PC Minutes 06-20-17
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