re talking about variances in the future.
Paul Heuer: That’s accurate. No variances in the future.
Tietz: So in reality your building line is probably 30 to 35 feet currently and this document
would be 30 to 35 feet back from the property line.
Paul Heuer: The 25 foot is a minimum so it will ultimately vary from probably 25 to 38 feet if
they don’t.
Tietz: But then some of those folks might not be able to put a screen porch on because it’s built
right to the 25 foot setback. Is that accurate?
Paul Heuer: So we have 10 of the 82 units that they cannot have the option of the sunroom.
Tietz: Okay, because they would be built to the setback.
Paul Heuer: Yes.
Tietz: Okay, thank you.
Aller: Additional questions? Follow up. Comments. Commissioner Tietz.
Tietz: Well one more question. I don’t know if this is for Sharmeen or Kate.
Aller: Ask away and we’ll find out.
51
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
Tietz: Is it, is there a potential mix of setback that potentially on Waters it’s a deeper setback
than the rest of the development. Proposed development area.
Al-Jaff: That is definitely an option.
Tietz: Is that possible?
Al-Jaff: It is an option yes.
Tietz: And that would probably impact his development. He may lose a unit or two because it
starts to push back but in looking at the plan you guys would have to figure that out but is that
something to consider? Would that be a viable alternative to have a deeper setback on Waters?
Well you know is that, I’m asking technically from the city’s standpoint is that possible?
Aanenson: Of course anything’s an option.
Al-Jaff: Yeah.
Tietz: Okay. Would that work?
Paul Heuer: We haven’t looked at it. It scares me enough that I think the impact would be great
but I don’t know.
Tietz: There’s a nice little grove of black walnuts on that site too.
Paul Heuer: We’re trying to save a number of them.
Tietz: The 3 along the street.
Aller: Additional comments. Questions. Motions.
Weick: I’ll comment.
Aller: Commissioner Weick.
Weick: It might help explain the way I vote later. Maybe not but I think it’s a fantastic
development. I actually approve of the use of the space. The design of the buildings. The water
considerations and even the variance all the way around. However I was actually thinking when
you said the land speaks, I was actually thinking the same thing as I looked at the picture on the
site and I actually see, I see homes along 212. I see homes right along Waters Edge Drive as
well. Along those properties and I think it’s reasonable for those homeowners to expect that land
across the street to be a similar type of use and design and unfortunately I don’t think this is and
52
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
so I’m actually not in favor of rezoning. I’m in favor of everything else because I think it’s an
awesome development. I just don’t think this is the right spot for it. I’m just not in favor of
rezoning it. I also would realize that that doesn’t guarantee that a future use of this land is
exactly as the neighbors or I would want. I’m not implying that. I’m just saying based on what I
see today I don’t see this fitting.
Paul Heuer: Chairman could I make a point?
Aller: Yes please.
Paul Heuer: Could we go back to the slide showing the future, the land uses? That one. So
when we first looked at the site we saw 3 different zonings or guidance on the property. You can
see the medium density on the far northeast sliver. Some low density kind of on the northwest
part and the higher density and kind of a small sliver again on the southern part of the north part
as well as the whole southern property and when we look at trying to do something like that it’s
highly impractical and I’m not blaming anybody. We have to draw lines sometimes on maps.
That’s just the way it is but nobody would ever of course develop this with those 3 different
zones on the north side so all along we looked at this as this would have to be a blended
community. A blended zoning so when we looked at the low density, the medium density and
the high density we realized that the only real solution here if this property’s ever going to
develop is to have something that falls somewhere in the middle and that’s what we proposed.
Initially we were actually looking at a 3 story row home building and a number of things
including the height and the fear that it might be a little imposing, especially for single family
homes to the west and the north, so we pulled back from that application and changed it to
something we felt was really, really compatible which is a simple 2 story row home unit that is
still only 82 units out of the 99 that really are allowed but really fitting and looking like a single
family home to a large extent so that’s how we really got to the point that we’re at here today and
honestly when I look at this map I can’t come up with a better solution than what we came up
with.
Yusuf: May I ask?
Aller: Sure.
Yusuf: May I ask Sharmeen to please explain the total number of units allowed and how that
plays with the zoning? So I’m referring to page 6. The table on page 6. This one.
Al-Jaff: Okay. So what we have is a mix of densities permitted by the land use plan. The
residential low density portion of the site consists of 4.9 acres at 4 units per acre. That would
give us 20 units. The medium density portion consists of 2.059 acres at 8 units per acre
maximum so that’s the 16 units and then the residential high density or mixed use that we see on
the plan, along the northern portion we have 1.13 acres at 16 units per acre. That translates to 18
units. The southern portion is 2.8 acres, translates to 45 units at 16. The total number of units
53
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
permitted is 99 units on that site. One thing I do need to point out is the portion of the high
density along the southern portion includes vacation of some right-of-way. Without it they
would be at 95 units. They are still below the maximum permitted by ordinance. By land use.
Yusuf: So thank you. So the reason why I wanted you to go over it again is just looking at the
north parcel it adds up to 54 and it does look a little dense when you just look at it as blocks and
I thought we talked about 64. So that’s why I was hoping you could just clarify.
Al-Jaff: Absolutely. One of the other things that we looked at within a planned unit
development, you have the ability to transfer densities. We looked at the best layout possible
within that development and that is the layout that is presented to you. One of the things that
could potentially happen is where you have the concentrations of the mixed use, these units
could become apartment buildings. That’s what we’re trying to avoid. We are trying to disperse
the density within the development. Again that medium, they are below the medium density of
maximum of 8 units per acre and it’s that transition zone between the high density and the low
density development of single family homes.
Yusuf: Thank you.
Al-Jaff: Sure.
Aller: Commissioner Madsen.
Madsen: So Sharmeen if I’m understanding this correctly, so one option would have been to put
a second apartment building next to the first one which would back up to single family homes
and the density would, the zoning would support that. That wouldn’t be very great for those
single family homes so rather than, so then you transferred some of that density to the north site.
Al-Jaff: Yes, that’s exactly what we did.
Madsen: But then some people who were thinking that only single family homes were going to
be there, it’s now row homes because of that transfer, is that correct?
Al-Jaff: Yes, correct.
Madsen: Okay, thank you.
Aller: And the properties within the district which would require a 50 percent open space or in
the medium density in the north as well. So they could cluster against Waters Edge and leave the
balance of their property on the other side vacant.
Al-Jaff: That’s correct.
54
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
Aller: Okay.
Paul Heuer: Chairman?
Aller: Yes.
Paul Heuer: There’s one other complication. I think one of the reasons this property has not
developed for some time is the shoreland district and by complication I mean typically when you
have to have 50 percent open space most cities don’t allow that to be back yards of single family
homes because a homeowner owns that property. They can go out and dig holes. They can put
fire pits in. They can add impervious surface pretty much at free will. Apartment complexes or
association maintained row homes like this have an association that owns and controls that
property. That is acceptable to the DNR and most cities in terms of shoreland districts. Single
family homes can’t be controlled so most cities will not count the back yards of single family
homes as open space to accommodate that 50 percent requirement so that’s a real sticking point
that I think a number of people came across as they’ve looked at this property. Apartment
complex, you know the City didn’t want. Single family home can’t work because of the
shoreland district so this is really all that’s left. Something mid density that has an association
maintained open space.
Weick: Is that true in Chanhassen?
Aanenson: I would just comment on that. It was under contract for quite a while with a twin
home project. It couldn’t work. The developer couldn’t make it work for density for profit for
just to get the layout in the shoreland.
Weick: Okay.
Aanenson: We didn’t look at it with a mix of single family. It was pure twin homes trying to
spread that. It’s been under contract for a number of different projects. This is the furthest one
that’s.
Weick: Okay.
Tietz: Kate is some of that driven by the cost of the land?
Aanenson: Of course. Of course.
Tietz: So yeah, at some point.
Aanenson: But also the goal of the city is not to, their first choice was not to put an apartment
building there.
55
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
Tietz: Yeah, no I understand that but obviously some projects don’t come to fruition simply
because the economics don’t work and the cost of land versus construction.
Aanenson: Agreed.
Tietz: And then the sale price.
Aanenson: Correct. And expectation for just the loss of density by doing a twin home project
only and not being able to pencil that.
Tietz: Okay.
Aller: Additional comments. Questions as we work through this. Does anybody want to make a
motion one way or another? Is there more information or other questions that people would like
to have presented before you make a decision?
Audience: Can you hear from the public anymore or not?
Aller: The public hearing is closed ma’am. Thank you though. Commissioner Madsen.
Madsen: A comment would be that you know it’s difficult if you want to preserve the value of
the homes and as it’s currently zoned an apartment building that close would likely lower the
value of the homes more than a townhome development so by transferring the density it does
seem to be a good option. I’m not sure I like the variance for the 25 to 30 feet. It would be nice
if you could at least move it back a little bit from the residential homes to the 30 feet.
Aller: Do you feel strongly enough about that to make a motion of some sort?
Randall: I can make the motion. Ready?
Aller: Please, Commissioner Randall.
Randall: The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Planning
Case 17-12 for West Park as shown on the plans received May 18, 2017, subject to conditions of
approval. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the site for the construction of 82
townhomes for the Planning Case 17-12 for West Park as shown on the plans received May 18,
2017 subject to conditions of approval. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the
variance requested by, for Planning Case 17-12 that allows for a 25 foot setback from Waters
Edge Drive, Lake Susan Drive, Highway 101 and as shown in plans received May 18, 2017
subject to conditions of approval. The Planning Commission recommends approval of rezoning
the property located at the southeast of Waters Edge Drive, west of Great Plains Boulevard,
north of Highway 212, bisected by Lake Susan Drive with the approximate area of 9.8 acres
from Residential Single Family and Planned Unit Development to Planned Unit Development
56
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
Residential incorporating design standards. Planning Case 17-12 subject to the conditions of
approval an adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision.
Aller: So I have a motion by Commissioner Randall. Do I have a second?
Undestad: Second.
Aller: Having a motion and a second. Any further comments?
Madsen: So if I disagree with a portion of one of those do I just vote no overall?
Aller: You would vote no or you can request that an amendment to his motion be made at this
point. So you can request that the motion be amended to deal with terms and conditions that you
could like to see.
Madsen: Okay I request a motion to amend it to allow a 30 foot setback from Waters Edge
Drive.
Aller: So your motion would be to amend.
Madsen: The variance request.
Aller: Amend that variance request portion of the original motion and do I have a.
Aanenson: I think the rules of order would be the person that made the motion would have to
accept the friendly amendment.
Aller: Is it accepted?
Randall: Yeah we can allow that. Just kidding.
Madsen: Yeah maybe we should do it separate?
Randall: But is that going to be a problem I mean if they can’t move forward with this at a 30
foot that’s going to be an issue with the variance, correct?
Aller: Yeah because your motion references plans.
Randall: Yeah.
Weick: It would just mean that some of the properties along Waters Edge would not be able to
have additions.
57
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
Aller: Correct. That’s what technically it would as it stands.
Weick: Which may or may not be economically feasible. I don’t know.
Aller: So you’re not accepting?
Randall: We’ll accept it. That’s fine. I don’t know what kind of an impact it’s going to have on
it though without going back into it.
Yusuf: Can we make the motions as we have them but separate? Can we break them up?
Aller: I don’t think we can because the motion.
Aanenson: There’s a motion on the floor and it’s been amended so you should probably or he’ll
have to withdraw it.
Randall: Just vote on it and then.
Aller: So let’s just vote on it.
Randall: And then someone else can make another motion correct? No?
Weick: I don’t think so.
Randall: Let’s just vote on it then.
Aller: Okay so we’re voting on the motion as amended and accepted by the author as an
amendment.
Randall: Correct.
Aller: And do I have a second to that? Would you like to re-second the new motion? So there is
basically a new motion before us and that motion changes the setback requirement to 30 feet on
Waters Edge Drive. So the question is would someone like to second it in which case it’s voted
on. If there’s no second then it would die for lack of a second.
Aanenson: Mr. Chair Mark Undestad seconded the motion so.
Aller: He seconded the original.
Aanenson: Yeah so he would yeah.
58
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
Aller: But we have a new motion before us. And so what I’m hearing or not hearing is going to
result in this, your present motion dying for lack of a second. So that motion fails for lack of a
second and then we’re still at square one.
Randall: So are we back at the original motion?
Aller: If you’d like to make that motion again.
Randall: So re-read the whole thing?
Aller: So let’s just say if you want to make the motion that you’re making the motion as
previously stated.
Randall: I’ll make the motion as previously stated.
Aller: Without amendment.
Randall: Without amendment.
Yusuf: I’ll second that.
Aller: And we have a new second by Commissioner Yusuf. So any further discussion or
requests for amendments or, seeing none.
Randall moved, Yusuf seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
preliminary plat for Planning Case 17-12 for West Park as shown on the plans received May
18, 2017, subject to conditions of approval:
Engineering
1. The existing topographic survey shall include the existing first floor elevations of nearby
structures such as 8751 Waters Edge Drive and 721 Lake Susan Drive.
2. Spot elevations shall be shown at the center of proposed driveways at the curb line so the
driveway grade can be verified.
3. The backyard drainage on Lot 12 shall be revised to a minimum of 2%.
4. Draintile is required for all lots where stormwater runoff will flow from the back to the
front of the property. Draintile shall be shown on the plans between Blocks 11 and 12.
5. The applicant shall work with Carver County to see if the FES from their pond outlet can
be combined with the county’s culvert to eliminate the low spot adjacent to this site.
6. The plan shall show EOF locations and elevation for all basins on site.
59
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
7. The applicant shall submit a finalized, signed soil boring report.
8. Top and bottom wall elevations shall be shown on the grading plan.
9. This wall shall be owned and maintained by a Homeowners Association (HOA).
10. The development plans shall call out the material of the retaining wall. The following
materials are prohibited for retaining wall construction: smooth face, poured in place
concrete (stamped or patterned is acceptable), masonry, railroad ties and timber.
11. Boulder walls shall not be taller than six feet.
12. As an existing public trail is located within the vacation area, the applicant shall grant a
trail easement to the city prior to recording the vacation.
13. As existing public utilities are located within the vacation area, the applicant shall grant a
drainage and utility easement to the city prior to recording the vacation.
14. The applicant shall have their survey confirm location of all easements with a recent title
commitment prior to final plat.
15. The retaining wall and entry monuments are proposed within drainage and utility
easements. These elements require an encroachment agreement prior to their
construction.
16. The private sidewalks constructed within city right-of-way require an encroachment
agreement.
17. All private streets will be owned and maintained by a Homeowners Association.
18. The street profiles show changes of grade without the vertical curves. The applicant’s
engineer shall work with city staff to either remove these grade changes or incorporate
vertical curves into the profile.
19. The applicant shall include the horizontal alignment tabulation for all street in the plans
prior to final plat.
20. Street lights shall be installed at the intersections with public streets. This light shall be
owned by the city and maintained by MVEC (Minnesota Valley Electric Company). A
$300 fee shall be collected with the development contract for electricity costs for the first
year of operation.
21. The driveway for Lot 1, Block 2 of the southern parcel must be adjusted to meet
Stonegate Road at a 90 degree angle.
22. The net SWMP Fee due at the time of final plat of the northern parcel is $59,997.66.
23. The net SWMP Fee due at the time of final plat of the southern parcel is $20,509.89.
60
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
24. For 64 units on the northern parcel, the sanitary partial fee is $44,224.00 and the water
partial fee is $137,408.00.
25. For 18 units on the southern parcel, the sanitary partial fee is $12,438.00 and the water
partial fee is $38,646.00.
26. The remaining hook-up fees will be due with the building permit at the rate in effect at
that time.
PARK AND TRAIL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Full park fees in lieu of additional parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be
collected as a condition of approval for the West Park Residential Subdivision. The park
fees will be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval.
Based upon the current residential park fee rates of $3,800 per multi-family/apartment
dwelling, the total park fees will be $311,600
2. (82 units x $3,800 each).
All voted in favor, except Commissioners Weick and Madsen who opposed, and the motion
carried with a vote of 5 to 2.
Randall moved, Yusuf seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
site plan for the construction of 82 townhouses for Planning Case 17-12 for West Park, as
shown on the plans received May 18, 2017, subject to conditions of approval;
Engineering:
The Engineering Department recommends approval of the final plat subject to the following
conditions:
1. The applicant shall submit the full SWPPP document to the City for review prior to
grading on site.
2. The plans shall identify the areas intended for stockpiling materials on site during
construction.
3. No parking signage shall be installed at all turnarounds to keep them open for public
safety access.
4. The plan shall be adjusted to provide sufficient length of roadway for Lot 6, Block 7 to
turn onto their street from their driveway.
5. All private street signage shall comply with the MN Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices.
61
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
6. The parking lot near Block 13 must be revised to have 9-foot wide stalls, even at their
narrowest point.
7. All parking lots shall be revised to provide a 26-foot drive aisle and 18-foot long spaces.
8. The parking lot off Stonegate Road shall be revised to provide a 10-foot by 26 foot
turnaround.
9. The sidewalk and pedestrian ramps shall be constructed per the Chanhassen Standard
Detail Plates.
10. All sidewalks internal to the site shall be owned and maintained by the HOA.
11. The sidewalk connection parallel to Lake Susan Drive shall be owned and maintained by
the City.
12. The HOA shall be responsible for snow maintenance on sidewalks adjacent to HOA
property.
13. To reduce future maintenance needs for the City, SAN MH 8 location shall be adjusted to
eliminate the need for SAN MH 7.
14. The applicant shall revise plans to call out the size of proposed water main.
15. A gate valve shall be added to the plan between Block 5 and 8 prior to construction.
16. The plan shall be revised to remove CB 400, as the adjacent upstream catchbasin will
replace the one removed with construction of the Blue Heron Drive access.
17. The applicant’s engineer shall add a column to the stormwater pipe/structure table to list
the velocities of the pipes.
18. The stormwater pipe sizes shall be revised to no smaller than 15-inch diameter, the
minimum size allowed for ease of future maintenance.
19. Stormwater pipe within the development shall be privately owned and maintained.
20. The storm sewer/water main crossing near CB MH 702 may be in conflict. The
applicant’s engineer shall verify this when the utility profiles are drafted.
21. The applicant shall meet the minimum requirements for stormwater set forth in City Code
§9-VII and requirements of the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District.
22. The applicant must obtain a permit from RPBCWD prior to grading the site.
23. The applicant is responsible for obtaining permits from applicable regulatory agencies
(MDH, MPCA, MnDOT, etc.) prior to construction.
Building Conditions:
62
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
1. Accessibility must be provided to all portions of the development and a percentage of the
units may also be required to be accessible or adaptable in accordance with Minnesota State
Building Code Chapter 1341. Further information is needed to determine these requirements.
2. Buildings are required to be protected with an automatic sprinkler system. For the purposes
of this requirement property lines do not constitute separate buildings.
3. The buildings will be required to be designed by an architect and engineer as determined by
the Building Official.
4. The developer must submit a list of proposed street name(s) to the Fire Marshal and Building
Official for review and approval prior to final plat of the property.
5. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures on the site.
Application for such permits must include hazardous substances investigation and proposed
mitigation reports.
6. A final grading plan and geotechnical (soils evaluation) report must be submitted to the
Inspections Division before permits will be issued.
7. Walls and projections within 5 feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire-
resistive construction.
8. Retaining walls over four feet high require a permit and must be designed by a professional
engineer.
9. Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services.
10. The developer and/or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible
to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
Fire Marshal
1. A three-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants.
2. Street signs (temporary allowed) shall be installed prior to building permits being
issued. Fire Chief must approve signage.
3. Prior to combustible construction fire hydrants shall be made serviceable.
63
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
4. Prior to combustible home construction fire apparatus access roads capable of supporting
the weight of fire apparatus shall be made serviceable.
5. Relocate the fire hydrant on Stonegate road eighty (80) feet to the west. (At the
intersection of Stonegate and Stonegate)
6. On Eagle View Road add a fire hydrant between block 5 and block 6.
7. In order to avoid duplicating street names, submit new proposed street names to Fire
Chief and Building Official for review and approval.
Planning
1. Approval of this site plan is contingent upon approval of the final plat for Gateway North.
2. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement.
3. The building shall comply with the Planned Unit Development building setback
requirements”
All voted in favor, except Commissioners Wieck and Madsen who opposed, and the motion
carried with a vote of 5 to 2.
Randall moved, Yusuf seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
variance request for Planning Case 17-12 to allow a 25-foot setback from Waters Edge
Drive, Lake Susan Drive, and Highway 101, as shown on the plans received May 18, 2017,
subject to conditions of approval:
1. Approval of the Variance is contingent upon approval of the Site Plan and Subdivision
applications for Planning Case 17-12.
All voted in favor, except Commissioners Weick and Madsen who opposed, and the motion
carried with a vote of 5 to 2.
Randall moved, Yusuf seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
rezoning the property located at the southeast of Waters Edge Drive, west of Great Plains
Boulevard, north of Highway 212 and bisected by Lake Susan Drive with an approximate
area of 9.8 acres from Residential Single Family and Planned Unit Development to Planned
Unit Development-Residential, incorporating design standards:
WEST PARK
64
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
PUD DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS
a. Intent
The purpose of this zone is to create a RESIDENTIAL PUD. The use of the PUD zone
is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more
sensitive development. Each structure proposed for development shall proceed through
site plan review based on the development standards outlined below.
b. Permitted Uses
The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to four, five, and six plex
complexes.
The total number of units for the entire site may not exceed 99 units.
c. Setbacks
The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The
following table displays those setbacks.
Boundary Building/ Parking
Setbacks (feet)
Highway 101 25/10 *
Highway 212 25/25
Northerly Project Property Line 25/25
Westerly Project Property Line 25/20
Internal Project property lines 0 /0
Hard Surface Coverage-Residential 50 %
Maximum Residential Building/Structure Height 35 or 3 stories,
whichever is less
* parking setbacks maybe reduced to 10 feet if full screening is provided.
d. Residential Building Materials and Design
Buildings and site design shall comply with design standards outlined in Article XXIII.
General Supplemental Regulations, Division 9 of the Zoning Ordinance.
1. All units shall have access onto an interior private street.
2. A design palette shall be approved for the entire project. The palette shall include
colors for siding, shakes, shutters, shingles, brick, stone, etc.
3. All foundation walls shall be screened by landscaping or retaining walls.
65
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
4. All adjoining units must exhibit different exterior design features and color.
e. Site Landscaping and Screening
The intent of this section is to improve the appearance of vehicular use areas and property
abutting public rights-of-way; to require buffering between different land uses; and to
protect, preserve and promote the aesthetic appeal, character and value of the surrounding
neighborhoods; to promote public health and safety through the reduction of noise
pollution, air pollution, visual pollution and glare.
1. The landscaping standards shall provide for screening for visual impacts associated
with a given use, including but not limited to parking areas, utility boxes, unadorned
building massing, etc.
2. All open spaces and non-parking lot surfaces, except for the fire pit area, shall be
landscaped, rockscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material.
3. Undulating berms, shall be sodded or seeded at the conclusion of grading and utility
construction. The required buffer landscaping may be installed where it is deemed
necessary to screen any proposed development. All required boulevard landscaping
shall be sodded.
4. Native species shall be incorporated into site landscaping, whenever possible.
f. Street Furnishings
Benches, trash receptacles, planters and other street furnishings should be of design and
materials consistent with the character of the area. Wherever possible, street furnishings
should be consolidated to avoid visual clutter and facilitate pedestrian movement.
g. Signage
The intent of this section is to establish an effective means of communication in the
development, maintain and enhance the aesthetic environment, to improve pedestrian and
traffic safety, to minimize the possible adverse effect of signs on nearby public and
private property, and to enable the fair and consistent enforcement of these sign
regulations. It is the intent of this section, to promote the health, safety, general welfare,
aesthetics, and image of the community by regulating signs that are intended to
communicate to the public, and to use signs which meet the city's goals:
a. Preserve and promote civic beauty, and prohibit signs which detract from this
objective because of size, shape, height, location, condition, cluttering or
illumination;
b. Ensure that signs do not create safety hazards;
66
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
c. Ensure that signs are designed, constructed, installed and maintained in a manner that
does not adversely impact public safety or unduly distract motorists;
d. Preserve and protect property values;
e. Ensure signs that are in proportion to the scale of, and are architecturally compatible
with, the principal structures;
g.1. Monument Sign:
One monument sign shall be permitted at the entrances to the development off of Lake
Susan Drive. These signs shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign display area nor be
greater than five feet in height. These signs shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from
the property line.
g.2. Sign Design and Permit Requirements:
a. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect the quality
of the development. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material and
height throughout the development. A common theme will be introduced at the
development's entrance monument and will be used throughout.
b. All signs require a separate sign permit.
h. Lighting
1. Lighting for the interior of the development shall be consistent throughout the
development. Fixtures with decorative natural colored pole shall be used throughout the
development in parking and street lighting. Decorative, pedestrian scale lighting shall be
used in the fire pit area and sidewalk areas and may be used in parking lot areas.
2. Light fixtures should be kept to a pedestrian scale (12 to 18 feet).
3. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than
½ candle at the project perimeter property line. This does not apply to street lighting.
i. Residential Parking shall comply with city code requirements.
All voted in favor, except for Commissioners Weick and Madsen who opposed, and the
motion carried with a vote of 5 to 2.
Randall moved, Yusuf seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Planning Case 17-12 subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached
67
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
Findings of Fact and Decision. All voted in favor, except for Commissioners Weick and
Madsen who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 2.
Aller: So the motion carries.
Aanenson: This item does go to the Planning Commission on July, City Council excuse me. City
th
Council on July 10.
th
Aller: And it will go to City Council on July 10. At this point it is 10:00. Our by-laws state that
we will go til 10:30 except for longer hearings so let’s take a 5 minute recess to let individuals
clear the room a little bit and we’ll come back and hit item 3. We are in recess.
(The Planning Commission took a 5 minute recess at this point in the meeting.)
Aller: Thank you. We’ll go ahead and continue with tonight’s Planning Commission meeting
and we have our last public hearing of the night and it’s item 3 on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING:
VENUE/ALDI – UNITED PROPERTIES: REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW
FOR A 134 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING AND A 19,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL
BUILDING (ALDI) WITH VARIANCES AND A REGISTERED LAND SURVEY FOR
PROPERTY ZONED CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD) LOCATED ON THREE
TH
PARCELS SOUTH OF WEST 78 STREET BETWEEN CHANHASSEN DINNER
THEATERS AND HIGH TIMBER LOUNGE. APPLICANT/OWNER: CHANHASSEN
FRONTIER LLC.
Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. Pleasure to finally be up here today.
Last week I was on vacation so it’s a little different. This is a site plan review and a registered
land survey that’s going to be recommended for this development. There is a variance included
in this. It’s because of the existing driveway on the north side of the property. It’s tied into the
properties both to the east and the west and the design is going to remain the same and so they
don’t meet the new standards for our parking lot but they would be keeping what they have in
place but technically because they are changing the use of the property we had to notice this as a
variance. The applicant is Chanhassen Frontier, LLC. This is the public hearing with the
th
Planning Commission. This item goes to the City Council on July 10. The property’s located
th
at 525 West 78 Street. It’s to the west of the Chanhassen Dinner Theater and east of the hotel
building and the High Timber Lounge. It’s an existing retail building with some businesses or
office units on the second floor of the development. I should note that as part of this we received
4 emails and I provided copies for the Planning Commission. These will become part of the
public records. The project consists of 3 parcels. They’re not, only one of them is platted. The
others are metes and bounds. Or 2 of them are parts of plats and one is a metes and bounds
description. This property is located in the heart of downtown. There are multiple businesses in
the area and has easy accessibility to other commercial areas as well as residential and
government uses. To the southwest of this building is the park and ride site for Southwest
Transit. The development would have easy pedestrian access to this. Primarily access to the
68
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
th
property is from West 78 Street. It has a shared access with the Chanhassen Dinner Theater on
the east side, northeast side and then another access with the hotel on the west at the intersection.
It also has access via Market Street from the south. So which has both access to Market Street
and Great Plains Boulevard. The request before you is a site plan review for 134 units, 6 story
apartment building and the one story, 19,000 square foot retail building which is to be leased by
Aldi with a variance for the existing drive aisles on the north side of the property. It’s also a
request for a land survey, registered land use creating 2 parcels out of the existing 3 parcels that
are on the site. Normally we would handle this administratively but registered land surveys are
required to go through the hearing process that we have for subdivisions. We are actually
reducing the number of lots that are out there with this development. The building is stepped
th
back from West 78 Street. It’s 145 feet to the front of the apartment building. The commercial
portion of the building is a one story, 16 foot tall building. The apartment buildings have 5
stories on the north side and then they’re stepped back to the 6 story which would be on the
south side. The property is guided for commercial land use. It’s zoned central business district.
Within the central business district retail uses and multi-family dwellings are permitted uses.
The central business district does not have any maximum hard surface coverage. However as
part of this project they are going to be providing improvements to the City’s surface water
management to treat the stormwater that is coming off the site. No maximum site coverage and
also there’s no minimum setback requirements for any of the uses within the CBD. This is our
most permissive district if it will. It permits both commercial and residential uses and it has no
restrictions on building height, building site coverage, any of that. Pedestrian access is being
enhanced as part of this proposed development. The site plan variance again maintains the drive
aisle widths along this north property, parking lot area and the parking lot stalls along on the very
north. These are supposed to be 18 feet and it’s 17 foot deep stalls. A 26 foot aisle. This is a 25
foot aisle that’s existing in place. But then it jumps over to 18 ½ feet as you go farther south and
then this portion would comply with city ordinances. It does tie in with the parking lot to the
hotel and then access into the Dinner Theater site. Again the residential component consists of
134 units. A six story building. The commercial component is a 19,000 square foot retail
building. Okay building materials are shown on page 5 of the staff report. The commercial
building has a first story is a tan colored brick. Tan colored brick with the faux cement board,
wood material and then it has also the white metal panels that are on the lower right corner of the
view on your screen. They’re proposing to have architectural graphics on the building to help
provide additional interest to the east of the entrance and then also on the west side adjacent to
the parking lot. And here you can see this is the faux wood material. The lower level and
around the side in the back is where the tan brick materials are and then this is one of the
architectural panels as well as on the west elevation. Here you can see the loading dock actually
th
faces West 78 Street but it drops down approximately 4 feet. There’s a 10 foot elevation drop
between the north side of the property and the south side. Underneath the commercial building
will be the parking area for the residences and then the registered land survey is to create the lot
area for the commercial building on top of the residential garages and so it’s both a 3
dimensional description that will be developed as part of that. However we need to wait until we
get the final building in place so they can actually survey and come up with the description for
that exact location. It’s basically where the commercial building will be and so that’s why we’re
giving it preliminary approval now. When they get the final description in there then council
will approve the final registered land survey and we’ll have that recorded at Carver County. The
residential part of the building consists of multiple building materials, projections and recesses
69
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
within it. There’s a lot of articulation. It uses all the brick types. The two different brick types
that we have and all the other building material samples that are included as part of this
application. The bottom portion of this shows that the architectural graphics that they’re
proposing in the full window areas adjacent to the loading ramp area. One condition that we
have is that they not be individual items that may be sold within the building but rather like a
field of wheat for instead of having loaves of bread or whatever so we’ll work with them as they
come forward. Again the south elevation is the tallest part of the building. This is part of the, on
the top floor they have a community room with a patio area for the residents of the apartment
building. The mid-point of this roof is at 77 feet. We hear people are concerned about the height
of this building. This roof line is about, approximately 72 feet and then when you drop down to
the 5 story building you’re at 59 feet. For reference the Children’s Learning Adventure has a 50
foot tall elevation on it’s south side so if people want to get relative growth in that. The lower
level also has, this is the parking garage entrance. They are proposing on the east side that they
also have an overhead door to assist the residents when they move in. You’ll see as they go
forward that they have this entry for the residential with the elevator shafts behind it. On this
end is where they’re going to have the new overhead door. Underground parking. This is on the
lower level. It’s 10 feet below the level, the first floor level. Their ground floor level which is
th
ground floor on West 78 Street has their common space and their offices. Their main entrance
is located in the northeast portion of the building. I should note that parking for the retail portion
of this development is the parking lot on the north side of the building. The residential would be
the south. Some of the site constraints for this are that they have cross access and cross parking
agreements with adjacent properties. For this development our review looked at only the parking
on site to meet the minimum standards that are required. They do comply with all the
requirements in the zoning ordinance for that. Within the entire development there are 134 units
of which 11 are studio units, 48 are one bedroom, 9 are one bedroom plus a den, 62 units are two
bedrooms and 4 units are 3 bedrooms and a den. The first through the fourth floors of this
building all have the same layout. Footprints and then on the top, the sixth, fifth floor, sixth floor
has, is only on the south side of the building so it overlooks both the commercial component and
then the 5 stories of the east wing of the residential component. As part of their development
they are proposing that this roof area be a green roof so it provides stormwater mitigation on the
property. As part of this they will be tearing out all the parking lot areas on the south side and
providing new landscaping areas. They are looking at potentially modifying their landscaping
here subject to approval with the neighbors to shift a privacy fence down. Landscaping complies
with city ordinance. Site utilities, I did do this. They are providing an underground stormwater
management system. Sewer and water services available to the site so they will connect to city
services. And storm water improvement is primarily this underground system plus the use of the
green roof so that will provide their additional treatment. They are working on a grant
application through the Metropolitan Council to see if we can assist with that installation. There
was some concern with continuing the truck access to the Dinner Theater to the east. The
applicant has provided a couple drawings to show that they believe that it can be done. However
there’s one condition, engineering condition number 3 that says they work with the City and the
neighboring property to verify that that can be done. The registered land survey again will
create 2 parcels out of the 3 that are on site. The one parcel will be for the commercial building.
Again it will be described in 3 dimensions because the site drops down and it will be on the roof
if you will of the underground parking area and the rest of the property will be the balance of the
site. I should point out that on page 9 of the staff report there were some traffic analysis
70
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
numbers. There was a, we believe a math error as part of that. We think you should, we should
have added the two numbers together and come up with the total which is, what was that? Like
277 total trips. Because you’d add the trips to the grocery and the trips for the apartment. The
apartments are adding very few trips during the peak hours. They should be accommodated
under the City’s existing street system. We are looking at some potential improvements or
consolidation of access on the south side on Market Street with the property to the west because
we have 2 entrances and exits right next to each other and so the engineering and the applicant
will work to see if we can correct that. Staff is recommending approval of the site plan. I should
note that you have to add, there’s a phrase subject to conditions of approval in the staff report so
variance with the existing drive aisle widths subject to the conditions of approval. Approval of
the registered land survey to create the two lots. One for the commercial site and the other for
the apartment building and adoption of Findings of Fact and Recommendation and I did note
today in the Findings of Fact that the developer is Chanhassen Frontier, LLC. Not the holding
company that is in there so if you’d just make that correction. Note that correction and then we
will correct it all before we go to City Council. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions.
Aller: Anyone want to jump in?
Tietz: I just had a question for Bob.
Aller: Commissioner Tietz.
Tietz: On the shared parking arrangement. The shared parking on the south side there’s a lot of
current theater parking I assume at certain times of the week or day or night. On the north side I
would assume that sometimes there’s overflow, well now with the new parking garage there’s
probably not as much as there used to be for the Dinner Theater but that’s all been taken into
account? And it’s understood that it would be adequate for both.
Aanenson: Yep, and that’s a great question. So when we did Southwest Transit we actually
hired a consultant to look at the parking in that overall plan because at that time we knew there
was a potential for redevelopment in this area so there’s a large pivot table with each use on there
and then looking at peak demand so it uses 3 different models. Our zoning ordinance. Best
practices from the traffic institute and then ULI and they model all those so when a use comes
we adjust that model but yes, the parking does work. That was one of the first things that we
discussed as this project went forward how that would work.
Tietz: Okay.
Aanenson: So a lot of it again is the peak demand offsetting with the Southwest Transit. Night
time use Dinner Theater and yeah.
Tietz: Okay, thanks.
Aller: Am I understanding correctly though that on it’s own the underground parking and the
parking that’s available to it this would past mustard with our present parking zoning.
71
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
Generous: That’s correct. It meets the minimum standards of 362. Not including they have
cross access agreements that they can use also.
Aller: Right so then they have additional cross access which allows for additional parking and,
okay. It appears from the staff report that it meets all the requirements presently as far as
lighting and location and placement so setbacks, all those things that we typically would look at
on a project and are looking at, it meets those requirements.
Generous: That’s correct Mr. Chairman and the only variance is for the existing parking lot
configuration. Otherwise it complies with our ordinances.
Aller: Commissioner Madsen.
Madsen: Could you go over how the grocery semi truck delivery will navigate through that area
and get to the loading dock and then leave. I think there’s a page.
Generous: Yeah it’s in, Commissioner Madsen it’s in our report but they come in off of Market
Street and they’ll pull up this alley way if you will between the Cinema and the building and then
th
just back into the parking stall. Then they would be able to leave out to West 78 Street.
Madsen: So it has to depart, it has to drive in front of the entrance to the grocery store and the
entrance to the apartment building to depart?
Generous: Yes. Or it could go west too and then out that driveway. But it has to go north.
Madsen: Okay I just didn’t know if there’s any safety concerns with, because that’s the parking
area for the retail and I guess I don’t know when the semi trucks deliver the groceries.
Aanenson: I guess it’d be similar to like Lakewinds, how they operate on their’s. It cuts through
the parking lot to load in.
Madsen: Okay.
Aanenson: Yeah, similar to that.
Madsen: So they’re able to maneuver through there? Okay, thank you.
Aller: Okay, any additional questions? Commissioner Randall.
Randall: I know you probably brought it up but what’s the height of the parking ramp in
comparison to the 6 floor? I guess is there, if we were looking at those two is it going to be
comparable to that or is this going to be the Chanhassen skyscraper or?
Aanenson: You’re talking about the Southwest parking ramp.
Randall: Yes, correct.
72
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
Aller: Right.
Randall: The one that’s right near it.
Generous: Yeah that’s a 3 story.
Aanenson: It has potential for one more story.
Generous: It’s the, I know more about the hotel. That’s a 3 story building and it has a 20 foot
roof. Gabled roof on there so it would slightly taller. The back part would be slightly taller than
that.
Randall: Okay.
Aller: Anything from this side? Alright. We’ll hear from the applicant. If the applicant could
step forward and state your name and address and representational capacity and tell us about
your project please.
Rick McKelvey: Will do. Good evening Mr. Chair, fellow commissioners. My name is Rick
McKelvey with United Properties. We’re located at 651 Nicollet Mall in Minneapolis,
Minnesota. With me here tonight is Kim Bretheim from LHB Architects, John Adam from
Silverstone Realty, Andrew Shaw from Aldi Incorporated and Nick Anderson from ISG, Aldi’s
architect and design team so should I be able to, or be unable to answer any detailed questions
there’s plenty of people that can help support me but I know it’s a cliché but I will keep it brief
tonight. Not because it’s almost 10:30 but.
Aller: Take your time.
Rick McKelvey: Thanks to Bob’s thorough report and Kate and Sharmeen who proceeded Bob
in working on this project. Staff has been really exceptional to work with. You know I’ve been
personally working on this particular development with the landowner before we acquired the
property from them for the better part of 2 years. We have market studies. Our local realty
experts. Our in-house market analysis folks and there is zero doubt in my mind that downtown
Chanhassen is short of a high quality housing option. A new housing option. I stop short of
saying a luxury housing option. It will certainly have granite counter tops, pendent lights, fans in
the restrooms, balconies. It will be a very, very nice place to live and Aldi provides a grocery
offering that’s also not here in the marketplace. You know a high quality product at a value
price. They have some different nuances to shopping at Aldi. You return your cart at the front
of the store if you want your coin back. You bring your own bags if you so choose. There’s
some things that are a little bit different but we think it’s going to appeal to a broad customer
base and frankly is just something that’s unserved in this marketplace. The design overall when
we started focusing on design rather than just form you know we were challenged here in city
hall with making this building feel like Chanhassen. I think the term might have been
Chanhasseny and we were challenged by that. I as the developer stood on the site and looked
around at the Dinner Theater and the Country Inn and Suites, the parking Southwest Metro ramp.
73
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
There’s a lot of different architectural influences happening around the perimeter of this site but
thanks to our design team they looked well beyond what I was looking at and they looked at the
library next door. They looked at the historic church on the east side of town. They looked at
the wood of the Dinner Theater which is nicely weathered by now and they really incorporated a
lot of the elements, the brick and the faux wood material into this building that I think gives it a
soft placement in downtown Chan from appearance, aesthetic standpoint but also has the bit of a
contemporary element with the lighter metal panels up at the roof line. So we think it turned out
great. Aldi has been exceptional to work with. You know their prototypical store, a free
standing store on a 2 ½ acre parcel so that they again see the hole in the market here I believe for
their use and they’ve really worked with our design team to come up with a store design that
compliments the look that we were aiming for so. I’ll leave it at that and open it up for any
questions that you have. Thank you.
Aller: Questions at this point?
Tietz: I just have one.
Aller: Commissioner Tietz.
Tietz: I noticed in the document that since LHB has done such a great job and as noted for their
green roofs and their green architecture, I’m surprised that Aldi with their being the German
group with high expectations has nixed the idea of a green roof on top of the Aldi.
Rick McKelvey: Well the green roof comes with it’s own set of challenges obviously well
beyond cost. Maintenance. This is on the north side of the building. It’s shadowed from the
south and east by the apartment building. A green roof we were questioning the viability and
frankly the maintenance and upkeep and really the appeal of that roof to the residents that were
looking out their balconies or bedroom windows onto the roof and we believe that a ballasted
rock roof as opposed to a green roof will have just as much appeal and frankly will be less
maintenance and less problem than a green roof and we intend to pick a ballast that will
compliment the building, whether it’s a river rock or a gray type of granite we’re yet to identify
the ballast specifically.
Tietz: Okay, thanks. Good explanation.
Aller: Why so tall? I’m sure you’ve heard that around the neighborhood.
Rick McKelvey: Because one of our goals was to maximize the density of the site that’s
common in downtown markets that we work in now. This is virtually maximizing the density
which as we all know is limited by parking. We think it, even though it is slightly taller than our
neighbors we kept the tallest element to the south, the lower used street in Market Street and we
think it fits well. It provides 250 plus residents right into downtown to shop and eat and walk
and hopefully liven up the place a bit.
Aller: Additional questions at this time? Alright seeing none, thank you sir.
74
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
Rick McKelvey: Thank you.
Aller: Would any of the other individuals that you’ve come like to add anything to the
presentation before I open the public hearing? Seeing none we’ll open up the public hearing so
an individual that’s present can come forward. State your name and address for the record and
your position please.
Patrick Haney: Patrick Haney. I’m at 30 Sandy Hook Road. Also a member of the board for the
Colonial Grove Homeowners Association up there and so I’ve talked to a few folks within the
community. I can’t say that I represent everybody there and everybody’s opinion but the general
feedback I’ve received is two fold. One, they welcome the density. They do like the idea of
redevelopment of downtown. Downtown Chanhassen really can’t compete right now with
downtown Excelsior. Downtown Wayzata. Downtown Edina. I’d say Eden Prairie but they
don’t have a downtown. So the density is welcomed. There are two things that we feel or that is
pretty consistent across the board that was missed and is not done correctly on this. One, and I
don’t think we have a standard as a city for this, is that if you go to some of those cities I’ve
referenced there’s store fronts. You know you walk right up to the store. The buildings aren’t
set back and I understand the idea of well let’s keep it consistent parking lots. It’s more
accessible for the grocery store but that’s something that a majority of the folks I’ve spoken with
don’t appreciate as far as this development goes. Second is the Aldi and the grocery store
concept itself. We already have about what is it 5 grocery stores downtown with Target, Lunds
and Byerlys, Cub, Lakewood, am I missing one? So the idea of additional grocery store there
doesn’t really jive with the current assets we have in our portfolio. The better concept that a lot
of folks would appreciate is more restaurants. More downtown retailers. Something where folks
can actually feel like that’s what you’re competing against as a city. If you go to the other cities
where people are spending their money when they’re going out and they want to go walk around,
they want that idea of being able to go to those shops and those restaurants. So I think we
missed the mark there. Some folks frankly aren’t appreciative of Aldi. I’m not going to say that
one way or the other of me personally. I haven’t been in an Aldi. My wife has. She didn’t
really like it so there is some contest, some folks that aren’t appreciative of that particular brand
of grocery store downtown in addition to the fact that we already have 5 grocery stores so I
would like to say that I think the overall concept is great. I like the idea of the architectural
components of trying to blend the old with the new but I would say that at this point in time I’d
recommend that you reject this particular site plan and then reconsider what it is that our
competition as a city has. What is it that the residents are leaving Chanhassen to go to other
cities to get? I think part of that is having those store fronts. Having the restaurants and having a
more walkable community and I just, I think we’re missing the mark on this and it’s not that I
would suggest that we don’t have a development here that’s 6 stories tall. I think that we should
have that. I know that other folks that are going to comment are probably going to disagree with
me but I think that the Aldi itself and the location of the building on the site plan are both misses
so I’ll take a step back and let other folks comment.
Aller: Thank you.
Dr. Pamela McGrann: Hi. I’m Dr. Pamela McGrann. I live at 6540 Fox Path in Chanhassen.
I’m speaking for 102 people that weighed in on next door regarding this development and as it
75
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
stands there was not a single person in favor. Not one. Everybody however agrees that the site
needs to be redeveloped. Everybody agrees with the concept of high density apartments.
Everybody agrees with that. What they don’t agree with is 6 stories on one side and in fact 7
stories on the back side. They also wonder if in fact this development, it’s supposed to be market
value rates but all of the apartments on the south side will be seeing and hearing the train as it
goes through and then at least a third of the apartments will be looking on the roof of Aldi. I
don’t know about you but I wouldn’t choose to be spending a ton of money for that view. I also
wanted to mention that I think the calculations regarding the parking are fanciful. If you think
that 134 unit apartment complex with potentially 250 projects folks living there is only going to
generate 49.6 trips in the morning and 58.96 trips in the evening, I just think that’s just not likely
to be true. I’m guessing that folks are calculating in that some large portion of these people will
use the Southwest Transit but what if they don’t? Then there’s not enough room for these people
th
to be getting, it’s going to be adding a ton of cars in and out on 78 Street and Market Boulevard
so I see that as an issue. The second was that I think that deliveries will be a problem at this site.
I don’t see how a semi will be able to safely deliver goods and get out of the tight spacing in
there. They’re already asking for a variance to make the spacing, if I understand it correctly
between rows of parked cars narrower than what is usually allowed. Perhaps I’m wrong but
that’s the way I read it. The next thing I wanted to mention is that, and again this is my second
th
time before you. I did come here on January 9 and I would point out that Byerly’s is within
2,000 feet. Less than half a mile of this new apartment building. The Target front door 2,200
feet. Cub Foods 1,200 feet. Lakewinds 2,000 feet. I told you in January and I’m saying again
tonight the food business is highly competitive. They operate on a one percent profit margin and
so we would add a fifth grocery store in downtown Chanhassen when we have 4. There are
people out there who are Aldi lovers. Fine. There’s an Aldi 5 miles down the road in Eden
Prairie. I think that the retail space could be better utilized and I have to say I’m a little bit tired
of hearing, oh but the developer will go away if we don’t accede to their desires and yeah you
can figure that I’m a little angry about this because I am. Because I don’t feel that anybody
listened to me last time I was here so I’m making myself heard and I’m speaking for 102 people
that weighed in just in the last 4 days online and so I guess what I’m saying is everybody
supports the development. Absolutely. High density development. Absolutely. Retail.
Absolutely. But 6 stories in the front and 7 stories in the back not so much. Is there enough
parking in this very tight and unusual parcel? I think not. So with that said I guess I’m done but
again I just want to reiterate I’m not just speaking for myself and this is not about not in my back
yard. This is about saying that we have a chance to redevelop a really important parcel and I
hope that people on the Planning Commission will actually listen and say huh, let’s try to get this
right and let’s listen to 102 people that weighed in. Thank you.
Aller: Thank you.
Breanna Boudreau-Landis: Breanna Boudreau-Landis. I live at 960 Saddlebrook Curve and I
apologize. I’m getting over a cold so I brought my water up with me. I’m kind of croaky.
Aller: That’s fine. Welcome.
Breanna Boudreau-Landis: But I live within walking distance of this development so my family
and I come down here a lot into the downtown area. I also do take the Southwest Transit but into
76
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
downtown so I’m familiar with this whole area and I just had several questions and also some
concerns about the documents that were posted online here. My biggest concern was about use
of parking on the site. According to the parking data provided in the north lot for the Aldi it
looks like there’s 92 stalls and required for retail is 94 so even though there’s parking on the
back of the building I don’t think anyone coming to the Aldi is going to actually be parking at
the rear and walking up the grade change to get, to do their grocery shopping so I think we’re
short 2 stalls right there. Overall it looks like the parking meets count however we’re 2 short in
the front. It also says an additional 39 parking stalls are available in front of the Country Inn and
Suites that's a shared. One thing that’s not taken into consideration and correct me if I’m wrong
is the employee parking on site. Is that separated out? That’s not included correct.
Aanenson: It’s included in there.
Breanna Boudreau-Landis: Oh it is included.
Aanenson: It’s not separated out.
Breanna Boudreau-Landis: Got it. So 14 employees on site, I’m assuming that’s at one time
because that would probably require for 19,000 building to be more than that. I think it’s too
many people for the parking allotted. The other concern that I have are snow removal. Where’s
the snow going? Is that going to be taking up parking spots? As well as there’s no cart corral
and I know that with Aldi you pay your quarter and get your cart. You bring your cart back, you
th
get your quarter back but in the middle of winter if I’m parking out on 78 I might leave my cart
you know or the desire might be to leave your carts so then again you’re going to have not only
th
carts in parking, taking up parking stalls but you’re going to have an eyesore along 78. Excuse
me. So I have concerns about that as well. Something else that was mentioned is the loading.
It’s really unusual to have a retail building with their dock in the front and I think that’s a
concern. Usually it’s in the back and it’s shaded. I noticed that on the documents there was a
screen for trash but there’s no screen for loading for the trucks so a couple questions I had were
when do the deliveries occur. For this type of building it’s probably once or twice a day I would
say. I’m assuming they’re not going to be at night due to the fact that the residents live on the
site as well as the Country Inn and Suites is right next door so if it’s not going to be at night it’s
going to be during the day. And on the truck turning radius document which was in the packet
that was online, truck circulation plan C-2.13. I doubt a 68 foot trailer is going to be able to
make that turn especially if cars are parked in those parking stalls. There was a comment from
the council about deliveries being taken and trucks pulling out during the middle of the day when
that parking lot is full or when there’s people walking around there and I agree I think that’s a
definite concern so if the deliveries are only during the day to not upset the residents and the
Country Inn and Suites, when does that occur? I’ve actually walked through that alley way
because I sometimes walk to the park and ride and take the bus in. It’s super narrow. I don’t
think you could get even 2 cars going inbetween there and I don’t know how a semi would do
that honestly. A couple other comments that I had. For the views here you can see the truck
dock door. So a lot of times for retailers the truck will pull in. The cab will actually leave and
th
leave the truck there so I believe from that view from 78 it’s going to be an eyesore to see a
truck there. I also would love to see more glazing looking into the building instead of the
architectural graphics. What I also call lifestyle graphics. Those tend to get old. They tend to
77
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
get dated and they don’t get switched out from the retailer as much so I would like to see some
glass or glazing and especially what’s depicted here on the front elevation which is a
strawberries. That gets old. I’d love to see glass there if we’re going to continue forward. To
move forward with this. Another comment that I had was there is a detail about the monument
sign. I don’t know if you guys had looked at that in one of the perspective views that was
provided, which is a pretty nice view. This one A-7. This actually wouldn’t look like that
because the proposed monument sign, according to the other documents would be here and it’s a
10 foot tall sign. 10 foot tall monument sign or am I getting, or maybe it’s 10. 8 by 10. Maybe
th
it’s 10 wide which is huge. On 78 there’s one lane of traffic going one way. One lane of traffic
going the other way. You don’t need a 10 by 8 foot giant monument sign when literally feet
away there’s an Aldi sign right there so I think that’s a definite eyesore as well which is
something that this can be addressed and this is site plan review at this point. So I just have a lot
of concerns about the Aldi on site. I’m totally on board with the apartment buildings. I think it’s
a great, you know especially taking the light rail, or taking the bus into downtown. I see a lot of
commuters. I think it’d be great for commuters to live there. You know if I didn’t have a family
and I was younger and coming into the city I would love to live there. I think the Aldi is where
this plan is lacking. Another comment or mention that there are grocery, tons of grocers nearby.
The Byerly’s, Cub Foods, the Lakewinds, and also Target so there’s a lot of groceries. I just
think this is a repetitive thing. And then I have concerns about the parking and the congestion. I
have children at Chanhassen Elementary which is Laredo which dead ends, well it doesn’t dead
end but it is the entrance into the Country Inn and Suites there and 3:00 in the afternoon when
school’s letting out there are buses and kids and tons of people driving at that intersection
th
between 78 and Laredo which is the entrance on the west side of the building. I just think it’s
going to be super congested there so I’d love for this Planning Commission to push back on the
proposed retail instead of doing Aldi. Someone mentioned the smaller tenants. I totally agree
with that. It’s more of a community feel. That’s my comment. Thanks.
Aller: Thank you.
Michelle Smith: I’m Michelle Smith, 7487 Saratoga Circle, Chanhassen, Minnesota.
Aller: Welcome.
Michelle Smith: I come representing about 100 people from my neighborhood in our email
group that again a lot of them had no idea that this was happening until they saw a proposed sign
in the parking lot and I just feel like coming up here now having a public hearing, we’re not
going to be heard because the city planners have already spent all this time and done all these
things without ever consulting the people who live here. I’ve lived where I live for 30 years and
I would love for my downtown to be redeveloped. I would love to have an art fair in the middle
or be like Excelsior or Edina. Make it a real place to come. A destination. The Dinner Theater
is a destination. Aldi is not a destination and like everyone has said we don’t need more grocery
stores. Excelsior’s not that far away. Kowalski’s is there. Kowalski’s is in Eden Prairie.
There’s no need for another grocery store. I think to have some apartments there is great. I think
going to the extreme that you could possibly go is not in the best interest of how the downtown
will look or grow. It’s traffic, as everyone has said. I’ve had to deal with the Chanhassen
Elementary school buses. Chapel Hill. There’s not room. The fire department is on my block
78
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
right outside. There’s not room. Where are people going to go? If a fire truck has to go down
there and I don’t believe that the parking is correct or the use of how much traffic is going to be
there. And they didn’t even do a study for on a weekend so I just think this isn’t the right vision.
The right plan to come into our downtown and I hope that all of us who have stayed here and
who have been rallying to get input are heard. Otherwise why have a public hearing after it’s
already been through everything because we’ve already done so much and worked so hard with
the developer to get here. I don’t think that’s the right way to do it and I don’t think the fact that
they meet our ordinances and our zoning is criteria that they should be there. I got an email from
the Mayor telling me that if they meet our criteria and our zoning ordinance we cannot deny
them to be in our city. I call bullshit on that.
Aller: Thank you.
Scott Mayer: We’re going to make this an all nighter. I’ve been on the road since 5:00 this
morning so…
Aller: I need your name and address please.
Scott Mayer: What’s that?
Aller: I need your name and address for the record.
Scott Mayer: My name is Scott Mayer. I live on 7506 Erie Avenue.
Aller: Thank you Mr. Mayer.
Scott Mayer: I think as I’ve heard people talk this has been relatively new to me as well. Just in
the last few weeks it’s come to my attention and I visited with several dozen people at different
social gatherings that we’ve had and really reflect everything that people are saying right here.
There just seems to be a lot of confusion around what the vision is for downtown you know and
as Bob said in his opening statement this is the heart of downtown that we’re talking about. So
I’m just going to read what I wrote down here and basically it just is what is the vision for
downtown Chanhassen and how does this fit in? Other towns in the area like Wayzata, Excelsior
and Victoria have adopted a more upper scale combination of retail, restaurants and housing.
Chan seems to be adopting a different approach with grocery stores, liquor stores and fast food.
I don’t disagree with redeveloping downtown. I think that would be a great idea. Along with
what other people say here I just don’t think that this fits in with what my vision would be for
continuing to live here for the next 10 or 15 years. So now we’re adding a multi-story, and this
was probably the single biggest confusion in talking to people is what does market rent mean
because it seems that a lot of people have interpreted that is assisted or low income or some other
type of subsidized rent but then I hear granite counter tops and pendulum lights and I think I
know people have talked to Todd and some other people and there doesn’t seem to, no one seems
to be able to give anyone a clear answer on what that means so I would like some clarification on
what that means. But anyway now we’re adding a multi-story market rent residential with a low
cost I guess fifth grocery story in a one square mile area and you know I just have to ask how
does this add value in local spending options for residents of Chanhassen. The, as I’ve said I’ve
79
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
talked with several dozen residents. There were several meetings tonight. Several hundred of
them were next door at the watershed meeting so there would have probably been a lot more
people here tonight if there wasn’t some conflict with that but I do think once this is explained to
people and the word kind of gets out on what’s happening here that you know you could see
several hundred or several thousand people really wanting to find out just what’s the plan. I
mean is it going to be piece meal? Apartment building. Aldi’s and then the next plan or are we
actually going to have a downtown that you know is well thought out and has some type of
vision to it. The parking thing is interesting too because I’m assuming that the development
where the Potbelly is at met the City’s parking requirement. That place is a disaster. You know
you can’t get in or out of it. You can’t turn around once you’re in there. Now they’ve got signs
up for each business so there’s only 3 parking stalls for each business that is there so I hope
whatever parking study was done you know takes into account these additional trips. You know
135 people have to go to work and they have to come home so you know I would think that’s
more than 48 trips right there. You know I think the size of the building is, I mean we’re talking
about a building that’s 25 feet taller than the peak of the hotel there. That’s more than slightly
taller. You know you’re talking a 30 percent increase over the tallest building that we’ve got
downtown right now. And yeah, I think that’s all I have. I just would like to see more structure
around what’s the long term vision? How does this fit into it? Why are we seeming to go a
different direction than a lot of the other communities in the area and is that really, you know I
moved to this town 15 years ago with my family because it had a downtown and I actually live 5
blocks from downtown for that reason and this in my mind kind of forever changes what
downtown Chanhassen is going to be and I just think we need to spend some time thinking about
if that’s what we really want. There’ll be another developer and there’ll be another project. It’s
just like some of these previous projects that there’s been a lot more questions about. There’s
been multiple developers in those projects over the years so hope you guys consider that. Thank
you.
Aller: Thank you.
Jeff Gustafson: Jeff Gustafson, 212 Lakeview Road East in Chanhassen. A number of years
back when I was in college I went to a meeting where the tag line was you know $75,000 dollars
starting salary and you know you get a company car and you get 30 days vacation and I walk in
and there’s food products on the table and I go oh what the heck is this? I was pretty intrigued at
the time. The reason I showed up I think should be pretty obvious coming right out of college
and it was a sales pitch for Aldi. And so learned a lot about the company and I think they’re
very innovative in the marketing that they do and I myself have frequented not the one in
Ridgedale. I’m sorry Richfield when I used to live there. Also in Eden Prairie because it’s
actually not too far down the road. I’m a conscientious shopper in a lot of ways but I think the
question of have I ever worked for Aldi or did I ever decide to work for Aldi at that point in time
and the answer is never. And I think something else that I’ve never done is said hey, boy I really
want to go and hang out by that grocery store or I really want to go spend time and energy and
get lunch at the grocery store. You know maybe I’ve seen some millennials do that at Whole
Foods and maybe I’ve done that in the past but I don’t see the value in redeveloping downtown
into another drive there and then turn around and drive away and leave everybody kind of in the
dust. I think the points that were made earlier as it relates to the vibrant city, the vibrant
downtown, the place where people want to come and spend time and go to a show at the Dinner
80
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
Theater or take a walk down to the next restaurant or have a cocktail at happy hour or whatever
isn’t accomplished through a 19,000 square foot retail space, and you can take Aldi out of the
mix. You can insert any other retail or discount or otherwise. You know you can insert K-Mart,
Target, whatever, it doesn’t have the same pull in there that I would expect for the future of
downtown Chanhassen so I would consider, I would urge the members here to consider kind of
what type of message that sends to future generations who are looking to make Chanhassen
home as I have. Thank you.
Aller: Thank you. I think we’ve heard from everybody that’s coming so we’ll go ahead and
close the public hearing on this and open it up for further questions and discussion and would
staff like to address any of the issues that were presented?
Aanenson: Address some of the comments.
Aller: And then I’d love to hear the market rent since.
Aanenson: Sure. Again when the City met with the developer they did explore doing other store
fronts and whether or not that was apply able. We did approve another grocery store in that we
actually did approve Trader Joe’s. That went through the Planning Commission and City
Council. I don’t believe there was as much you know consternation about that so that was a fifth
grocery store. Unfortunately they had a no compete clause and so that’s where Total Wine sits.
Another vendor in that area had a no compete clause so we did approve another grocery store.
I’m not weighing in on whether or not Aldi’s is good or not. Commercial’s a permitted use in
that zoning district so we, our job is to measure does it meet the requirements. A couple things
that are going on. Parking at Potbelly and that center. Parking standards have been changed
because it was interpreted as a center and we’ve changed that when it’s fast food restaurants.
More than one in a center so that has been modified and I agree with that comment. Just a
couple other things before I get into vision for the downtown. You know some of the signs,
screen things, I’ll leave it up to the Planning Commission to see how they want to vote on that.
So how the apartments came about is, we had the Urban Land Institute come out here with the
City Council. I’m not sure if the Planning Commission was involved in that to just do a focus
group and look at what do we need to do. What are our strengths and what are the weaknesses in
the city and these are the think tank people and one of the recommendations that they made to
make sure that we’ve got a strong downtown is we need more housing in the downtown area and
that would be you know rental housing. People that would feed into the jobs so we had been
looking for that and with the Southwest Transit this was a potential redevelopment site. I’ve
heard comments that somebody went and lured them. That doesn’t happen. Somebody says that
there’s a market for this. We’re in a right suited. It matched up with the feedback we were
getting from other professionals that this would be a good use downtown so that starts the
process. Nobody went after, called up United Properties and said come to town. We called up
Aldi’s. That doesn’t happen that way. They look for the zoning and the sites that fit. As far as a
vision for downtown the council at their last City Council meeting did approve a contract. We
have a kick off meeting tomorrow on that. Some of that’s to infill. As you know we do have,
which you looked at tonight, Avienda which also has a grocer in it and so they’re trying to pick
up some of that southern traffic. Southwest traffic that’s coming through the city. More of a
regional draw but we do want to connect the downtown. We want to make sure we have a strong
81
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
core. I’m editorializing now but I grew up in Excelsior. This is not, I’ve been here 25 years.
This is not the same footprint downtown as Excelsior’s downtown. Besides the lake and the
square blocks that they have. It’s a different set up. They also have parking congestions and
they’re struggling with some of their designs down there too. In Wayzata they really pumped up
the volume there but that was very controversial when they redid the redevelopment of that mall
there. They spent probably 4 years trying to get that project put together but we are working to
have a, one of the things that the ULI Group says is we’re enviable that we do have a downtown
and we want to keep it walkable. We’re working on some of those connectors. We did that on
our tour. We talked about some where some of the weak links are. How do we take advantage
of Southwest? We talked about they have the opportunity to put a second level. I mean
additional level. A fourth level on that parking ramp and we hope in the future that can take
advantage. We’ve talked about the back side of this property behind here that that’s the potential
for additional parking ramp but these are all ideas that we’ll be engaging the community to talk
about what helps strengthen the downtown as we look at potential impacts that would have from
the Avienda proposal so understand all the comments that were given. Again how we are as a
staff, a project comes forward and we measure it to say does it meet. Didn’t recruit them. They
came forward. We said does it meet the City’s ordinance. What are their goals? What is the
City’s goals so talking about pushing it to the street we’ve had those discussions. They’ve been
given that it’s very difficult when you’ve got existing cross access agreements. This is a very
complicated and to distinguish those is very complicated and I think there was a lot of
negotiation just working out the cross access easements in the rear of the property but that’s what
makes all this development work is how they’re sharing all that as a whole, and it’s not
uncommon. We have that on Villages on the Pond. When St. Hubert’s Church came in, that was
the main driver of that whole project and the reason that’s successful out there is because they
also have cross access agreements and it works through there. Through that site too so we do
have experience in that sort of situation. As we will when we look at Avienda when certain sites
come in and there’s peak hours, they have apartments in the middle of that one too and those are
6 stories and they’ve got some internal parking but they also are going to take advantage of cross
access so I think we’ve got that but certainly we are working towards putting together strengths
and weakness of the downtown. Things we want to encourage or you know if we need to make
some improvements to drive this but redevelopment is complex and so to do, there’s no
stormwater in this area right now and so this project’s improving a lot of those systems. There’s
some overhead electricity in the area that they’re working to removing, fixing some of those
situations so there’s a lot of improvements that come with it too. It’s change. Again I’ve been
here 25 years. There’s been a lot of change. I know when we did the Goddard School there was
a lot of concern about that going next to the historic St. Hubert’s building too so we believe, I’ll
give Sharmeen and the architect a lot of credit because they worked really hard to get this
building to look the way it does. I think it’s a very nice looking building with the materials that
were included in it. It does meet the standards and so as far as some of the other concerns
regarding what you think about some of the material samples I’ll let the Planning Commission
comment on that but that’s what I kind of gleaned from that.
Aller: Great, thank you. And would the applicant like to hit any of the points that were made at
all as far as a response but I in addition for the deliveries. The market rate.
Aanenson: Market rate.
82
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
Rick McKelvey: Yes I can certainly address market rate. It’s probably an overused term as I
was sitting there thinking about it because it’s somewhat nebulous. It’s really dependent on the
specific market that you’re focused on and it’s quite the opposite of the low income or subsidized
housing project. It’s really the highest rent that a residential tenant in a given market can pay the
highest average rent and that we really work in the maximum amenity package that can support
that average rent so if you were in Uptown Minneapolis where there’s really strong demand,
most new developments have swimming pools. I mean hot tubs and really an exceptional
amenity package. In downtown Chanhassen it’s not quite that level but we have two community
rooms. One on the roof level on the sixth floor. One down at street level. We have a theater.
We have a large storage, interior storage complex in addition to the units of course. A fitness
room so we have a really high level, I’d say above average amenity package here because there
is a strong rental demand and high rental price on average so I said in my opening comments I’ll
stop short of calling it a luxury apartment because that probably takes people to a whole other
dimension but it’s a very, very high quality housing product that we intend to deliver here. And
in terms of deliveries we have truck diagrams. Movement diagrams just as you’ve seen with the
Dinner Theater that depict the Aldi deliveries and I won’t speak for Aldi but I would expect a
majority of their deliveries are in the morning hours and it’s very common, I’ve been involved
with several projects, high density projects that have deliveries in locations that comingle with
pedestrians and parking areas. It’s deliveries is really an unavoidable challenge and in this
particular case that was the best layout and the best truck movement that we could identify.
Aller: And then if you could address the screening of the delivery area.
Rick McKelvey: Well there is a wall along the west side of that delivery dock. It’s probably
slightly cut off from this rendering but there is a wall, and I believe there’s a fence on top of it as
well so the screening from this north elevation is obviously not feasible due to the truck
movement but there is a screen wall along the west edge of the dock lane. There you can see it
there so the truck will not be fully screened. You’ll see the top half of the cab if you will as the
truck backs down into the dock area so that could certainly be increased in height with some type
of a mesh, metal mesh screen or something.
Aanenson: Yeah we’ve been working with the architects trying to figure out how to work better
th
at screening that. Whether it’s from West 78 streetscape or additional height on that wall.
Aller: Thank you. Any other questions while we’ve got him up? Anyone? Thank you.
Rick McKelvey: Thank you.
Aller: I closed the hearing didn’t I? Okay, just making sure. It’s getting late.
Weick: Yes it is.
Aller: Okay so discussion.
Randall: I guess I can start.
83
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
Aller: Commissioner Randall.
Randall: I understand the residents concerns about it. The amount of grocery stores and I think
that’s a challenge that we always have dealing with if someone wants to come in and develop
this they’ve done the market research on it. I get it’s going to be another grocery store in town
but if they think they can make a go at it they can make a go at it. The other thing, the other
positive side that I see of it though is this will help spur redevelopment of the downtown. What
were the estimates? 250 people living in this apartment building. There’ll be food places that
come. There’ll be things that come down with that kind of level of people that they know that
are living downtown. You’ve got a captive audience right there so we all know that there’s aged
areas in our town that can also be redeveloped also downtown so that’s just what I have to say.
Undestad: Well I’ll comment there too. I think it is, this is the first major or the big project for
redevelopment in downtown Chanhassen and I think with the number of units and the size of the
project I don’t think it’s, it is a big project and it’s redevelopment obviously but as Mark said I
think it keeps going that this is the first phase. The first redevelopment. Adding all these people.
Adding you know, I don’t know about the grocery store but again it’s their call. I mean if they
want to make a run at it but as far as the apartment and things and the redevelopment, I think
overall it’s a pretty good project myself. Right now it is a great time to be building this type of
product out here and obviously you want success. Again you need to do it when the timing is
right and more people, more development so I like it.
Weick: I’d echo what Kate said. You know there were cities that were referenced. I don’t
disagree that a redevelopment of Chanhassen wouldn’t be interesting but the cities Edina,
Wayzata, Excelsior, I’ll even throw in Chaska, they just aren’t built the same way Chanhassen is.
It just isn’t and without a wreck and redo of our quote downtown area, to push buildings closer
to the road and to do things completely differently across the board. I don’t know how we
balance development with that desire to want to be those places. It’s not and so I think we have
a responsibility to try and balance that and bring in growth where we believe there’s a very big
need which would be for the apartments and those people and I firmly agree with you guys that if
you build it they will come. You know we are limited in the type of restaurants that we have in
Chanhassen. I mean the best we ever have hoped for is fast casual. If there’s more people and
the type of, hopefully the type of people that we’re bringing into this area it will open up the door
for other types of development in downtown that I think people in Chanhassen would appreciate.
So that’s my opinion on it.
Aller: Any other questions, comments? I’ll entertain a motion of some sort from anyone who
would like to make it.
Yusuf: I’ll make the motion.
Aller: Commissioner Yusuf.
Yusuf: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve Site Plan
review for 134 unit, six story apartment building and a one story 19,000 square foot retail
84
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
building with a variance for the drive aisle widths, and a Registered Land Survey creating two
parcels out of three, and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation.
Aller: I have a motion.
Yusuf: Oh subject to the conditions of the approval. Right? Thank you Bob.
Aller: I have a completed motion. Do I have a second?
Weick: Second.
Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion? I would just encourage the City
Council to review the comments that have been made tonight as we pass forward the information
that we’ve obtained through the public hearing which is the purpose of the public hearing and
look at those issues anew and take them to heart, as we do and with that I’ll go ahead and take a
vote.
Yusuf moved, Weick seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the
City Council approve a Registered Land Survey creating two parcels out of three; the Site
Plan Review with a variance for the existing drive aisle widths, plans prepared by ISG,
dated May 19, 2017, and subject to the following conditions and adoption of the Findings of
Fact and Recommendation:
Building Official
1. Accessibility must be provided in accordance with the “Minnesota Accessibility Code” (see
MN Rules 1341). Accessible parking must be adequate, dispersed and on located on the
shortest accessible route. Residential units are required to be accessible or adaptable in
accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. Further information is
needed to determine these requirements.
2. Buildings are required to be protected with an automatic sprinkler system. For the purposes
of this requirement property lines do not constitute separate buildings.
3. The buildings are be required to be designed by an architect and engineers as determined by
the Building Official.
4. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures on the site.
Application for such permits must include hazardous substances investigation and proposed
mitigation reports.
5. A geotechnical (soils evaluation) report must be submitted to the Inspections Division
before permits will be issued.
6. Walls and projections within 5 feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire-
resistive construction.
85
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
7. Retaining walls over four feet high require a permit and must be designed by a professional
engineer.
8. Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services.
9. The developer and/or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
Engineering
1. The developer must obtain the necessary permissions for the off-site work required to
rebuild a portion of the existing retaining wall on the east side of the proposed building.
2. The developer shall consult with city staff to determine if modifications can be made to
the western entrance off of Market Street to eliminate the current “side by side” driveway
accesses.
3. The applicant shall work with city staff and the owner of the property to the east to
ensure that tractor trailer delivery trucks can access the Dinner Theater’s loading docks.
4. An encroachment agreement is required for the private storm sewer within the city’s 30
foot wide drainage and utility easement.
5. The applicant must obtain a permit from RPBCWD prior to grading the site.
6. The applicant shall include a cross section of the underground storm water system with
the next submittal.
7. A dewatering plan must be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit and shall
include a note that city staff shall be notified before dewatering occurs.
Environmental Resources
1. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show any existing trees to be preserved.
2. The applicant shall plant a minimum of 28 trees on the site.
Fire
1. Separate addresses for ALDI and Venue buildings are required.
Planning
86
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
1. The applicant shall develop an alternate plan to provide residents of the apartment a view
of the camouflaged or alternative roof.
2. The applicant shall incorporate additional benches, bike rakes and possibly picnic/cafe
tables around the site.
3. Signage shall comply with the CBD sign regulations. A separate sign permit shall be
required for each sign.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Yusuf noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting dated June 6, 2017 as presented.
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS.
Aanenson: I guess we didn’t have any items that went forward. We tabled the, I’m giving the
City Council update.
Aller: The update.
Aanenson: Yep so the other thing as I mentioned before the City Council did approve the
contract to do the downtown study so we’ll be meeting to kind of kick that off and we’ll be
involved in a committee in that so that’s really looking at strengthening the core of that
downtown and looking at. We had presented to the council before there are sites that are in
redevelopment which we know, which we’ve seen some of that fast casual dining come in but
there’s some other parcels in place and whether we need to strengthen some of those
intersections. The road widths. We’ve looked at engineering’s already kind of put in place
potential upgrade of Market Boulevard so where we’ve got not enough turn movements where
people have to snake around so those improvements are in play. We talked about down by
Potbelly, looking at those but also just strength of other uses that could be in the downtown and
how those interplay so we’ll be, we’re going to try to do that in the next 3 to 4 months so we’ll
definitely have not only community engagement but the commission and the council engagement
on that too so I’ll be meeting with the consultant on that tomorrow and so I’ll definitely be
keeping you posted on that.
Aller: Great.
Aanenson: We’ve got, I just want to go through the upcoming agenda if I may.
Aller: Please.
Aanenson: You can have the fourth of July off. I hope you come here and celebrate though but
we won’t be in this room. We’ll be out front so. So I did have a subdivision that came in. I
87
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 20, 2017
think I may have mentioned that so Fawn Hill which actually connects the Bentz Farm to the
subdivision to the north. There’s a horse barn in there so that subdivision’s coming in and that
has how many lots Bob?
Generous: 10 lots.
Aanenson: 10 lots so it’s a piece that’s missing up there so we’ll also get some additional
dedication on Galpin which is a potential road upgrade too. And then the rest of the meeting we
intend on going through the Comprehensive Plan. I know Alyson’s been working feverishly on
the water and sewer plans and then also we’ll be having the park and trail draft plan should be
done too and water resources will not be on. That person is not here yet on board but then
housing and land use we’ll also have some discussion on too so for that but I think I want to see
if Alyson wants to make an announcement.
thth
Fauske: The July 20 meeting will be, is that right? 18, thank you, will be my last meeting. I
have accepted a position at a private consulting firm and will be starting in August so it has been
a pleasure to work with the Planning Commission. You’re a fantastic commission. You give
great feedback. You really make sure that staff is doing their job and I think you do a good job
of listening to residents and it’s been a pleasure to work with you all. Thank you.
Weick: Well congratulations.
Aller: Congratulations.
Aanenson: One last meeting.
Fauske: And it was the date specifically was to be at that last meeting so.
Randall: Are you going to be up at the podium now? Coming in.
Fauske: No. This particular firm has municipal clients and so they will not do private
development work in client cities for, to avoid conflict of interest.
Aanenson: That’s all I have Chairman.
Aller: Great. Well I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. It is one of our latest meetings in a while.
Yusuf moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was not debatable. All voted in favor
and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. The Planning Commission
meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
88