Loading...
PC MinutesChanhassen 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