Loading...
PC Minutes 2-4-20CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 Chairman Weick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Weick, Mark Randall, John Tietz, Michael McGonagill, and Laura Skistad MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad and Doug Reeder STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; and George Bender, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: Joy Gorra 1680 West 78th Street Jeff Schuler 7900 Excelsior Boulevard Patrick Sarver 4931 West 35th Street, St. Louis Park Elizabeth Wright 7900 Excelsior Boulevard PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST TO REZONG PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET AND WEST OF LAKE ANN PARK FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (RR) TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-16), LOT CONSOLIDATION AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 48 UNIT CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT FACILITY. Weick: And with that I will turn it over to Sharmeen. Al-Jaff: Thank you. Weick: Great thank you. Al-Jaff: Chairman Weick, members of the Planning Commission, good evening. The application before you today is to rezone a property from rural residential to high density residential. There is a site plan with a variance and the purpose for this is for the construction of a 48 unit continuing care facility. The site is located north of West 78th Street, west of Lake Ann Park. It is again for the construction of a continuing care retirement facility. The land use for this site designates it as high density residential. This designation is established to accommodate high density developments and apartment buildings. A continuing care retirement facility is a permitted use in this designation. As mentioned there is a rezoning request looking at rezoning the property from rural residential to high density residential. The property north and west of the Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020 2 subject site contains a single family home and is guided residential high density which is the same guiding as the subject site. To the east of the subject site is Lake Ann Park and that is guided as open space. South of the subject site is West 78th Street. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan addresses senior housing. One of the categories that it looks at is seniors in our community and what they need. There is a demand for 1,206 senior housing units and that would include owner occupied, rental as well as service enriched. Of the 1,206 we need 316 service enriched units. Since 2014 the City has built or seen development of 111 continuing care or service enriched dwelling units and those include Riley Crossing and Beehive which is also known of Trivai today. If this development was approved we will reach 159 units which is in keeping with the City’s vision for the seniors to meet their needs. Briefly about this site. There are existing conditions that need to be pointed out specifically the fact that there are wetlands along the northern portion of the site as well as Riley Creek that abuts the entire northern segment. One of the other things that we need to point out is the fact that the site is comprised of two parcels. Tract A and Tract B. One of the conditions of approval for this application is to consolidate those two sites into one. The site plan is to construct 6,500 square foot continuing care facility. Hard surface coverage on this site is 34.5 percent. The city code requires a maximum of 35 percent because this site is located within the shoreland overlay district of Lake Ann. Part of trying to figure out how to best develop this site we had multiple applications and meetings with the watershed district, with the applicant trying to find how can we meet the intent of the ordinance rather than the literal interpretation of the ordinance and still accommodate development on this site. One of the requests that the applicant has made was trying to meet the buffer requirements but request a zero setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. That is a variance that the City was in working with the watershed agreed to recommend approval of. However we said a minimum of 5 foot setback would be required and the watershed district requirements would have to be met. That is a condition of approval of that variance. The other variance dealt with parking setback. The city code requires a 25 foot setback and that is intended for screening purposes. Again meeting the intent of the ordinance which is the screening we were able to accomplish that through intensified landscaping and we worked with the City Forester who basically was very agreeable to what the applicant was proposing. The architecture of the building is reflecting a pronounced entrance into the building. There are terraced landscaping areas. They can be seen along the front of the building. The building is very tastefully designed. The architectural style is unique to the building. It will fit in with the surrounding area. This is a shot of the rear of the building. All the facades viewed by the public have received equal attention. There is over 50 percent transparency through the use of glass windows, door. The roof line is staggered. It adds articulation to the design of the building. There are multiple pitched elements on the building and there’s a condition of approval that all roof top equipment be screened and we believe that with the pitched elements along all sides of the building that can easily be accomplished. Materials on the building are of high quality limestone. Stucco and everything is durable. Again all elevations have received equal treatment and attention. There is one monument sign proposed on the site and it is intended to be located along the southwest corner of the site. The sign cannot exceed 24 square feet in area and 5 feet in height. The applicant will need to apply for a sign permit. The parking is located along the south portion of the site. Per code the applicant is required to provide 44 spaces. Or 41 spaces, Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020 3 I’m sorry and the applicant is providing 44 spaces. Of those 27 will be surface parking. 17 will be underground parking spaces. Landscaping is in compliance with ordinance and as mentioned it is used heavily along the southern portion of the site to screen the parking lot. There’s also some equipment to serve this building located along the southeast corner of the site and heavy landscaping is utilized to provide adequate screening. At this moment I would like to turn it over to engineering staff George Bender to address access issues. Bender: Good evening commissioners. To continue with Sharmeen’s presentation, the site will be accessed off of West 78th. There’s one proposed access location. It is located far enough away from the median. This is a collector roadway West 78th. They may have to adjust some of the striping that is part of the design of the median. The parking has, had turning movements preliminary run on it. I believe that the applicant received the new ladder truck to use as a design vehicle. They were you know advised to run it if they have another larger vehicle that would be used at the site to use that as part of their turning movements. They will need to show an updated turning movement and analysis because there have been changes made. This is a little bit bigger picture blow up of it to help because the last one was a little bit small. Utilities are a bit of a challenge for this site. Watermain is fine. There’s watermain out in West 78th for them to tie into. There was a condition where they proposed two taps to the watermain. One for domestic service and one for fire service and a condition of approval is to switch that to one tap so that we have less public infrastructure to maintain. The purple line here is the MCES interceptor that is on private property. MCES has an easement over it but for the purposes of this applicant there is a distance to access it. It is also really deep. I believe in the neighborhood of 40 plus feet and to connect to it instead of you securing an easement from the property owner they are proposing to run it through the right-of-way. Across our right-of-way and connect to one of MCES’s manholes here. They will have to build it and construct and drop into that structure. They will have to file for an MCES permit for this and build it to their standards. The City will have to get involved from the perspective of MCES will not grant a private applicant to be in there so there will have to be a maintenance agreement between the City and MCES and the applicant will have to then be responsible to the City for it. McGonagill: So the City will have ownership of this…? Bender: No. This would remain private. So we also plan to require them to straighten it and not add a manhole into our roadway so that was another condition so they would create a different alignment for that pipe. From a stormwater perspective they are proposing to collect runoff from the roof and the parking lot and discharge it to the, a filtration pond which they are planning to construct on the east side of the site as shown in blue here. That will also require a maintenance agreement. According to the modeling that has been sent in the stormwater management report, it will need TSS and so total suspended solids and total phosphorus reductions. They are not currently meeting abstraction from the site. They’re able to show that they can abstract just .19 inch. The city code requires a one inch and Riley-Bluff-Purgatory Creek watershed district requires 1.1 inches. They are, they have submitted for a restriction due to the clay soils. The watershed district has sent them a review back of the entire stormwater for it but as part of it they Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020 4 are requiring that in order to obtain a restriction they are going to have to prove that they cannot meet the 1.1 and the watershed district has a number of findings that the applicant will have to prove and go through pretty much a very rigorous production in order to justify it in order to get a restriction down to .55. So that is a bit of an unknown right now. The submittal to the watershed district was deemed incomplete and there is, they sent them a list of conditions as part of their review and there are a number of them. As part of Sharmeen also mentioned this, they are proposing to do buffer averaging from the wetland. The watershed district has a 20 foot minimum requirement to be adhered to. The applicant is proposing a zero foot setback as Sharmeen had shown along here. Engineering feels that a minimum of 5 foot setback needs to be adhered to so that they can do maintenance on and get through that area on the back side of the building and that is a bare minimum and currently they’re showing 20 feet total from, setback from the wetland and so that, to have 5 foot would mean that they would have to get a variance from the watershed district to reduce that minimum setback to 15 feet. One point that I wanted to make is, you know along this wetland buffer that’s going to have to be planted with native species so when you looked at the rendering it looked all nice and green like it was lawn. Well that isn’t going to be able to appear that way. It’s going to have to have a more native appearance to it. So in two areas it’s close. In this area you know is of prime concern right now so that will still have to be worked out from a setback perspective. Skistad: How long is that space? Like long is that? Weick: Yeah let’s hold our questions. Bender: To be honest I did not measure it but it’s about two rooms width I would assume according to this drawing that a room is somewhere between maybe an average of 5 foot wide. The applicant can probably answer that question for us. There are a few grading concerns. The applicant is showing grading that’s outside of the limits of the property so that will need to be addressed. The watershed district also picked up on this requirement and they will have to provide either change their plans to match within their property limits or provide proof and documentation of being allowed to work outside of their property. You know their landscaping plan still needs to be updated to show what they are going to be doing within the buffer area itself and they will need to file for an NPDES construction permit due to the disturbance being greater than one acre. I’ll turn it over to Sharmeen again. Al-Jaff: Staff is recommending approval of the application with conditions outlined in the staff report and at this point we would be happy to answer any questions you might have. Some of the issues that were raised by the Planning Commission, some of the questions will be addressed by the applicant specifically dealing with setbacks and the buffer area. Weick: Okay. And I know we do have, I’m sensing we have a lot of questions so as we ask for questions or clarifications we’ll try and, instead of going Commissioner by Commissioner let’s try as best we can, I know it’s tough but try and go topic by topic. So feel free to jump in someone’s mentioning grading and we can keep it. Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020 5 Aanenson: Chairman if I may. Weick: Yeah. Aanenson: I think it might be helpful to let the applicant make their presentation because I thin that might help clarify some of the questions and then maybe, or just maybe fine tune some of your questions if that’s alright. Weick: Okay. If that’s okay with the commission. Is that alright? Good enough. Okay then I would invite the applicant to make a presentation. Maybe answer some of the anticipated questions, that would be great. Welcome. Patrick Sarver: Excellent, thank you so much. My name is Patrick Sarver. I’m with Civil Site Group, landscape architect by professional and project manager for this site. I also have with me this evening Jeff Schuler who’s the architect on the project and Elizabeth Wright who’s the owner/operator of the, what will be the Moments of Chanhassen and she’s the current owner/ operator of the Moments of Lakeville where they have a similar facility. A phase 1 that’s in operation and a phase 2 that is starting construction momentarily in Lakeville. Yes to address some of the comments here, regarding the setback. First of all I wanted to thank. It has been, we have been working on this project for a great length of time and staff and engineering have been absolutely fantastic and the watershed. They have been a treat to work with and this is a, I hope you can appreciate how complicated a site this is in that there’s a significant amount of grade. There’s very poor soils and there is a, because of the wetland location at the narrow point of the site it makes it very complicated to get just about anything in here at all so we’ve been able to work with the architect. Work with the program for the site and work with the natural features and spend extra time making sure that we get it right and one of those efforts to get it a little more right is that we are, we’ve been able to just in the past couple days modify the architecture of the building so that we’re able to get to the 5 foot setbacks all along, as requested all along through this area by essentially modifying the building to take this section and move it farther away and then also move the building again further farther away just to make sure that we’re, we’ve got as much space there as possible. One of the, regarding the landscaping, it probably we could have did a better job explaining about how we wanted to restore that natural feature back there. The idea is what’s unique about this population is they don’t go outside so there is, I mean they’ll go outside on patio spaces but because of just the containment issues what you want to do is you want to create environment as exciting and as lively for them to live inside yet feel connected with the outside. You’ll notice if you go back to the elevations we can do this a little bit later but there is a clear story that goes around the upper portion of the building and that is an attempt to try to create a streetscape environment within the inside of the building as much as possible. I think if you had a chance to go visit the site in Lakeville they do an amazing job with the inside of the space so when you walk into this that every unit has a unique personality like you would be walking down a streetscape and you see, oh here’s a brick façade or here’s a little lap siding so that each one of the residents has a feeling like this is my home. This is my unique Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020 6 space. This is my and they do a remarkable job and have been recognized for it nationally for the efforts that they do to great lengths to number one introduce light into the facility and to make it be as pleasant as possible. Along those same lines we think this is a fantastic site and the effort that we’ve done with staff by positioning the building essentially in a natural oasis where it gives them an opportunity to have views out those lower windows directly into natural environment where there’s birds, butterflies, wildlife. The idea that that is all completely natural through there is our intention. The down side with the rendering software is it renders nice. It renders the building nice but there’s not really a good way to reflect that green space but it is proposed to be a natural and native features as much as possible. Other pieces that I wanted to address. Well we’ve addressed the setback. We continue to work with the watershed to address and make sure that we’re going to meet all their requirements. Again the soils are clay and it’s a requirement of the watershed and the City to infiltrate and these are the worst level of soils to infiltrate and they’re the most complicated to try to do that but we’re doing everything we can do to try to demonstrate as greatest infiltration as possible but we’re working through that demonstration process with the watershed. Turning movements. I can go to the next one. We have since updated this graphic. This shows a current turning movement as with the proposed and we have submitted this to the City as well. This, we will also be providing additional as we revise drawings for the watershed we’ll be including those hopefully with a full complete set by next, the end of next week so that when we turn it into the City we’ll have as many of the conditions as we can stricken from the approval process and the comment letter from staff to the City Council so we’re in agreement with the spirit of the comments on the letter and we’re going to do everything we can do to resolve all of them as it moves forward. I believe that’s it and we can stand for any questions. Again the owner and the architect is here and is available and I’ll be available as well. I’ll take any questions you have right now otherwise I’ll take a seat. Weick: I think stay and we’ll go ahead and open it up for questions or clarification. You can certainly direct it at the applicant or the City depending on what your question is but I would certainly open that up. Tietz: Chairman? Weick: Yep. Tietz: I appreciate you taking that jog and pulling it back but have you created a pinch point at the entry where you have a building mass of one story and it looks like the building is within a couple feel of your sidewalk. Kind of traded one problem for another. Patrick Sarver: Yeah, but I don’t think so though. Tietz: It just appears on your new drawing it appears very, very tight at that point. Patrick Sarver: I do see your concern there. Yeah. Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020 7 Tietz: Yeah just as a visual pinch point I think when you’re arriving at the front of the building and I don’t know if you want to trade off the wetland issue for this or fight for the wetland issue. Patrick Sarver: I think we may have some options to mitigate the intensity of that pinch point by possibly sliding those 13 stalls that are sitting there. Rotate them maybe 10-12 feet to the west. Make that island on the west side. Tietz: We won’t design it for you. I’m just, I noticed that right away because when I was looking at your drawings and I saw the comments about the tightness to the wetland I thought about whether you could slide that, make that building component on the west slide down and obviously you did that but now I’m looking at this and I don’t have the elevation to look at and I don’t know where that roof line is at that point. It just looks like it’s awkward. Patrick Sarver: Noted. We’ll do our best to help mitigate it, thank you. Tietz: Okay. Weick: I have a question that’s, it’s about the buffers and I think you both kind of addressed them but what is, if there were no, I’m confused because we were talking about averaging. If there were no building there what is the buffer? I mean how close can you build, what’s the code? Al-Jaff: Including the buffer you have to maintain a 50 foot setback. Weick: Okay. So it’s. Tietz: But Steve if you look at the original grading plan and look at the first floor elevation here, the original grade is a 10 foot drop from the point of the edge of the wetland. The wetland buffer down to the Type 1/2 wetlands so it’s like going up to the underside of those beams all the way down to the wetland. You know you begin to wonder sometimes you know what that buffer does when you have such a significant grade change. Aanenson: I just bring up herein lies the problem with this property. We’re worked on this property for 15-20 years. It’s always been a challenge to find someone. We’ve had really a lot of different uses on there so this one seemed to have the most viability and so Sharmeen and George have worked really hard with the applicant to try to, to wiggle it in there and I think Commissioner Tietz brings up a good point. I mean. Tietz: It’s difficult. Aanenson: It’s difficult right. Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020 8 Tietz: Yeah in this situation I don’t know when you look architecturally at that façade and given that this is a wetland that, if there’s so much water and it gets so high it’s going to go into Riley. It’s going to take a pretty significant storm I would think on this site to get into Riley and so encroaching on, you know taking that 5 feet off on the back side I don’t know if that’s, if it’s worth the front and dealing with the front as opposed to addressing just going for it on the wetland and taking it right up to the edge in the back. Not trying to create that additional 5 feet. I mean in an emergency, I don’t know. You know if you’re dealing, if it’s a maintenance issue and you’re dealing with the exterior of the building in 15 or 20 years I guess you can access that, that buffer zone. You can drive on that buffer zone. You could do maintenance work if you had to. Patrick Sarver: One of the items I wanted to add relative to the wetlands. There are two different classifications of the wetlands. The lower quality wetland is the one that’s that longer lengthy piece and that’s actually a wooded wetland so there’s not, it’s not, doesn’t really, it actually has a slope through there. It just poorly drained slope which means that over time because it’s poorly drained there’s been more soils that have become hydric and it has created wetland plant material there and that’s why it’s, initially on our original wetland delineation it wasn’t part of there because it’s not identified but upon the TEP panel walking the site it was identified and it was further indicated. So the fact or the concern that it might fill up with water is actually not because you say there’s just the grade drops so dramatically off to the north that it’s not going to be, that’s not going to be a concern. Our concern was we wanted to make sure that we had positive drainage out to the edge where that wetland is and that we’ve still got areas that contribute water so that they, we don’t compromise the wetland. Tietz: But it does look like on that northwest corner in that area that we’re talking about, you drop the grade down to 960 so you’re virtually at the same edge of the wetland with, you’re going to be grading right up to the wetland. It appears on your grading plan. Is that accurate or did I misinterpret that? Patrick Sarver: No that’s accurate. Tietz: Okay. So I’d be more concern during construction than I would be after construction I guess. Patrick Sarver: Yes. Weick: I’m just not clear because even the, and correct me if I’m wrong but the 20 feet that’s shown here is an arbitrary buffer. Bender: It is a minimum buffer is probably how I’d say it. The actual buffer that the watershed district is looking for is a 40 foot buffer around the wetland. Weick: Okay. Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020 9 Bender: But they will allow buffer averaging so it can get wider in other areas and narrower in areas of need for development to a minimum of 20 feet. Does help answer the question? Al-Jaff: That is a common practice. Weick: Okay. Okay. Aanenson: If you look at that in subdivisions sometimes there’s a pinch point and so instead of losing the lot you average it and pick it up on a different lot. Weick: Okay. Bender: The buffer is not intended to be used for maintenance of the building though. It’s intended to remain a buffer per the watershed district. Skistad: The purpose of that being specifically, just when you say take care of the outside of the building, what do you mean? Bender: So like taking care, maintaining the landscaping. Just being able to get around it. The buffer. It’s not intended to drive a forklift through it. Weick: Go ahead. McGonagill: George on the, I think I know the answer to this. I just want to be sure. We have a lot of development going on to the north with the development up there and what is a 100 year flood look like? Is it all going to drain away towards the lake the way it falls that way or was there any possibility, how far will it come up towards the building? Bender: They did not show the 100 year flood elevation for Riley Creek on their plans. I was talking to our City Engineer about that a little bit yesterday. The other thing that I noticed is you know that will be another thing that we kind of have to work through. It’s also noted on Riley Bluff watershed district’s comments so it’s another thing that needs to be included but there is a FEMA flood zone that kind of goes back here that we can see on our GIS software. And the reason that was the main reason I was talking to the City Engineer about it is that, you know where they’re proposing to discharge that pipe appears to be within the FEMA flood zone but at the same time we don’t, that data was imported from a Carver County and we feel that we need to do more research on the accuracy of that data because from what we see in that area it doesn’t seem to make complete sense to us so at this point it’s something that only may have to be worked through. McGonagill: Yeah but my concern comes from we’re changing the watershed quite a bit up in this area. Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020 10 Bender: Yep. McGonagill: And a lot of it goes into Riley. Bender: Right. They will have to show us that. Patrick Sarver: Just an added comment. Just for your reference. I don’t consider, I don’t think that the 100 year flood plain is of concern. The grade of that Riley Creek is 943. 942. 943. And our low edge is 959 so we’re 16 feet above that. I don’t see that we’re close to that 100 year flood at all. McGonagill: Okay. Bender: I can tell you what shows in our GIS does not approach the area of the building. It goes to about halfway through this little pie shaped piece that they know. McGonagill: Okay. Along the, Sharmeen along the 78th where the landscaping’s going, that’s just trees. That’s not berm. Or is it berm? Al-Jaff: It will be mainly bushes and trees. McGonagill: Okay because I was just, and where I was going with this was the proximity of that landscaping to the trail. That’s a pretty active trail. You know how close is it going to be? Are people going to get into the trees? Are they going to get into the bushes? You follow me? Al-Jaff: Sure. McGonagill: And will it impede, will it impede trail access? Al-Jaff: It will not impede access. The trail is in the public right-of-way. The landscaping will be on the actual property. McGonagill: Okay, would it be away from the trail you think? Patrick Sarver: I would imagine it’s going to be at least 6 feet away from the edge of the trail. I think our landscaping there maybe shown slightly inaccurate in that we’re planting into the right- of-way. I don’t think that’s, MnDOT is not going to, it was, as we’re putting this together and adding as much landscaping as we can we thicken it up but we’re going to make sure that that landscaping is entirely located within our property and it will just be heavily landscaped between, in that space that we have behind the curb up to the property line. McGonagill: So basically it will be the same grade that’s there today. Just… Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020 11 Patrick Sarver: Exactly, yes. McGonagill: And there’s not a fence or anything, there’s just bushes? Patrick Sarver: No. Yes just bushes. And from a berm standpoint, from a berming or grade change standpoint at the midpoint the trail is let’s say right at where that front entry is, that trail is at a 66 and then the edge of the parking is up at 69 so it does, it does slope up and away and then, so it kind of sets it up a little bit but as you move to the east that transition changes to where the trail and then it drops down toward where the parking’s at. McGonagill: Okay. Skistad: How big is that bed? That landscaping bed approximately. Patrick Sarver: It will be landscaped from, it’s basically, it will be fully landscaped from the property line to the, so it’s 10 feet wide. Property line to the curb line. McGonagill: Sharmeen in the staff report I just want to be sure I understood. When you talk about the, this being service enabled. Service enriched units basically what we’re talking about here are memory care type units. Al-Jaff: You are correct. McGonagill: For Alzheimer’s. It’s not, this is basically a full nursing facility to some degree. Secured. You know people are in there. They’re there. That’s kind of the way it was. Al-Jaff: You are correct. Memory care. McGonagill: Yes okay. Patrick Sarver: No residents are bringing their car. McGonagill: Yeah that was the next question I was going is the parking lot you know which with that. I will tell you before I start. I have a lot of questions on this. Not being critical. My family believes I’ll probably be in one of these real soon what I hear from them. I’m just going through questions that I would have that I think the public might have too so I just wanted to paraphrase that. Al-Jaff: Absolutely. Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020 12 McGonagill: In the, so with that security, what I was looking at if there’s really, you have security at the door coming in the front towards the parking lot and then you have some in the back is the way that will work? Elizabeth Wright: Little slower moving. So the current existing Moments of Lakeville is fully secured. All the exits and entryways. We don’t believe in having wings locked off so we try to give as much freedom as possible to the residents. So there’s plenty of research and the technology we have implemented has provided us with an ability to protect the residents from exiting and egress when it’s you know not called for. McGonagill: Yeah and that’s the reason I ask because being right on 78th like that, you’re right on a very busy street. I saw the end of the walls and stuff that would go, and okay that’s how they’re doing it. Every couple doors. I’ve had some experience with facilities like this personally. It’s kind of like okay I was just imagining myself being with a family member there. I’m just going through some of these are, I don’t know how you want to go through, something about category and so. Weick: Keep going. McGonagill: So Sharmeen we’re halfway to the goal on service enabled so what others are up? Do you see other ones coming? Aanenson: Can I address that? McGonagill: Sure. Aanenson: So this is the newly adopted Comprehensive Plan which the City Council will be officially adopting so those numbers come 2014 when we actually started the plan so this is kind of a hybrid from the Maxfield Study, then the Carver County did an updated their plan so if you look at where the City in their vision sees kind of those buckets of housing types. So they’re broken into ownership, senior and rental and the thing that we don’t want to have to make a well rounded community we don’t want to have what we call service enriched. It’d be more like you need it’s kind of dependent. You can’t live independently so, because we’ve had requests for maybe 500-600 all service enriched and we don’t see that. The feasibility to manage all that. McGonagill: Well that was my next question. Aanenson: So that plays into some of that. McGonagill: There’s a cap for us. Aanenson: Yep exactly. So when we look at each of these projects, this is tying back into our plan to say what is the City’s vision. How much of this do we want because we know there’s Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020 13 some other senior projects coming in in Avienda. There might be one other one that might be you know service enriched. There also might be some that are adult owned and those can be in a coop or a condominium or something like that so again trying to provide what we believe and as adopted in the Comprehensive Plan a well rounded community with different housing choices meeting different needs. So we for illustratively just showed you where we’re at from 2014 when this was submitted as part of the Comprehensive Plan and where we are today so we’re within that range. So it’s also when we’re meeting with people we can kind of say you know here’s how many are left. Here’s where we think we’re going. What the city’s vision is so that’s really what that’s about. McGonagill: And it follows onto that comment where another one of my questions came was the impact on emergency responders and city services and county services. Aanenson: That’s correct. McGonagill: You know you will have like staff members you have on site. You’ve got quite a few people but when someone falls I mean usually it’s a 911 call isn’t it? I mean what you have to do and I think about impact on county sheriff. I think about fortunately the ambulance is right around the corner but what does that look like for you and how is that handled? How is the cost of that handled? Elizabeth Wright: Well one of the pluses for us is that our model is set out with having licensed nursing on staff 24 hours a day. McGonagill: Okay. Elizabeth Wright: So those falls that you would normally find at a normal facility where they may not have that opportunity, allows our licensed nurses to actually assess the situation and rather than make that immediate call, unless there’s a clear and obviously injury that needs to be made, it allows us the opportunity to treat that and call the doctor that we have on our staff as well to make sure that we’re not sending someone out without an appropriate reason for it. So it’s not every fall that would happen within the Moments would require something to that effect so we eliminate a lot of those types of calls. McGonagill: Okay. Skistad: So you would have your own transport then? Elizabeth Wright: No, no, no. We still utilize the transport. Obviously we have the same in Lakeville but like I said most, it comes down to a decision between the nursing and families quite frankly because with this particular population families may not want it to be an emergency send out to an ER so if they live locally they have the ability to make that decision to come in and transport their loved one themselves. It’s something that we provide as an option for them. Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020 14 McGonagill: Will this facility also transition all the way to end of life care? Like hospice care. Do you do that as well? Elizabeth Wright: We do not provide hospice care specifically but we do have, we do provide the opportunity for outside hospice to come in and provide that care, yes. McGonagill: Correct, okay. Elizabeth Wright: Absolutely. McGonagill: Now look at the side it doesn’t, you know you’re expanding in Lakeville but I don’t see how you’d expand here. I mean is expansion pretty much none to be had here do you think? Elizabeth Wright: Oh you know to be honest with you we would have loved more, to be able to have more units. I think there’s a need in the area locally to be able to fill that but the piece of property doesn’t lend itself to that. Until recently I was a resident of Chanhassen so for me this particular area is something that is near and dear to my heart so I like this area. Would we like to expand if it’s a possibility someplace either if not in Chanhassen nearby but outside of a certain radius, for sure. McGonagill: Well I was just you know on this site there’s not really room. Elizabeth Wright: No. There’s no. McGonagill: I didn’t think so. I didn’t think you were going to convert the garages or anything like that. Elizabeth Wright: No. McGonagill: Yeah. I’ve got a couple more but why not just turn on other people can ask some questions. Weick: Need a break? McGonagill: No. I just, you know me I’ll just keep going and going. Randall: Well with you being recently from Chan I know you said you moved or whatever but I think of the 4th of July and I think about how much traffic and the fireworks and everything, is that going to be a concern to you at all with your facility? Elizabeth Wright: No. Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020 15 Randall: As far as your residents and the McGonagill: And the lights. Elizabeth Wright: No. Randall: The lights and that type of thing. Elizabeth Wright: No, it’s not. Randall: Okay. Elizabeth Wright: And for me just because they have dementia doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be able to enjoy everything that we all enjoy. Randall: Yeah. Elizabeth Wright: So quite frankly having the 4th of July and being able to see the fireworks would be wonderful. There’d be an opportunity quite frankly. Randall: Okay, that’s great. That was the only question I had. McGonagill: Kind of follow onto that enjoying things. I agree with what you’re saying to do that. One of the things and this is more just of a personal request and observation both to you and the staff. When I was thinking about this if I had a family member here and what I would be doing and what I’ve done in the past is one thing is all the places to put someone in a wheelchair and take them out are in the front. You know and you know when I’ve had people in facilities before I’ve looked for places to get out away. To have a sanctuary where we could just have time. These are wonderful facilities to have for people where they can be safe but it can be somewhat disconcerting when you’re in them trying to be with your family member or get outside the room when it’s nice weather and I was looking trying to think of a way, is there a way that working with city staff and the parks that we could get some sort of trail or access or park where people in a wheelchair could get them away? You know out back or somewhere where a family could gather you know outside the facility. I realize with the setbacks and all that’s in there but it’s more of the ability of a quality of life. I was thinking well where would I do it? Well in the back you can’t do it. I was thinking well you have a sunroom. Well you have the drop off there with the garages. You follow where I’m going? Elizabeth Wright: Absolutely. Just to be clear we love the outdoors and I know that one of the things that we’re actually doing in Lakeville to that end is we’re, we recently got approval to build basically an English garden on another part of the property that I own down there and for Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020 16 us it’s important to allow certain gathering areas and we would love to work with the City and parks and everybody else to be able to find that spot on this property to make that work. McGonagill: Maybe it’s access into the park itself because you’re not far off. Elizabeth Wright: Yeah. McGonagill: So I would just ask the staff to work with parks and see what we do here because people that are here will want it. I mean particularly if there is a family member there and you’re living here. You’ll spend a lot of time there and you want to get out or maybe you just want to get out and walk and refresh yourself so you can go back and care for them and I would just really encourage that to be found. Elizabeth Wright: We would love that. Tietz: Mr. Chairman? Weick: Yep. Tietz: Seeing that the landscape plan is up, just a question and maybe there’s reasoning behind it but looks like it’s all foundation and edge planting. Has that been done for a purpose? I mean the building is rimmed with plant material and your list looks like a great list of plant material and Jill’s our environmental and forester in the city made some great comments that, a comment came in about the removal of trees and I think Jill made a good comment and certainly agree with all the trees but I’m just, it just strikes me as everything is tight to edges. Patrick Sarver: Well there’s a couple reasons for that. There’s a certain calculations that are required by the ordinance that we’re trying to satisfy with the perimeter planting and the amount of shrubs and treatments that we have so in order to meet the required plantings, obviously we wanted screening around the south side. Or on the west side. Or on the building. It has a requirement for planting around the foundation. There’s likely that we’re probably going to plant more trees than we might be showing currently so these folks love planting trees so having something that compliments the wooded area. Tietz: I’m just not sure, do our ordinances require foundation planting? I’ve never seen that on any plans that we’ve ever reviewed. That is just tight to the building and completely around. You know the numbers of and species you certainly could do some mass plantings and I’m just wondering too in this naturalization of that buffer area, from the architectural rendering obviously the architectural is a better rendering than the site rendering but on that back side in this light green or yellow area you could plant large or a lot of trees that are appropriate for the environment and do something for visual interest on that north side and replace on the requirements for trees in that zone. Just a thought. Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020 17 Patrick Sarver: We will likely take you up on that. Again it’s the, the planting around the perimeter is where we started from and then trying to keep as many views open into that space as possible. The light yellow is meant to be a low maintenance native planting. Tietz: I think you can plant in that buffer zone. Patrick Sarver: Oh yeah. Tietz: Yeah. We were dealing with that with The Park too and encouraging Lennar to do something in those edge areas as opposed to just marching down the streets. Patrick Sarver: We’ll be happy to work out with the, I’ll reach out to the Forester and see if there’s opportunities… Tietz: And Jill had good comments and I think just go from there. Thanks. Patrick Sarver: Great, thank you. McGonagill: George is there any, from the County or wherever it would be to ever consider, I hope they don’t, consider that they’re going to put a roundabout at that intersection of Audubon? I know there’s a stop sign which I like because with senior drivers which would be going in and out of there visiting, I like having a stop sign. People can stop and assess what’s happening instead of somebody whipping around that roundabout. Ripping around a roundabout and somebody being surprised. Bender: Not that I’m aware of but I think it’s too close to Trunk Highway 5 there for that. McGonagill: To happen. Bender: For that to actually be there. There is a roundabout proposed down at Galpin. McGonagill: Correct, right. I was just thinking if you’re thinking okay being in facilities like this, knowing how people drive in and out of then they have a lot on their mind. They’re not really looking, zap you know somebody comes whipping around there. Just a question. Weick: Do you have some questions? Skistad: I’m just wondering, I’m wondering have you guys heard from the neighbor? Any concerns from that neighbor. Is that the tree email or the email that came? Aanenson: Jill did address that comment. Skistad: Is that her? Is that the neighbor? Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020 18 Aanenson: Yes. Skistad: From that, okay. Joy Gorra: I have some questions. I didn’t know if it was my turn. Weick: We will get to you. I promise. Joy Gorra: Okay. Skistad: So technically there’s only supposed to be one house on this lot? I mean what is rural residential district typically? Al-Jaff: It’s one unit per 10 acres and as far as densities go it is minimum 2 ½ acres. Does that answer? Skistad: So what is the acreage on that, the person lives to the west of it? Tietz: Well that’s the Gorra property. Al-Jaff: It’s essentially more than that. Tietz: It’s 100 acres. Al-Jaff: Yeah at least. Skistad: Is that, okay. So that goes all the way. Al-Jaff: And the owner of the property is here. Skistad: Okay. Al-Jaff: And the comment dealing with the removal of the tree, the email that we received is actually from a townhouse development that is to the west of the Gorra’s property. Skistad: So is that property that they own to the west is that all the way to those townhouses? That whole entire and the City has that, it’s zoned rural residential Aanenson: It’s guided for high density and medium density. Both. So when they come in they’d have to have a plan that shows that it’s consistent with the guiding in the future. The reason it’s zone rural residential right now is because there’s no use on the property. If you were to rezone it they’d be paying higher taxes on the property. Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020 19 McGonagill: I’m done. Weick: Do you have further? Take your time. Skistad: I think I got most of them answered here by other people. I guess the only other question I had really was how far, and I just can’t tell from the maps. Approximately how far is to the other house to this location? Do you have any idea what that is? Al-Jaff: The Gorra house. Skistad: I mean is it flat there? I should, I didn’t realize this was the one that was coming up. I didn’t go out there to look at it. Other than seeing it the property along 78th Street. Al-Jaff: You won’t be able to see the house from this property. Skistad: You won’t be able to see it from this property because it’s far enough. Al-Jaff: Correct. Skistad: Okay. And this is a lower elevation. Is this property, it’s kind of the elevation. Al-Jaff: The elevation of this site sits higher than the Gorra property. Tietz: Go to the photo. McGonagill: You’ve got to go to the photo. There you go. Al-Jaff: So from here to where the house sits you won’t be able to, this entire area is completely wooded. Skistad: Okay. Al-Jaff: So there is no visual, direct visual access to the homes and the building will be at the highest point of the roof it’s 29 feet so you really won’t be able to. Skistad: Well it’s a little bit over two stories essentially. Al-Jaff: Correct. Skistad: That’s all of it. Everyone else answered my questions. Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020 20 Weick: Okay. One more round of possible questions. Okay hearing none thank you. Thank you very much for your presentation and for answering all of our questions. At this time I will open the public hearing for input. Anyone wishing to come forward may do so at this time. Just I would remind you to please state your name and address so that we can add that to the record. Thank you and welcome. Joy Gorra: Well thank you. I’m Joy Gorra. The neighbor to the west. I too am in long term residential care. The location that they selected is a wonderful spot for what they are proposing. If you’ve been in an assisted living in Minnesota you have only been in one. Each assisted living is uniquely different depending on the ownership. That is how they’re going to be running their facility. I am assuming Elizabeth will be running her Lakeville and her Chanhassen the same. I understand her facility to be a locked down unit for strictly memory care. The model is changing a lot where they’re weaving dementia care and, or clients with independent residents. They seem to flourish very well that way. Each owner can operate it completely different but moving forward maybe her model changes or maybe that owner changes. But right now what she has designed is perfect for her residents. For her community. It’s great looking at it from the north and probably from the west and probably from the east but when you look forward to the south there is a big problem. I don’t see it so much her problem but I see the problem for Chanhassen. As we move forward with our direction to expand senior housing with services the City needs to keep in mind you are serving a vulnerable population and you really want to safeguard that vulnerable population. Last year roughly about this time there was a vulnerable adult, independent in his electrical scooter who would be zipping down on the shoulder of a highway. Nothing busy like Highway 5 but still very busy and it was dark and he would be hit by a car and a month later would die. So as these facilities come up in Chanhassen we need to be very careful on how we lay things out with regard to a road. Owners who have these facilities having them next to a busy street is really quite ideal. Everybody knows where your place is. People living in that facility they enjoy watching activity and here what Elizabeth is proposing they’ve got the best of both worlds. They’ve got the quiet serene view or they can be looking out at Highway 5, Paisley Park watching activity. Assuming maybe her facility changes I believe it’d be very, very nice if we could have another overpass possibly over Highway 5 also servicing Paisley Park. I don’t know just an idea but as you plan for Chanhassen in the future and making a home for vulnerable adults please keep that in mind that if not done properly there could be injury and again with the, with some of these clients you’ve got dementia that might be out there but even if they don’t have dementia, again in a motorized scooter they can be hurt so I would welcome them as my next door neighbor. I do not want water. I do not want a new pond on my property but I believe they would be a great neighbor. A good asset to Lake Ann but again you need to make sure you’ve looked at the whole picture. Thank you. Weick: Thanks for coming tonight. Ahmet: I’d like to comment tonight. Weick: Yes please. Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020 21 Ahmet: My name is Ahmet. I’m working with my wife. I’m the consultant to my wife construction company. I have no ownership in the Moments or in the construction company. However I’m helping to lead her construction. So when Elizabeth went to put the memory care in a very difficult spot in Lakeville, right on 46th and 35W, the same question were arose by the Planning Commission and other people. It’s close to the highway. How do you bring greenery to these lots and how do you build something that is extraordinary so I’d like to tell you something it’s amazing story. So when Elizabeth start, put her business together a gentleman by the name of Don Hussey. Don Hussey is the managing director of the Ziegler Group. It’s the largest senior lender in America. When he saw Elizabeth’s operation and the building after she created it and her company build it he told, quote unquote, you have one of the top 5 memory care in the country. In the country and that was her first memory care. Unanimously the City of Lakeville approved her second expansion that is 60 memory care and 80,000 square feet they’re going to create a campus. Elizabeth spent in Lakeville a million dollar to create an English garden that she took and she’s copying the Lord Jacob’s and if you look at, Google it and see English garden, it is amazing. We plant 70 trees that are 10 foot tall. We’re planning to plant over 200 trees here. Your idea of having a trail and having it excellence this is exactly Elizabeth’s vision and we’re going to work with the city planning and everybody in Chanhassen to be able to deliver the dreams and the needs of the city in this community. And we understand the importance that the City on the environment, on greenery, on trees, that’s exactly what we would like to do there and that’s exactly what we’re going to do here. Weick: Thank you. Ahmet: Thank you. Weick: Thank you that’s a great perspective. Can you come back Ms. Gorra? We just had a question and I know that’s unconventional. McGonagill: It was just unclear to me and thank you for coming up. Is there anything when you were talking through this that you would suggest that we need to do other than what you see to have it safe? I agree with you. I had a friend of the family hit in a scooter. Get what you’re saying. Is there anything else that you can see that we need to consider other than it has security. It is memory care. Keep it that way. Joy Gorra: Well some of the good things that Chanhassen has here is, you have that walking and bike trail and then you have West 78th Street and then you have a ditch and then you have Highway 5 but you know facilities, their staff are trained. You can’t, if you’ve got independent staff that can, I mean residents that can come and go you can’t really restrain them. McGonagill: No. Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020 22 Joy Gorra: You know maybe a certain crosswalk but with Highway 5 the only thing I can see is going over. McGonagill: But this isn’t going to be independent residents. These are. Joy Gorra: Right, right. McGonagill: What I would say confined and I think you intend to keep them that way. Keep that kind of structure right? Business model. Elizabeth Wright: Memory care. McGonagill: Excuse me? Elizabeth Wright: Memory care only. McGonagill: Memory care only, okay. Alright thank you. Joy Gorra: Yep. Weick: Thank you. And with that I will close the public hearing portion of tonight’s item and open the item for commission member comments and/or appropriate motions. Tietz: No, looks good. McGonagill: Looks good, looks fine. Tietz: Go for it. Weick: Yeah I would only moderately echo that. I, as I read this on my own and I’m really familiar with this site, it’s, I come back to a common refrain of mine that sometimes, sometimes things aren’t buildable. I saw that a lot especially with some of the infill that we do with homes. You know I wish the use of this was like a super center or something that would make me feel better about saying you know no. But it’s not. I mean it’s an awesome business case and it’s a beautiful property and it’s the right thing for the city. I’m struggling myself with you know it’s built right up to the parking lot. It’s built over the wetland really. And when you think about protecting the wetlands, those are a couple things I have trouble putting behind. I love the use but those are two things that stand out to me. As food for thought. McGonagill: Well I understand what you’re saying. I love the use. I love the setting. What I was thinking because I go up and down that trail a lot and it is tight. I agree with you. But at the same time as I think about it, having a quality place for memory care for people that you can go Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020 23 there and particularly if they can work with the parks and have access for someone to take a loved one and be around them, it’s huge for that benefit. Weick: Yeah I’m with you. McGonagill: And for, yes it’s a compromise. What we’re talking about to some degree but I think it’s compromising in the right direction for a quality of life of future Chanhassen residents whether they realize they’re here or not. Weick: Yeah. McGonagill: But for their families particularly I think it can be done right it can be a very comforting place for people to know the family is taken care of. For a lot of different reasons but there’s hotels close by. People can come stay if they’re out of town. You come visit the family member or there’s if you want to go out and get them something to help the room there’s shops here in Chan. It’s really, I just, I like it and maybe for that, yeah there’s hair on it. I agree with you but we’re protecting Lake Riley. It’s a good addition to the side of the park. It’s like I, that’s why I’m in favor of it. And I’m a hard sell. Weick: I know you are. I know you are, yes. Skistad: Well I like the design of the building. I think that’s very well done. That’s probably the best design that I think we’ve seen especially the first design. I guess it’s the maintenance question that George brought up that’s concerning. Aanenson: Just to be clear that is a condition of approval so those things have to be met so the only way they could advance is if they met those conditions so that’s what you would be approving that they had to meet those. Weick: In regards to maintenance and things like that. Aanenson: Well the 5 foot. The 5 foot rear, those are conditions of approval so they would have to meet that, yep. Al-Jaff: They would also need to meet the watershed district requirements as far as the buffer. So a lot of these things that you’re raising as issues have been discussed by staff. We agree with you and by averaging the buffer you are maintaining and meeting the intent of the ordinance and one of the things I mentioned at the beginning, intent versus literal interpretation of the ordinance. Aanenson: I just wanted to add. So what we heard, that’s why I asked the developer to give their talk first is what they’ve already worked to try to modify those conditions. They’re still Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020 24 about watershed, amount of retaining the amount of water which they need to go through a process so they’ll have to do all that to get it approved so just to be clear on that. Weick: Yep. But even the 5 feet is a compromise right? I mean that’s not, that’s not code. I mean that’s a variance. McGonagill: It’s a variance. Weick: It’s a variance right? Al-Jaff: That was a variance. Weick: Okay. Bender: It’s a variance from 30 feet. Randall: It’s like, you know looking at the property I think it’s a, the environmental impact. This is a good use for any kind of impact it’s going to have. I looked at the floorplans of the building. It would be very hard to convert that into like apartments down the road or that type of thing where you’d have more traffic going in and out where the impact on the environment would be higher so I mean it’s built to stay and it’s probably going to stay it’s use that it has right now even 20-30-40 years down the road and I think it’s a good thing to have in Chan and it’s a great spot to have that too so I’ll be voting in favor of a rezoning. Weick: I know for fear of sounding heartless, you know I mean I’ve sat through these though where we’ve told homeowners you know who want to build big houses on small property that hey just you know cut out a bedroom or make it a two car garage or you know don’t put this or that in there so we’re pretty strict in those cases and I understand that this is a, again it’s a wonderful use and I would not be disappointed to see this built but thinking you know sort of procedurally as we’ve talked through cases that just, I’m explaining ultimately where my vote would lie which is against it because of those reasons. I do see an importance in being consistent with putting things that are just generally too large on properties that are generally too small. McGonagill: I understand. That’s your conviction so that’s fine. Weick: Okay. Skistad: In looking at the whole, the property next to it and knowing what we just did at the Park, you know I’m just envisioning what would that property be at some point. You know how much density do we plan to put there. Weick: We certainly will increase it right. I mean that’s our plan is to increase it. Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020 25 Aanenson: Oh yeah. Yep. Weick: I mean that’s. Skistad: So if we continue to overrun sections of property I think we’re going to, you know we’re also potentially endangering Lake Ann at some point. McGonagill: It’s a good point but you’re voting on a variance for this particular piece of property and not for what could be. Skistad: I realize that. McGonagill: So that’s hard to balance that out which I appreciate the Commissioner your thoughts but as I’ve been coached by others before we have to, you know what’s in front of you is what you vote on and I go okay, I get it. Weick: And I appreciate that. Tietz: I’ll make a motion. Weick: Please do. Tietz: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning of the property from Rural Residential District to High Density Residential District (R-16). Lot consolidation and the site plan review with variances for the construction of a 48 unit continuing care retirement facility, The Moments of Chanhassen as shown on plans dated January 6, 2020, subject to the conditions and approval and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision, and yeah, Decision Recommendation. Decision is, why is that Decision Recommendation? Weick: Thank you Commissioner Tietz. We have a valid motion. Do we have a second? McGonagill: I will second. Weick: We have a second from Commissioner McGonagill. Any final comment before we vote? Seeing none. Tietz moved, McGonagill seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of Planning Case #2020-02 to rezone 3.5 acres of property from RR, Rural Residential District to R-16, High Density Residential District and adoption of the Findings of Fact. All voted in favor except for Wieck and Skistad who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020 26 Tietz moved, McGonagill seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the site plan consisting of a 65,000 square-foot continuing care facility with wetland and front yard setback variances, Planning Case #2020-2 for The Moments of Chanhassen as shown in plans dated January 6, 2020, and including the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation, and subject to the following conditions: Engineering 1. A turning movement analysis utilizing the largest anticipated design vehicle shall be provided to ensure there is adequate spacing and no conflicts within the required turnaround, the driveway entrance/exit, and with the traffic control devices located on West 78th Street (raised median, pavement striping, etc.) prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. An updated existing condition survey shall be submitted with revised plans that includes the full extents of the construction limits for review and approval by the city prior to recording of the Site Plan Agreement. 3. Plans shall be updated to provide a planting and revegetation plan specific for grading within the wetland buffer prior to the commencement of grading operations. 4. Plans shall illustrate the location of the required wetland buffer monumentation prior to issuance of building permits. 5. A minimum 5-foot setback shall be adhered to at all times along the wetland buffer and plans shall be resubmitted for review and approval by the city prior to recording of the Site Plan Agreement. 6. Bottom wall elevations and top of wall elevations for the entire wall section of all five (5) retaining walls shall be provided prior to the commencement of grading activities. 7. Revisions and updates to the erosion control plans and SWPPP shall be submitted to meet the requirements of the NPDES Construction Permit and Sec. 19-145 of City Code prior to the commencement of grading activities. This will include, but is not limited to: updated language in the SWPPP to be site specific and not general language pulled directly from the permit; BMPs to protect planned infiltration/filtration areas; provide redundant (double) perimeter sediment controls when a surface water is located within 50 feet of the project’s earth disturbances; location of stock pile for grading and for topsoil, haul routes, etc. 8. The applicant shall submit updated plans and modeling to provide for the required abstraction and obtain a RPBCWD permit prior to the issuance of building permits. 9. The applicant shall provide an operation and maintenance plan (O&M) for the private stormwater BMPs. The O&M of private stormwater BMPs is required in perpetuity and Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020 27 must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator, or their designee, to be recorded against the benefiting properties, prior to building permits being issued. 10. Plans shall be resubmitted to achieve one wet tap location for a dual combined domestic and fire water service line, for review and approval by the city, prior to issuance of building permits. 11. Any redundant gate valves past the wet tap location will be owned and maintained by the property owner, and shall be located wholly on the private property. 12. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure and submit proof that permits are received from all other agencies with jurisdiction over the project (i.e. Army Corps of Engineers, DNR, MnDOT, Carver County, RPBCWD, Board of Water and Soil Resources, PCA, etc.). 13. The applicant will be required to enter into a maintenance agreement with the city for the proposed inside drop within MCES’ manhole prior to issuance of building permits. 14. All proposed sanitary sewer lines will be privately owned and maintained, thus no manholes shall be located within public right-of-way. Plans shall be updated and resubmitted for review and approval by the city prior to issuance of building permits. Environmental Resources 1. The applicant shall remove the existing trees within the grading limits along the west property line. Fire Marshal 1. Show any lower level exit doors and egress paths outdoors away from the building. This type of development cannot omit lower level exit doors. Planning 1. All rooftop and ground equipment must be screened from views. 2. The applicant must prepare a lighting plan and include photometrics. Light levels for site lighting shall be no more than one-half foot candle at the project perimeter property line. This does not apply to street lighting. The applicant has not submitted a light fixture design. This fixture must be downcast and the light cut off at a 90-degree angle. The city code requires all fixtures be shielded. 3. Approval of the site plan applications is contingent upon approval of the rezoning and variances. Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020 28 4. The monument sign may not exceed 24 square feet in area nor be higher than five feet. The sign shall be located 10 feet from the property line. A sign permit is required before construction of the sign. 5. Sign illumination and design shall comply with ordinance. 6. Recycling space and other solid waste collection space should be contained within the same enclosure as the trash. 7. Approval of the site plan is contingent upon consolidation of the two parcels into a single zoning lot. All voted in favor except for Weick and Skistad who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Weick: Two nays so this item passes 3 to 2 and will be moved forward to the City Council on February 24th. Thank you to everyone who presented. The developer. The City. The Planning Commission. City Engineer. Great conversation. Difficult sometimes to get our hands around what some of this means for our city but it’s a very important addition to our city. McGonagill: Nice package Sharmeen by the way. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Randall noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 21, 2020 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Aanenson: Thank you, city council update. Just a couple. The second phase for The Park was approved by the City Council. They’re working through some of their issues still on that. They’re also, we’ve been discussing with the City Council a PUD amendment for Paisley Park. How we’ve been working through their permitting for activities. They want to consider doing more outdoor events so we’re working on that. And then also they extended, there’s a non- conforming use extension for a garage and that’s Steve Hansen’s building which is right behind the license center there so that’s an older building. Kind of an industrial building. When we look at the downtown plan those buildings could ultimately change over. There’s kind of quasi industrial back there if you go back behind the license center so we extended that one. There hasn’t been any activity there right now but, so that’s kind of the City Council update. We did have a meeting with Avienda. They’re interested in getting the grading going so I have them back on the agenda. They’ll be back for a work session with the City Council and then they will be working on the grading plan. They’re working with engineering on that now. Kind of presenting when they’re done with their plans and then they’ll come back and do a PUD amendment and we’ll notice that. Again the housing is pretty solid what they’ve got there. As I Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020 29 mentioned earlier there will be some senior coops. Some senior housing and some straight up apartments in there too. Maybe about 500 units and then, so I think what they’re looking at what that interior mix is and you have the retail in there and then the office and some restaurants but I think they’re looking at some other things but they haven’t tipped their card on that yet. I think they’ll save that for the City Council meeting. But once they decide that then we’ll come back through. Won’t really affect the AUAR. I don’t think the overall trips are going to change. The directional traffic but it will require public input on some of those changes so you’ll have a chance to look at that. And then I just wanted to share one other thing. So there will be a meeting next, 2 weeks from tonight and then at that meeting we just have a site plan approval or a sign plan for Chapel Hill. A sign variance. Other than that we’ll be interviewing commission candidates so we’ll move into the Fountain Conference Room for that. Weick: Planning Commission candidates? Aanenson: Planning Commission candidates. Weick: For us? Aanenson: Yeah. Yep. So you make a recommendation to City Council. We do it every year so. Randall: Who’s term is that on? Aanenson: I don’t know, John didn’t, if he’s going to apply or not. Are you reapplying? Didn’t look like it. I know right? I think someone needs to work on that. So yes I think there’s 3, 3 potentially 3 or 4 you’ll be interviewing so plan on that. So it will be an abbreviated meeting and then we’ll go into that and then again on March 3rd we do not have a meeting because that is the Presidential Primary night so there will not be a meeting so everybody gets that week off. And Doug will be gone next meeting too so those of you that are here for the interviews that would be great. So we’ll give you. Randall: Will there be… Aanenson: Pardon me? Randall: Is dinner provided? Aanenson: No, we will at the work session though. Now that one in April when we have the first meeting and everybody will have dinner at that meeting. And actually we’ve got a few things. We’ll have the council will be approving the Comp Plan so we’re going to spend some time going back through it again. Just like tonight we talked a little bit about the housing section. We’ll talk about that. Some of the land uses. Some other changes or, not changes but some of the demographics and stuff like that that we’re looking at so kind of embedded in that as Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020 30 projects come through. And then one of the things you requested, some of the other commissions goals and policies so we’ll have those compiled too so you can look through what the other commissions are doing too so that one will be April 7th and that one we’ll have dinner and we’ll start at 6:00 but I’ll give you notice again on that so. We do have a subdivision potentially in March and then the Paisley Park PUD amendment so you’ll get more details on that. And then there’s another existing large lot subdivision that’s going to subdivide. There’s two homes and they’re going to try to make it into three so. So some things floating out there but that’s what’s landed so far so that’s all I have. Skistad: When is the Avienda work session? For the council. I might want to sit on that. Aanenson: Yeah I’ll shoot you an email on that. I put it under council calendar but I don’t have that right in front of me. Skistad: And I actually am going to be gone next meeting. Aanenson: That’s good to know. Skistad: I wasn’t positive if I was going to be gone. Aanenson: That’s the 18th. Skistad: Yeah. Aanenson: Perfect okay. I’ll make sure we have a quorum if anybody else is going to be gone. Weick: It’d be the 4 of us remaining though right? Aanenson: The 18th. Weick: That’s all we have right? Aanenson: Yeah we have to have 4 yeah. Yeah because Doug will be gone. So there’s 2 gone. Weick: And Mark will be gone right? Aanenson: Yep, yep so it takes the 4 of you. Yep. You’ll be here on the 18th? February. Randall: Yeah. Aanenson: Okay perfect. Randall: I am going to be gone April 21st. That’s not the work session is it? Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020 31 Aanenson: No. April 7th correct. Yep. Randall: Maybe we should try to do food from some of the various restaurants in town. Aanenson: It’d be great huh? McGonagill: I think we should. Aanenson: Alright that’s all I had. I’m going to step out in the hall for a second. Weick: Is this the Lyman Boulevard thing? Bender: Yep. So I’m planning on presenting to you a quick update on. Weick: One time out though. I think we’re going to adjourn and do this off the record. I think that, at least that’s what the, it’s what the agenda says and that’s sort of the signal I’m getting as well so I will, so we’ll have it as an open discussion after adjournment. So I accept a motion to adjourn. Skistad moved, Randall seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim