CC Minutes 7-10-17Chanhassen City Council – July 10, 2017
(The City Council took a short recess at this point in the meeting.)
AVIENDA: APPROVE REZONING FROM A2 TO PUD REGIONAL COMMERCIAL,
PRELIMINARY PLAT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCES, AND WETLAND
ALTERATION PERMIT.
Mayor Laufenburger: Staff report please.
Kate Aanenson: Mayor, members of the City Council. Let me just get a little bit organized here.
That doesn’t look good. I’ve got an extra slide in there. Alright. So the application before you
tonight is for Avienda preliminary plat and PUD. This actually went to the Planning
ththth
Commission a few times. May 16, June 6 and June 20 and now it’s before you tonight for
preliminary plat. I’ll go through all the motions in a minute but I just want to remind everybody
about this project. So it’s 115 acres. We shown 118 acres kind of gross but it’s a network of 6
parcels and so as you recall we did a, the Planning Commission gave it conceptual approval back
stth
in November. On November 1. November 28 the council gave it conceptual approval and
also ordered the AUAR update. In February the, during it’s work session the council reviewed
the significant issues of the Alternative Urban Areawide Review, the AUAR and then on, so we
th
wanted to explain to you what was in there and then on February 28 we had an open house and
th
then on March 7 we had a public hearing before the Planning Commission. Again those
weren’t required for the update but we wanted to make sure there’s a lot of residents. This is a
big project in the downtown to make sure that everybody had an opportunity to comment. We
knew traffic was an issue so we wanted to make sure that we could address those questions as
th
part of the AUAR. Not necessarily a part of the review itself. So then on March 13 you
th
approved the publication in the EQB for the AUAR comment period and then on May 8 you
approved and adopted a final resolution for the AUAR. Some of those findings are also included
th
in your staff report as they relate to the project going forward. So as I indicated on May 16 we
thth
had a hearing and then on June 6 and June 20 we also had a public hearing and made a
recommendation. The Planning Commission did recommend approval of the project. There’s
some different discussions on the Overlay District which I’ll go through in a minute so this is
kind of like the first project in the fact that there’s a lot of moving parts. Because you’re doing a
PUD and you’re creating a zoning district so you’re rezoning to be consistent with the land use
guiding which is either office or regional commercial. In this circumstance they’re going for the
regional commercial so that you’re doing a PUD rezoning. You’re approving a preliminary plat,
a wetland alteration permit, a conditional use for development in the Bluff Creek Overlay
District and variance for construction within the Bluff Creek primary zone. There was a lot of
discussion at the Planning Commission regarding the conditional use and the variance and I
apologize in the hour of the night we combined both of those motions into one and actually the
staff had supported the conditional use of grading in the primary zone. We saw that it was a way
to grade to get to some of the units there but we just didn’t want construction in the primary zone
so the Findings of Fact for the City Council have been reflected and modified and reflected and
those were redistributed and included in your packet. In addition the PUD we had it as an
80
Chanhassen City Council – July 10, 2017
exhibit. It’s actually a part of a PUD ordinance so that was also modified for you. And then
finally the conditions for the conditional use permit were also changed and those were also
shared with the applicant.
Mayor Laufenburger: So Kate I’m going to ask you just for a second for clarity for the council.
Can you put up the final action that you’re recommending? Just so we can look at that and
understand what it is that we’re essentially evaluating.
Kate Aanenson: Sure. I think it’s at the very end of the motion here. Recommendation.
Mayor Laufenburger: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: So you’re recommending for rezoning from A2 to the PUD Regional
Commercial. You’re going to be recommending approval of the subdivision preliminary plat
creating 17 lots, 3 outlots. You’re also going to recommend conditional use permit to encroach
into the primary zone. That will be for grading and then we’re still recommending denial of the
variance and I’ll go into a little bit more detail on that. And then finally we’re recommending
approval of the wetland alteration permit and that’s subject to going through the permitting
process. And then also the Planning Commission adopt the Findings of Fact and those are the
ones that we sent out different because the motion at the Planning Commission was listed.
Mayor Laufenburger: So these are the 6 actions that you’re recommending?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Let’s go back, everybody understand those 6 actions? Alright.
Thank you Kate.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you to Mr. Knutson who helped me revise a few things on Friday. Okay
so we went through the summary of the request. So this is the preliminary plat and this is
changed from the original one that was going through. This is the 17 lots and, I did this wrong
every time. Picked the wrong one. So the lots have changed in this area here and I’ll go through
that in a little bit more detail. So Outlot A is where the Bluff Creek Overlay District and that
would be the heavily wooded area. The two wetlands and then Outlot B will be preserved as a
drainage area. That piece was actually severed by the completion of Powers Boulevard and
that’s a remnant piece there. That also the developer can use that for green space as the PUD
ordinance allows that. I’ll let the City Engineer go through some of the traffic.
Mayor Laufenburger: Okay.
Paul Oehme: Thank you Ms. Aanenson. Mayor, City Council members. So the City did
complete an AUAR study updating the existing one that was completed I think in 2006 looking
at traffic and environmental impacts and other associated impacts to this area. Just wanted to
81
Chanhassen City Council – July 10, 2017
briefly go through some of the findings of that study. One was the potential need for a signal
system at Lyman Boulevard and Sunset Trail. It’s shown here in red. New access point where
the current driveway is currently located today. The north leg of the 212 loop we’re looking at,
the AUAR looked at two through put lanes into the development and reconfiguring that
intersection just a little bit. There would also be two left turn, existing two left turns on
northbound Powers Boulevard into the development and then the exiting location there’d be 3
lanes of traffic lanes. One for northbound on Powers Boulevard. One for through onto 212 and
then one left onto southbound Powers Boulevard. The other items of note, there’s a potential
need for a signal at Powers Boulevard and Pioneer Trail in conjunction with this development
and then also at Audubon Road and at Lyman Boulevard as well so. That was basically the
findings of what we had looked at. I think I covered most of those items so thank you.
Kate Aanenson: So this development data then is illustratively showing how the project would
be laid out and so this is kind of the genesis of looking to structure the PUD ordinance which
talks about which uses can go in there and there’s a lot of back and forth on that. Again trying to
create flexibility because we don’t know as we look to the future as this builds out but also have
some assurances that we don’t end up with just a lot of big boxes. So we’ve worked through all
those issues and those are put into the PUD ordinance. This drawing here has been changed a
little bit. I’ll go through that in a minute but this development data then talks about how many
square footage of each building and the type of use. So the housing would be the buffer area on
this side. We’ve always talked about that as the good transition for the existing neighborhood.
The through street connection which is important for another outlet for these long dead ends and
also then the extension of Bluff Creek Boulevard. The housing on the southern end, I’ll circle
back again on that but that was one of the issues we talked about was senior housing. That we
believed that we had a lot of senior housing. We acquiesced on that but we’re still kind of
holding firm there on the overlay district. One of the unique attributes of this site then is the
housing as we talked about with the downtown project. Housing is going to create the traffic
then to help support this. The daytime, night time use of this. There was some interesting
comments at the Planning Commission talking about Arbor Lakes saying whether or not because
there’s not housing there what happens there in the winter time and how do you keep this a
viable project and so we certainly think the apartments and the housing there is important to
make this a lifestyle community which is what the goal is. So from that the drawing that they
put, we put this in a chart for us to understand the types of uses in there and the square footage
and encapsulate that, what we were looking at. What expectations are out there. Again there’s 3
outlots as I mentioned and so one of the things that we also looked at, we assumed under the
PUD ordinance that we maybe 20 percent housing but as we looked at that we changed that
number to a greater 30 percent so that would allow up to 533 which is this number here. Right
now the project is at 364. Again we’re trying to strike that right balance of housing and
commercial office mix and there is office on the north side. Go back to that. So this is the
daycare. Some offices over here. The restaurants and then this is kind of the urban, really the
urban core right in the middle here. The larger grocer, retail, hotel. So again this is more the
specifics of that but if some of the housing goes up those numbers shift around a little bit.
They’re still within then the PUD ordinance itself. Again the goal, we know some of these uses
82
Chanhassen City Council – July 10, 2017
will change but the goal is that we want to make sure that there’s a good mix and as they do to
make sure that it’s a great project. So with that again there’s some wetlands so I’ll let the City
Engineer kind of go through the permitting process.
Paul Oehme: Thanks Kate. So one of the biggest issues regarding this site was the wetland
impacts and making sure that the City’s following the correct Wetland Conservation Act and
permitting application that goes along with that. So here’s illustratively the drawing showing
where the wetlands are on site. The ones the areas in yellow are kind of the wetland delineated
locations for the wetlands and most of these would be impacted by the current development. The
background for this and the timeline where we are today, the applicant has submitted wetland
replacement plan back in February of this year with preliminary storm water modeling
st
information back in February 21 of this year. The City determined the application was
incomplete at that time. We reviewed it and then made comments back to the applicant. The
th
applicant turned around and gave us some revised information back on March 14 as well so
th
what we did then was, the City determined the application was complete on March 17. A
Wetland Conservation Act notice was, application was sent out to the Technical Panel on March
thth
17. There was a meeting held for that and then also on April 6 the US Corps of Engineers had
a meeting too and they reviewed their application and requested additional information at that
time. Here’s the proposed, here’s a list of all the wetlands on the site and which total 5.2 acres
and then putting the potential impacts associated with this development are shown here in a little
over 4.4 acres. So with that the proposal, there is process for working through the wetland
impacts for the Wetland Conservation Act process. The land development plans submitted to the
City after the wetland permit application was submitted has discrepancies that we had already
talked about and the wetland impacts. The applicant shows wetland impacts to Wetland 4 but
they’re wetland development plan does not show the impacts on some of the other locations so
those were the changes that we had requested. Bottom line that the analysis shows that you
know the City is not the determining body for determining if the applicant has gone through the
sequencing for the wetland impacts. That’s provided by the TEP and the TEP is going to be
meeting here shortly to review that application. The functions and values are shown here. I
don’t want to get into too much detail. This is just showing you what the wetlands are. How
they’re managed. You know how you can mitigate them and those type of things. The current
wetland mitigation is shown here. What the applicant can do so one of the first thing in
sequencing is to try to figure out can these wetlands be mitigated on site. And with the high
density that’s currently proposed on the site, there is very little opportunity to mitigate those
wetlands on site so we look at replacement in the sub-watershed. In this case the Riley-
Purgatory watershed district and we were not able to find any suitable location for mitigating the
wetlands in this watershed district so we’re looking at right now, the developer is looking at
purchasing wetlands outside of the watershed district in a wetland bank and in looking at
mitigating the wetlands through that process so that’s where we’re at to date. And the developer
has the opportunity to do some combination of mitigation or on site wetland mitigation but under
this case I think it’s going to be more feasible for him to mitigate off site. One of the things that
the City has requested that the applicant look at is try to work with the City on a joint project
within the watershed district to improve wetland quality in the area or storm water improvements
83
Chanhassen City Council – July 10, 2017
within the watershed district. Unfortunately we haven’t come to an agreement on what that
project would look like or a feasible project at this time so in the staff report we requested that
the developer look at contributing a sum of money to the City for future project to be named
later. That can improve the water in this watershed district to service in lieu of the impacts to the
wetlands that are being proposed on this site. So again you know the US Corps of Engineers has
reviewed the application. They’re ongoing I think. The developer has, the applicant has made,
given the Corps some additional information so they are currently reviewing that application.
There’s really no time line associated with that application so that’s going to be kind of ongoing.
As I mentioned before the Wetland Conservation Act process, our TEP meeting is going to be
held tomorrow so there’s going to be a 60 day decision making process after that point in time
and a decision has to be made at that point in time so. With that I think here’s the next steps that
we had talked about previously. Again the wetland mitigation has to be completed. If it’s off
site at a 2 to 1 ratio so there’s going to be a substantial bank that the developer would have to
apply for and create those wetlands with so. And then we’re basically just waiting for the TEP
panel to move forward and hold that meeting. See if they have any more information or request
additional information from the applicant and like I said they have a set, I think 60 days after that
meeting to make a decision.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you Paul. I just wanted to add one thing too. What the City Engineer
was talking about. This came up at the Planning Commission where we were spending some
time talking about the fact that all the wetland replacement was being done outside the city so the
Planning Commission felt it was really important that some improvement be made within the
city as Paul indicated. The city and the watershed district. While we don’t have a proposal right
now for a live project there is a condition of approval that cash escrow be put in place that as we
move forward that that could be done. So Bluff Creek Overlay District is one of the issues that
we’re still trying to reconcile. Again those two conditions got kind of comingled at the Planning
Commission but we recognize that there could be some grading in there. We had a road going
through at one point. A fire lane. We acquiesced and took that road out because that was one of
the drivers for the big impact. Obviously there’s some impact grading within to get the road to
go through on the easterly edge so quite a bit of the removal so then we were up to the 3 acres.
Then the developer re-examined the site and actually went back and took another look at how
they could make it work so this was a reconfiguration of the senior housing. As I mentioned
earlier one of the concerns that we had is we do have a lot of senior housing going. The
developer felt it was really important to, so we had that first on our no list. We took it off but
then we felt like we were squishing something in there that was a little tight so we still wanted to
work with them on that and felt like if they could be grading in here to get there. There was a lot
of parking. There was discussion on the right amount of parking. Obviously we want it to be
successful for both parties. There’s a lot of parking on this site too so we really wanted them to
take another look at that and felt like they could work within that. I’ll let them address that but I
would like to just show you, I know it’s late but on this doc cam here because Sharmeen put this
model together and I think it’s just more illustrative way to show you the entire project so again.
So this is the project as it came in so the, there was a hotel over here. And so this is the Bluff
Creek Overlay, the original buildings. It went way into the Overlay District itself.
84
Chanhassen City Council – July 10, 2017
Mayor Laufenburger: Way? What do you mean way in?
Kate Aanenson: Well like 5 acres. 3 acres. So we went and asked them if they could take it out
of the Overlay District so this would be the Overlay District and the response came back they
actually eliminated part of a building so in their best efforts which we appreciated. They did
work to redesign it. Again the Bluff Creek Overlay District is still within this area. They
moved, so they cut off some retail space and then they moved the hotel over to here. So the
question was then could we still try to work to make this building fit and we know that for our
senior housing, especially assisted that the wings have to be a certain length so people want to be
able to get back and forth. Understand how that works and going back to saying that maybe that
wasn’t the best suit and you know their position we’ve always shown it there and but it’s still a
process to get a variance as it is a process to get a wetland. It doesn’t give you standings so
we’re still trying to work through those issues on the design itself.
Mayor Laufenburger: Kate part of one of the conditions or one of the recommendations you’re
making is that we grant a conditional use permit in the Bluff Creek Overlay District for the road,
is that correct?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. For the road and then to grade to get into this. So if you stay
outside of that blue line you’re in the secondary zone which you can grade within. Because by
putting this in there’s two substantial walls in here now to get up to this. This is a wetland.
When you walk the site there’s water coming out of that wetland that drains so if you’re putting
up 2 walls, and we’re just trying to see if there’s another way to make that work. And so
obviously for them trying to get that to fit on the site is more challenging.
Mayor Laufenburger: So we’re talking about this particular space. This southwest corner of this
property.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Laufenburger: How many acres are in the Bluff Creek Overlay District?
Kate Aanenson: Up to 3.
Mayor Laufenburger: No how many are in the Bluff Creek Overlay District in that area?
Kate Aanenson: I’ll go back to my original. Thank you, 18.
Mayor Laufenburger: So 18 acres here is in the southwest area?
Kate Aanenson: Yep, correct.
85
Chanhassen City Council – July 10, 2017
Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. And what we’re seeing here is the upper border of the Bluff Creek
Overlay District is the blue line, is that correct?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. This is the primary and that’s the secondary so you can grade, and that
was what the conditional use is for is to grade within that. So our position was can you reshape
that building? Can you flip those buildings? And so I mean obviously they have their concerns
on that too.
Mayor Laufenburger: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: You know other thing just looking at the woods itself the Overlay District is
for, you know as the City Engineer talked about it’s for the impaired waters and the Bluff Creek
and this is a wooded area that’s unique attribute to the city. John Tietz on the Planning
Commission is a landscaping architect. You know once you start putting a road in, which is why
we acquiesced, then it changes the whole character of, by the time you put the retaining walls
and all that.
Mayor Laufenburger: Wait a minute, when you say we acquiesced on a road. What are we
acquiescing?
Kate Aanenson: The connection road here.
Mayor Laufenburger: I thought you said we took it out.
Kate Aanenson: I did. That’s what I said we took it out because of the impact of putting that in
with the retaining walls.
Mayor Laufenburger: Oh, okay. Okay.
Kate Aanenson: So we’re just saying we’re trying to work together to do as minimal impact as
we can.
Mayor Laufenburger: Gotch ya.
Kate Aanenson: So my point on this slide here is that we think it has too much parking for that
type of use and could we shorten up the driveways? There’s a lot of things we can look at there
and we’d like to see take another run at it. Obviously they worked hard to get it to this position
and maybe they feel like this isn’t working. They want to go the other direction but we felt
strongly about saving more of the Bluff Creek Overlay District. So this is the two retaining walls
going back up along that trail where we just saw. So these are these two retaining walls here. So
again adding more retaining walls so. So this is the CUP. All the conditions in the staff report.
Again we supported the conditional use for grading but not for construction which is the
variance. We recommended no on the variance for construction. Yes on the grading within that.
86
Chanhassen City Council – July 10, 2017
One of the other issues that came about was the Fire Marshal’s concern about the traffic calming.
They spent a lot of time on putting together, hiring a consultant to traffic calm. That was one of
the biggest issues facing the residents is they wanted to make sure that people didn’t speed to get
through their neighborhood and so we all worked together and we had a great design. Planning
and engineering was happy with it. The applicant was happy with their recommendations and
the Fire Marshal wasn’t too happy with the recommendations so in your staff report we, it’s the
stopping on the street issue. If everybody was, a fire truck’s going and people stop on the street
so we’re all smart enough to figure out how to make that work so we’ve got a condition in here
that we’ll work together before final plat to get that design figured out to the satisfaction because
the Fire Chief isn’t going to design that. That’s going to be between the applicant and the City
Engineer to figure out that right fit. Changing the approaches. The median. We really felt the
median because that runs the length of that whole, it’s part of that traffic calming and the nice
aesthetics so we’re going to work hard to see what we can do to get the road width that meets the
Fire Marshal’s concerns. Makes the developer fit their design and the neighbors traffic calming
issues.
Mayor Laufenburger: So you’re talking about this, this is something that is yet to be decided but
the council is not making this decision tonight.
Kate Aanenson: No we have it as a condition that we’re going to continue to work on it.
Mayor Laufenburger: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: So there’s two outstanding things.
Mayor Laufenburger: Okay and eventually that condition will be resolved right?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Correct.
Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Alright. Anything else Kate?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. So this is the other retaining wall so on the back side, so when you’re
looking to the west there’s significant retaining walls on, this would be looking to the north.
Excuse me on the south looking to the north and this is on the north side looking south so this
would be the daycare has a retaining wall and then the office buildings so you’re putting
retaining walls on either side and then grading through the middle to balance out all the dirt
between and filling the wetlands that were in there. So again our concern is making sure that we
have the right walls in there. We weren’t clear at the first meeting, this is some of the
information as we moved through the different iterations that the wall on the back is two tiered
with landscaping. I think that was one of the things, the view we were concerned about. I’m not
going to show the slides. I think you have your slides of the wall just to make sure, because you
have a tall building. The grocery store will be very tall so you have just a large wall and what
are we doing to break that up especially when you have parking or loading docks in the back of
87
Chanhassen City Council – July 10, 2017
that too just working through those design. And to be clear on that every building that goes in is
going to have to come back through the process too so we’ll see site plan review on each of those
so what you’re approving now is the framework that each of the projects as they come in will be
measured against. So I’m going to skip through those because I think the applicant’s going to
spend a little bit more time on those kind of going through the walls. So the district master plan,
so this was helpful for us. How the developer put it together. So each of the areas are described
by district and that’s how we kind of put the PUD ordinance together and that includes the sign
package and then the uses itself. So the multi-family we talked about. That’s the senior housing.
Independent and assisted. Lower density housing. Again those numbers can change a little bit
but we wanted, we always committed to the neighbors that that would be a nice transition in
there. And then office, daycare, more office, restaurants and then the retail hospitality where the
grocer will be. Probably some drive thru’s. We also limited the number of drive thru’s so
there’ll be two at the grocers and they can pick two other places. And then the retail district
which is really more the pedestrian oriented which also includes the apartment with retail
attached to it. And then there’s also more, a large retail around the perimeter. So this is also
included in the PUD ordinance and then it talks about what uses will go in that district because
again for transparency on both parties we want to see it be somewhat, when the projects come in
that they match this. So again the PUD zoning, this is the rational basis for that so putting the
PUD, you know you’re preserving something to get the PUD zoning. This gives you more
flexibility so they could transfer the hard cover so the treed areas that are preserved counts for
the green space. That allows them to put more intense development. I think the challenge there
is for them to manage all their, with their packed soils to manage all their storm water so those
are some of the issues that we’ll have to work out as it goes forward. I also wanted to remind
you that this is in a rural service district. On your next meeting we’ll be putting together a
resolution and a report that takes it out of the rural service to tax it at a different rate because now
that this project is going forward and the County changes those the first part of August so you’ll
be getting a letter from the property owner saying that they will be taking you out of the rural
service district. So with that I kind of jumped through a lot but I know the applicant probably
wants to, I went through the motions. I’ll let him go through then I’d be happy to answer any
questions.
Mayor Laufenburger: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: If you want to take some now that’s fine.
Mayor Laufenburger: Anybody have questions of council right now? Mr. McDonald. I mean
excuse me, questions of staff. Well you could ask, talk amongst yourself Mr. McDonald.
Councilman McDonald: Kate I’ve got a question. Yeah go back to that first one where you’re
asking us to rezone. What did we do? I thought it was dual guided. Wasn’t that part of rezoning
or was that just a guiding?
88
Chanhassen City Council – July 10, 2017
Kate Aanenson: Sure that’s a great question. So it was guided. You could choose either one. It
gave you the flexibility. If someone came in with a lifestyle center or something you didn’t like
and that was the conceptual approval is to say in good faith we’re both going down this path that
we’re going to continue to develop this. We’re going to go through the AUAR and part of the
AUAR also states that we’re going to follow the rules of the City so everyone’s moving forward
in that so the office is no longer the potential so regional commercial is a land use that is
approved so that’s the zoning that you would be applying.
Councilman McDonald: Okay so we finally made a choice as to which way we want to go. I
mean you’re asking us to zone it that way.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. And that’s what the PUD ordinance is and that spells out all the uses.
I think I lost part of my staff report. The other thing is we wanted to make sure is that you knew
that there was a few things that we’re still working on. We talked about the roads. The wetlands
we’re still working through. We have a TEP meeting tomorrow and so there’s a couple
outstanding issues that we’re still working through but we’re pretty darn close so.
Councilman McDonald: Okay, thank you for that.
Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, any other questions of staff? Councilmember Ryan.
Councilwoman Ryan: So does that include, when you said you’re still working through some
details with the storm water management, that’s also just because when I was reading through all
the different attachments it talks about the irrigation system. Has that been revised? That some
of the designs don’t meet the Riley-Purgatory so are those all the pieces that you’re still working
on before it comes back?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Yep, yep. So watershed district approval. Looking through the storm
water. So the goal is to, for them is to get the approval. They can’t do any grading until they get
the wetland approved so to work through those processes. Come back with the final so they can
begin to grade. I think they’ve stated that from the beginning their goal is to try to grade yet this
year.
Councilwoman Ryan: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: So it’s onus on them so a lot of this is their marching orders that they need to do
to keep the project moving forward.
Councilwoman Ryan: Okay so all those approvals have to come back to you before we move
forward.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
89
Chanhassen City Council – July 10, 2017
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council.
Mayor Laufenburger: Anything else, yes.
Todd Gerhardt: Just to complicate things. Item E, since we don’t have the wetland alteration
permit approved yet should be eliminated and we would bring that back as a part of the final plat
if we have the wetland alteration permit completed by then but we don’t have the wetland
alteration permit approved by the TAC board yet.
Mayor Laufenburger: TEP. The Technical Evaluation Panel.
Todd Gerhardt: TEP, yeah.
Mayor Laufenburger: That’s tomorrow.
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah.
Mayor Laufenburger: So are we delaying this by not putting approval on this? Can we put our
approval subject?
Todd Gerhardt: You can do this.
Roger Knutson: You could approve it subject to their…
Mayor Laufenburger: We could approve it subject to approval by the TEP.
Todd Gerhardt: Yep.
Mayor Laufenburger: So that means it doesn’t have to come back to us again.
Kate Aanenson: That was always.
Mayor Laufenburger: We accept this.
Kate Aanenson: Right, that was always our goal. We’ve always been working towards that and
I’m sorry I didn’t put that.
Mayor Laufenburger: Bring that page up again.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah I’ve just got to type it in here. Subject to.
Mayor Laufenburger: Subject to approval by the TEP.
90
Chanhassen City Council – July 10, 2017
Kate Aanenson: Isn’t it WCA?
Mayor Laufenburger: Well she’s doing it right now so change it to what it’s supposed to be.
Paul Oehme: WCA.
Kate Aanenson: WCA. I got it.
Todd Gerhardt: And then put the same thing at the Decision portion.
Mayor Laufenburger: Wait a minute. What is it? Is it.
Mark Nordland: It’s WCA. Wetland Conservation Act.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. We got it on this side, we’re all good.
Todd Gerhardt: And Kate if you go to the Decision portion.
Kate Aanenson: Yep. Oh City Council thank you.
Todd Gerhardt: Add it there also.
Kate Aanenson: That should say City Council too correct.
Todd Gerhardt: In the Findings.
Roger Knutson: In the Findings of Fact, in the Findings of Fact will have to be amended to say
the Wetland Alteration Permit is approved subject to the findings of the TEP.
Kate Aanenson: I got it.
Mayor Laufenburger: I’m interested in hearing from the applicant unless there’s any other
questions of staff. So let’s hear from the applicant. Are you charged up Darren?
Darren Lazan: Yeah, fired up. I was reminded by Mr. Akradi to ask which version of the
presentation you wanted.
Kate Aanenson: I got the right one up.
Mayor Laufenburger: People all over the world.
Darren Lazan: No I meant the short version or the medium version or the long version.
91
Chanhassen City Council – July 10, 2017
Kate Aanenson: Oh okay.
Mayor Laufenburger: People all over the world are watching this.
Darren Lazan: I understand that.
Mayor Laufenburger: So just keep that in mind.
Darren Lazan: So Mr. Mayor, members of the council my name is Darren Lazan. I’m with
Landform Professional Services and I represent Level 7 Development, the applicant on the item
before you tonight. It’s a tremendous pleasure to be back here again. I was going through doing
the presentation this afternoon realizing that for my part my work began on this site in ’14. This
team in ’16 I believe so we have a tremendous history on this site but as I went through this I
realized that your staff and yourselves have an even longer history and for many it’s been good
portions of their career looking at this site and trying to contemplate what belongs here and
what’s the best use and fit and as a team we’re very excited to play a part in helping that vision
come to life so we’re excited to be here tonight and look forward to answering your questions.
So I will go through this quickly. What I did is I put a pretty small subset of the slide show
together and now I’m even more glad that I did but I’m also going to move through it quickly
and if you have questions we can come back and zero in on it. I kind of hit the pieces I think you
folks have commented on in the past so I can address those.
Mayor Laufenburger: So just let me stop you a second. There’s a question that I want to ask
you. Do you have a clear understanding of everything that’s in the packet?
Darren Lazan: We do. There are a number of things that we are going to work on going forward
so unlike most approvals when we can say we agree with every condition in the staff report,
there’s a number we’re still working on but we understand everything in the report and we’re
comfortable that we can move forward…
Mayor Laufenburger: What’s most important for me, and speaking on behalf of the council is, if
there’s any decision that we’re making tonight that you want to raise, that you have either
disagreement with or an issue with you need to tell us that.
Darren Lazan: We will and we, I may have some. Mark’s going to have a close at the end and
lay those out cleanly for you so we can have that. Ownership team here, I think you’ve had this
presentation in the past and now with Mr. Akradi in the audience it’s going to be more difficult
to say this but I can tell you it’s been a pleasure to be on this team. Mr. Akradi’s drive for
excellence on this is a real challenge for us and we enjoy that push. As most of you know this is
a project he does not need but it’s amazing to us that he continues to take the time to be involved
and help push this project along and make it what it is today so great group of people. Great
team and we look forward to the next stages with you guys. And again this is a little excerpt
from the Business Journal as well. A little bit about the vision he has and we’ve tried to carry
92
Chanhassen City Council – July 10, 2017
out for an excellent project with a full life cycle component. Something that’s timeless.
Something that has very high quality and something that he can be proud of in 50 years when he
comes back through here again and decides this is his best work so again he’s that force. We
keep driving to achieve that and we’ll continue to do that. Existing site Kate went over and
we’ve been over a number of times. You know where it is and those constraints so I’ll move
through quickly. This is a fairly new exhibit. I just want to spend a couple seconds on this one
because it effects those components such as retaining walls and grades and approaches and what
can work and what can’t. This is kind of a sensitivity map showing the elevations on this site
and there’s 72 feet of relief across this site. Both east/west and north/south so it becomes a
tremendous challenge to get all the components of this site to fit in here and connect to each
other and stay connected and we know that connectivity is a big component of a lifestyle center
so it involves quite a bit of grading. It’s quite frankly driving the viability of preserving wetlands
and working through that process. It effects the grading and how we manage those retaining
walls and so forth so went through this in a little more detail at Planning because they asked that
question but it is interesting to note the amount of grade we work with across this site. Kate
went over the districts. They’re very important in the design and documenting the design
standards and so forth so we’re carrying that through in all of our efforts as well. Site plan here.
You’ve been over. Kate went over. We’re excited about where this sits today after a lot of
work, both on our team and with staff. A lot of back and forth but we’re excited for this plan.
We think those components that have been addressed already, the residential component in the
center inserts that vitality into the middle of the project. The full life cycle with seniors, empty
nesters, millennials, all the way across the spectrum in the project. Here in the morning. Here at
night. The office mix across the north with a daycare on site. These are all drivers that help
those retailers be successful and without boring you to death that’s the challenge with retail
today is to try to find a way to make it experiential. Desire to be here. Put bodies in the center in
the mornings when they leave for work. At night when they come home. During the day when
they’re working and we really think this does an excellent job of that which was the goal of the
comp plan. Little bit about the roadway. It was touched on so I’ll skip most of it but we did put
a great team in addition to our core team on this. Toole Consultants came in and helped us.
They are a traffic engineering group that specializes in pedestrian lifestyle center type work or
urban type work. We brought them in specifically because we heard throughout the process that
traffic was the number one concern of the neighbors. We wanted to work on calming on this
road. A couple of those components you’ve heard from already. The lane width and the
medium helps slow those cars down. But also even in the pedestrian components, the top half of
this image shows shorter crossings for pedestrians. Areas of refuge between crossings where
they can stop. Let cars go by and go again. This was all very thoughtful in the process and both
engineering, planning and our team I think put a lot of work into this. There’s a memo in the
application about how we arrived at this balance of traffic calming and through fare and
emergency access and so forth and I think this was an incredible well balanced approach.
Mayor Laufenburger: And this road complies with requirements is that correct?
93
Chanhassen City Council – July 10, 2017
Darren Lazan: This road complies with requirements. It’s a continuation of what you have as a
section in the remainder of Bluff Creek Boulevard. We took our cues originally from that.
Mayor Laufenburger: Okay.
Darren Lazan: Carried it through. Meets all the requirements for stacking and turn lane distance
and all those components. MSA standards. Everything across the board so we look forward to
working with the Fire Chief and the rest of staff on coming up with something everybody can
live with. I think one quick important note, when you look at the lane width requirement and the
stopping the portion of this road that is effected by that is roughly a third. Maybe less. Maybe
closer to a quarter because we have turn lanes right. Turn lanes left. Roundabouts. Two lane
sections in that run of Bluff Creek Boulevard so the area that actually is constrained is not that
entire run of roadway and we think there are things we can potentially do in those few sections to
help that. It’s also important to note that there is access to every other component from other
entrances. From the north and otherwise so we look forward to working with staff on resolving
that. We have a great design. I think we can make a few changes and get there. Very briefly
about project branding and identity. Again this is going to carry through in architecture, signage
and the identity of the project. All 3 of those have been very tightly coordinated to deliver a very
quality project so none of those really stand on their own. The signage is part of the identity.
The architecture and landscape architecture fits in there. These are all very tightly coordinated
and that will show in a lot of the components as we go forward. We submitted quite a bit of
material on architectural standards and sample elevations. That was in your packet. I haven’t
put that in the presentation tonight because I think this is fairly new. I wanted to focus on the
village tonight to walk through this component and the walkability lifestyle components so you
can get some better imagery of where that’s at so as we walk through this from east to west, it
starts with an aerial view showing the long corridor. Starting with the water feature and the open
plaza between the restaurants. Continuing all the way through that center portion and ending at
the far side with the apartment project as the anchor on the far end. As we get down to street
level on here, this is the plaza between the restaurants. Program space. Casual space. Active
space. All of that possibility can exist in there to engage that space and make it useful and
vibrant and make folks want to be there. Another picture on the, some potential for outdoor
dining in that same space adjacent to the water. We have more active spaces as we travel down
now. We’ve crossing the street, Avienda Parkway and we’re on the west side now. Beginning
of that main street component. We have pieces of this project where we introduce these open
pocket areas of landscape architecture to create engaged spaces and we’ll see those at a couple
different levels. There’s some adjacent to the potential shops and restaurants along the way.
Some like out at the roundabout where there’s a water feature where it can be a little bit more
distant from the roadway in the center but it’s still very well landscaped. Beautifully done.
Hardscapes and again active engaged spaces as we’re moving to the middle of the block. Each
of these end caps on these small buildings have opportunities for more of these spaces to create
programmed or casual spaces. Outdoor dining. More outdoor dining in there. Then we land on
the other side of the main street area. The village area where we have probably our largest open
amenity space with a water feature, landscape components. This could be more heavily
94
Chanhassen City Council – July 10, 2017
programmed spaces as well as space for the adjacent retailers. Another view at street level there.
The first one was an aerial, with the apartments in the background. And again on the back side
more spaces adjacent to that apartment component as well. And then as Kate had mentioned we
have some retail on the ground floor. That’s the end of that run looking at the front doors to the
apartments with some ground level retail and some more landscape areas on that piece. And
then the last staff report has a condition that we provide the trailhead connection for future
natural trails so we did a quick rendering on what that might look like so you’re leaving the trail
along the side of the road and move into more natural trails but some way finding, landscape
features and a connection to that Bluff Creek space there as well. Environmental items for
Councilmember Ryan. So I have 3 slides on the environmental components. First is storm
water. I want to talk about that a little bit. We looked at deploying a number of components to
meet the storm water requirements. As you know it’s heavy clay soils. Little to no infiltration
and we have very heavy storm water requirements to abstract or remove storm water from the
site and not allow it to leave the site. One of the ones we’re most likely to deploy to get nearly
all of the required abstraction is an extremely extensive use of permeable pavement systems.
Probably the most extensive done in the metro area. I think we have 15 acres of permeable
pavers and 20 something acres of rock retention areas under those. Pretty extreme measures to
meet those criteria. Similar projects in Chanhassen on similar soils have gotten about half the
requirements. We’re hopeful we can get to all the requirements with this project as kind of a
demonstration piece of this used on this scale.
Mayor Laufenburger: You said something below the permeable pavers.
Darren Lazan: Rock retention, yeah. So there’s rock beds below the permeable pavers and then
drain pipes that drain that rock bed over time so yeah. It’s clearly the most extensive use of
permeable pavers we’ve done. I don’t know if Paul’s seen a more extensive use ever. We
haven’t so it’s a pretty aggressive piece but I think it stands as a testament to the effort we’re
going to look at putting forward on this project to meet that criteria. We also have that re-use
rain water component. Collection. Recycle water using best practices to re-use that to the extent
possible with the quality of visually appealing treatment areas. We can use rain water harvesting
purple pipe irrigation for areas where that makes sense and planted basins where we can take
advantage of that bio uptake so that’s in addition to the permeable pavement systems. Those two
together we’re pretty comfortable we’re going to meet the criteria so. I think it’s important
before we move to the wetland piece to talk about this. This is still in concept because we have
to make our watershed application for the storm water approval. We’re going to roll these out.
We’re going to present those. We’re going to make our best effort at meeting 100 percent of the
criteria but there’s always and will be give and take with the watershed as to what that looks like.
How much of each of those are used and how they’re used and so forth so this is a process like
the wetland process. It’s kind of running parallel right now so we’ll, all of our approvals tonight
are subject to getting our watershed approvals so we’ll be working on that in the weeks to come.
On our wetland side as Paul walked through in detail. I’m going to go through very briefly. We
have this concurrent process of the Corps of Engineers and the Wetland Conservation Act which
you folks are the local government unit on behalf of the Wetland Conservation Act so you’re
95
Chanhassen City Council – July 10, 2017
running that piece. The Corps is running the other. That’s going to result in, if we’re fortunate
enough to be approved a 2 to 1 replacement and we get in a unique situation because the Corps
involved. It’s almost determined that we’re going to end up doing Corps certified credits. It’s
almost impossible to do anything but that. They argue for it. They want it. They certify the
bank credits that they’ll accept so once the Corps steps in and both the City and the Corps are
involved, we get pushed to this bank credit scenario as a default and almost the only solution.
But a lot of great questions were raised during planning and again even when we first started this
project. What’s available in the watershed? What’s available in the city? And it came up again
so as Paul and Kate had mentioned we were presented by staff the opportunity to participate in a
contribute for demonstration project that would help mitigate the function and value that you’re
losing in the city and we’re happy to contribute in that form. We were from the beginning and I
think this is a great vehicle. I don’t know any other community that does this and I think it’d be
a great model going forward because whenever we have these Corps related permits you’d have
the same thing. All the mitigation happens outside your community and I think this is a great
piece. I think we look forward to working with staff to try to quantify what that contribution is
and help set that structure up and make that contribution. We’ll go quickly around the perimeter
sight lines. Main entrance off of Powers and the 212 exit with the branding and signage
architecture showing at that corner. This is from the Powers overpass over 212. You can see
that it’s an effective exhibit because it shows how quickly that giant wall disappears from a
distance but there’s a fair amount of existing trees at the base of that wall too that screen that
wall so really the entire western half of that wall is pretty well screened from this position here.
And then you can see the building does stick out from the top and this is the view from
eastbound 212 where you get just a slight look at the very end of that wall and the rest is pretty
well screened with existing vegetation so I thought it was important we show these elevations as
if you’re standing at the base of the wall but as you’ll see from the sight lines they’re pretty well
naturally screened and then as Kate showed in her presentation we’re showing a terraced wall
and plantings at mid wall. Plantings at the bottom and so forth to further screen that. This is
from the neighborhood to the south looking north. That was a question amongst many residents.
Again it’s certainly don’t 100 percent screen but it’s substantial screening from this position.
This is the approach up Bluff Creek Boulevard so you’re heading east on Bluff Creek Boulevard
and those are existing homes on the right and left and you see the first sight of the senior project
in the background there. And this was from the existing neighborhood to the west, looking
across that small wetland at the taller structures. This is coming around the north side looking
across Lyman. And then from the corner here as well. And these weren’t meant to be your high
quality renderings of what the architecture looks like. Those were included in the design
guidelines but we wanted to walk the perimeter and those important approach angles and show
you what that look likes for scale and that’s the purpose of walking through those. We have
project signage goals and Mark’s going to finish on this item but wanted to just briefly go
through these. The purpose, our goal and the purpose was to provide a comprehensive package
to approach this project. That that be appropriate for the size and scale of this project. That it
support the retail vitality and that it be appropriate for the interactions with the public so where
you have major entrance points, you’re arriving by car the signage gets bigger. When you’re
down on main street we use projection signage and smaller scale signage so those are some of
96
Chanhassen City Council – July 10, 2017
the goals that we went through when we proposed signage. That’s made up of identity signs,
tenant signs, way finding, all of those signage components. They’re broken down by district so
there’s appropriate signs in each of those districts. And then building signage I think we’ll
probably just touch on this for one second because this is in the staff report but we’re proposing
pretty significant four sided architecture. We have four sided design and that we’re parking on
the backs of buildings and walking to the front of the building. We feel it’s important that we
look at signage that’s appropriate on all four sides. Again staff’s recommendation differs from
our’s. We have a complete breakdown on where those are and I think Mark is going to talk a
little bit about our approach on signage but we just wanted you to know that we worked through
this on a comprehensive level from every aspect district by district and so forth so with that we
have 4 key items that Mark’s going to go through and we’ll stand for questions after that.
Mark Nordland: Mr. Mayor at the beginning you asked if we were okay with everything that
was in the staff report and just to kind of break things out. We’ve heard you know exhaustive
reports on where we’re at. There’s 4 items I just want to talk to quickly that we’re still working
on with staff just so you don’t, you’re not surprised later on when we come up. The first of
course is signage which is what Darren was just talking about. They’re four sided buildings. We
need to speak internally once you’re inside the development but also externally when you’re on
the freeway and you’re trying to find the site. We’ve talked to staff quite a bit about it. It’s a
unique development and we’re trying to come up with something that will work for everybody.
I’m confident that we’ll be able to work through that as we come through for the final plat and be
able to come up with a solution that everybody agrees with so you will be seeing that again. We
are not fully in agreement with what the staff report says but we feel confident that we’ll be able
to work it out with them between now and.
Mayor Laufenburger: But that’s not something that we’re deciding on tonight.
Mark Nordland: You’re not deciding on it tonight.
Kate Aanenson: …because it’s in the PUD ordinance so I think there’s a, if we’re changing a lot
of things then we want to make sure we get it right in the PUD ordinance so we would, I think
what we should do is get a list of all those. Get some direction from the council and then get the
ordinance correct and come back with that in 2 weeks because we have to come back with the
rural service district.
Todd Gerhardt: Once you approve the ordinance it’s very difficult to change it so we want to get
it right the first time.
Kate Aanenson: I thought we had til final plat too so yeah.
Mark Nordland: Yeah we discussed we can’t wait til final plat on the signage.
Kate Aanenson: No. They want to put it into the PUD ordinance.
97
Chanhassen City Council – July 10, 2017
Roger Knutson: Signage is a zoning ordinance issue so it’s in the PUD ordinance. You have a
copy of it I believe.
Mark Nordland: Yes.
Roger Knutson: So if you want anything changed in this ordinance you should be very specific
on what you want changed and what you want it to say.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, he’s going to go through that but the question is whether we’re going to
be able to resolve.
Mayor Laufenburger: This is what I’m hearing is that Kate you’re presenting the PUD for
approval tonight.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Laufenburger: The PUD ordinance for approval tonight and Mark what I’m hearing you
say is that you don’t agree 100 percent with the signage stipulation so the only alternative for us
is either you make your argument tonight and we change the, we approve or deny or you work
with city staff to get the language in the PUD right. As Mr. Gerhardt and Mr. Knutson said…
Kate Aanenson: If I can just suggest another route. I think it’d be helpful if they did explain to
you what you want and you can give us some direction and we can kind of have some because
otherwise we may agree to disagree and then we’re back at the same spot so, does that make
sense?
Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Yeah that’s probably true so Mark have you made your full
argument on signage?
Mark Nordland: No. We can. The direction we had from Planning Commission and from staff
prior to this meeting was that we were going to come to agreement on a comprehensive signage
plan for the development and have that adopted at final plat. It sounds like legally there’s
something different here. I’m wondering Mr. Knutson is there any way that we can have the
signage portion removed from the PUD ordinance right now and adopt that at a later date as a
separate matter? We’re really, you know as you’ve seen we’ve been through 3 Planning
Commission meetings. I think you probably all watched the tapes and read all the Minutes and
it’s been a long process which deservedly so. It’s a major project. There’s a lot of moving
pieces but if we can get this approved and then work with staff I feel very confident, there are 4
issues I was going to talk about that we agreed that we would work on between now and final
plat to get finalized but get the zoning in place now so that we know the basis upon which we’re
moving forward.
98
Chanhassen City Council – July 10, 2017
Roger Knutson: Signage is part of the zoning. You could, if the council adopt this tonight then
you would have to go back to the Planning Commission. Have another public hearing to amend
this. That’s one possibility.
Darren Lazan: Mr. Mayor one of the thoughts we had going into this is that potentially the
ordinance could be adopted tonight that reflects, unless otherwise approved as part of a
comprehensive sign package these are the sign criteria as staff has laid out. That gives us the
opportunity to either comply with what’s been laid out by staff or come back with that
comprehensive package.
Roger Knutson: They cannot, the council cannot approve anything that’s inconsistent with this
ordinance.
Kate Aanenson: That’s what he’s saying. Didn’t you just say you.
Darren Lazan: Yeah, no I just said that we would, it would, the comprehensive sign package
would have to come back before the first development stage plan. That would have to go
through planning and council and be approved. Then it would over ride the base that you’re
approving tonight.
Kate Aanenson: So what they do when they come back for site plan they also ask for an
amendment to the PUD.
Roger Knutson: It’s have to be a PUD amendment.
Kate Aanenson: Right, right. I like that.
Roger Knutson: So then we can adopt this tonight as it is.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Darren Lazan: Yeah that was our hope…
Mayor Laufenburger: So then it becomes your decision as to whether or not in your discussions
you choose to comply with the signage ordinance in the elements of the PUD or not. If you
choose not to then you know that you’re coming back through the Planning Commission public
hearing for.
Kate Aanenson: An amendment.
Mayor Laufenburger: Amendment to the PUD.
99
Chanhassen City Council – July 10, 2017
Darren Lazan: And I think the most likely amendment will be our initial package we’d like to
put together to put this comprehensively. Work with staff and bring it forward for your
consideration and it will likely be hopefully the only amendment related to signage for that. But
we just wanted the opportunity to take this is the baseline and have the ability to demonstrate the
projects as they come in and how they’ll tie together with signage and why that’s critical to the
success so.
Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, what I’m hearing from Kate is that you’re prepared to accept that
process is that correct?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah.
Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alright. Continue Mark. So that’s point number one right?
Mark Nordland: Perfect. You just saved about an hour of a signage presentation from Darren so
that’s good.
Mayor Laufenburger: Well we didn’t save it. We just postponed it.
Mark Nordland: Postponed it. Well until we’ve had a better chance to work through. There’s a
few areas that we’re for sure going to need to compromise and I think we can all come to
something that works well. Senior housing. I believe the approval that’s set forth allows for the
senior housing with services. Is that correct Kate?
Kate Aanenson: Yes, we did agree that we would allow senior services.
Mark Nordland: Alright because some of the earlier staff reports staff was unsure if that was a
good use on the site and Planning Commission I think and hopefully some of our.
Mayor Laufenburger: I have a question regarding that?
Mark Nordland: Yes.
Mayor Laufenburger: You’re aware of, I think Kate’s comment was we believe we have enough
senior housing.
Kate Aanenson: That was in the earlier reports correct. Yep.
Mayor Laufenburger: So you’re aware of some of the senior housing developments that are
underway?
Mark Nordland: Yeah, very aware.
100
Chanhassen City Council – July 10, 2017
Mayor Laufenburger: And the people that you’re working with still believe that there’s a market
opportunity, is that correct?
Mark Nordland: Very much so. We’ve, Tom Palmquist is here tonight who’s helping us market
the project or who’s leading the marketing on it and we’ve got 6 prospective users that are all
competing for that use right now on our site that all would like to be here in Chanhassen so it’s a
good thing and I think the development that we’re creating is a great place for seniors to be in
addition to the other housing that we’re providing. That you wouldn’t want it just to be a big
senior housing development but it’s a mix that allows the full life cycle of folks to be on the site.
And we have senior independent or age restricted independent that wants to be here but to be
able to have the senior with services it allows people to age in place which is really important for
them. If you’re going to go rent an apartment as you’re aging it’s nice to know or it’s important
and critical in a lot of cases to know that you can you know across the parking lot be in another
facility or your spouse can be as you age going forward so that’s really important in the
marketplace and we appreciate staff’s hearing of us and the Planning Commission and others.
Mayor Laufenburger: So item 2 has been approved so.
Mark Nordland: So there we go.
Kate Aanenson: Check.
Mark Nordland: Well it’s in the PUD as drafted to potentially be approved.
Todd Gerhardt: It does have not to exceed 150 units.
Mark Nordland: Yeah of senior.
Kate Aanenson: Of senior. Of assisted.
Mark Nordland: With services correct. We agreed that it would just be one project.
Todd Gerhardt: Okay, but the 150 was fine?
Mark Nordland: Yes. Yep, no that was the number we agreed to. I just wanted to make sure that
everybody was on the same page there. And then the Bluff Creek Boulevard road profile.
That’s another thing that we’re going to work out. I think the traffic calming is critical to the
development. It’s critical to the neighbors. You know we hired this Toole Design out of
California for an exorbitant fee to come in and help us figure out exactly what works well here.
There’s a compromise to be had there and I think we all just need to sit at the same table.
Planning staff and the fire staff and ourselves and whoever else wants to be at that table to come
to a conclusion on what works and we’ll offer up some suggestions and take their feedback and
101
Chanhassen City Council – July 10, 2017
work through that process, and that will come through on the final plat because it’s not a PUD
item. That’s part of the plan, correct?
Mayor Laufenburger: So you’re comfortable that whatever results from that process you’ll do?
Mark Nordland: Yes. We’re comfortable that we’ll be able to get to that conclusion. And if
there’s still some disagreement it would be back before you to I guess arbitrate that but I think
we’ll be able to get there. Staff has been good to work with and we just need to all sit around
and figure that out together. And then the last is the Bluff Creek Overlay District. I’m sure from
watching the Planning Commission meeting you’ve seen sort of where they came out on that.
You know we initially, in our initial concept plan that you, I don’t know if approved is the right
word but you saw back in November and commented on. We had 4.4 acres of private impact
there plus 2.1 acres for the road that went through. Our submittal was 2.9 acres of impact for the
private development. We tried really hard to get it down. You saw the plans earlier. We got it
down as much as, as little as 1.3 acres but as we brought that back to the providers that actually
own and operate those facilities, that plan did not work. That was us trying to make it work but
it was too linear and really we need to go back and figure that out and the Planning
Commission’s direction to us was go back. Get an actual site plan that minimizes the impact as
much as you can and then come back in with the variance and the site plan together, which is
what we intend to do so we actually would formally like to withdraw our request for that
variance because I think that if we are denied that variance we have to wait a certain period
before we can come back in and request it again and we’d like to come back in with the actual
provider. With their actual plan. They can stand here and defend it much better than I.
Mayor Laufenburger: Seems to me that’s sort of what the Planning Commission said.
Mark Nordland: That’s exactly what they asked, yes. And we contemplated trying. The trick is
we need to get the provider to spec the time and money and energy to come in not knowing if the
building envelope will be there for them or that the site will be there for them to accommodate
their facility but we don’t see another choice in the matter and we’re going to go down that path
and.
Mayor Laufenburger: So the Bluff Creek Overlay District is, could potentially be impacted two
ways. Number one by Bluff Creek Boulevard. That’s building in the Bluff Creek Overlay
District.
Kate Aanenson: We’ve got that covered already.
Mayor Laufenburger: But that’s one way. And then the second is this impact into these 18 acres
of woods, is that right?
Mark Nordland: Yes. Somewhere up to 3 acres we will likely be back in here asking for your
approval on so we didn’t want to just have this be passed and not make note of the fact that we
102
Chanhassen City Council – July 10, 2017
will be back with that but you’ll have every right to review and ask us a lot of tough questions
about whether or no it’s an impact that’s worthwhile and vote on it accordingly at that point.
Mayor Laufenburger: So it sounds like we’ve agreed now on number 1, on the signage. You’re
prepared to submit an amendment to the PUD. You got yes on the senior housing. 3 is the road
which is going to be a discussion and then you’re withdrawing the request for a variance so that
is one of those items in, when we get there. We just will not include that.
Kate Aanenson: Well actually we recommended no so it’s consistent with that. With our
recommendation because we recommended no on the variance so they’re agreeing to the no so.
Mark Nordland: Yes but I think the important.
Kate Aanenson: Withdrawing the application.
Darren Lazan: We want to withdraw.
Mark Nordland: We want to withdraw so you don’t actually deny it as Mr. Knutson would
advise us. It’s a good thing otherwise we’d have to wait 6 months or a year before we can come
back in.
Mayor Laufenburger: We’re taking his advice.
Todd Gerhardt: We need an official letter of withdrawal.
Mark Nordland: So with that I just.
Mayor Laufenburger: Do we?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Todd Gerhardt: Yes.
Kate Aanenson: Did you hear that? Someone’s got to pencil out or pen out a withdrawal and
date it.
Darren Lazan: Do you want it done before the vote?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah.
Mark Nordland: With that I just really want to thank the staff.
Todd Gerhardt: You can send us one.
103
Chanhassen City Council – July 10, 2017
Mark Nordland: The neighbors that have been involved in this process. You know at the initial
neighborhood meetings there were hundreds of neighbors. We’re now down to, she’s still here.
We’ve got a couple.
Mayor Laufenburger: Let me stop you. Todd wants to say something to Kate.
Todd Gerhardt: We can get it later.
Mark Nordland: Now it’s down to just a couple neighbors and I think we’ve done a pretty good
job of working together with staff and neighbors and the Planning Commission and the council
when we were here before and hopefully again here tonight. To take a really complicated project
with a lot of moving pieces and drive it forward. I also would like to thank our client Level 7 as
far as a client to work with that’s got vision and normally we’re always trying to cut corners and
trying to do things to drive cost out or try to make things work and it’s been really the exact
opposite in working with Level 7. They’ve been really pushing us to excel and do more. I’ve
been doing this over 20 years for a lot of major developers in Minneapolis and nationwide and
never had an experience like that so we really appreciate everything and we’re here for questions
and whatever else you need.
Mayor Laufenburger: See if there’s any questions of council. Council any questions regarding
what we’re being asked? Just keep in mind one of the items will be withdrawn and the wetland
permit is subject to approval by the WCA. WCA right so that’s the two changes. Any other
changes there Kate? I think that was it.
Kate Aanenson: I think Mr. Knutson probably redid the Findings of Fact and Decision for me
and the motion. But I think we’re in a good place.
Mayor Laufenburger: So any questions of the applicant? So let’s bring this back to the council
then. This is not a public hearing. Mr. Akradi, it’s late at night. Would you like to say
something to the council?
Bahram Akradi: I just want to thank you, if you don’t mind I’ll just do it from here. I’ll say it
loud enough. I want to thank starting with Kate, Todd, city staff, my team to work so well
together. This has been a work in progress. It’s been we’ve been at it now for a little over 2
years. Working on the project. I’m excited about doing something totally first class. We talked
about doing things environmentally friendly. I’ve been pushing them to do so as much as we
possibly can. I want it to be something timeless for the community and I’m just excited to go
through and I appreciate all of you. The City Council as well as the staff for cooperation.
Obviously I’ve developed over 25 million square feet across the country and it’s not always this
cooperative and for many times for no good reason so I just want to thank everybody for the
effort that you guys are putting forward in this. That’s it. Thank you.
104
Chanhassen City Council – July 10, 2017
Mayor Laufenburger: Alright, thank you very much Mr. Akradi. Okay bring this back to
council. Are we ready for a motion or not?
Kate Aanenson: I think if we can get some directions on the motions and potentially Findings of
Fact. If we need to change that at all or.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, members of the council. Can I make some suggestions?
Mayor Laufenburger: Okay.
Roger Knutson: Where it says the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends, that would
be deleted and replaced with the City Council approves the rezoning. City Council approves the
subdivision.
Todd Gerhardt: You’re just taking out Planning Commission.
Kate Aanenson: Oh that’s always good.
Mayor Laufenburger: Does anybody feel comfortable in reading what we need to have or do you
want to.
Roger Knutson: And then.
Mayor Laufenburger: Do we wait for the change?
Councilman McDonald: If you want I’ll give it a try.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: He’s a trooper tonight isn’t he?
Mayor Laufenburger: Isn’t he though. Put that up there Kate. We’re going to try this.
Roger Knutson: I’d point out that item D has been withdrawn.
Mayor Laufenburger: Yeah.
Todd Gerhardt: Take D out completely.
Roger Knutson: And if I can explain the Findings that you have will be amended. On paragraph
6. Wetland Alteration Permit. Amend it to provide that it’s approved subject to the TEP panel’s
approval. Recommended approval. Paragraph 7. Variances will be deleted and it will noted the
applicant is withdrawing the request. In the Decision it will be amended to say that Wetland
Alteration for the grading and filling of wetlands is approved subject to the TEP panel approval.
Recommended approval. And you’ll take out the provision on variances. Will not be needed.
105
Chanhassen City Council – July 10, 2017
Darren Lazan: TEP panel’s an advisory body to the City as the LGU so it’s really subject to the
City’s approval of the wetland alteration.
Roger Knutson: That means it has to come back.
Darren Lazan: It does yeah. Same thing. It’s just not subject to the TEP panel approval. It
would be subject to the City’s approval.
Roger Knutson: So we’re not approving the wetland alteration permit tonight then.
Kate Aanenson: So the whole goal from the beginning is once they made a determination we
wouldn’t have to come back to this body. That’s been our goal so I think we want to leave it to
the TEP panel.
Darren Lazan: Gotch ya.
Mayor Laufenburger: Can we say subject successful review? Subject to successful review by
the TEP?
Darren Lazan: Subject to obtaining Wetland Conservation Act.
Roger Knutson: And the recommended approval of the TEP panel.
Mayor Laufenburger: Subject to recommendation of approval by.
Roger Knutson: Ideally it would come back to you but they don’t want to do that.
Todd Gerhardt: They want us to maybe override the TEP panel.
Mayor Laufenburger: Well you still comfortable with this Mr. McDonald?
Councilman McDonald: Sure, just let me know when. Are you ready Mr. Mayor?
Councilwoman Ryan: Can we get clarification then on this TEP panel approval.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah can’t we say that.
Roger Knutson: TEP panel by ordinance makes a recommendation to you and then you make
the decision.
Councilwoman Ryan: Right it comes back to us.
106
Chanhassen City Council – July 10, 2017
Roger Knutson: That’s not the way this is set up.
Councilman Campion: So is it subject to no changes from the TEP panel?
Roger Knutson: TEP panel by ordinance, state statute makes a recommendation to you, the
governing body.
Todd Gerhardt: And then you can make changes to the TEP panel.
Roger Knutson: You don’t have to follow the recommendations.
Councilman McDonald: Okay subject to recommendations by the TEP panel.
Mayor Laufenburger: There we go. Approval subject to recommendations.
Mark Nordland: So if they recommended against then we’d have to come back.
Todd Gerhardt: And you have to convince this board of those changes.
Darren Lazan: Yeah, we got it. I think we’re fine with that.
Roger Knutson: Okay.
Mayor Laufenburger: Subject to affirmative recommendation.
Darren Lazan: Well now you just changed it.
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah.
Darren Lazan: And the only, and I’m sorry Mr. Mayor. The only reason I’m hung up a little bit
on it is that the TEP panel doesn’t approval anything. They provide the recommendations to you
folks.
Councilman McDonald: It wouldn’t be affirmative. I mean they could recommend in the
negative too.
Darren Lazan: Yep, and then you can decide on the positive.
Councilman McDonald: Yeah then it comes back to us.
Mark Nordland: So if they recommend in the negative we have to come back before you and
make our case.
107
Chanhassen City Council – July 10, 2017
Darren Lazan: Yeah.
Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, Mr. McDonald you want to try it?
Councilman McDonald: Okay. Mr. Mayor I make the following motion. A. The Chanhassen
City Council approves the Rezoning of 115.519 acres from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to
PUD Regional Commercial including the PUD ordinance. B. The Chanhassen City Council
approves Subdivision Preliminary Plat creating 17 lots, 3 outlots, and dedication of public right-
thth
of-way as shown in plans prepared by Landform dated April the 14 and June the 12, 2017,
subject to conditions in the staff report. C. The Chanhassen City Council approves the
Conditional Use Permit to encroach into the primary zone and required buffer for the
construction of Bluff Creek Boulevard, subject to conditions in the staff report. Then I guess
next one should be D. The Chanhassen City Council approves the Wetland Alteration Permit to
4.4659 acres of permanent wetland impacts subject to conditions in the staff report and subject to
approval, it should by the WCA.
Mayor Laufenburger: I think you want to make that word recommendation. Subject to
recommendation.
Todd Gerhardt: The TEP panel.
Councilman McDonald: Well I thought the TEP panel.
Roger Knutson: Subject to the TEP panel’s recommendation for approval.
Councilman McDonald: Okay, subject to the TEP panel’s recommendation for approval. And
then E. The Chanhassen City Council also adopts the attached Findings of Fact and
Recommendations subject to the approval of the TEP panel.
Roger Knutson: That’s not necessary. It will be in the Findings.
Mayor Laufenburger: Modifying paragraph 7.
Councilman McDonald: Modify paragraph 7.
Mayor Laufenburger: Withdrawing the request for a variance.
Councilman McDonald: And with modifying paragraph 7 in which the request for a variance is
withdrawn.
Roger Knutson: Right, and modify paragraph 6 to show that we need the TEP panel’s
recommended approval.
108
Chanhassen City Council – July 10, 2017
Councilman McDonald: And modify paragraph 6 to show that the Chanhassen City Council will
need the TEP panel approval.
Roger Knutson: Recommendation for approval.
Councilman McDonald: Recommendation. Scratch approval. Recommendation.
Roger Knutson: For approval.
Councilman McDonald: For approval.
Mayor Laufenburger: Okay let’s sit on this for just a second.
Kate Aanenson: Where is paragraph 7?
Mayor Laufenburger: Findings of Fact.
Todd Gerhardt: Findings of Fact. It has the variance in the Findings of Fact. Page 8.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you.
Mayor Laufenburger: So we have a motion for A, B, C, D, approval of the wetland alteration
permit subject to a recommendation of approval by the TEP panel. And item E, adopting the
attached Findings of Facts and Recommendation with modifications to paragraph 6 citing that
wetland permit is subject to recommendation for approval from the TEP panel and paragraph 7,
applicant’s desire to withdraw the variance request. That’s what we have in front of us right
now. Mr. Knutson, is that acceptable?
Roger Knutson: I think it’s what you, sounded good to me.
Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alright. We have a motion. Is there a second?
Councilman Campion: Second.
Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Campion. Any discussion at this time?
Councilman McDonald: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Laufenburger: Councilmember McDonald.
Councilman McDonald: Well I’ll let.
Mayor Laufenburger: Councilman Campion.
109
Chanhassen City Council – July 10, 2017
Councilman Campion: No I just want to apologize to the Level 7 and the Avienda team for
pushing you back tonight but yes, so I apologize for that but I appreciate your patience in
working through all these issues with staff and it looks like it’s shaping up to be a great
development.
Mayor Laufenburger: Councilmember Ryan, did you have your hand up?
Councilwoman Ryan: I did not. I know you’re used to seeing that but.
Mayor Laufenburger: You must have scratched your face or something. Councilmember
McDonald, did you have a comment.
Councilman McDonald: Well yeah, I had a comment because one of the things that Ms.
Aanenson said was she’s looking for some direction from council so I thought I’d give her some
direction. At least from my perspective. I want to thank Level 7. I think, well as you heard last
time I’ve been involved in the project across the street for a lot of years. Been involved in this
project for a lot of years and my question has always been, what are you going to do? What does
it look like? Because we were always being asked to approve things that I had no idea how it fit
into the overall picture so I really appreciate being given a vision and an idea of what it is you’re
trying to accomplish with all of this land and my hope is that again you’ve shown great
cooperation working with the City which is very welcomed and again very different from what I
think we were used to and I would encourage the City that, or the staff at all possible give them
the benefit of the doubt. I think this is a great looking project. I think it would make the City
proud. I think it’d be a destination just like Prince’s property would be so I wish you a lot of
luck and I’m hoping that the cooperation can continue but again I would lean toward giving them
the benefit of the doubt. That’s my two cents worth and my direction.
Mayor Laufenburger: Well that was more like 4 or 5 cents Mr. McDonald but you’re allowed.
You’re allowed. Anybody else a comment? Okay.
Councilman McDonald moved, Councilman Campion seconded that the Chanhassen City
Council approve Planning Case #2017-19 to rezone 115.54 acres from Agricultural Estate
District (A2) to PUD Regional Commercial-PUD Subdivision contingent upon final plat
approval, as shown in plans from Landform dated April 14, 2017 and June 12, 2017,
subject to the PUD ordinance and adoption of the Findings of Fact. All voted in favor and
the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Councilman McDonald moved, Councilman Campion seconded that the Chanhassen City
Council approves the Subdivision Preliminary Plat creating 17 lots, 3 outlots, and
dedication of public right-of-way, plans prepared by Landform dated April 14, 2017 and
June 12, 2017, and subject to the following conditions:
110
Chanhassen City Council – July 10, 2017
Engineering
1. Top and bottom elevations for all retaining walls shall be labeled on the plan set.
2. A fence or other barrier is required at any location where a wall is greater than 6 feet tall
and within 10 feet of a public right of way.
3. The following wall materials are prohibited: smooth face, poured in place concrete
(stamped or patterned is acceptable), masonry, railroad ties, or timber. Boulder walls are
prohibited if the maximum height is greater than 6 feet.
4. All retaining walls shall be owned and maintained by a property-owners association.
5. The applicant shall submit a revised grading plan to show Wall E, including top and
bottom wall elevations.
6. As large, landscaped boulevards are proposed, the applicant shall add a note to the typical
sections to identify a corridor for installation of private utilities such as power,
communication, gas, etc.
7. The applicant shall show the road profiles and a horizontal alignment table in the plan set
for all public roads prior to final plat.
8. The public roads constructed with this development are: Bluff Creek Boulevard, Avienda
Parkway, Sunset Trail and Mills Drive. All other roads and drives constructed with this
development will be privately owned and maintained.
9. The applicant proposes an Ultimate Plan for the Bluff Creek intersection with Powers
Boulevard that includes two-lane entry into the roundabout. The City requires this
Ultimate Plan be constructed at this time, but the roadway can be striped for one-lane
only.
10. The applicant shall remove pavement and expand the median on the southern leg of the
Powers Boulevard/Bluff Creek Boulevard intersection to remove the second left-turn lane
from northbound Powers Blvd to westbound Bluff Creek Blvd.
11. Staff recommends the applicant add traffic calming measures to Avienda Parkway West
near the residential areas of development. Specifically, the applicant shall incorporate
pedestrian-friendly crossing features to the intersection at Mills Drive and Avienda
Parkway West.
12. The applicant shall revise the width of Mills Drive to correspond with the existing Mills
Drive section in The Preserve at Bluff Creek.
13. The applicant shall align the intersection of Mills Drive and the access to the apartment
building with the parking ramp to form an intersection rather than offset as the current
plan shows.
111
Chanhassen City Council – July 10, 2017
14. Sunset Trail will become a private roadway from Avienda Parkway to Bluff Creek
Boulevard as it winds through the center of the development. When Block 5 and/or Lot 2,
Block apply for site plan approval, this private road shall be constructed.
15. The plan for concrete sidewalk on the inside of Avienda Parkway shall be revised to a 5-
foot width.
16. ADA-compliant pedestrian ramps shall be constructed at all intersections and median
refuges per the MnDOT standard details.
17. The sanitary stub from MH 25 shall be no larger than the 8” downstream pipe and the
slope shall be adjusted accordingly.
18. Sanitary service stubs shall be provided for the six twin home units proposed on Mills
Drive.
19. Sanitary structures shall be moved out of the landscaped median and into the center of
lanes for improved future maintenance access.
20. All sanitary sewer main constructed within the right-of-way in this project shall be
publically owned and maintained.
21. Private sanitary main must be constructed to meet the City’s requirements for public
utilities.
22. The plan shall use 2017 Chanhassen standard detail plates, which are available on the
City’s website.
23. The proposed water main connection 570 feet north of the Bluff Creek Blvd/Powers Blvd
intersection shall be removed. A water main connection from Avienda Parkway to
Lyman Boulevard through the parking lot of Lot 3, Block 4 shall be installed. The
applicant shall grant a drainage and utility easement for this publically owned and
maintained connection.
24. Water service stubs shall be provided for the six twin home units proposed on Mills
Drive.
25. Additional water main stubs shall be provided at the accesses for Lot 1, Block 4 and Lot
1, Block 5.
26. All water main constructed within the right-of-way in this project shall be publically
owned and maintained. Private sanitary and water main must be constructed to meet the
City’s requirements for public utilities.
27. The applicant must show a maintenance access route for the pond at the bottom of Wall
D.
28. The applicant must provide the total disturbed area of the proposed development.
112
Chanhassen City Council – July 10, 2017
29. Permanent stormwater management controls for Volume, Rate, and Water Quality are
required per the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District (RPBCWD) rules.
30. The applicant must provide a figure clearly identifying the areas to be irrigated with areas
quantified, which is not included in the current plans.
31. The proposed reuse system does not provide sufficient volume reduction per RPBCWD
rules. It is recommended that the irrigation system is revised to provide further volume
reduction.
32. The applicant must provide documentation that each of these ponds meets the Level 1, 2,
and 3 criteria per the Minnesota Stormwater Manual to ensure that they will produce the
calculated water quality benefits.
33. The applicant must provide the annual runoff volumes to each wetland for the pre- and
post-project conditions.
34. The applicant must provide further information on the bounce and inundation periods for
each of the identified critical wetlands. The bounce and inundation changes caused by the
project must be in compliance with WCA requirements.
35. The twin home units must pay a water and sanitary service partial hook-up fee when Lot
1, Block 2 and Lot 1, Block 3 are replatted at the rate in place at that time. The
remaining hook-up fees would be paid with the building permits.
36. The developer shall work with the Building Department to determine the City SAC and
WAC fees for commercial and multi-family buildings. The hook-up fees for commercial
and multi-family buildings are due with the building permit at the rate in place at that
time.
37. The developer shall pay this site’s portion of the 2005 AUAR costs- which is $25,836.70
with the final plat.
38. Collector and Arterial Roadway Traffic Impact Zone fees will be collected with the final
plat. The fee will be based on the commercial rate of $3,600 per acre and a residential
rate of 2,400 per acres.
39. The developer shall escrow funds for installation of traffic signals at Sunset Trail, Powers
Boulevard and Audubon Road. The escrow amount shall be based on the Carver
County’s cost participation policy as published on their website.
40. The proposed redevelopment will need a Riley-Purgatory –Bluff-Creek Watershed
District (RPBCWD) permit prior to beginning construction activities.
41. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that permits are received from all other
agencies with jurisdiction over the project (i.e., Army Corps of Engineers, DNR,
MnDOT, Carver County, RPBC Watershed District, Board of Water and Soil Resources,
PCA, etc.).
113
Chanhassen City Council – July 10, 2017
42. A drainage and utility easement shall be placed over Outlot B.
43. The developer shall dedicate the Conservation Easement containing the Bluff Creek Primary
Zone to the City.
44. Provide a cross access easement to Lot 4, Block 1.
Landscaping
1. No development encroachment on the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone shall be
allowed nor fragmentation of the primary zone area.
2. The access route shall follow the shortest route from Camden Ridge to the proposed
development.
3. The applicant shall submit an overall landscape plan that shows proposed landscaping for
the overall site including items such as parking lots, perimeter, foundation and open
space areas.
4. Parking lot islands shall be linear areas incorporating planting area and stormwater
management.
5. If the applicant chooses to install the minimum requirement sizes of parking lot
landscaping islands, then if the proposed plan remains committed to individual landscape
islands, then silva cells, engineered soil or other accommodations must be used in order
to insure the survival of the trees.
6. No more than 20% of the total trees should be from any one genus and no more than 10%
should be from any one species.
7. A reuse watering system should be considered to irrigate all plantings within the site.
8. Drought tolerant plants shall be incorporate into the overall landscape plan.
9. Proposed landscaping plant materials shall be selected based on site conditions.
10. At a minimum, overall tree cover should be at least 20-25% or higher in commercial
areas and a minimum of 30-35% or higher in residential areas.
11. Any landscaping located within the ROW or the median shall be covered by an
encroachment and maintenance agreement
Park and Trail
114
Chanhassen City Council – July 10, 2017
1. Incorporate meaningful park-like places, including the provision of appropriate recreation
equipment, site furnishings, and landscaping adjacent to residential components.
2. Preserve the woodlands identified in the Bluff Creek Overlay District. Provide a blanket
trail easement over the entire preserved area to accommodate the installation of natural
surface public trails.
3. Provide an attractive public trail connection from the north entering the Bluff Creek
Overlay District.
4. Incorporate traffic calming into all pedestrian crossing locations.
5. Full park dedication fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of requiring
parkland dedication.
Building Official Comments
1. The buildings are required to have automatic fire extinguishing systems.
2. Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
3. Soil evaluation (geo-technical) report required.
4. Retaining walls over four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a permit
must be obtained prior to construction.
Fire Department Comments
The east and west bound driving lanes of Bluff Creek Boulevard extending from Powers
Boulevard to the existing Bluff Creek Boulevard be increased from 16 feet to 20 feet curb to
curb. This is in order for emergency apparatus to safely pass cars and trucks once they pull over
and stop.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Councilman McDonald moved, Councilman Campion seconded that the Chanhassen City
Council approves the Conditional Use Permit to encroach into the primary zone and
required buffer for the construction of Bluff Creek Boulevard; subject to the following
conditions:
1. The developer shall dedicate the Conservation Easement containing the Bluff Creek Primary
Zone to the City.
115
Chanhassen City Council – July 10, 2017
2. The Developer shall provide the city with a management for the area and submit to the city
for review.
3. Monuments indicating the Bluff Creek Overlay District shall be placed at every other
property corner and at an angle of deflection greater than seven percent, but in no case
shall they be greater than 150 feet apart.
4. The developer shall not encroach into the Bluff Creek Primary Zone.
5. The developer shall comply with the with the 40 foot primary zone setback and preserve or
create a 20 foot buffer from the primary zone.
6. The buffer will be required to have a vegetation management plan and soil amendments.
7. The plans shall be revised to remove any structure in the BCOD.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Councilman McDonald moved, Councilman Campion seconded that the City Council
approve the Wetland Alteration Permit to 4.4659 acres of permanent wetland impacts
subject to the TEP panel’s recommendation for approval and subject to the following
conditions:
The applicant needs to supply the needed additional information to the city. The additional
information is needed to determine if the project meets the WCA requirements.
A Technical Evaluation Panel meeting is needed to review the application.
If the application is deemed to meet the avoidance and minimization criteria of the WCA, a
mitigation plan that adequately replaces wetland functions and values is needed.
City Staff has reviewed mitigation options. City Staff recommends the applicant provide
wetland mitigation via the purchase of wetland bank credits, at a ratio of 2:1, in accordance
with WCA requirements.
The applicant shall contribute $300,000 to the city for water quality improvement projects
within the watershed.
Wetland Functions and Mitigation
If the project meets the WCA sequencing and shows that the wetland impacts need to occur for
the project (i.e. if the project meets wetland avoidance and minimization requirements), the rest
of the WCA review for this project is dependent on wetland replacement.
116
Chanhassen City Council – July 10, 2017
The WCA requires that wetland replacement must replace the public value of wetlands lost
because of an impact. The public value of wetlands is generally based on the functions of
wetlands including: water quality, flood water attenuation, public recreation and education, and
fish/wildlife/plant habitats. The WCA uses the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method
(MnRAM) to determine functions and values. The City completed a citywide MnRAM in 2006.
The applicant has completed MnRAM as part of the application process. For the onsite wetlands
that were previously evaluated by the City, the applicant’s MnRAM has either the same result or
a slightly higher quality results for the wetlands.
The table above shows the wetland management categories from the application. The standard
categories that the city uses, which are in conformance with state guidance, is as follows:
Preserve: These are the highest quality wetlands and have high quality habitat and native
vegetative diversity.
Manage 1: These are a lower quality than Preserve, but still show high habitat quality and
plant diversity.
Manage 2: These wetlands have been impacted by stormwater, invasive species, or other
impacts and are lower quality than Manage 1. They likely still provide some habitat and
may have some native plant species.
Manage 3: These wetlands have been impacted the most and may provide a stormwater
treatment function and have minimal native plants. These are the lowest quality wetlands.
The wetlands proposed to be impacted by the project are either Manage 2 or Manage 3 wetlands.
Some have historically been excavated. These wetlands do not contain a diversity of native
plants. They do provide stormwater and floodplain treatment for downstream wetlands as they
are at the headwaters of the Bluff Creek and Lake Susan watersheds. Downstream waters are
impaired for water quality.
Wetland mitigation that replaces wetland functions and values at a minimum of a 2:1 ratio is
required and can be met in a variety of ways:
Onsite mitigation: New wetlands are created or restored within a project area. This could
address replacing functions and values in the same area, but the current layout does not
provide opportunity for a reasonable creation or restoration project. Also, creating new
wetlands takes time and there are many factors to consider for its success.
117
Chanhassen City Council – July 10, 2017
Replacement in the same subwatershed: New wetlands are created or restored within the
same minor or major subwatershed as the project. This would allow wetland functions
and values to be replaced within the subwatershed where the project is located and the
project layout would not have to be altered to fit mitigation on site. However, a suitable
site would need to be located.
Purchase of wetland credits from a wetland bank: There are several wetland banks in the
state and applicants can purchase credit from these already created wetland areas. It is
preferred in the WCA rules that a bank within the same bank service area be chosen to
purchase credit for a project.
Some combination of these mitigation options: An eligible project can also use a
combination of these mitigation options.
As stated, if the project is determined to have met the avoidance and minimization criteria for the
wetland impact, wetland mitigation for the lost functions and values would be required at a
minimum of a 2:1 ratio. Currently, the applicant is proposing mitigation through the purchase of
credit from three wetland banks in Blue Earth, Stevens, and Rice Counties. These banks are in
the same bank service area, and only one is in the same major watershed area.
In addition to the wetland bank credits, City staff recommends that a condition of
approval will include the applicant shall contribute $300,000 to the city for water quality
improvement projects within the watershed.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Councilman McDonald moved, Councilman Campion seconded that the Chanhassen City
Council adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendations as amended by the
City Attorney. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Mayor Laufenburger: Congratulations. We look forward to seeing you more. Wow. You may be
done but we’re not. Alright, thank you. We have one more item that was taken from the consent
agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA: D-8. AWARD OF BID, CITY HALL EXTERIOR LANDSCAPING.
Mayor Laufenburger: Who’s is this?
Todd Gerhardt: Mine.
Mayor Laufenburger: Alright, Mr. Gerhardt.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, City Council members. Staff is recommending awarding bid to Blackstone
Contractors for a base bid of $33,835 and add Alternate #2 for signage of $32,000, giving you a
total award of $365,835.00.
118
Chanhassen City Council – July 10, 2017
Mayor Laufenburger: Alright, and staff is recommending awarding that bid, is that correct?
Todd Gerhardt: That’s correct.
Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Let’s see. I think Councilmember Campion, did you pull this off?
Councilman Campion: I did.
Mayor Laufenburger: Why don’t you raise your question or comment if you’d like.
Councilman Campion: Yeah my comments are really the same as what I shared in the work session
prior. You know I recognize that safety maintenance items need to be addressed with the crumbling
stairs and you know pavement sections that are uneven and things like that but I would really like to
see us reject this and alter our base bid package to be focused more on the necessities and remove
the items that are purely aesthetic in nature. I realize that some of the improvements you know are
addressing safety issues and also have an aesthetic component. I’m not opposed to that. Just the
total amount of $365,000 for these improvements around this building just seem excessive to me.
Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Anybody else want to make a comment or questions?
Councilwoman Ryan: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Laufenburger: Yeah, Councilmember Ryan.
Councilwoman Ryan: I just I support Councilman Campion’s comments. I think he articulated it
well. It was a concern of mine which I shared in the work session as well so I just want to offer my
support to Councilman Campion’s words since he articulated it very well.
Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Well would anyone like to make a motion or Mr. McDonald did you
have a comment?
Councilman McDonald: Well I’ll do a motion.
Mayor Laufenburger: Okay.
Councilman McDonald: If I can find it. Mr. Mayor I’ll make the motion that the Chanhassen City
Council accepts the City Hall exterior landscaping bids and awards the contract to Blackstone
Contractors LLC in the amount of $365,835.00 which includes the base bid and Alternate #2.
Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. We have a valid motion. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Ms. Tjornhom. I have a question Mr. Knutson. This is for you
specifically. Can we choose to accept this bid as a formality and then direct staff to enter into bona
fide negotiations with the contractor asking them for consideration of removing those, removing the
119
Chanhassen City Council – July 10, 2017
work or work change orders that would remove items that the staff deems to be purely aesthetic and
not for safety purposes. Is that possible?
Roger Knutson: Mayor, members of the council yes by change order. You can’t change the, make
incredibly insignificant changes to the scope of the project but normal change orders, adding a few
things or deleting a few things absolutely.
Mayor Laufenburger: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: But Roger you should preference that by saying it may not be for dollar for dollar.
Mayor Laufenburger: Right I understand.
Roger Knutson: Right because it’s a change order so you don’t know what the number will be until
you negotiate with the contractor.
Mayor Laufenburger: But it’s acceptable for us to separate from the approval of this award instruct
staff to enter bona fide negotiations for the purpose of seeing if it’s a value or seeing if it’s wise or
efficient use to eliminate the aesthetics, aesthetic only things of the contract while leaving all of the
safety things. And then the council trusting the judgment of city staff to enter into those
negotiations so that they wouldn’t, it wouldn’t have to come back to us.
Roger Knutson: Approval of the change orders would come back to you.
Mayor Laufenburger: Oh the change orders do come back to us?
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Mayor Laufenburger: So if there’s any change orders they would have to come back to us.
Roger Knutson: Because you approved the contract.
Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alright. Mr. McDonald you wanted to say something.
Councilman McDonald: Well yes Mr. Mayor. I understand where you’re going with this but the
danger that we’re going to run into is you’re going to drive the cost of this above what the bid is. I
mean I made a living on change orders and that’s what you do. That’s where you make your money
because at that point you’re not governed by anything in the contract and they could renegotiate
every line item down through there and say well if you change this it impacts that. This is what it’s
going to cost you. I think we’re crossing into dangerous territory to where suddenly this thing is
just going to mushroom out of control.
Mayor Laufenburger: You’re saying we’re crossing, if we direct staff to do that.
120
Chanhassen City Council – July 10, 2017
Councilman McDonald: Right. That is my fear that if you direct staff to do that we are basically
giving the contractor a blank check to say well, if you’re going to do that then this is what it’s going
to cost you to take these out and we have no recourse at that point.
Roger Knutson: Mayor I’d just add one thing. You can always reject the change order.
Mayor Laufenburger: Oh the council has the prerogative to reject the change order, yeah.
Councilwoman Ryan: But Mr. Mayor, how is that any?
Mayor Laufenburger: Councilmember Ryan.
Councilwoman Ryan: How is that any different than, I mean initially they, it was come look at the,
I’m sorry it’s late. My words aren’t coming. But come look at the campus. City Hall campus and
put together a proposal and them knowing, what?
Mayor Laufenburger: Keep going.
Councilwoman Ryan: You know and they put everything into this plan or this proposal for us
without an opportunity for us to go through it and reduce the total amount. How I mean?
Mayor Laufenburger: Well my idea originally of giving the staff the direction to modify the amount
of work done to reduce it, that would get this project underway but as Mr. McDonald points out I
think it opens us up for, if we’re going to change one item then we have to notify and negotiate to
change other items and we lose the strength of awarding the bid as specified. I also want to correct
that the staff report incorrectly indicates that this requires a two-thirds vote of the City Council. It
requites a simple majority of the City Council so. Any other comments? I’m looking, let’s see do
we have a motion? We do.
Todd Gerhardt: A first and a second.
Mayor Laufenburger: Jerry and Bethany, okay. Any further discussion?
Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
accepts the City Hall Exterior Landscaping Bids and Awards the Contract to Blackstone
Contractors LLC in the amount of $365,835 which includes the base bid and alternate #2. All
voted in favor, except Councilman Campion and Councilwoman Ryan who opposed, and the
motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
Mayor Laufenburger: Okay that concludes our normal business. Now council presentations.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS.
Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Gerhardt anything?
121
Chanhassen City Council – July 10, 2017
Todd Gerhardt: I think the one item I was going to update you on, Councilmember Ryan talked
about the vision process as a part of the Venue. We will look for public input on that. Not just
downtown businesses and get going on that as Kate mentioned within the next 3 months so we can
bring it back to you.
Mayor Laufenburger: I would just point out, was there anything else Mr. Gerhardt?
Todd Gerhardt: No.
Mayor Laufenburger: I would also point out that earlier this evening in the work session we
received the audit report and for the umpteenth year in a row we have a, I should be more accurate
with that number but we received a clean audit. Clean opinion on the financial reporting of the City
of Chanhassen and also received the Certificate of Excellence from the GOFA I think is that what
it’s called?
Todd Gerhardt: For last year.
Mayor Laufenburger: For last year. From 2015.
Todd Gerhardt: We will be submitting for this year’s audit and you should get that results in
November-December.
Mayor Laufenburger: And that financial report, as is true with all of our financial documents will
be made available on the website so congratulations to Mr. Sticha and his staff on the successful
audit. With that is there any question about the correspondence packet? Have a motion to adjourn?
Councilwoman Ryan moved, Councilman McDonald seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The City Council
meeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m.
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
122