Loading...
06.03.2025 PC MinutesCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 3, 2025 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Noyes called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Eric Noyes, Steve Jobe, Jeremy Rosengren, Ryan Soller, Mike Olmstead, Dave Grover, and Katie Trevena. MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner; Joe Seidl, Water Resources Specialist; Breanne Rothstein, Consulting Planner. PUBLIC PRESENT: John Gilbert 1641 Jeurissen Lane Tom Shaver Inland Development Team Jacquel Hajder Inland Development Team ESG Architect Representative PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Avienda Apartments Preliminary Plat and Site Plan Review (Planning Case 25-08) Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner, introduced Planning Case #25-08 for the Avienda Apartments Preliminary Plat and Site Plan Review. The case is scheduled for the City Council on June 23. The proposed location is near Lyman and Powers. The land is zoned planned unit development, and the land designation is office and commercial. Mrs. Arsenault reviewed the communication up to this point, including a City Council Work Session on March 24, 2025, a neighborhood meeting on March 25, 2025, and a notice of the public hearing mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. She reviewed the greater Avienda PUD, which included 768 approved united, 39 detached townhomes, 52 rowhomes, 412 apartments, and 264 additional units that could be built. She said that the senior housing development is no longer planned. She reviewed the level of city discretion in decision-making. She stated that the staff reviewed seven considerations for subdivision approval and found that all were met. She reviewed the preliminary plat and noted that they were platting one lot, with the remainder of the 37 acres designated as an outlot. She said anything that comes forward from the outlot would need to be replatted and presented to the Planning Commission. She provided context for the site plan review and noted that it was updated yesterday, so the staff had not fully reviewed it to make sure it met all the conditions. She said that the site plan in the agenda packet was the original version in which the staff conditions were created. She Planning Commission Minutes – June 3, 2025 2 commented that the pedestrian connectivity was highlighted in the site plan review because that is a large part of the Avienda Development. She said that the development team had already worked toward some of the conditions to allow public access easements to provide public benefit for anyone living in the Avienda Development. The site plan shows a pet park and connecting trails on the north end of the site, along with public parking and an entrance to the garage. She reviewed the middle of the site plan, which provided parking and pedestrian access around the building. She reviewed the south end, which provides another pet park and trails to walk around. She summarized the landscape plan and said that there is berming on the north side, which would create a visual interest. She stated that the courtyard was a large part of the landscaping for the development. She commented that the south end of the development mirrored the north side with trees and berming. Mrs. Arsenault summarized the parking requirements for different unit types and commented that the city is requiring 726 parking spaces, 412 of which are to be covered underground spaces. She stated that the developer was providing 736 parking spaces, but 101 of those spaces would be considered proof of parking. She explained the layout of the floor plan and the underground parking garage. She commented that the underground parking garage would contain the trash rooms and the utility areas. She reviewed the architecture for the outside of the building and the rendering photos. She said that the Avienda Design Guidelines are recommendations, not requirements, but that the design drivers are timeless architecture, earth-tone color palates, inclusive opportunities to relax and gather, and pedestrian accessibility. She explained that certain concept materials were used most often in the project, and she provided material samples at the podium. She stated that the Avienda Design Guidelines referenced material classification, which includes natural stone, architecturally pre-cast panels, and wood. Joe Seidl, Water Resources Specialist, discussed the grading and drainage. He said that the area was previously graded with the larger Avienda build-out. He stated that there was a high point in the center of the site, which directed stormwater to the north to be picked up in a temporary basin and conveyed to the northwest via storm sewer or to the south through drainage swales to a temporary basin, which drains to Lake Susan. He noted that there is the planned Avienda row homes development, which has the best management practice highlighted in pink and was stabilized with vegetation. He said that the project was required to meet city and Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District Requirements for water quality, rate control, and water volume. He said that the proposed design includes stormwater ponds and best management practices to promote infiltration, filtration, and stormwater storage. He said that the stormwater site was outlined in the Apartment’s stormwater management report and a master report. He reviewed the stormwater master plan, which was a road map to guide how the stormwater would be managed for the entire site to allow for fewer and larger best management practices. He said that there would be more assets if there were smaller, but best management practices, so the regional plan would think on a large scale of how the stormwater would naturally run along the site. He stated that there would be extra complexity with the Avienda Apartment buildout, because the stormwater for their site needs to meet standards and they are using portions of the master stormwater plan, so the plans have to talk with one another and consider the maintenance for the best management practices and both plans would have to go through permitting at the same time. Planning Commission Minutes – June 3, 2025 3 Mr. Seidl summarized the proposed conditions for the grading and drainage and said that the storm sewer would be built and convey water to a pickup point to be captured and conveyed by the master stormwater drainage to a best management practice on the north side of the buildout. He said a temporary basin would be reconfigured into an underground system. He said that the underground system would primarily treat the stormwater from the public roadway and would be conveyed to the northwest. He noted that this would be a better picture of the Avienda Rowhomes buildout, and the stormwater would have to work with this design. He stated that there was an emergency overflow route planned through the southern portion of the site. He said that the center courtyard acts like a bowl and would inhibit an overflow path, so they would need to find a solution, such as a redundant pipe that was sized correctly, if the primary pipe was not functional. He discussed the stormwater challenges, including navigating the master plan and making sure that there was an accounting exercise completed based on the impervious area created, the amount of treatment in the best management practice remaining, and how to route them. He discussed the challenge with the relocation of the best management practice and undergrounding it. He said that the best management practice was alleviating stress downstream to temporarily store stormwater. He asked if a temporary reroute was necessary, and they would need to study the potential impacts with the city. He discussed the design of the overflow system and the maintenance of the best management practices. He said that there are engineering solutions that need to be implemented. Commissioner Rosengren asked about the proof of parking spaces. He said that the plan looked like the areas were spread around the outside edges of where the parking lots would go. He asked if these areas would be paved but not have parking lines until they are needed. Mrs. Arsenault answered that the parking spots would be planned, but they would not be pre-paved. She said that they would be graded properly so they could change it into parking, but there would be landscaping in the interim to be used for the site currently. Commissioner Rosengren asked if there would be an impact on the water plan if they paved additional areas for parking. Mr. Seidl answered that the city would have to review whether the parking was reconfigured. He said it was not uncommon for either an emergency overflow route to go over a parking lot, or for there to be an underground pipe solution. Commissioner Rosengren clarified that nothing major would impact the plan. Commissioner Jobe asked what the trigger would be for when parking would be added. Mrs. Arsenault answered that parking was only required to be constructed if and when they find a need for the spaces. She said if the city receives repeated, reported issues, they will work with the developer to construct the parking. Commissioner Jobe asked about the water flow, since this was a design-as-you-go. He asked how much flexibility that allowed to change things for the next addition. Mr. Seidl answered that the fundamentals of the plan would not change much. He said that when he looked at a master plan, there would be a large, best management practice in a general area to capture and convey water from the developments. The main goal of the individual development was to figure out how to route the stormwater to the best management practice and to make sure they were still Planning Commission Minutes – June 3, 2025 4 sized correctly. He said if there was a change, the master stormwater plan would have to re- permit itself. Chairman Noyes asked if the last part to be developed might be stuck with a situation they could not deal with based on minor tweaks. Mr. Seidl answered that the city needs to regulate each project. The nice thing is that the area is fairly built out, so there is not a lot of the impervious area to go higher than what was planned for. He said that the biggest risk was if there were no credits left, but the risk was low if it was managed correctly. He stated that there were two sets of regulatory eyes looking at the project. Chairman Noyes asked if the undeveloped parking was considered impervious or pervious in the calculation. Mrs. Arsenault answered that it was considered impervious. Commissioner Jobe asked if the sod would be required to prevent nitrates from going into stormwater areas. Mrs. Arsenault answered that there was not a requirement for specific sod planting, but there were landscaping requirements reviewed by the Natural Resource Specialist. These items would include ensuring enough tree plantings and species diversity. Commissioner Olmstead said that there was a slide in the site plan that calculated for hammerheads on the northwest and southwest corners for ambulance turnaround, but there was not good coverage on the west side of the building, which would have the best management practice for the rowhomes and a small, private lane. He asked if fire was acceptable to that. Mrs. Arsenault answered that the fire had reviewed the plans and had no conditions. Commissioner Trevena requested to review the east-west paths for future retail. She said it was just on this parcel, and the retail developer would have additional responsibility. Mrs. Arsenault confirmed and answered that this development provided multiple connections to the commercial area. Commissioner Olmstead asked if traffic control would be a part of the final review. He asked about the four-way stop and if it would be required. Mrs. Arsenault answered that it would be a part of the traffic study that the development team would have to complete and update. Mr. Seidl clarified that this would be like the stormwater plan, and there were outlined uses, but as the individual uses of parcels were known, they could update the traffic study. They could condition an upgrade if it was necessary for whatever development triggered the upgrade. Commissioner Olmstead said it worried him when plans were piecemealed. He said the regulators would have to look into the future to help the next person. Commissioner Soller asked about the marked yellow trails on the plan and interconnectedness. He asked if they are to be privately maintained areas or if they were public sidewalks. Mrs. Arsenault answered that the outermost ring was designed to ADA standards and city standards, so the public could use it. She would have to double-check with the engineering department about who oversaw the maintenance. Planning Commission Minutes – June 3, 2025 5 Commissioner Soller said that it was designed with the intent to allow for public foot traffic, not just a benefit for the residents of the building. Mrs. Arsenault confirmed that this was the intent, and this was a large part of the Avienda review and design guidelines. Chairman Noyes asked if the pedestrian areas left the development and how they would meet up with the next development in appropriate places. Mrs. Arsenault answered that it was a best- guess assumption, but they can make a good guess based on the traffic. She said that the developer only had to construct one path on the east side because there was no reason to go east a couple of feet to their property line if they did not know where it would connect with commercial developments in the future. Commissioner Grover asked if some of the paths went through the proof of parking areas. Mrs. Arsenault answered that the developer would have to reconstruct the sidewalks in front of where the proof of parking space would go and there is sufficient space to do so. Commissioner Rosengren clarified that the proof of parking was all or nothing. Mrs. Arsenault answered that the proof of the parking agreement wording could be further worked through in the development contract. She said that the 101 parking spots would meet the minimum requirements for the City Code. Commissioner Jobe asked if the proof of parking was like an escrow account and how soon they would know if they needed the proof of parking. Jacquel Hajder of Inland Development Partners, LLC team said that the proof of parking came from a portfolio of projects they already had that were from similar markets and had 95 to 98 percent occupancy. She said that they did not want to overbuild, but they did not want to have an excess of hard surfaces, which are not as good for the environment. She said they typically see a need for 1.5 parking spots per unit. She stated that they look at how many stalls they have per bedroom. They have 1.1 parking stalls per bedroom. She said it took about 18 to 24 months to see the building occupied and to understand the parking needs. She said they have a management company that oversees the parking to make sure one resident is not storing many cars. Commissioner Trevena asked about the EV readiness was limited to 20 percent of the interior stalls. She asked if there was a timeline or threshold to increase the amount. Jacquel Hajder that EV-ready meant providing conduits and transformers to allow for twenty percent of the parking to be electric vehicle charging. Ten percent of the stalls would already be completed. She said many buildings are not yet meeting the demand for electric vehicle charging. Chairman Noyes opened the public hearing. John Gilbert, 1641 Jeurissen Lane, said he appreciated the complexity of the water movement. He thought the incremental changes still worried him and that someone would be left holding the bag. He looked back at the previous approval of row homes and the 500-foot pond. He asked if anyone considered moving the water from the courtyard. He said he endorsed approving the project with conditions. He said that the water was driven to a location that was not being voted on tonight. He stated that there were several renditions of what the developer wanted to see for Avienda. He commented that there was a community center in earlier plans seen in the watershed Planning Commission Minutes – June 3, 2025 6 documents. He asked if there were any other options to move water to the 500-foot pond. He said he would love to see the courtyard mirrored on the east side of the property, since that was originally presented to the community. He read some references and asked if the developer was trying to get the city to commit to the pond because they need the water moved there. He asked if there were any other options available. He said that the grading plan showed a courtyard to the basins. He stated that the Avienda Quad was cited in the landscaping plan. He thought there would be very little water flow going through the area right now, and if there were any other solutions. He asked if the city could come up with a longer-term plan, and that they were being shortsighted. Chairman Noyes closed the public hearing. Chairman Noyes recognized that it was a fluid project, and the Planning Commission built safeguards in for further reviewing and further opportunities for public discussion for future projects. He said that the discussion would continue as other parts of Avienda were developed, whether it was as simple as walking paths or as complicated as water movement. Commissioner Olmstead asked if the 46 comments were the conditions of approval. Mrs. Arsenault confirmed that the 46 comments were the conditions of approval that would need to be addressed before coming forward for the final plat. Even when it comes to the final plat, they do another plan review, which could include additional conditions. Commissioner Olmstead clarified that the developer had sent in updates that addressed some of the conditions. Mrs. Arsenault confirmed this information. Commissioner Olmstead moved, Commissioner Jobe seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the requested preliminary plat and site plan review subject to the conditions of approval and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried with a vote of 7-0. GENERAL BUSINESS: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED MAY 20, 2025 Commissioner Grover noted that he had a small change. He said that on top of page four, the word “attached” should be included in front of the phrase auxiliary dwelling unit. Mrs. Arsenault confirmed the change. Commissioner Grover moved, Commissioner Jobe seconded to approve the Chanhassen Planning Commission summary minutes dated May 20, 2025, as corrected above. All voted in favor, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7-0. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None. Planning Commission Minutes – June 3, 2025 7 ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Breanne Rothstein introduced herself and explained that she was filling in for Community Development Director Maass. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION: None. OPEN DISCUSSION: None. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Rosengren moved, Commissioner Soller seconded, to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m. Submitted by Rachel Arsenault Associate Planner