Loading...
PC 2017 05 16CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 16, 2017 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, John Tietz, Maryam Yusuf, Nancy Madsen, and Mark Randall MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Weick STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: Jon Gilbert 1641 Jeurissen Lane Steve F. Jayne J.P. Meyer 9440 River Rock Drive South Zhexin Zhang 1455 Bethesda Circle Brian Oman 9081 River Rock Drive Kevin Vetsch 9310 River Rock Drive North Don Ketchum 9456 River Rock Drive South Joe Shamla 1691 Mayapple Pass PUBLIC HEARING: AVIENDA – PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) REZONING FOR A REGIONAL DESTINATION, LIFESTYLE AND MIXED USE CENTER (AVIENDA) ON FIVE PARCELS TOTALING 118 ACRES ON PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT (A-2) WITH A LAND USE DESIGNATION OF REGIONAL COMMERCIAL OR OFFICE USE, AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LYMAN AND POWERS BOULEVARDS. THE CONCEPT PLAN INCLUDES RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, HOTEL AND OFFICE USES. APPLICANT: LANDFORM PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, LLC. OWNER: LEVEL 7 DEVELOPMENT. Aller: Tonight is a little bit different. We have a public comments presentation. We’re going to continue the matter for appropriate action on the wetland alteration permit and conditional use permit and variances so that they can be properly noticed and that hearing will be June 6th so again if you’re at home or in the audience and you’d like to come back for that hearing, that would be the time that we’ll take appropriate action and then the City Council date at this point in time for it to move forward would be June 26, 2017 so again if you want to follow this item to Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 16, 2017 2 further action with the City Council please calendar your date for June 26, 2017. With that we’ll go ahead with item one on our agenda which is Avienda. Aanenson: Thank you Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. As you stated this item will have a second meeting on June 6th. Not all the items requested were noticed in the hearing. We want to make sure that those are properly noticed. It also gives us some additional time to take the comments tonight and work on some refinements so we’re hoping that on this review that we get some good direction from the Planning Commission and continue to refine this project. In your packet there was a lot of information so this is the applicant’s desires for some of it. Our job, the commission and the City Council then is to put that in, you know construct a PUD ordinance and design standards so that’s what you have in front of you. Our version of that plus all their supplementary information so it’s just translating what their goals and objectives are and then turning that into an ordinance format which is how we would implement the strategies. I also wanted to let you know that Jon Horn is with us tonight with Kimley-Horn who also worked on the AUAR for traffic questions. We know that’s one of the issues for the neighbor so Jon will be going through that when we get to that point tonight. So as you stated we’re here tonight to talk about the preliminary plat and we’ll take comments on anything but we’ll re-notice it so all comments can be continued into the next meeting. So again this is not just for the people here but anybody watching at home or want to review this at a later date where we are in the project. It’s located in the southwest corner of Powers Boulevard and Lyman. It’s not Highway 101. The parcels in the development, there’s 7 of them and the total acreage is, we have a gross of 118. I think the applicant has a gross of, acres of approximately 115. There’s one anomaly and that’s the little piece on the other side of Powers Boulevard. So the background of this, again the City Council recently reviewed the final resolution and adoption of the AUAR but prior to that on November 1st the Planning Commission did review, recommend conceptual approval of this project. Again conceptual approval has no legal standing but the intent of that is to give clear direction for the developer to continue to work on the project. On November 28th the City Council also gave conceptual approval. So back in February 27th we had a work session with the City Council to review some of the findings of the AUAR and then on February 28th, excuse me on the 28th meeting at the City Council they also directed the, ordered the review of the AUAR update. So we reviewed it with the City Council and then had an open house on February 28th. That was well attended. A lot of questions were asked there and the applicant and staff, the consultants that were working on the AUAR were there to answer questions and then on March 7th we had a public hearing to review the AUAR document. Again a public hearing wasn’t required, or public notice wasn’t required but we did do that to make sure that all issues were addressed so then on March 13th the City Council authorized publication and we took a comment period. As a part of that comment period all the comments received were then addressed and formulated a mitigation plan. That mitigation plan is also a part of your report. What that mitigation plan says is that we will follow the Cit y ordinances and I’ll go through that in a little bit more detail when we get to it but so they did adopt a final resolution on May 8th and the mitigation plan so that’s what the applicant will then be directed to follow, or any project within this AUAR. It will be required to follow. Are there any questions on that so far? Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 16, 2017 3 Aller: No, thank you. Aanenson: Okay, so summary of the request. So we’re looking at the rezoning to PUD, which is regional commercial. Again this was dual guided. This applicant is pursuing the regional commercial which includes PUD design standards. With that is a preliminary plat, a wetland alteration permit. That was the one that was not noticed. A conditional use for permit, for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. Again that one’s getting noticed for the 6th and then variance for construction within the Bluff Creek Overlay. Again those 3 bottom ones are the ones that will be noticed for next time but you’re certainly welcomed to comment on those but we’ll make sure that we reiterate that at our next meeting. So again the goal tonight is to review the issues. Hear from the neighbors and take public comment and then also to hear from you. Concerns or issues you want us to come back and address or concerns to make sure as we’re working to get this ordinance put together it reflects what you want the council to review. Your recommendation. So first we have the preliminary plat. So the preliminary plat that they are requesting, this is a little bit backwards in your staff report and I’m going to go through the traffic because I think that kind of seems like it’s got the most concern for the neighbors. So this is the plat. So this would be Lyman Boulevard on the north. This is Powers Boulevard. This is Bluff Creek Drive coming through and then the Mills Drive and then the extension of Sunrise Trail. So the original PUD always recommended that Bluff Creek Drive be connected. It also we had required that there be a connection at Mills Drive. You’ll see when we go through the development itself we’d always encourage that there’d be some residential as a transition on that western side of the property. Also this was part of, also another access off of Lyman Boulevard and that would form a T intersection at Sunrise Trail. Sunset Trail. And so the other one was that connection from the south and we’ll go through a little bit more detail on that but I’m going to turn it over to Jon to kind of go through some of the traffic issues. Jon Horn: Good evening Chair, members of the Planning Commission. As Kate had suggested we did hear a lot of comments and questions about traffic so we thought it’d be helpful this evening to provide you with a brief overview of the traffic analysis that was done as a part of the AUAR process so I’ll just walk you through that very quickly. The Avienda area is basically this area on the exhibit so the northeasterly quadrant of the area that was analyzed as a part of the AUAR. Kate had discussed the extension of Bluff Creek Boulevard at this location as well as an extension to the north to Lyman Boulevard. Again as a part of the AUAR process we looked at the entire area but really tonight we’re only focusing on the Avienda area. So as a part of the traffic analysis we did look at existing traffic volumes on all the surrounding roadways as well as the roadways internal to the development area. The numbers that are shown on this graphic are two directional daily traffic volumes so basically on Lyman Boulevard this 9,700 cars suggests that there’s 9,700 cars today that travel in two directions on that piece of Lyman Boulevard. I did also want to call attention to Bluff Creek Boulevard and Bluff Creek Drive. So existing traffic volumes on Bluff Creek Boulevard just to the east of Audubon Road is 2,200 cars a day. As you extend further to the east it’s about 1,600 cars per day and then traffic volumes on Bluff Creek Drive just north of Pioneer Trail start at 2,900 cars a day and transition to 2,500 cars a day Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 16, 2017 4 so that’s based upon existing traffic counts. Existing conditions today. We did look at the proposed development concept and what would happen in year 2022 with full development of the site so basically all the numbers suggest what those anticipated traffic volumes would be based upon the traffic modeling that was done. Again focusing on the internal roadways which have gotten a lot of concern and questions by the residents in terms of how those volumes have changed so if you recall from the existing conditions it was 2,200 cars a day. Suggested to go up to 3,600 cars a day with full development on Bluff Creek Boulevard and then 3,000 at this location. Existing conditions is 1,600. And then on Bluff Creek Drive 2,900 and 2,500 so 2,900 goes to 4,200. 2,500 goes to 2,700. The 4,200 number is fairly large just because the access for this development area is proposed to come off of Bluff Creek Drive at this location. So again anticipated traffic volumes based upon 2022 and full development. As a reference point it’s also important to consider the original AUAR that was done so back in 2003 the AUAR looked at the extension of a roadway between Audubon Road and Powers Boulevard on Bluff Creek Boulevard. As a part of that original AUAR process there was a lot of concern about cut through traffic and the design of that roadway so the roadway that was ultimately designed and constructed does include a roundabout at this location and the alignment was more circuitous and some traffic calming measures were addressed as a part of the original construction of that roadway to address some of those concerns about cut through traffic. And just for reference the 2010 anticipated traffic volumes along Bluff Creek Boulevard from that original AUAR, this 3,600 cars a day was anticipated to be 4,500 cars a day. The 3,000 was anticipated to be 8,400 and on Bluff Creek Drive the 2,700 was anticipated to be 3,100 cars a day so the traffic volumes that were originally anticipated in the AUAR for 2010 are less than what’s currently anticipated for 2022 based upon the development and again a lot of that is from the background of you know trying to do some things with Bluff Creek Boulevard to minimize the amount of cut through traffic that occurs between Powers Boulevard Audubon Road. In terms of the improvements that would occur as a part of the development of the Avienda site, so again the Avienda site is right here. We are showing in the development of a fourth leg on the intersection at Powers and Bluff Creek Boulevard. Suggesting there’ll be two left hand turn lanes. That has actually been a topic of conversation with the developer. Powers Boulevard today is built for double left turn lanes and we’re proposing those double left turn lanes remain. It also shows as the proposed geometrics for the intersections, approaching that intersection. Powers Boulevard is a Carver County roadway so any improvements to Powers Boulevard need to be done in conjunction with Carver County and MnDOT has some jurisdiction as well as a result of the ramps from Highway 212 so both those agencies need to be heavily engaged in any conversations about modifications or improvements to this intersection. The Avienda development also proposes a connection to the north of Lyman Boulevard at Sunset Trail and the traffic analysis suggests that at some point a traffic signal could be warranted at that intersection so it’s anticipated at some point a traffic signal would need to be installed at that location. So just some background. Aller: Can I ask a quick question on the traffic signal. Do we have control over that or is that something that’s mandated by the State when they come in and do their numbers? Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 16, 2017 5 Jon Horn: It’s basically so Lyman Boulevard is a county roadway so anything that’s done there would have to be, you know you’d have to engage Carver County but then ultimately this traffic signal warrants would have to be met and is between the City and the County at that point to decide whether that traffic signal goes in. Aller: Thank you. Jon Horn: So just a summary. The AUAR update identified that on Bluff Creek Boulevard the traffic that would be anticipated in 2022 upon full buildout is less than the analysis that was done as a part of the original 2005 MUSA area. Bluff Creek Boulevard design is proposed to include a couple of roundabouts as well as some traffic calming measures. Another thing to mention is that the anticipated speed limit that’s for Bluff Creek Boulevard is proposed to be 30 miles an hour so again another way to try to decrease traffic volumes and to try to slow traffic down through the area. And as well the traffic signal that would likely be warranted at Lyman Boulevard and Sunset Trail intersection. Aanenson: So I would like to move now to the development data itself looking at the project. As I mentioned there’s a preliminary plat so there’s 17 lots and 3 outlots. One of the outlots would be a drainage and utility for this lot here. This, when Powers Boulevard was constructed it severed this remnant parcel here. Then we have the Bluff Creek Overlay District and then the existing pond over here so those would be the 3 outlots. So when the PUD was put into place, when the City had desired to look at a regional commercial. The challenge that we had from the beginning of this project is looking at how the market change and what becomes a regional draw. What does that marketplace look like today because the intent of the original PUD was to look at a couple of major anchor tenants and we were challenged with the developer to find out you know what does that mean in today’s market so they updated their market study and that was one of your attachments here. The McComb’s study and just wanted to talk a little bit about what the planning staff’s perception of that, of what our vision was and then how the market forces have changed and how they’re trying to match those two goals or two desires up. So the planning department when we looked at it we saw this as a place for you know entertainment. Department stores. Comparison shopping. Specialty, restaurants, hotels and residential. 20 percent residential and then again you know it would be a gathering place. Different than the downtown which kind of serves the daily needs. You come and get your mail. You know grocery stores. Those sort of things, which would be restaurants and more regional draw. So because it did have two major anchor tenants we challenged the developer to explain to us what the mix of uses was or what the intensity or the draw by the commercial mix. The uses that were in there that would create the regional draw. Hence the McComb’s study. So what the study looked at, and I didn’t put a slide in there. It’s in the staff report but what they did is they looked at a comparison of a number of other regional shopping centers and I think it’s interesting to note that this site right here with the building square footage at a 1,115,000 is significantly larger than the ones in the study itself so they looked at Galleria. Shops at Arbor Lake. Woodbury. Shops at West End. Central Park Commons and City Place and tried to look at the, what were some of the commonalities in those so all of those did have food stores which is one of the things that they Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 16, 2017 6 wanted to put in. We had that discussion early on. That would be one of what they would consider one of the draws that brings people to that center so with that we also wanted to make sure that there was enough massing of other specialty boutique retail that would also be a draw. So if it’s not a large department store that there would be quantities of scale that would draw that so they also looked at some of the other things they had in common. Specialty apparel, those sort of things which is what our goal would be too. So if you look at the grocer on this side, some of the more traditional and then the specialty retail in the core. So again this project is significantly larger than the projects that were studied so I think that adds a little bit more complexity to making sure that we put, you know we construct the PUD and put those uses in there because that was our challenge looking at this is making sure that there’s some built in flexibility but also that we’ve constructed one that we think reflects what the marketplace is and we also have control. That’s why we put it into a PUD with the regional commercial. We wanted to direct that. Be more prescriptive of the uses that go in there. Having said that, as you know with Villages on the Pond things change over time and so we know that there’s a use that comes in and we hadn’t anticipated and it seems to make a lot of sense that we would process it through and it would have to come through for a PUD amendment but right now we’re trying to put together that list of uses that seem to make sense for both parties in trying to achieve the goals that were originally set out in the PUD itself. So again the mix of uses is what the developer is also accomplishing so you’ve got the restaurants. The office park and then the specialty retail more in the center and then the housing on the eastern edge which is what we had suggested also to, excuse me the western side to provide that buffer from the existing neighborhoods. So this is another illustrative way to show, we put the square footage in here and also you know what we originally put in the PUD was a maximum of 20 percent area amount of residential so that number at 16 units an acre would top out at 370 and looking at what they’re proposing it’s 515 so that would be a way then, if the council, or the Planning Commission felt that that would be a way to, that they felt that’s good direction then the PUD would be amended to make it you know 25 percent, whatever that number comes out to. That’s the housing but there’s some other issues on some of the housing that we’ll discuss. Also we put in the staff report, I’m going to go back to this in the staff report regarding the Bluff Creek and the overlay district. The senior housing and that senior housing is shown right now as what we would call service enriched so we put the Carver County study in there that they had done and they’re in the middle of updating that right now to say within the cities within Carver County, what they see as the needs are and they break it down in that report. It’s one of your attachments that show what the cities need over time. Carver County and, excuse me. City of Chanhassen, Chaska and Waconia obviously tend to get the bulk of those service enriched products so the council just approved the Mission Hills which was modified. You saw that project to add the daycare so that was just approved on Monday night and that will be under construction. We also have Presbyterian Homes. There are demands for senior housing. We’re just saying service enriched right now is not one of them. We’ve recently approved 2 group home ones. The Beehive, Olive Wood so those are also picking up that share of kind of the service enriched so while we certainly think there’s some demand for senior coop, senior rental, senior condo, the service enriched would not be our recommendation to the City Council so that was this project over in that area and that also had quite a few units in it too. So we did try to just show you again the floor area ratio. Looking at Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 16, 2017 7 that. Does that tie in with what we use typically for density to make sure it all tied back to what our original goals were, except for the density issue so there’s two ways to resolve that. Reduce the number of units or in the PUD change that percentage so that’s something that you should give some consideration or take some comments from the residents as far as housing as a component. I think, sorry to keep going back and forth but one of the projects that they entered which I think is unique which we’re excited about is this housing in the core and I’ll let them talk a little bit more about that. The rental housing with commercial attached to it which we think is a different product which is what we’re always looking for in a development is something new in the marketplace for choice so we think that’s an existing product and that’s right in kind of the village center there. So again we show the acreage. Total acreage checking out the outlot for the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The piece that will be in the drainage and utility easement and then Outlot C, that wetland that goes between the two. So just on the wetland itself I just wanted to comment on that because this is one that we’ll have discussion more on in the next meeting. This is going through the wetland alteration permit so the goal for the developer is to pursue that in order to get the project approved they would have to get this alteration permit approved as it is so there has been a complete application made. It has been reviewed by the Army Corps. I’m not going to go into a lot of detail on it but I will say that we’re using a consultant to work through the process and that they have completed that application and the deadline expires by July 12th. They’re working on the permitting that the Army Corps, some additional information that they did meet but I did want to add too on the Bluff Creek Overlay District. That’s one of the tradeoff’s that they’re making for the filling of the wetlands so all the wetlands would be affected except for the two that are in the Bluff Creek Overlay District and then the existing one that ties into the neighborhood to the west. So the Bluff Creek Overlay District I’ll show here in a minute. So this is where that Overlay District falls. One of the things for the mitigation strategies was that the City follow it’s ordinances. We have preserved along the wetland. There’s been minor grading within the wetland so if this project was to go forward the senior housing as shown where it is, that’s where the conditional use and the variance would be because we’ve never had somebody build inside or remove the Bluff Creek. It’s approximately 5 acres so that building, that senior housing, if you can see here, plops kind of into that 5 acres there and also the parking for the other project so you can see the length of the Bluff Creek district itself. So the Bluff Creek Overlay District was adopted in 1998. When that was put in place. There was a couple different strategies of how to acquire that property. One was to actually to go through the entire length of the city and try to acquire that or incrementally as each of the projects come in to pursue doing a tradeoff. In this case because they’re doing a PUD, they’re filling some significant wetlands, it seems like that would be the appropriate tradeoff so there are ways if you were to do minor grading or there were some empirical reasons to say that it doesn’t meet the criteria. Scientific evidence but because of the significant trees in that area, the high quality of trees we believe that it should be preserved. That area. The park commission also commented on that and gave the same comment so we’d like to see that all, little alteration to that, the Overlay District in and of itself. Again that was part of the AUAR strategies also. So there is setbacks from the primary zone so even if you’re grading in that, the zone. There’s a setback from that. You’d have to get a conditional use so looking at where those final plans end up we would look at that. To be, as part of this you know we’re talking about just setting the Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 16, 2017 8 framework. We’re not approving any buildings right now but we’re trying to establish how things would look so when they come in there’s no surprises for the developer too so even though we’re setting up the ordinance as they would come in, each site has to come in and go through site plan which would require a public hearing before the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council. So any site plan that would come in but what we’re establishing is the rules by which they’ll be measured when they come in so it’s important if there’s issues our frameworks are important. That we make sure that those are part of the rules that they would have to follow, if that makes sense. So grading and stormwater. Did you want to take a shot at that Alyson? Fauske: Thanks Kate. The developer proposes grading the site to accommodate their development there. They submitted some stormwater calculations to meet the water quality, quantity and the rate control for the site. We’ve had some discussions. We have a consultant that is looking and reviewing those documents. We’ve had some conversations with the applicant to get the necessary information in order to complete the review. I’ll let the applicant speak specifically to what their plan is but generally speaking they’re looking at, they would like to do a re-use project on this site so I’ll let them address that when their presentation comes up. In addition to the grading, because leading into existing grades and getting the site prepared for the building pads that they’ve requested they did see, anticipate some retaining walls on the site. There are 4 of them outlined in the staff report and for those following along at home I’m on page 24. Wall A is on the west side of Sunset Trail. It’s a shorter wall. Approximately let’s see 300 feet long and at the maximum height 20 feet. And then of course there’s a second wall here on the south side of Lyman Boulevard, Wall B. And that one would be a maximum height of approximately 15 feet. Then skipping over to the southern portion of the site the developer anticipates a wall here along a wetland as Kate had outlined in the, in her staff report. Or pardon me on her slide that shows the wetland at this location so you’d have a retaining wall wrap around there along the southern portion of the site. That one’s a fairly long wall, 980 feet. Pardon me Wall D. Thank you. 980 feet. 15 feet high. And then there’s another wall, the notation’s missing. Right up here at the northern portion just around the stormwater feature here and that one is 4 feet tall so shorter wall at that location. The utility plan was also included with the application. The watermain would be looped throughout the site providing an extension here through Mills Lane. Another connection currently shown here at Powers. We’re still having a discussion on the appropriate location for that but essentially looping the watermain through the site. Additionally there would be an extension of the sanitary sewer from the existing terminus here within Bluff Creek Boulevard. The permit process for this area, it included an analysis of the elevations through here so that’s a fairly deep sanitary sewer at that location as it was anticipated to need that, require that depth in order to service this area with gravity sanitary sewer. And then there would also be an extension here at Mills Drive to service these residential components of the site. Aanenson: Thank you Alyson. I’m just going to go back. One of the issues that we talked about the extension of Mills Drive. That was always included when this subdivision went in that we’d want a secondary access out to serve that local traffic. We also requested that the application Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 16, 2017 9 look at housing as a transition. What they’re showing there we think makes a lot of sense. It’s a great buffer for that neighborhood. The other issue was the connection down at Camden Ridge, to tie that so this is actually a fire lane. I know the fire department feels strongly about it. It does create a lot of impact through the site for grading. Originally the intent was to run it this way but there’s that large retaining wall that the Assistant City Engineer just went through. It’s a pretty substantial wall so that forces this so that’s you know, that’s a sensitive issue we know for the connection there so we’re still working through that issue. The developer, I put together a district master plan which we like for, I think for to help understand how the project is being put together and they’ve broken it down into the retail hospitality district, and that would be where the hotel would be. Where the grocery store would be and so potentially some drive thru applications in that area. And then also we’ve got the multi-family housing district. The low density district. The office district and that district also included daycare. And then the village district which is the kind of the specialty retail and then the more urban apartments attached with retail. So what we suggested, and so now I’m kind of moving onto the design guidelines and that actually becomes the ordinance for this. We’ve referenced what the intent of this document is. The permitted uses so what we did is took the applicant’s narrative and pulled it in and then made some comments and so we’ll be working through. We want your input and the residents input and then working through with the applicant to fine tune this but we want to make sure that there’s one grocer. One large grocer in there and some of the other ones, uses that would be ancillary. One daycare. Again if you go back to our original goals that we’re doing things that are different than downtown that would be more regional comparison shopping and then as I mentioned earlier the 20 percent housing. Your comment on that because that would only allow up to 370 units at the 20 percent 16 units an acre so with the, if you felt strongly one way or the other then we would adjust that PUD to make that work. And then again as I stated we took out the housing that was more what we would call service enriched memory care, or skilled nursing requirement. There are also some other minor tweaks in there. So one of the issues that we had is there’s architecture based on the different uses in that and they’ve got a document in there that shows kind of the architecture. We want that translated in a more specific prescriptive types of materials. Percentage of materials which we have in our current ordinance so again willing to work with the applicant on that. We want to have that developed for you and hear some comments on that more specific on, they’ve listed materials but we want to know what percentage of materials. Like we don’t allow a large percent of concrete. Masonry units or cut faced block. Those would be percentage or same with EIFS so we want to do that. We’ve also added some, we’ve learned from some of our drive thru’s that we need better stacking on some of those so we’ve given some standards from our consultant for those uses. Again one of the other issues that they were looking at, and because we don’t know who the users are and we have to, things change over time. The same with the Villages on the Pond. Things change over time. Want some relief on some of the parking because we don’t have a parking study. We’re looking at each use individually. We certainly anticipate there’ll be cross access parking between the uses. We support that. That does allow flexibility and we can put that in place but we don’t want to give too much up front where we have problems down the road when we’re looking at these uses so I think we just need to work with the developer a little bit more on that because they’re asking for relief for commercial districts and some of the apartments where you’re Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 16, 2017 10 parking in the commercial. We certainly have that in the downtown where we have the park and ride ramp but there’s not that big overflow space in this area so we want to make sure that we’re recommending right now we just stick with the current city standards. And then also the overall landscaping plan and theme. The City Forester gave some comments on that. Wants to see that more developed again because as each project would come in and then they would meet that criteria. Fulfill it. Continuation of that theme which is, which they have spelled out. The developer what their overall architectural theme is which in the pictures looks great but we need it more in a narrative to apply to any developer and it appears like they’re also going to have a architectural review but we also need that in the ordinance because that can change over time too. Signage. We also looked at their signage package that’s in here. Just a few changes. We like the themes. I think one of the concerns we have was a lot of the signs that were placed on the large retaining wall we think certainly a sign that says the name of project, Avienda makes sense. We also think some of the tenant signs work and maybe in the village more that we would have projecting signs. Something unique on that so we have some comments on that but I think we’re not that far off from what they’re recommending. Just some minor tweaks on that and then looking at the, at the wall area because we have that percentage too so, so these are the three kind of areas. There’s some way finding things that we think make sense. Again some of the ones where we have a major entrance sign here, I’m not sure going that way. And then these would be signs that are all on top of the retaining wall. Certainly the one for Avienda but the way finding signs, or just the advertising sign that that’s being that distance away seems a little excessive. And then did put some prohibitive things in there too but I think those are all doable. I hope you’ve had a chance to look at those but we’d be happy to get some direction from you on that. With that I’ll just kind of say kind of the direction we’re going down. I know the applicant wants to make their presentation but this is kind of how we see that we’d like comments on the plat itself. The layout. The grading. Wetlands. Bluff Creek Overlay District. Stormwater and then the PUD. The design standards. You know what did we miss? What concerns you have and we’ll look at that but with that I’ll be happy to answer any questions. Otherwise I’ll turn it over to the applicant to make their presentation. Aller: Any questions at this point in time from any of the commissioners? Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: Kate I have a question on the prohibited uses. Is a big box discount sort of a store a prohibited use? Aanenson: Yeah. Madsen: I did not, is that go under the club warehouse including wholesale category? Aanenson: Yes. Yeah, yeah. So what we did is we put that under the, you know we talked about that with the applicant and I think that’s something that we’re still working on. You know you can have a small furniture store. You could have a very large furniture store. They may not intend to do that but you know in the years down the road depending on where things are in the Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 16, 2017 11 project if they get a user so we want to revisit that and maybe fine tune that one but did you have a question on making sure it’s in there or that we missed it or? Madsen: Just with the visioning process that the City went through I thought that a big box discount sort of a chain store would be a prohibited use. Aanenson: Correct. Correct. I think the way we put it on there, we addressed it and talked about, so if you look at home furniture stores under retail establishments, it’s on the second page of the Exhibit A. So you have the top is entertainment. Number 2 is retail establishment. E is home furniture stores so we’ve put not to exceed 50 feet but we think we just need to work on that a little bit more. Madsen: That by limiting the size. Aanenson: Correct, that was our intent. It’s not prohibiting but it’s limiting the size. Madsen: Okay. Aanenson: Because there might be, there might be a specialty retail. A Pottery Barn or something that you want to have there but you don’t want to have a large one so it’s just trying to figure out what that, working with the applicant or hearing from residents what that square footage should be. Madsen: Okay, thank you. Aller: And my understand and maybe anyone can answer this is that that big box in the industry right now is it about 40,000 square feet? Before it’s determined to be a big box. So do we know what that would actually be? Aanenson: Okay, we can check. Aller: Any other questions at this point? Tietz: Andrew yeah. Aller: Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: Kate I just want to follow up on the McComb’s study. Was there any, the most recent study appeared to have focused primarily on lifestyle centers and really look at the demographics of the area and the buying power of the area. And presumably it’s going to come mostly from the southwest as opposed from Eden Prairie coming out this way. But also I guess I’m concerned about the marketability of the office spaces proposed and housing and the different Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 16, 2017 12 types, you know focus on the retail but how about those other proposed uses, will there be a follow up study? Do you anticipate getting any more information on that? Aanenson: That’s a good question. I’ll let the applicant address that. I know they’re doing some additional information also for the Army Corps. A little bit different, or some additives on that so maybe we could ask them that question. Tietz: Okay, thanks Kate. Aller: Anything additional? Hearing none we’ll ask the applicant to come forward and I’ll go ahead and address the issue right away and ask that as you do your presentation if you’re going to obtain additional information and provide to us any additional studies, it’d be great if you’d just let us know during the presentation. Thank you. Mark Norland: Thank you Kate. Mr. Chairman and commissioners. That was very thorough so I think a lot of what we had prepared we can kind of skip through and hit on some of the issues but first I just want to introduce myself. My name is Mark Nordland with Launch Properties. We are the developer on the project on behalf of the owner which is Level 7 and go through the team a little bit. Level 7 Development is the owner of the property. The primary investor there is Bahram Akradi. The CEO and founder of Life Time Fitness. That’s myself of course, Mark Nordland with Launch Properties developing it. Tom Palmquist at Colliers is doing the listing and dealing with prospects and getting everybody lined up for the project. Jeff Hysjulien with RSP Architects is here and can answer some questions and has been doing our primary design work. And then Darren Lazan and his staff at Landform have been doing the bulk of the civil engineering and putting together the application so Darren will do the bulk of our presentation here tonight but Darren, myself and Jeff are all here to answer any questions and walk through things. Brief history, Kate you hit on all these dates in more detail than I am but you know we got the concept approval in, right after Thanksgiving time here in November. Now I’ve been working actually in great concert with the staff here and the neighborhood. We had our, I don’t know is it our sixth neighborhood meeting maybe last week. The crowds have been getting smaller. The questions have been answered but we still get great feedback especially now that we’ve got an actual proposal. You know it’s all been conceptual. There was a conceptual approval that, yeah concept approval that went through in 2015. That was a different piece of property a little bit. Part of this property and a different ownership group and a different structure. You know we’ve been restarting this process under new ownership and with the entire site here this year and have been continually taking on feedback from the neighborhood and from staff and of course through that concept process and will still, we just got the staff report because it was a bulky staff report. It was great work to get that out Kate on Monday and there’s several of these items that I think that we’ve got a meeting scheduled on Friday with staff to walk through the granular on some of these things but hopefully we can hit on more of the high points today and then another Planning Commission in, is it June 6th and then the 26th for City Council and as Kate mentioned a totally separate track but related is the Army Corps of Engineers and then our wetland permitting here which are major milestones. Ideally we will get all those Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 16, 2017 13 approvals some time this construction season and be able to start grading the site yet this fall. That’s our goal and our plan, although we’ve got you know a lot to do between now and then and we’re hoping to be able to hit that. We wouldn’t go vertical with buildings until next spring based on that schedule. With that I’m going to let Darren start to go through the presentation itself and we’ll be here for any questions. Aller: Thank you. Darren Lazan: Nice job. Mr. Chair, members of the commission, my name Darren Lazan with Landform Professional Services and I will represent Level 7, the applicant on the item before you tonight. Continuing on from the high points that Mark went through we wanted to talk a little bit about the existing conditions on the site. Kate did this in a fair amount of detail so I won’t spend a ton of time on that. The site is roughly 118 acres. It’s separated into two parcels. The second orphaned piece on the east side of Powers is not shown on this exhibit but we really started the process with a handful of control or constraints on this site in that we have a known point here that really can’t move. It needs to align with the intersection to the north. We have a signalized intersection on, that was the end of that battery. Signalized intersection on Powers coming off the MnDOT exit ramp. We have a potential connection which now we know is a confirmed connection on Mills going across to the other side. Connection to Bluff Creek Boulevard at the southwest corner. We have the Bluff Creek Overlay District and bluff components that are in the southeast corner as well and then we have a number of wetlands predominantly wetlands 1 and 2 identified in the report is that major complex in the center of the site so that’s where we started looking at the site. What fits on the site. How do we move forward? Those are kind of just the constraints in the site overview that we worked with. As Kate hit on we had a number of different iterations of this site plan but where we’ve landed today is a plan that really focuses on districts so the village in the center is the one that is probably the toughest to do. The highest quality architecture. Landscape architecture. Kind of the shops and the key components that were probably most desired in the intended guiding for this project and the perimeter in general supports those. A lot of thought was given through the inception of this plan as to how do we make these retail uses viable in today’s market and as you see in the news and hear all the time chains are closing. Retailers are closing. Re-crafting the way they do business. It’s a real challenge to figure out how we go about that and the goals we set forward was to create this synergy of uses to support that highest quality component in the village and then add components that are more experiential. Makes you want to stay for a period of time. Enjoy the space. Move from one shop to the next and so forth. Kind of the traditional components of lifestyle centers in the past but it’s just tougher to do that now. And the way we approach that is to combine these surrounding districts where we have the retail and hospitality folks that make daily retail trips are now in the center and supporting those uses in the middle. Hospitality or hotel uses that are there overnight tend to use restaurants and coffee shops in the morning. Working around the corner to the multi-family residential on the perimeter, that is a life cycle component. Those folks are there in a lot of daytime hours to help support that lunch traffic. The low density residential again adds that night time, morning component but is also a buffer to the west but those are great trips to have. Walkable trips to have in your project. And Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 16, 2017 14 then around the north was predominantly office with a daycare use in there as well but that office adds those daytime lunch trips so it was really a thoughtful process of coming through. How do we support the higher quality component in the middle? The piece everybody wants in the middle and the answer was this synergy of these uses all feeding off of each other and creating vibrancy and viability in the center. Current plan that you’ve seen on a number of slides now really reflects how that could lay out. We’re getting a lot more detail from previous submittals where we may have had bubble diagrams and rough layouts. We started to actually put uses. Buildings. Parking. Access drives. Do roadway design is underway. We’ve got a lot more specifics at this stage in the development and staff did a great job going through these components both engineering and planning so I won’t take up much more of your time but Bluff Creek Boulevard was a very hot topic in all of our neighborhood meetings and past public hearings. I think we’ve done a tremendous job at scoping and scaling that connection to provide the through fare that was needed for emergency vehicles, traveling public but using the roundabouts and some traffic calming in those areas to try to mitigate some of the speed or some of the nuisance components of traffic so that connection’s made. We have an internal drive loop that connects to those two roundabouts and circles around the village. Provides access. Disperses those trips. Moves through. We made the connection to Mills on the west side, over here. Connection to Mills is there for that requirement in the city process and we have our Lyman and Powers connections as well. Sometimes it’s hard at the scale of the overall project to take a look at this middle and the walkable components and the amenities that are in there so I wanted to just drill down a little bit to the spine that’s created end to end starting on the east side with the two premiere restaurant pads where these would be the more upscale, finer dining components on a fairly large plaza and water feature connected through and across Avienda Parkway into the main street component or the village component. This is very classic replication of small downtowns where you have walkable sidewalks. Amenities in place. You have some parking on a limited basis. We always joke that with centers like these you don’t need to park there. You just need to have the prospect of one day getting one of those parking stalls but they found in a lot of these centers if you have no parking the store fronts and store owners start to fail because people won’t, they won’t drive that traffic past their front door so we have angled parking on either side of that to provide that traffic through put and then crosswalks to provide for the safe pedestrian areas. We have fairly ample space between those, let’s say those 6 buildings where we can do outdoor dining. Some amenity spaces. Shared facilities in there. So those have been provided for those small retailers and then as we move further west we have a couple of our larger plazas that are fronting, or they’re on the end cap of those 6 small retail buildings and on the front plaza of the high amenity market rate apartment project which is the east end cap or the western end cap of that kind of spine. And we think that the housing component is a pretty significant piece. It anchors really those small retail shops very effectively adding those morning, evening bodies on the plaza and the trips in that area that otherwise may not be there so there’s roughly 200-250 units there. That’s 300-400 folks that are coming and going in the morning and at night. That adds a lot of vibrancy to that and we have some retail in that building as well on the ground floor so there’s a retail and housing end cap on the west side of that spine. I think there’s, as was pointed out earlier too there’s a water feature around the roundabout that’s kind of the entrance component. That’s a landscape feature that will be Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 16, 2017 15 adjacent to the roundabout. But those are the pieces that kind of make up that walkable core high amenity, high landscape, high architecture piece that some of the, as Kate suggested some of the signage may change in there to be more appropriate to that village, you know this is that central component that we’ve surrounded with the other uses. And then we have some imagery on here starting from the outside and working to the inside. This proposed streetscape character, this is along Bluff Creek Boulevard where some of the private sidewalks kind of depart from the public walk. Heavily landscaped. I think very walkable and very landscape rich I guess and that treatment in there again that adds to that calming along Bluff Creek if it’s well landscaped both in the median and in the boulevard it tends to slow speeds down a little bit. This one’s a trail connection potential off of the southern multi-family component where it would potentially go into Bluff Creek and make those connections so again you have some interpretative signage. Some amenities there. Benches and so forth and then a trail that could work through the bluff and provide access to residents and to folks that are visiting the center. This is the, one of the sample restaurant pads. An example of the architecture but more importantly the plaza space that’s on the east side. Landscaping. Hard surfaces. Kind of that amenity rich plaza space that’s around the restaurants. This going again to the street frontage in the main spine. Providing that pedestrian connection between the restaurants and the multi-family and all those shops inbetween. Some of the amenity space that could be between those buildings. We mentioned, these would be likely attached to the store owners for their dining and outdoor use as well. And then this is that larger plaza on the west side in front of the multi-family unit there where we have not only the dining for the adjacent retailers but some public space that could be programmed. More open space landscape components in there as well. I did want to back up. There were two comments that I didn’t have in our brief overview and again the intent was to really kind of have a high level overview this week. Get your comments. Take notes. Work with staff over the coming weeks and then come back again with more detail at the June 6th meeting but two items were questioned or talked about earlier that I wanted to go back to the site plan I guess and hit upon. Go back there real quick. Where the storm water and Assistant City Engineer recapped most of those components very well. She asked us to touch on the water re- use. We are contemplating, in order to further our treatment or get closer to our treatment requirements a water re-use system and it’s pretty extensive. I don’t know of any other one in the Twin Cities to the extent we’re proposing right now. We’re proposing to capture, distribute through a main throughout the entire project and re-use for all 100 percent of the irrigation requirements of this project. Re-use re-captured rain water. It would be on a system of pumps that provide pressure. The individual lots would then just use individual distribution systems and connect to the main. It’s a purple line pipe type setup so that is a pretty significant piece as far as sustainability and storm water treatment so we hope to have more details on that at the June 6th meeting. We’ve had some schematic design exercises on that so far. We think it’s coming along nicely but we haven’t really documented that component yet but there’s no doubt that that will be needed to treat storm water and we will be doing that component as part of this project. The second was the parking piece. We understand staff’s concern with reductions at this stage of the project but I guess we’d like to continue that discussion over the next 2 weeks because we think it’s critical to the success of the overall that we lay those ground work, lay that ground work now just like the architecture and just like every other component so we can go out and market those Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 16, 2017 16 uses. Bring them in and understand the right mix and what reductions we’re likely to see. We’re obviously working towards a reduction in impervious surface so meeting full requirements. Parking requirements per code when we have this internal capture or these cross parking opportunities we think is contradictory so we’d like to continue to work on refining what the parking reductions could be and how that could be measured so those were two items that staff had brought up that we wanted to hit on. Go forward to the next slide. And what most of the items in the staff report we’ve worked through. We met this morning for a couple hours again and we think we’re very close. Staff again our gratitude. It’s been a tremendous amount of work over a number of months to get to what you have in front of you today and it’s no easy feat to take what we have written in code today and try to make it work with what works in the marketplace and I want to thank them for their input and support in that effort. I think what we have today is very close. There’s a number of items in Kate’s report related to building footprint sizes and numbers of drive thru’s and so forth that we’re not a long ways apart on and we don’t really have any items that we wanted to talk to on that front with one exception and that’s that senior housing component and again we divide that in two pieces. One is senior housing without services and senior housing with services and I think staff has said they are supportive of the housing coop’s, rental, senior marketed product for sale or otherwise but not the market with services and our early comments on that, and again we’re not looking for your approval tonight so we just want to let you know where we’re at. Get your feedback and take that back again. When Bahram Akradi presented a concept a number of months ago he outlined his desire for a true healthy way of life village. That this would be a life cycle mixed use product. Beginning to end and that I think we believe is a critical part of the success of the center. The intergenerational components between assisted living and the daycare. The interaction in the center itself with some independent living components that might be a services. It’s critical to that synergy of those uses we believe. The product is also shifting dramatically. My partner is in Stillwater tonight on an approval for an amazing facility that does a number of intergenerational components. They provide services in place so rather than the typical warehouse facilities of the past, these are very engaging centers. They provide services to folks in place so even the independent folks that are in the coop’s or otherwise can start taking advantage of some of those services. Whether it’s watering plants while they’re snowbirds. Fulfilling medication orders. Even just the slightest of services they can start to take advantage of that. There’s an interconnection between the senior housing, coop’s, for rent, active adult, and the centers that provide that care and that’s blended more and more today than it ever has been in the past so we appreciate the concerns. We appreciate the market studies. The market is telling us otherwise. That they want to be part of the center. That they want to be part of the synergy and they want to be here so we’d really like to leave that door open and continue those discussions on that use. Second item is Bluff Creek and again I have a ton exhibits. I won’t drill down into those tonight unless you care to but what we proposed today is consistent with our approach for the last 2 years. That in general we’re protecting the vast majority of the bluff. That we are limiting but we are proposing impacts on the northern edge of that bluff. I have some exhibits I’ll present in 2 weeks that kind of break down why the north edge is maybe a little bit different than the remainder of the bluff but we think it’s a balance of getting, hitting the uses that everybody wants to meet the regionality of this product. Hitting a marketplace that has shifted dramatically Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 16, 2017 17 in the last year, and 2 years and being able to get this synergy of uses in place and we think that, those uses on that spot, on the site, adjacent to the bluff are huge components of this proposal and we want to continue the discussion on limited impacts in there. I do have one very quick correction and it’s a very complex issue so it’s tough to capture in a single statement but the current plan proposes about 5 acres of total impacts into the bluff. Roughly half of that is that trail connection from the south so we’re looking at about 2 ½ acres of impacts along the northern edge and about half of that 2 ½ acres is not the upslope of the bluff. In other words the farm fields to the north continue down. They hit that tree edge. It continues even further to drop in grade. Hits a low swale that connects that wetland that we’re preserving there, and then the bluff starts coming back up again so what we’ve proposed is essentially to get into that northern edge where it’s not necessarily part of the physical bluff. Doesn’t meet the slope requirements. It is under the tree canopy. We’ve done the significant tree survey in there and can share that data but we’d like to continue the discussion on some impacts on the northern edge of that Bluff Creek Overlay District. We think it’s consistent with what’s been done with the adjacent neighborhood and other impacts in the area so we’re hoping not to close the door to that tonight and continue those discussions. Again I guess to close our quick overview tonight we are really looking to fulfill the City’s vision for original center. It’s been a tough task in a changing market and a very difficult site. We hope to do so by creating that synergy of uses and build that successful center so with that we’ll stand for any questions you may have. The only thing I guess I’d propose is if you’d like we can take notes during the resident forum and then address those at the end or case by case whatever you’d like Mr. Chair. Aller: Does anybody have any direct questions at this point? Aanenson: Mr. Chair can I just add? We’re going to certainly discuss this at a next meeting but I didn’t clarify our complete position on the senior housing because as I stated in the staff report we’ve got high density zoning throughout the city. That’s our number one request right now is for senior assisted. We could have that. We could have thousands of units in the city. My concern is that we have other places that we cannot say no because it’s high density zoning. This is a PUD where we have the ability to say yes or no into that site. That was my point on that. And then you also still would have to look at the total number of units because we said 20 percent so just some other factors to keep in mind. So obviously we’re still going to discuss that so. Aller: Great, thank you. And just for the record my understanding is you’re going to have a meeting on Friday and discuss a lot of these points so there’s no indication that there’s been a breakdown in communication between you two. You’ll be working on all the issues. Darren Lazan: Absolutely. Aller: Awesome. And it is appreciated. Before we get going, and maybe it’s yourself or the person that held the community meetings but we have an item, a list of items and requests for information or comment that might be capable of being addressed maybe somewhat tonight. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 16, 2017 18 Darren Lazan: Sure. Yeah we were, Mark and I were both there so we can. Aller: Awesome so it was part of the package so those individuals at home or present can see that we did receive correspondence which was signed by a number of individuals in the community that was listing a number of concerns so if we can at least begin to address those tonight so they’re out there on the record. Other individuals who weren’t present can hear those responses. That would be great. Darren Lazan: Do you want us to walk through and address those? Aller: That’s wonderful. The document was addressed actually to the Mayor and the City Council. It was part of the exhibits and there was a number of residents that signed the document. Aanenson: Yeah if I may Chair. That was also included, well it came in with the AUAR so some of those questions we addressed with the AUAR and then we also include in this, because some of them seemed more appropriate with the development of the plat and the PUD so. Aller: Yep so if we could just go through a brief overview of your responses to those concerns that would be great. Darren Lazan: Sure I do want to just blanket our quick responses to these with the fact that I think many of these were based on a fairly outdated site plan. I think this effort was probably started some time ago. I think it was some of the references to the site plan have been addressed in subsequent plans but we’ll go through and we can do that. Aller: Great and you can just identify where those have been taking place or they were outdated and we can just hit the issues. Darren Lazan: So going through the bullet items, first item up there is Bluff Creek Boulevard interconnection. There’s a concern for the neighborhood. 240 children in there. I think Mr. Horn covered that. That’s a collector street contemplated in the traffic Comprehensive Plan so we’re facilitating that on behalf of the City. AUAR under estimates the traffic. Potential traffic increases. I won’t disparage Mr. Horn’s work but I think there was some science behind that so I think in general there’s certainly more trips than you’ll see today when you make a connection to a highway. That will happen but less than anticipated in the early, in the first run of the AUAR. Bluff Creek having it’s own connection to Lyman and breaking the connection from the highway I think is the next proposed solution and again that’s contemplated in your overall traffic Comprehensive Plan so I don’t know that that’s, again we’ve mentioned at the neighborhood meeting as well, a lot of these items we carry through our design that are requirements of the overall either transportation plan or the Bluff Creek Overlay District or the housing components so that connection from east to west is purely part of the overall community’s plan and we’re Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 16, 2017 19 facilitating that component. Well I think there’s a concern that the development doesn’t fit with the priority on green spaces and aesthetics. I think again this plan continues to be refined. We will continue to refine and provide more information over the coming weeks and I think the final aesthetics you’ll see in the individual site development plans I think are fairly impressive. We’ve been driven by the owner of this project to have a very high level quality finish material. Timeless architecture and so forth so I think that will carry through in those individual site plans. A concern about me too big box experiences. I think we went through the big box discussion earlier tonight. We are on most boxes we’re limited to 50,000 square feet in each of those uses. The only exception the largest retail box on there is the grocer which is certainly I don’t think too many people would categorize that as a big box retailer I think. And again there’s some just general comments about density on the site and I think we’ve in the past done and we can certainly do next, in 2 weeks some comparisons to other centers that are considered regional centers. We are on the small side of regional centers with our square footage and acreage and building square footage so you know we’re struggling to hit the bar set for regionality or to be a regional draw in the community and the downward pressure by some of the site constraints and storm water components and wetland components and so forth so we think we struck a good balance here. We think it’s dense where it needs to be. I will say that a concept in the Bluff Creek Overlay District, and an example is given in that ordinance encourage clustering which would drive higher development on the remainder of the site so really there’s 20 acres. If we have impacts of 2 to 3 on the north, there’s about 18 acres so you have 2 to 3 in the north side. You have you know 15 acres of bluff that is being preserved there and by direction and definition in your ordinance it drives the higher density on the remainder of the site so I think that’s maybe what we’re seeing in the center of this project, and again the center component is an urban village type design so it will feel dense. It’s intended to feel more dense. Option A, I think that was potentially. I don’t know what the Option A they’re referring to. I think there were several options that were given during the wetland and AUAR components that were shown by example. I don’t think the option they’re referencing there reflects what’s up on the screen today. I think there’s a concern about multi story high density apartment complexes. That’s in the definition and the mix of uses in the guiding of the project so we’ve picked up on that and certainly we think that apartment project plays a key role in the viability of the center of the project and to add to what Kate added earlier I think it’s a pretty amazing add to the end of that spine and really end caps that so we’re in favor of keeping that. Concern about size and capacity of the proposed high density same. Same item. I think there is a concern about the marketplace. I can tell you that there’s substantial interest in this project on the high density residential and the senior components to be part of this project and part of the village and anchor that retail component which is very unique and has a regional character so we’re not concerned about the marketplace on that. I think there’s an overall concern for hotels. Being in the project we’ve heard that from others as well. We heard at the neighborhood meetings. A concern of it’s proximity to residential and the high school. I’m not sure if that’s a realistic concern or not but I gave the example a while ago when we were before you that my son plays hockey. We’ve been down here for hockey tournaments. Hotels are definitely in short supply when you have two major high schools in the area doing athletic tournaments and so forth so we think there’s a marketplace. The market is saying there’s a place for it. It’s one of the allowed uses that adds to Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 16, 2017 20 that vibrancy. Adds to the viability of the project and we’d like to see the hotel continue. And I think that’s all of those, unless I missed any that the commissioners saw. Mark Nordland: I can hop in on one quickly that came up at our neighborhood meeting last week and I think if you read these comments it sort of permeated throughout. Right kind of where the number 2 is on that sign, that senior housing component down there. That is shown right now in that concept plan as a 3 story building and some of the residents that are closest to that project, if you look above it we’ve got the villa homes if you will. The more dense single family residential which is a great buffer from the larger lot single family residential to the west of that and some of the homes that were closer to the senior project were concerned about buffering and how close that is to the roadway there and I think that’s something that in conjunction probably with the Bluff Creek Overlay discussion we need to work with the staff and figure out a way to address that more. As we looked at sight line studies and again a handful of the residents that lived in those homes right there were you know pointing out what their view is going to be and I think we’ve done a, of course I do, I think we’ve done a pretty good job of buffering. You know a fairly high density development that’s coming into an already residential area but that’s one area where I think we can continue to work with staff and residents and others to improve how that’s buffered there so it’s a softer transition. The senior use is a less, especially the skilled service enriched senior is a less active use from a just coming and going standpoint and so forth and we thought that fit well looking over that bluff and adjacent to that but I definitely hear the residents concerns about view corridors and so forth and having a 3 story building right up on the street and trying to get that pulled back a little bit. Aller: Great, thank you. Anything else from the applicant at this point in time? Alright. We’ll go ahead and open up the public comment portion of this hearing. If anyone’s here that wishes to comment either for or against any item or has any questions for us that we can pass through, please step forward. State your name and address for the record. Brian Oman: Hi, I’m Brian Oman. I’m 9081 River Rock. I live on just on the west side of this Avienda. Aller: Welcome. Brian Oman: Thank you. I was unable to attend the meeting last week, the neighborhood meeting but I was told that I have a retaining wall in my back yard and one of the discussions was that they’d rip that out and plant grass and do more of a berm type division between the townhomes and my lot. Is that still a possibility? Darren Lazan: Do you want me to address them individually or take notes or what would you like to do? Aller: Why don’t we go ahead and just ask the questions of us and then we’ll… Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 16, 2017 21 Brian Oman: Sure so my concern is, obviously we paid a premium for that lot because of, in part because of that retaining wall in our back yard. It looks nice. It’s a good division between us and we’re not sharing any back yards with anybody. In addition it acts as our back fence so you know it’s going to be an additional cost to us to have to put a fence in and all those things too so that’s my major concern. I think the plan is, could be a great thing for Chanhassen itself with all the developments because I really do think there’s a lack of restaurants and stores and everything else around here so. The other concern I had was, and this is the Mills Drive. I don’t see the purpose of I guess having traffic flowing into the neighborhood. You know and I know it was meant to flow in at that time but when it was built, when the neighborhood was built but to kind of provoke for more of a better word traffic into the neighborhood I don’t see the purpose of that when Bluff Creek is supposed to be the main thoroughfare so thanks for your time. Aller: Great, thank you. Kevin Vetsch: Kevin Vetsch. I’m at 9310 River Rock Drive North. Aller: Welcome. Kevin Vetsch: As Brian was saying, yeah my concern is with the Mills Drive connection. I live off, right off River Rock Drive North. There’s mention of how many kids are in this neighborhood and if we’re promoting more traffic flow, we’re already stressed to a degree with the traffic flow the way it is just with the volume that we have and drivers that are in the neighborhood that have kids and are aware of like be careful. We’re going to increase the volume in the neighborhood. I just want to express that concern and like Brian mentioned I guess I don’t get it why we need that to encourage that flow to get into this development when we have all these other access points. Aller: Thank you. Kevin Vetsch: Thank you. Aller: Any additional comments at this time? Jayne JP Meyer: Hi there. I’m Jayne JP Meyer. I live at 9440 River Rock Drive South. Aller: Welcome. Jayne JP Meyer: So if you look at the, where the trail that comes through the woods and then there’s an existing road right there. I mean the park I should say. Well it’s a woods. There’s a, that road that comes through and then the existing road Miranda Way. I have that lot right next to it and myself and others are concerned is why do you have to take out all those trees? If you have to make a thoroughfare through there, that big woods is a huge green space. There aren’t going to be a ton of those left anymore. There’s a lot of wildlife in there and I bought that lot at Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 16, 2017 22 a premium, like he did because of the woods and the wetlands behind me so I know you want it for emergency road but you know if there’s an emergency for some reason that, I mean why would the road River Rock in the Camden Ridge area, I mean what kind of emergency would block the road off? You know if it’s a tornado and it’s taking down trees or something, they sure aren’t going to get through the woods so I would like to ask you to reconsider about destroying hundreds of years old trees for something that may never need. I just hate to see, you can’t replace it once it’s gone. You put some big asphalt street through there it loses a lot of it’s beauty and also the concern too about the retail that’s on the, across the wetland and there’s going to be that big wall of stuff and it was mentioned last week and these gentlemen were very nice about, some of the neighbors were concerned about you know how many of bright lights that are going to be coming through to the other people and the noise of retail at night. So that’s kind of the concerns. I know a lot of the people in my neighborhood haven’t really spoke up but destroy that woods, it’s a shame. You can’t replace it. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Don Ketchum: My name’s Don Ketchum. I live at 9456 River Rock Drive South. Aller: Welcome sir. Don Ketchum: It must be about 3 houses from JP. I’m just curious looking at that same road that she was talking about, what plans are there to limit or prevent traffic on that during normal daytime hours or even at night time. Looks like you can come off of the roundabout at the north end and it flows right onto it and I’m just curious what might be done to prevent traffic on that. Aller: Thank you. Any additional comments? Yes sir. Zhexin Zhang: Hi, my name is Zhexin Zhang. I’m at 1455 Bethesda Circle and I was the one who helped our neighbor draft that letter that you guys went through so I really appreciate that. Sounds like a lot of the issues are being addressed by the City staff as well as the developers so I really do appreciate that. And it’s right, the letter was drafted on a previous version of the site plan that was more I guess densely used of the space but I think with this, I think we’re moving in the right direction but I think there’s still some things that we could work on. You know one of the big things was from our neighborhood is preserving the wetland. Preserving that for us over the Bluff Creek Overlay. You know and the developer kind of brought it up too with that senior living center there that’s taking up quite a bit of that, cutting down quite a bit of those old growth trees and then you know putting that building there. We do have that kind of a buffer issue with those houses right across on the other side of the street so it really doesn’t make much sense in my mind to cut down those trees right. Put in the building and then plant some new trees to hopefully block the view of the building that you just put in to cut down the trees for. So it doesn’t really make a lot of sense. You know I kind of spoke with the developers too you know potentially moving those buildings a little further away. Maintaining those trees along the Bluff Creek Overlay. Like our other residents once those trees are gone they’re gone. They’re Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 16, 2017 23 not going to bring them back. And so that’s something I would love the City and the developers to work with. Try and preserve that Bluff Creek Overlay. That forested area as much as possible. I kind of understand where the wetland has to go. It sounds like there’s elevation issues in order to maintain the wetland. The rest of the lot isn’t really going to work so I kind of understand that but I did want to bring up one issue that’s kind of been growing in our nation these past few months since the letter’s been written. In the first quarter of 2017 the US has closed more retail stores than they have in all of, in the first quarter of 2016 I believe we closed 3,000 retail stores and we’re on pace in 2017 to close more retail stores than we ever did during the Great Recession so I’m very concerned that the retail space that we have outlayed here with all the parking lots, all the store space, you know I’m concerned if we build and pave over everything right now we are not going to find good uses for it right away so you know you look at all the stores that are going bankrupt. Stores are closing. You look at Eden Prairie Mall. Sears closed and Eden Prairie Mall is not even trying to find another retailer. They’re tryin g to build into a, I forget what the exact wording is. It’s more like an adventure experience place right. And so you know if they’re having difficulties finding somebody to move in for development that’s already been built I’m just finding it difficult to understand to build even more retail space in this area. At least at this scale. I’m not saying there won’t be retail interest in this space. I would love to know what they are. I think there are some you know restaurants. Some smaller shops that do fit into this space really well, especially with the kind of the mixed use the developer has talked about with the residents. With the senior center. As well as the new apartment that’s being built in the middle there but I just, I’m finding it very hard to believe that somebody I think during the initial market analysis we drew a circle out southwest of here. All the way like an hour and a half, two hours out. Like I think LeSueur and I have friends in LeSueur and I’ve talked to them about this. There’s no way they’re driving an hour and a half up here to visit this place when you’re online retail. Why drive an hour and a half to this place when you can just sit at home. Buy what you need online and it will be at your door the next day or the day after. I don’t think that market encapsulates the online retail economy that we’re in right now and that we’re moving towards. And if you look at some of the earning calls from the CEO’s of big retail places they’re focusing on online space. Mobile space and delivery. Their retail foot hold is very low priority. Many of the CEO’s have said that we are in a retail space bubble and it’s popped or is popping. A lot of the CEO’s are closing shops. If you look at the number of stores that are being closed or being planned to close like even Starbuck’s. They’re planning on closing more stores this year than have ever have in the past so it’s again, and to kind of draw it all back you know if we’re going to develop this land, and I think we should, try and preserve some of that green space more so. Put that at the very end of the development. You know we have a lot of space there that you could put development in and not impact the wildlife. Not impact the green area. Not impact the natural buffering that’s provided in this development, and to be honest to me that green space, that wetland, if we can keep it would be a great draw for the area. Other shopping areas don’t have that green space right. You look at Eden Prairie Mall, it’s just paved over. You look at Ridgedale Mall it’s just kind of paved over. And you know a lot of our neighbors have mentioned that downtown Excelsior is great. You have that kind of walk, kind of what we have here planned in the middle. That spine that we kind of talked about. But then you have the green space. You have the park. We have the lake. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 16, 2017 24 Well we don’t have a lake. We have a forest and we have a wetland that can help traffic here because we are moving to an economy where we don’t ever have to leave our house for anything. We can get almost everything delivered so when we do leave the house we want something, we want an experience and I’m really looking forward for this development to provide that experience and not just shopping as we’ve thought about in the past years. We’re shopping more and experience more so for the future. Something that we can grow into for the online economy that is with us today. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Joe Shamla: Good evening. Joe Shamla, 1691 Mayapple Pass. Pioneer Pass development. I just had a lot of the same comments that he had but that Bluff Creek corridor. I’d like to see that preserved if we can. It is very nice back there. I live very close to here and just walking by it, those trees are very mature so what we can do to save those trees would be appreciated. Also I seen that well the wetland where it was sitting is not showing on this at all and I’m a little confused on how that’s even possible. You know based on the current wetland rules how it’s able to be removed without locating somewhere else within this development. Another comment I had is we’re adding a ton of residential units to this area but there’s no place for kids to go to the park. Yes they can go to Pioneer Pass Park but that’s a pretty far distance from where all of these, I mean this is like a hub of residential units. I think adding some park space to allow the kids that live here to play without having to go a half a mile away I think would be a good amenity for this site. I guess my last comment would have to do with the walkability of the site. I think they did a really good job on the spine. That’s very welcoming and shopper friendly. As far as a neighbor, most of the other buildings I would have to use my car to get there even though I’m a half mile away I should be able to walk or bike. I think there’s other things that could be done to connect the buildings to the trail system to allow people to walk, bike or use other modes of transportation. Therefore not needing as many parking stalls so thank you. Aller: Great, thank you. Welcome. Jon Gilbert: Hi, Jon Gilbert, 1641 Jeurissen Lane. I am in the southwest corner by the Bluff Creek Overlay area and the woods. I echo most of these comments. Virtually all of them. A previous neighbor had mentioned a few things so I want to piggyback on those. I heard some conflicting statements but I’ve heard some resolution that’s also going on between developer and the City. This is the first time I think I’ve heard the City state, and correct me if I’m wrong, that they would, that they’re recommending preservation of the green space. The Bluff Creek Overlay. At least that’s the message that I took from, because that’s what I’d like to see happen. I heard some other things too. I thought I heard somebody say there was a parking study had not yet been conducted and there’s been talk about trying to use some cross over use and I think that would make sense, especially if you’re able to lose some of the parking spaces and you’re able to trade them off for either additional retail or relocation of some of the other features which takes me into density. Density’s been a topic not so much I think for the retail and for the commercial space but more for the residential and that takes me into that corner of the senior housing. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 16, 2017 25 Mission Hills, there was a recent approval for a change in density or use of some land over on 101 so I also heard there’s a need. There’s a demand for senior housing and I think the City has a long term plan for that. I don’t know what the impact is on Mission Hills when that’s added on this particular project. I’d like to see the Bluff Creek Overlay and the woods themselves left completely alone including the emergency access street which has been described as not a thoroughfare but with bollards on either end so there wouldn’t be traffic going through at a consistent rate so you wouldn’t expect there’d have to be some mitigation of that. It just wouldn’t get used. Nonetheless I don’t know if a study has been done where the fire department has looked at the response times from any one of the access points to the Camden area so I think that may be a point that if it’s been looked into, great. As a citizen or resident I’m curious what those details are. There’s some things that I’d like to learn more about in order to provide input to the developer or the City and this seems to be the format but I do have a question. You have a working session. You have working session meetings where the public can attend. I don’t know if they’re allowed to speak at those and offer comments but there’s working sessions that occur between the City and the developer. This Friday’s an example of one and I think there are a lot of comments that you have heard tonight from various residents who believe or have comments which may have value and may have immediate value during those discussions so if there is a way that we can participate in those, I think it would be welcomed. A few people might be willing to attend and they may be the only voices or maybe the voice for a larger part of the neighborhood but I think it might be a great way to bring everybody to the table and maybe resolve some things. Emergency access. Density. Packaging. The 20 percent density that’s currently described in the code, I think that needs to be maintained. I think if you’re maybe going down a slippery slope if you’re going to allow that to expand. I know there are tradeoff’s that can occur. If they move the senior housing out to an area where retail may not be successful and you put some of the senior housing or rearrange things including hotels, you may find a happy mix of commercial retail in the senior housing. It just won’t be in the woods because you’re saving parking spaces, et cetera, et cetera and you’re still having a thriving multi-use project. I was disappointed that we couldn’t get the details on the wetland discussions tonight. I know it’s being pushed back. I was hoping that we’d be able to hear that because I’m sure there will be questions about that and what the concerns are that made the application incomplete or inadequate for the Army Corps of Engineering. As you read through the report you get a sense but as a high level sense so I think that’s important for the residents to be able to understand that as well. If the information’s available and I’m happy to work with the City if it is available and accessible. I think that’s it. I think the 1998 adoption of the Bluff Creek Overlay District was thoughtful and whoever kind of put that together was thinking let’s maintain it’s integrity and I’ve only been here for a few years but I see things getting carved up pretty quickly and having come from the east coast where land is at a premium, they’re maintaining the green space as much as they can and preserving it as much as they can so I think I echo some of the other comments also. Thank you. Aller: Great, thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak? Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 16, 2017 26 Jayne JP Meyer: It’s JP again. Just talking about the retail, I don’t know maybe you’ve already talked about this. We have a very nice big multiplex theater here but maybe a small. Aller: We can hear you better if you speak into the microphone. I have the same problem every week. Jayne JP Meyer: Oh sorry. Okay, maybe you’ve already discussed this but I know we have a big, nice multiplex theater here. What if, instead of some of the retail you had a smaller, one theater, intimate movie theater so people could shop and then go. Shop, dinner, go to the theater and just walk over there. You know just something more intimate. And back to Jon’s comment about the green space. I lived in Eden Prairie for 48 years and I’m a real estate agent. I’ve now moved here but Eden Prairie was very, very protective of their green space and they still are and they were very protective of what they would let being developed so I know the residents were worried that it was going to leapfrog over Eden Prairie, and it did to some extent. But they’re still developing. It amazes me that they can still find places but they kept their parks. Their green. They’re the first community to have paths and playgrounds in every neighborhood and lots of woods and lots of trees and lots of wildlife. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Any additional comments at this time? Seeing no one come forward I’m going to close the public comment portion of the hearing and open it up for questions. Aanenson: Chairman can we just maybe take a minute and go through some of the comments and address them if that’d be alright. Aller: That would be great. Aanenson: Okay I think we can, I’ll let Alyson maybe take the first one regarding the retaining wall. Fauske: Thank you Kate. Chairman Aller, commissioners of the Planning Commission. Staff has worked with many homeowners within the Preserve development with drainage problems and the gentleman who came up and spoke about the retaining wall, I’m very happy to hear that he’s happy with the retaining wall. However we have heard from other residents in the vicinity of that retaining wall who have drainage issues so staff thought that with this development coming in perhaps we could look at a grading plan that would eliminate that retaining wall and would mitigate some of the drainage concerns that the residents have through that area. We’re certainly not there to try to take away any privacy or anything that they’re enjoying with having that retaining wall but rather trying to fix a problem that’s come up with the development. Aanenson: So if I could add to that, that’d be something that we would work on with the neighbors as this project, if it was to move forward. It wouldn’t be resolved as a part of this right now but that would be a suggestion that we would try to work, blend the grades and work Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 16, 2017 27 through those issues and provide landscaping buffering but that would be something that we would look at. Aller: And that would be for the neighboring walls. What about the walls, the longer walls? Those will be engineered. Aanenson: This is just the one on the east side where there’s a problem of existing, excuse me on the west side. Aller: That’s okay. Aanenson: Yep, it’s on this section here. It’s on this section where there’s a problem so that would be something the developer would have to work with the neighborhood and the City would help facilitating that as a way, because there are problems for some of the neighbors up there so that’s an option. And obviously you have to have the cooperation of all the property owners to make that work. Fauske: That’s correct, thank you for clarifying that. It is an off site retaining wall so any work done there would require the necessary approvals. This is simply something that, as I mentioned staff mentioned to the developer. We are aware of these problems. If we can find a solution to resolve it with the homeowner’s permission we’d like to pursue that so it’s a cooperative process through that. Mark Nordland: Can I just make a quick comment? Yeah so the homeowner’s properties were carved down into that hill. Similar to what we intend to do with our grading and so right now they’re lower and then we would come in lower and I mean the solution to keep their water in place would be to keep their water in place then have it go up and then back down with our wall and so there’d be an elevated section inbetween and so the theory is that we would blend out those grades but obviously the homeowners need to be comfortable with what we’re doing. We don’t intend to grade anybody’s property other than our own without permission. We’re just trying to look for the best solution and that’s what Kate is suggesting. Aanenson: Again it’s an opportunity to try to solve a problem so if it doesn’t work but we’re just putting that out as an option. Yeah Mills Drive and that you know we’re looking at who’s going to be cut through there. That’s going to be people in your neighborhood because they’re going to want to cut through that way if they’re coming from the north. I can’t imagine, we brought this up on Lake Susan Drive when we put in the connection at 212. Everybody on Lake Susan Drive thought that instead of staying on Lyman Boulevard they would cut through that neighborhood. It hasn’t come to fruition. We had the same situation when we connected off of. Fauske: Springfield and… Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 16, 2017 28 Aanenson: Yeah and it didn’t come to fruition so it’s a easier way for those neighbors to get out you know for service deliveries. Not to take that back up so we support that. The fire department supports that so certainly we’ll monitor that but that was the staff’s position and it has always been in there. When that subdivision went in anybody going into that subdivision knew that that road was to be extended in the future. We talked about River Rock Drive. Trail access to the woods. Aller: Well if I could. Aanenson: Yep. Aller: I’m just going through my list as they were presented so. Aanenson: Okay. Aller: And with in keeping with the fire department which raised the issue of the fire lane and the use, if we could address that again. Aanenson: Yep, that was the one I was on next. Yep thank you. So the trail access through the woods. The fire department would like that connection. You know if we look at, as we mentioned before the original connection was intended to be straight through here. Through Camden Ridge. It was intended to be here. We’ve got one ginormous retaining wall now that was put in to balance the grades. That doesn’t make it as efficient. Also to looping utilities so engineering and planning’s not as excited about having that. The fire department that’s something internally we’re still discussing to see if there’s another way to make that work so still working on that issue. And then also Mr. Gilbert mentioned there’d be balusters or something putting on that end. It’s a fire emergency, the fire truck would be able to knock those down but it’s not intended to be, certainly someone could walk on it. It connects the neighborhood. It’s a trail. It’s a 30 foot right-of-way, 20 foot pavement width, 7 ton design to hold a fire truck but certainly somebody could walk on it but it would be something that people would drive on but you could walk on it. Fauske: Chairman Aller if I may just expand on what Kate’s been presenting too, just to take a step back and perhaps address to some of the residents here why we’re looking at these connections. When we look at developments, there was one person that said you know what kind of emergency would you require that. If there’s a watermain break. Some kind of utility work. Something that’s impeding access to the neighborhood, that’s what these connections are intended to mitigate for and for example Mills Drive. As Kate mentioned that was always in the plans to make that connection. Otherwise you only have River Rock Drive North to serve that neighborhood and if something happens on that first 200 feet of River Rock Drive North, how do we get folks into their neighborhood to get home so those are the things that we plan for. That’s why we have the secondary access points to neighborhoods and again with Camden Ridge when that development came through, as we were going through the process, as Kate mentioned, and Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 16, 2017 29 it’s already stubbed out there to have that emergency access to the north for those very situations which hopefully will never happen but as it’s prudent for staff to go ahead and plan for those instances so that we can get residents safely to their homes in an emergency situation. And as well as get emergency vehicles to and from those neighborhoods. Aller: Thank you for the clarification. Aanenson: Again lighting and noise from the businesses. That’s a great question. I think that’s something you know we talk about photometrics that’s required with a site plan but noise certainly. We look at that where we have residential next to when you have service deliveries so those sort of, some of those sort of things should be put into the PUD. When we look at trash pick up and especially when you have a senior housing. If that was to go in where they would have deliveries so those are things that we could put into the PUD as far as hours. As far as some of the other commercial ones further to the east, that’s something we could look at for same sort of issues but I think the western side is probably the more problematic but certainly a good question and we’ll look at that as we develop those design standards. Aller: And as a baseline we’re using the mitigation plan that’s been set forth so we have ordinances in place which cover all these things in a general fashion and now that we’re coming in and actually putting a plan together and it’s a PUD our tradeoff, we want to be able to get higher quality services. Higher quality amenities based on those tradeoffs. Aanenson: I will add, there’s a letter in there from Carver County and from MnDOT and the MnDOT letter also addresses a potential for a noise study too where they’ve got that so that would be something that again if this was to go through before they could do any project planning they’d have to accommodate that so that’d be something we’ll be discussing with the developer. Aller: Great. Aanenson: Let’s see, I think then the Overlay District. We talked about that. That’s something we’re looking at. The senior housing. Can’t comment on the retail. I think that was brought up by Commissioner Tietz regarding you know what’s a market study for office. Some of the stuff. You know I think the stuff on the southern part and the housing going along the western side, that seems to be the, we know the market’s there because like I said we could do plenty of service enriched senior housing. Some of that right now does not have sewer and water to it that’s in the zone but as you know the property on, just on the other side of Lake Ann has a lot of high density there which is appropriate, close to the downtown to other services. The senior center and the like here so as far as the retail space we’re relying on the developers to that but I think to the office market I don’t think there was a lot put into that but we’ll be discussing that with them. Regarding the green space and wetland, I think we’ve given our comments on that. The wetland application, that’s one of the things they’re applying for. That permit’s in place so this plan reflects that so that is moving through the process. That’s what they’re submitting to Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 16, 2017 30 fill that wetland and that’s one of the reasons why we said we wanted to preserve more of the Bluff Creek for, in lieu of following that as part of the AUAR strategies. A good question was asked about park for the residential. I failed to mention this but it’s in the staff report. The park commission is meeting on this at the end of the month and they’ll be making some recommendations. There is a part, there is some recommendations from an earlier draft that the park commission had, or earlier meeting that the park commission had some thoughts but they haven’t formalized those thoughts so they’ll be reacting to the specific plan and we’ll have that before your June meeting so we’ll have specific recommendations but good comment on that. And that also included their trails and walkability. The park commission will be looking at that so certainly a good comment to follow up on. Again filling the wetlands, that’s in process. That’s outside of, that’s really the Army Corps taking the lead on that right now. And the preservation of trees. We talked about cross over parking study. Let me just make that clear again. The City ordinance does allow cross parking. We’d like that application. That we’re not over parked but what we’re seeing here is we’re coming right out of the gate, we don’t know who the users are and so we’re just trying to make sure that we’ve had situations where it’s more office retail and then it goes, or excuse me. More office showroom and it goes to retain and you don’t have enough parking so we just want to do a little bit more deep dive with the developer and understand how that, what they’re looking at there. Some of the ratios they’re asking for are standard for, even for retail or for office, we want to make sure that we are not sub-standard. Especially when you’re sharing parking, like in the apartments and yes there’s a parking garage but if your guest parking’s outside and that’s also a peak demand for other uses so we just want to understand that because typically when we do a parking study we have peak hours. You know is it that night time hours? Or the dinner hours. The morning hours. Where’s the overlap there so we just want to understand that based on their uses. Someone asked a question about a movie theater. That is a permitted use in the district so that is a potential user up there so wanted to mention that. And response time to Camden Ridge. Again that goes back to that, there’s still a lot of discussion on that trail connection there and the impacts of that. Whether that meets warrants. I think that was most of the questions that were asked. The majority of them I hope. Aller: Okay, thank you. Any additional questions based on the responses from staff or the developer? Okay. Well I guess we can ask questions. Tietz: We can ask? Aller: You can ask questions. Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: Okay. Darren does the plan illustrate what you prefer for parking standards and setbacks or the current code? Darren Lazan: Commissioner Tietz, members of the commission. The plan currently illustrates in some areas exceeding the code. Our feedback on the office on the north side was higher than code requires so those tenants that have expressed interest in the property wanted more parking there so that exceeds slightly. The retail is generally right around code. I think the apartment is Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 16, 2017 31 probably the flag that planning caught. We do see a lot of downward pressure on the number of parks required for this apartment project. You get a lot of folks that share a car or a lot of studios, one bedroom, so forth so I think we were under on that component which caused that flag but again we can modify that parking structure to pick up. We can meet code. Tietz: Yeah, no I was just curious because you’re already at close to 60 percent impervious coverage. Darren Lazan: Yeah. Yeah. Tietz: And every parking stall is just going to add to your dilemma. Darren Lazan: Yes sir. Tietz: And obviously you know you can easily, I say easily reduce your impact on storm water retention and dealing with storm water and also your wetland issues by reduce your density. Darren Lazan: Yes. Tietz: You know eliminate some of the project and a lot of your problems will go away as far as wetlands and storm water. That new storm water proposal for irrigation sounds good but then you have to treat that water otherwise you’re going to put saline water back onto the plants that you’re trying to keep alive so I know you’ve got some study to do on that. The other thing is, you know I’m sure are well aware and have probably looked into Hidden Falls Creek in St. Paul on the Ford site. I mean there they exposed a creek that had been buried by Ford 100 years ago and created their own storm watering system for that large site. Large urban site is being handled by an enhanced wetland and creek. Yet we’ve turned our backs on that on this site and we’re filling it and we’re going to look for 2 for 1 and I guess I for one, I know everyone else has a comment but if you’re going to find in 2 for 1 you’re going to find it in this watershed. You’re not going to go buy it Glencoe or Fergus Falls. You know you mentioned 3 alternative sites would be acquired to meet the 2 for 1. Darren Lazan: Correct. Tietz: So I think there’s design issues that you guys have to focus on and we talked about this last fall. Darren Lazan: Yep. Tietz: And the same plans are coming back and now you’ve got a dilemma and I think we really need to work out, I love all the images that RSP has created but those are images. Let’s deal with the technical issues. Let’s get the technical right first and then deal with the graphic images Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 16, 2017 32 which are really wonderful. It’d be a great spot but I think we’ve got some fundamental things that have to get worked out before we can deal with it. Darren Lazan: Well I appreciate the comments and I think there were a lot of them there. We’ll start with those. Far more work’s been done on the technical components. The storm water is again try not to get too far into the weeds on that one but the storm water requirements that are there because of the nature of the site. The clay site, cannot be met. They flat out, we went through an exercise in the office this week where we looked at literally what would happen if you took Bluff Creek, the wetlands and the storm water requirements and applied them to the site literally what could be developable and it was literally 20 percent coverage with the remaining area being landscaped so you have something to irrigate with the water that comes, you’re pulling off of there so I don’t know. We’re not going to meet that 100 percent. We’re going to get into the watershed’s requirements of doing what’s physically capable for the site and doing the best management practices possible and that’s where the irrigation system comes in to help mitigate that. So a fair amount of work has been done on the storm water but I want everybody to understand the amount of reduction would be over half to meet that requirement and it’s just not even possible for a variety of reasons. One of them being we can’t meet the regional nature of the guiding for this property. We’re at the very low end of regionality right now. We drop out 25-30 percent of the buildable area. We won’t hit it anymore. It’s not, there’s not enough mass. It’s not viable. We won’t be a regional center and that’s what this is guided for. Tietz: Well you have to find a balance inbetween. You know to cut and fill that in I don’t know how you’re coming close on your cut and fill but the highest point on the site in the northeast corner you’re going to be cutting 32 feet out of that area. Darren Lazan: Yep. Tietz: The wall in the south end that what, 980 foot wall or something along the wetland to the south which is DOT’s wetland, this ceiling is roughly 12 feet so add 5 more feet to the ceiling and you’ve got 17 feet of wall so coming up from the south you’re going to see the back side of stores and you’re going to see a 17 foot wall. And that’s just so you can pancake the site. Darren Lazan: Well when we have our given connection points at those perimeter and we have to meet minimum slopes or maximum slopes for roadways and cross slopes for parking and so forth, those are some pretty significant constraints. They’re not going to hold a 30 foot. Tietz: But that’s the site you’re dealing with and that’s the program you’re trying to put onto it. Darren Lazan: According to the guiding and the requirements of that district, yes. This isn’t a residential guided site where we can run homes up the hillside. This is guided regional commercial. We were challenged from the beginning to get more anchors. More significant regional retail in this project and we’ve had to pull back and pull back because we can’t fit it on the site so we have this upward pressure to meet regionality, which is the guiding of this parcel Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 16, 2017 33 to be a regional shopping center and we have the downward pressure of all these site constraints and we think we have found that balance and I know it won’t. Tietz: You have a real challenge don’t you? Darren Lazan: It is a real challenge. Tietz: I do agree with you though. Darren Lazan: Which part? Tietz: The Camden Ridge connection, I think to do that I know the fire department. I know there’s other reasons and Alyson has good points too but I think the degradation to that hillside and what you’re going to do to that mature hardwood, that cut slope that you show on your diagram is huge and those trees have never been exposed to that much wind and sun in 100 years and so you’re not getting right that hard edge. You’re going to start getting die back I would suspect even further back so I think you have to look closely at if we need the connection how best can we connect it to make it work and save the woods. Darren Lazan: Yeah we would certainly agree. This is a connection we’re being asked to do and we’re more than happy to facilitate it with our development. I think the comment was made, you know the original design was to run up the east side but there’s a retaining wall there. The retaining wall isn’t the problem. The grade difference is the problem. We have a retaining wall on our side but we physically can’t get manageable road grades between the connection point if we go straight north. It will be too steep. It will be unusable in the winter. You know it would be, it’s not, and it’s also the only part of the entire bluff in our area that meets the definition of bluff. Has sufficient enough grades to get it so we’re going through the most critical component of the bluff with a roadway but the one we saw where we proposed we follow the contour of the roads, or the contour of the slope to minimize the grade, that still has extensive exposure there, we agree and we’ll do our best. Work with staff. Come up with a solution that is that middle ground for everybody and we’re more than happy to help facilitate that. Tietz: Thank you. Aller: Anything additional at this point? Any comments on the plan? A lot of moving pieces. I am so glad we’re doing this in parts. I think overall I would agree with Commissioner Tietz in that it’s a big challenge. I agree with the comments that he made regarding the wall structure. I would like to see less density or maintaining the density that we have already planned for as opposed to increasing it. I would attempt to keep as much of the bluff as possible, if not all. And I would like to see more of the studies before we actually move forward. I think we’re putting the cart before the horse on some of these parking issues. And I understand that they’re in progress and they will be addressed but I would like to see us get that information nailed down before we start moving forward on a project that’s going to have a regional impact. Any further Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 16, 2017 34 comments? Alright, thank you gentlemen for coming and appreciate your presentation and I guess we’ll see everybody back here on the 6th. Aanenson: Yeah if you wouldn’t mind Chair, just take a motion to continue. Aller: I’ll entertain a motion to continue. Aanenson: Thank you. Aller: The rest of the hearing to the 6th. Commissioner Yusuf? Yusuf: Do you want me to make it? Aller: Yes please. Yusuf: Motion to continue. Aller: To June 6th. Yusuf: To June 6th. Aller: Do I have a second? Randall: I’ll second it. Yusuf moved, Randall seconded to continue this item to the Planning Commission meeting on June 6, 2017. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Aller: Thank you all. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Madsen noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 2, 2017 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Aanenson: Thank you Chair. Did note a couple of new business signs. Bonsai, Sushi and Korean Cuisine. Soya. Another sushi grill and then some signs for Foxwood and then the Hockey Stop. I also want to mention, we talked about this already. Mission Hills Senior Housing was approved with the daycare. That was the addition and they are currently ready to work with the building department and work through their plans. It’s a highly detailed Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 16, 2017 35 construction. Very specific so they’ll be working through those. We mentioned already the Avienda AUAR review is approved and so the mitigation strategies were, the resolution approving those mitigation strategies were sent up to the EQB. And then the City Council also approved the stable amendment so we’ll be processing those different moving forward. So we’re also tracking code amendments. We’ll probably bring through another bunch. I just wanted to also go through the future Planning Commission items. Obviously we know what we’re talking about in our next meeting, June 6th and then also we have two other projects coming in. The downtown project for United Properties with Aldi will be coming in so we’ll see that on your June 20th meeting. In addition the Klingelhutz property, which is on Lake Susan Drive and Powers. Let’s see, Waters Boulevard and then on the other side of 101 so that would be a townhouse project. It’s a really nice. It’s a very complex site. It’s got shoreland regulations. Two different zoning districts. Actually three so we’ve got a great project on that one and that will be Pulte bringing that one so you’ll have those both on your second meeting in June. And the 4th of July we are not meeting. So that’s all I had Chairman. Aller: Thank you. Unless anyone has anything further to bring before us, go ahead and entertain a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Yusuf moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim