Loading...
11 Site Plan Villages on PondCITY PC DATE: CC DATE: June 2, 1999 June 28, 1999 CASE #: 99-9 SPR BY: Generous/Hempel/Elkin:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review for 3 - three-story 54 unit apartment buildings (162 total units), Lake Susan Apartment Homes LOCATION: West side of Hwy. 101 at Main Street in Villages on the Ponds APPLICANT: The Shelard Group, Inc. 11455 Viking Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (612) 946-4780 AUSMAR c/o L°tus Realty P.O.Box 235 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 934-4538 PRESENT ZONING: PUD-Mixed Use ACREAGE: 9.94 acres ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - PUD, Market Blvd., Villages on the Ponds S - RSF, single family homes and Lake Susan E - PUD, Villages on the Ponds W - IOP, Rosemount and Lake Susan WATER AND' SEWER: Available to the Site PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site is currently occupied by a farm hotlse and outbuildings located in the northern portion of the property. The majority of the site is wooded. The high point on the property is the existing house at an elevation of 949 which then slopes down to the south to a low point on Lake Susan at elevation 881. Bluffs exist on the Lake Susan side of the development. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Mixed Use State Hw 5 1 Mayfield Co~ 2 Mission Hills 3 Frisco Crt Mi S/---7 Lake Susan Apartment Homes May 19, 1999 Page 2 PROPO SAL/SUMMARY The Shelard Group, Inc., is requesting site plan approval for a three building apartment complex with a recreation building and swimming pool within the Villages on the Ponds development. Each building would be three stories with 54 units for a total of 162 units. Underground parking would also be included within each building. Unit types include 73 - one bedroom, 8 - one bedroom with den, 72 - two bedrooms, and 9 - two bedrooms with den. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. The intent is to create a pedestrian friendly, "traditional" village character consistent with the European heritage of the upper midwest including the north-midwestern architectural vocabulary, village like human scale and flavor, and variety in design and facade treatment. The apartment development is located within Sector IV of Villages on the Ponds. Approved uses in Sector IV include 32,000 square foot office and 112 dwelling units or in lieu of the office building an additional 56 dwelling units. Within Sector IV, apartments may be four stories/50 feet. Residential. Residential units shall be provided as upper level units above the commercial/office uses within the village core and as stand alone units. A minimum of 50 percent of the residential units shall be rental units. Of the rental units, the city has adopted a goal of 35 percent of the units meeting the Metropolitan Council's affordable criteria. As part of the agreement for approving the subdivision of the property and the rezoning of the property to PUD which permitted commercial development and multi-family residential development on the property, the underlying developer, AUSMAR, LLC., agreed to assist in the provision of affordable housing within the development. It is not the city's responsibility to assure AUSMAR the maximum return on their investment, only a reasonable return. While it may not be economically feasible to provide 35 percent affordable units, a minimum of 20 percent of the units shall be affordable. Affordable monthly rents in 1998 were under $607 for a one bedroom, under $760 for a two bedroom, and under $821 for a three bedroom. The building architecture embodies many of the elements specified in the development design standards and consist of earth tone colors. The facade is composed of foundation and garage level elevations consisting of eight inch, rough textured, russet colored block to impart a sense of strength, durability, and traditional architectural treatment. The primary building exterior material consists of light beige colored, six inch composite board. Contrast is provided at upper level gable and bay window elements with dark wheat colored random shake siding. The roof will be covered with brown toned, textured asphalt shingles. The expanse of roof is broken by lookout windows, hip roof gable ends, and chimneys. Additional elements include the use of buff colored random field stone retaining walls near entrances and landscape elements. Entrances are further delineated by the use of columns and wooden canopies. Balconies are Lake Susan Apartment Homes May 19, 1999 Page 3 provided for individual units. Window frames and exterior metal elements are in tones of brown and green. The developer has shown an option beachlot dock on the site. They should be aware that approval of recreational beachlots requires a separate conditional use permit. Staff is recommending approval of the site plan subject to the conditions of the staff report. BACKGROUND On May 11, 1998, the City Council approved Site Plan 98-5 for a 7,443 square foot Houlihan's Restaurant (Building 2). On May 11, 1999, the City Council approved the final plat for Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds 3rd Addition subdividing Outlot D and part of Outlot E, Villages on the Ponds. On November 24, 1997, the City Council approved Site Plan #97-11 for a 5,300 square foot building (Building 3) on Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds 2nd Addition, for Famous Dave's. On September 23, 1997, the city granted approval for a 14,849 square foot retail building on Lot 2, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds 2nd Addition, (Building 4). Building 4 is a one story, 14,849 square foot, multi-tenant, retail building. On September 23, 1997, the city granted Final Plat approval for Outlot C into Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, and Outlot A, Villages on the Ponds 2nd Addition. On August 11, 1997, the City Council approved the proposed 30,000 square foot office building (Building 17) on Outlot K, Village on the Ponds (#97-9 SPR), plans prepared by Milo Architecture Group, dated 6/13/97. On December 16, 1996, the City Council approved Site Plan 96-13 for a 45,505 square foot Americlnn Motel and Suites facility (Building 1). On September 23, 1996, the City Council approved PUD 95-2, Villages on the Ponds, including a Comprehensive Land Use Plan amendment from Office/industrial, Institutional, Residential Medium Density, Residential Low Density to Mixed Use-Commercial, High Density Residential, Institutional and Office; Preliminary planned unit development for up to 291,000 sq. ft. of commercial/office buildings, 100,000 sq. ft. of institutional buildings, and 322 dwelling units; Rezoning from IOP and RSF to PUD, Planned Unit Development (final reading); and final plat dated "Received September 19, 1996" for two lots and ten outlots and public right-of-way. Lake Susan Apartment Homes May 19, 1999 Page 4 On September 9, 1996, the City Council approved Site Plan 96-11 for a 96,288 square foot school church facility for St. Hubert Catholic Community. On August 12, 1996, the City Council granted preliminary approval of PUD #92-1 including a Comprehensive Land Use Plan amendment from Office/industrial, Institutional, Residential Medium Density, Residential Low Density to Mixed Use-Commercial, High Density Residential, Institutional and Office; Preliminary planned unit development for up to 291,000 sq. fi. of commercial/office buildings, 100,000 sq. fi. of institutional buildings, and 322 dwelling units; Rezoning from IOP and RSF to PUD, Planned Unit Development (first reading); Preliminary plat for 13 lots and 3 outlots and public right-of-way; Wetland Alteration Permit to fill and excavate wetlands on site; Vacation of right-of-way and easements; Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) findings of Negative Declaration of the need for additional environmental investigation; and Indirect Source Permit Review for the Villages on the Ponds project. GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE The proposed development must comply with the Villages on the Ponds Design Standards, Sector II (see attached Exhibit C) for the PUD. The purpose of this zone is to create a mixed use PUD consisting of commercial, institutional, office, and residential uses. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to be placed underground. Each lot proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined in the design standards. The design criteria covers all aspects of the development including lighting consistency, signage requirements, uses, building materials, design and architectural detailing, site coverage, and building square footages. Building setbacks for the development are 50 feet from future Market Boulevard and the western property line. Parking may be setback at 20 feet. The proposed development meets these setback requirements. SITE PLAN REVIEW WETLANDS There are two delineated wetlands on this site. As part of the overall Wetland Alteration Permit for Villages on the Ponds, there were to be two wetland mitigation areas on this site, in addition to an upland buffer area (see attached wetland mitigation map). Either the site developer or the Villages on the Ponds developer must establish 0.37 acres of new wetlands to fulfill the obligation of the Wetland Alteration Permit. The proposed storm water pond will eliminate the need for the upland buffer. This issue must be resolved before the final platting of this lot. Lake Susan Apartment Homes May 19, 1999 Page 5 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) SWMP FEES The Villages on the Ponds development was required to construct water quality ponds and pay fees associated with the management of storm water in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP). These fees are determined when the final grading and utility plans are submitted with each phase of the project. The fees are due at the time of final platting. GRADING The site contains a considerable elevation difference from north to south. The north end of the property is in the range of 949 and the south end of the project is approximately 900. In order to prepare the site for the apartment dwellings, it will be necessary to level off most of the site. In conjunction with the preliminary plat for Villages on the Ponds, there was a preliminary grading plan approved for this site. The preliminary grading plan proposed a tier of buildings to retain some of the topographic features of the parcel. However, given this apartment layout it is relatively difficult to obtain a tiered effect in order to maintain acceptable parking lot grades. The southerly apartment building will be approximately six feet lower than the two northerly buildings. Staff has reviewed the proposed northerly building elevation and based on the proposed grades they appear acceptable with some modifications. The site contains a bluff along the southwesterly portion of the property. It appears grading will encroach upon the 20-foot bluff setback area. The use of retaining walls and/or adjusting the pool facility will alleviate the encroachment into the bluff setback area. Staff recommends that the use of retaining walls and redesign of the pool area be completed to avoid encroachment into the bluff setback area. In addition, the sanitary sewer is proposed to encroach the bluff and bluff setback area. Staff is recommending an alternative route which will avoid bluff impacts all together. The site grading will also include grading for a right turn lane on the wet side of southbound Highway 101 and a storm drainage pond located south of the apartment site. The stormwater pond is a regional pond proposed with the Villages on the Ponds development. The quantity of earthwork involved in this project is unknown at this time. Staff anticipates excess material being generated from this site that will need to be exported off site. The applicant will need to supply to the City for review and approval haul routes, traffic control measures and location where the fill material is destined for. Lake Susan Apartment Homes May 19, 1999 Page 6 There is an existing trail that encompasses the site along Highway 101 and along Lake Susan. The trail will be impacted along the easterly portion of the site due to grading activities and utility extension. The trail corridor is fairly heavily used and staff believes that an interim trail connection should be constructed to maintain pedestrian traffic around the site until the permanent trail is reconstructed. The interim trail connection should maintain pedestrian traffic around the site up to the crossing of Highway 101 from Lake Susan. The remaining trail construction north of the pedestrian crossing could be delayed until final grades have been established and the parking lot paved. The interim trail sections could consist ora Class V gravel surface versus bituminous. The construction of the auxiliary mm lane along T.H. 101 and driveway access will require approval from MnDOT. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all of the necessary approvals and permits for this work. The site contains two existing structures (old farmhouse and outbuildings) which will need to be razed in conjunction with this development. In addition, the existing septic system and well on this site will need to be properly abandoned in accordance with City and State health codes. EROSION CONTROL Erosion control measures are proposed on the plans. Silt fence is proposed along the grading limits on the south and west side of the site. Staff recommends additional silt fence be installed along the southerly and easterly portion of the site up to the trail crossing Highway 101. In addition, ditch checks should be installed as the ditch is constructed and catch basin inlets protected with silt fence, rock filter dikes and/or hay bales during construction. Restoration of the ditch along Highway 101 shall include erosion control blanket or sod. Given the magnitude of earthwork involved, a temporary sediment control plan should be incorporated into the construction plans that provide interim ponding to the south side of this property during construction. DRAINAGE In conjunction with the plans for Villages on the Ponds, a regional stormwater pond is proposed in the southerly.portion of this project. The applicant will be constructing a portion of this regional pond in conjunction with the development of the site. The remaining portion of the regional pond will be constructed by others when Highway 101 is upgraded and relocated easterly. A storm sewer system is proposed to convey stormwater runoff from the parking lots and building sites down to the regional stormwater pond. The Villages on the Ponds project has developed a comprehensive stormwater management plan which proposes a trunk storm sewer line from the regional pond up to main street and Trunk Highway 101. The plans propose a storm sewer line to address runoff only from this site down to the regional pond. Staff believes Lake Susan Apartment Homes May 19, 1999 Page 7 that this segment of storm sewer should be installed in accordance with the comprehensive drainage plan prepared for Villages on the Ponds development. This trunk storm sewer system will alleviate having a dual pipe system. The applicant would also be entitled to credits against their SWMP fees for installation of the trunk storm sewer line and construction of the regional stormwater pond. These credits are calculated and applied at time of final platting. Detailed stormwater drainage calculations for pre and post-development conditions for both the pipe system and the regional pond shall be required in conjunction with final plat review. Calculations shall be for 1 O-year and 100-year, 24-hour storm events. As-built construction plans of the public utility lines will be required upon acceptance of the utilities by the City. UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water is indirectly available to the site. Sanitary sewer and water service is located along the east side of Highway 101 at Main Street. The plans propose on extending water service underneath Highway 101 and looping back to the north and tie into the existing watermain located in the drive aisle through Rosemount. Staff'has determined by review of city records that the watermain in Rosemount's driveway has not been constructed. The applicant will need to further review whether or not the watermain needs to be looped to provide adequate fire protection. Sanitary sewer is proposed to be extended from the existing interceptor line just south of the site located adjacent to the public trail. The preliminary utility plans for Villages on the Ponds propose to extend sanitary sewer underneath Highway 101 parallel to the water and storm sewer lines to service this site. Staff believes the proposed sewer service from the City's interceptor line is unacceptable due to the impacts to the bluff and vegetation. Staff recommends the applicant utilize the sanitary sewer connection provided for with Villages on the Ponds located on the east side of Highway 101. Installation of the private utilities throughout the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. Installation of the public improvements, water and sewer underneath Highway 101, trunk storm sewer and regional pond will require detailed construction plans and specifications for City review and City Council approval. The improvements shall be prepared in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract with the City at time of final plat and provide the City with a financial guarantee in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow for construction of the public improvements, erosion control measures and site restoration. STREETS The site is proposed to be accessed from Highway 101 directly across from Main Street. The driveway must align across from Main Street. A right-mm lane is also proposed. All work within Highway 101 right-of-way will require a permit from MnDOT. The applicant should contact MnDOT with regards to the requirements for the access into the site. Staff believes a minimum 36-foot wide entrance with 25-foot radii be required. This will allow for three lanes of Lake Susan Apartment Homes May 19, 1999 Page 8 traffic to ingress and egress the site (left mm, shared through/fight mm). The drive aisle and parking lot grades appear acceptable. The main drive aisle into the site from Highway 101 up to the parking lot should be 28 feet wide to accommodate fire trucks. Staff also recommends the parking lot be modified to improve tuming radiuses for fire vehicles (see attached). This will result in the loss of approximately three parking stalls in the middle of the parking lot. The site plan proposed sidewalks from the parking lot areas to the buildings; however, no sidewalk down to the existing trail along Highway 101. Staff recommends that a six-foot concrete sidewalk be extended from Building A's sidewalk down to the existing/proposed trail along Highway 101 and the sidewalk along Building C be extended to the main drive aisle. In conjunction with the Villages on the Ponds development, a traffic study was prepared to determine traffic impacts to the surrounding street system. The traffic study concluded that with built-out conditions that the intersection of Trunk Highway 5 and Highway 101 (Market Boulevard) is reported to operate near capacity in the AM peak hours and over capacity in the PM peak hours. The intersection of Trunk Highway 5 and Great Plains Boulevard is expected to operate over capacity in both AM and PM peak hours. The report also recommended traffic mitigation measures at Great Plains Boulevard which has been already constructed. No additional traffic mitigation measures were recommended at Trunk Highway 5 and Highway 101. The unsignalized intersection of Lake Drive and Highway 101 (Market Boulevard) also were anticipated to operate at or above the acceptable level of service. In the future, a traffic signal may be warranted at this intersection. The developer of Villages of the Ponds is responsible for escrowing a portion of the traffic signal cost. Again, the traffic study was based on the preliminary plans for Villages on the Ponds which included the northerly building (Building A) to access onto the Rosemount driveway across from Lake Drive onto to Highway 101 (Market Boulevard). The plans propose all three buildings to access one single intersection point (Main Street and Highway 101). The preliminary traffic study indicated that the left turn movements from this site to northbound Trunk Highway 5 would operate at a Level F which is common at unsignalized intersections during peak hours of operation. The gaps in traffic created by the traffic signals at Trunk Highway 5 and Market Boulevard will improve the conditions for left turn movements from the development. The traffic report indicates no traffic mitigation measures are recommended at any of the unsignalized intersections including Main Street and Highway 101. Staff is recommending that the applicant have the traffic engineer update the report to reflect the changed conditions (additional apartment building will be gaining ingress and egress through this intersection) to see if any other traffic mitigation measures other than the right turn lane on southbound Highway 101 will be required. MISCELLANEOUS The site is platted as an outlot and will need to be replatted into lot and block. In conjunction with the final platting of the property, there will be a development contract, administrative fees, Lake Susan Apartment Homes May 19, 1999 Page 9 park and trail fees SWMP fees and recording fees. In addition, during the building application process there may be additional sewer and water hookup charges pending depending upon the previous assessment history. The City assigns a sewer and water hookup for every SAC unit determined by the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Commission. Any previous trunk assessments paid will be credited against the future sewer and water hookup charges. LANDSCAPING Approximate tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations for the Chanhassen Housing development are as follows: Total upland area (excluding wetlands) Total canopy area (excluding wetlands) Baseline canopy coverage Minimum canopy coverage allowed Proposed tree preservation 351,169 SF or 8.1 ac. 329,314 SF or 7.56 ac. 94% 35% or 115,260 SF 11% or 39,350 SF Developer does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed, therefore the difference is multiplied by 1.2 to calculate the required replacement plantings. Difference in canopy coverage Multiplier Total replacement area Total number of trees to be planted 75,910 SF 1.2 91,092 SF 84 trees A replacement planting plan must be submitted to the city for approval. Included in the plan shall be location, species and size of replacements. All replacements must meet minimum size requirements. Additional landscaping required for the development includes buffer yard plantings along Highway 101 and parking lot plantings. The following table summarizes the minimum requirements: Required Proposed Canopy Coverage 84 overstory 19 overstory 30 understory Hwy. 101 - bufferyard B 18 overstory 19 overstory 27 understory 32 understory Lake Susan Apartment Homes May 19, 1999 Page 10 45 shrubs no shrubs Trees/parking lot 17 overstory 13 overstory 18 understory Totals 119 overstory 51 overstory 27 understory 80 understory 45 shrubs Staff recommends the applicant add overstory trees in areas to connect existing vegetation that will remain. Appropriate species for such plantings would include sugar maple, basswood, and oaks. These trees would be counted towards reforestation requirements. The applicant should contact the natural resources coordinator to discuss any revisions to the plan. LIGHTING/SIGNAGE A shoe box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with decorative natural colored pole shall be used throughout the development parking lot area for lighting. Decorative, pedestrian scale lighting shall be used in plaza and sidewalk areas and may be used in parking lot areas. A lighting plan shall be submitted to the city for review and approval prior to site construction. In discussions with the architect, staff has been told that parking area lighting will be provided as well as pedestrian lighting and wall pack units at the garage entrances. The lighting shall comply with the design standards adopted for the PUD as well as city ordinance. Wall pack units must be screened so that they do are not directly visible from off site. The applicant is proposing a monument sign at the entrance to the apartment complex. A project identification sign may be located at the entrances to the development in Sector IV. Project identification signs shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than five feet in height. A separate sign permit shall be required prior to the installation of signage. SITE PLAN FINDINGS In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the following: (1) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; (2) Consistency with this division; Lake Susan Apartment Homes May 19, 1999 Page 11 (3) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing or developing areas; (4) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; (5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: mo An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping; Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and do Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. (6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have subst, antial effects on neighboring land uses. Finding: Subject to the revisions contained in the staff report, the proposed site plan is consistent with all plans and specifications and development design standards for the Villages on the Ponds Planned Unit Development and city code requirements. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 2, 1999, to review the proposed site plan # 99-9 for Lake Susan Apartments Homes on Outlot J, Villages on the Ponds. The Planning Lake Susan Apartment Homes May 19, 1999 Page 12 Commission voted five for and two against a motion recommending approval of the site plan subject to the conditions of the staff report, amending condition number 26 and adding conditions number 48 and 49 to read as follows: 26. "Developer and staff shall review landscaping between and around the pond and Highway 101 to assure adequate buffering." 48. "The applicant shall provide to City Council a perspective from the lake of the development with the preserved tree coverage." 49. "Staff shall review with the applicant the installation of a median at the entrance with respect to congestion and traffic hazards." Proposed condition 48 has been met and is included in the City Council's packet. The Planning Commission was very concerned with the screening and buffering of the proposed development from the existing homes on Lake Susan and wanted staff to review this and have a better handle on the landscaping that will be preserved as well as the proposed additional landscaping to be provided. Staff met with the developer on Thursday, June 3, 1999, to discuss the proposed revisions to the landscaping plan. Staff is confident that the revisions will be made to meet the city's directions. The two negative votes were due to the fact that they felt the development was premature until Highway 101 is upgraded. They believed that there would be no safe pedestrian crosswalk for the Lake Susan - Rice Marsh Lake trail. They also felt that the sewer connection going down the hill adjacent to the bluff was a mistake. They were concerned that eventually the beach lot application would be coming. Finally, they felt that there would be a shortage in parking. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves Site Plan #99-9 for a three building apartment development within the Villages on .the Ponds development on Outlot J, Villages on the Ponds (Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds 6th Addition), each building will be three stories with 54 units for a total of 162 units, plans prepared by KKE, dated 4/16/99, subject to the following conditions: The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. Lake Susan Apartment Homes May 19, 1999 Page 13 Site plan approval is contingent on the city granting final plat approval for Outlot J, Villages on the Ponds, creating a block and lot designation for the site upon which the apartment complex is to be built. o A minimum of 20 percent of the units shall be affordable for a period of not less than 25 years from the date of certification of occupancy for the three buildings. Project identification signs shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than five feet in height. A separate sign permit shall be required prior to the installation of signage. o All rooftop or ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from public right-of-ways by walls of compatible appearing material or camouflaged to blend into the building or background. o A lighting plan shall be submitted to the city for review and approval prior to site construction. Wall pack units must be screened so that they do are not directly visible from off site. o Development of a beachlot shall require separate Conditional Use Permit approval by the city. The applicant shall pay park and trail fees at the time of building permit application pursuant to city ordinance. o An additional two fire hydrants will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. 10. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, bushes, shrubs, NSP, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. 11. Submit radius mm dimensions in parking lots to determine fire department vehicle access. Submit turn dimensions to Chanhassen City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. Pursuant to 902.2.2.3, 1997 Uniform Fire Code. 12. Required access. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided in accordance with Sections 901 and 902.2 for every facility, building or portion of a building, hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction of any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building that is located more than 150 Lake Susan Apartment Homes May19,1999 Page 14 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. feet from fire apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. Exceptions - #2. When access roads cannot be installed due to location on property, topography, waterways, negotiable grades or other similar conditions, the Chief is authorized to require additional fire protection as specified in Section 1001.9. Because apparatus access roads are not accessible to within 150 feet of all portions of the building we are requiring the following additional fire protection features. a. Fire sprinkler the attic space with an approved NFPA 13 system. b. Provide fire sprinkler protection in the underground parking garage with an approved NFPA 13 system. c. Provide class III standpipes in all stairwells at each floor. d. Note: The building itself will be required to be fire sprinklered per the building code. All fire sprinkler plans must be submitted to the Fire Marshal/Inspector for review and approval. Fire lane signage and yellow curbing will be determined by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of fire lane signs and curbing to be painted yellow. Pursuant to Section 904-1, 1997 Uniform Fire Code. The buildings shall comply with Chanhassen Fire Department policy regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed. If any trees are to be removed, they must either be chipped or hauled off site. Due to close proximity of neighboring homes no burning permits will be issued. Regarding the existing buildings on site to be removed, contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for determination if any buildings can be burned if they prove training value. Install and indicate on utility plans locations for PIV (Post Indicator Valve). Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. Timing of installation. When fire protection, including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to Section 901.3, 1997 Uniform Fire Code. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding fire department notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy 04-1991. Copy enclosed. Lake Susan Apartment Homes May19,1999 Page 15 20. Demolition permits must be obtained to demolish the existing structures and utilities, wells and sewage treatment systems must be abandoned. 21. The site utility plan was not reviewed at this time. 22. Access for people with disabilities must be provided to all facilities. 23. The building owner and or designer should meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 24. Tree protection fencing shall be installed around all areas designated for preservation. 25. The number of overstory trees shall be increased to meet minimum reforestation requirements. 26. Developer and staff shall review landscaping between and around the pond and Highway 101 to assure adequate buffering. 27. Grading within the bluff and bluff setback areas shall be prohibited. The applicant shall redesign the site facilities and/or incorporate the use of retaining walls to eliminate grading into the bluff setback zone. 28. Utility improvements which lie outside of the public right-of-way for drainage and utility easements shall be privately owned and maintained by the applicant or successors. 29. The existing house and outbuildings on the property shall be razed within 30 days after final plat is recorded. In addition, the well and septic system shall be abandoned in accordance with local and state health/building codes. 30. The access point onto Trunk Highway 101 is subject to MnDOT approval. The applicant will be responsible for obtaining all necessary permits for construction of the right-turn lanes and all work within Highway 101 right-of-way. 31. The applicant shall design and construct the public utility improvements in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the public improvements shall be submitted to city staff for review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat approval. The applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract with the final plat and provide financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash Lake Susan Apartment Homes May 19, 1999 Page 16 escrow to guarantee installation of the public improvements. 32. The applicant shall report to the city engineer the location of any draintile found during construction. The applicant will comply with the city engineer's direction as far as abandonment or relocation of the draintile. 33. The applicant shall develop a temporary sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH) to control erosion during construction. Additional Type I erosion control fencing will be required around the grading limits along Highway 101. Wood fiber blanket and/or sod shall be utilized at all slopes in excess of3:1 and in the ditches along Highway 101. 34. The driveway access from Highway 101 to the site shall be a minimum of 36 feet wide, back-to-back with concrete curb and gutter with a left turn lane, shared through right turn drive aisle. The main driveway aisle width from the garage entrances to the parking lot shall be 28-feet wide, face-to-face. A 6-foot wide sidewalk shall be constructed along the north side of the driveway aisle from Highway 101 to the sidewalk proposed for Building A. 35. All private streets/parking lots shall be constructed in accordance with the City's Ordinance No. 20-1118 which requires a minimum 26-foot wide driveway aisle built to 7-ton design. 36. The applicant shall update the traffic study prepared by SRF for Villages on the Ponds to take into consideration the additional apartment building gaining access at the intersection of Main Street and Highway 101 and install any necessary traffic mitigation measures recommended in the updated traffic study. 37. The applicant shall be responsible for providing an interim trail connection around Lake Susan to the pedestrian crossing at Highway 101 during construction. This interim trail section may consist of a class V gravel surface. 38. The applicant shall petition the City to vacate trail easements which will be no longer utilized. In addition, the applicant shall rededicate to the City a new 20-foot wide trail easement centered upon the new trail alignment. 39. Sanitary sewer service to the site shall be extended to the connection at the manhole adjacent to the trail as shown on the plans. A reforestation plan in addition to the landscaping already required for the project shall be prepared and submitted to the city for approval to replace the trees removed due to the sewer line extension. The water line shall Lake Susan Apartment Homes May 19, 1999 Page 17 be jacked underneath Highway 101. Open cutting on Highway 101 will not be permitted. 40. The applicant shall be responsible for the extension of the trunk storm sewer from the proposed regional stormwater pond to the driveway entrance to the site. The applicant will be entitled to credits against the SWMP fees for installation of the trunk storm sewer line in accordance the City's Surface Water Management Plan. 41. Plans shall be revised to incorporate an outlet control structure in the regional pond. The outlet control structure shall be located on the southwesterly comer of the pond to discharge into the creek versus Lake Susan. 42. The applicant shall re-evaluate the water needs due to the fact that a looped water system is not available. 43. If material is imported or exported from the site, the applicant will need to provide the City with a detailed haul route for review and approval. If the material is to be imported or exported to/from another site in Chanhassen, it should be noted that those other parcels will be required to obtain an earthwork permit from the City. 44. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining the necessary permits from the regulatory agencies such as the Minnesota Department of Health, MCES, Watershed District, Minnesota DNR, MPCA and MnDOT. 45. The applicant shall submit detailed storm sewer and pond calculations for post- and pre- development conditions. The calculations shall be for a 1 O-year and 100-year, 24-hour storm event. The pond shall be designed in accordance with the Villages on the Ponds storm drainage plan (NURP standards). 46. The applicant shall redesign the parking lot per staff's alternate parking lot plan dated May 12, 1999. 47. Either the site developer or the Villages on the Ponds developer must establish 0.37 acres of new wetlands to fulfill the obligation of the Wetland Alteration Permit. 48. Staff shall review with the applicant the installation of a median at the entrance with respect to congestion and traffic hazards." Lake Susan Apartment Homes May 19, 1999 Page 18 ATTACHMENTS 1. Development Review Application 2. Reduced Copy of Site Plan 3. Schematic Building Elevations (From) 4. Schematic Building Elevations (End/Partial Front) 5. Memo from Mark Littfin to Robert Generous dated 5/10/99 6. Memo from Steve Torell to Bob Generous dated 5/10/99 7. Letter from William J. Weckman to Greg Hollenkamp dated 3/19/99 8. Letter from David C. Hempel to Joel Anderson dated 3/12/99 9. Villages on the Ponds Wetland Mitigation Plan 10. Parking Lot Alternative Sketch Plan 11. Letter from Bill Weckman, Asst. County Engineer dated 5/12/99 12. Notice of Public Hearing and Mailing List 13. Bluff Impact Zone Schematic 14. Planning Commission Minutes of June 2, 1999 15. Perspective from Lake Susan 16. E-mail from Matt Noah, 980 Lake Susan Hills Drive g:\plan\bg\lake susan apartment homes.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION OWNER: ADDRESS: _ TELEPHONE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Interim Use Permit Variance Non-conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development* Zoning Appeal Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign _..~ Site Plan Review' ~/O~ ~::) X. Escrow ,o, Filing Fees/Attorney Cost'* ($50 CUP/SPR/VACNARNV APIMetes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) Subdivision* TOTAL FEE $~1~ A list of all property owners within 600 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. 'Twenty-six full size .folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2'' X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet, '* Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. :)TE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. :)JECT NAME ~.L DESCRIPTION Ou..'J-'J~"{'~.,'.~ , ~JilJm ~ "f~.~ l~q~., ~,,~/,(-~ 3UESTED ZONING '-SENT ~ND USE DESIGNATION ;UESTED ~ND USE DESIGNATION ~SON FOR THIS REQUEST - application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should, confer with the ming Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that ! am responsible fo~' complying all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party Dm the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ~ership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or ! am the ~orized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. Il keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further .rstand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any ~orization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have subm~ed are true and correct to the best ~y knowledge. 'o understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded inet the title to the property for which the approvaVpermit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's ce and th~)rig~l document~med to City Hall Records. ~// .~ nature of A~oplicar~ ~he_lctotq ~. ~'-+ Date nature of Fee Owner Date ),Jcation Received on Lj/'/J )~ '~( Fee Paid '~'>J ! (~{-'~(~. ~'~ Receipt No., ~e applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the ~tlng. If not contactecl, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. I I CITYOF CHANHASSEN ~ Ci? Center Drive, ?0 Box 147 'hanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Phone 612.93Z 1900 General Fa.,: 612. 937. 5739 ~gineering Fax' 612.937.9152 ~blic Safe7 Fax 612.934. 2524 geb www. ci. chanhassen, mn. us MEMORANDUM TO: Robert Generous, Senior Planner FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: May 1 O, 1999 SUBJECT: Site Plan Review for a 3-story, 54 unit apartment building (162 units) on 9.94 acres of property zone PUD-mixed use and located on the west side of Highway 101 at Main Street in Villages on the Pond, Chanhassen Housing Development, the Shelard Group, Inc. Planning Case 99-9 Site Plan Review I have reviewed the site plan for the above project. In order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, I have the following fire code or city ordinance/policy requirements. The site plan is based on the available information submitted at this time. If additional plans or changes are submitted, the appropriate code or policy items will be addressed. 1. An additional two fire hydrants will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, bushes, shrubs, NSP, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. Submit radius turn dimensions in parking lots to determine fire department vehicle access. SuNnit turn dimensions to Chanhassen City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. Pursuant to 902.2.2.3, 1997 Uniform Fire Code. Required access. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided in accordance with Sections 901 and 902.2 for every facility, building or portion of a building, hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction of any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building that is located more than 150 feet from fire apparatus access as measnred by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. Exceptions - #2. When access roads cannot be installed due to location on property, topography, waterways, negotiable grades or other similar conditions, the Chief is authorized to require additional fire protection as specified in Section 1001.9. Because Cig of Chanhassen. /t grawin~, commumN with clean lakes, quality, schools, a charminf downtown, thrivine businesses, and beautiful oarks. A ~reat olace to live, work. and ola~. Mr. Robert Generous May 10, 1999 Page 2 apparatus access roads are not accessible to within 150 feet of all portions of the building we are requiring the following additional fire protection features. a. Fire sprinkler the attic space with an approved NFPA 13 system. b. Provide fire sprinkler protection in the underground parking garage with an approved NFPA 13 system. c. Provide class III standpipes in all stairwells at each floor. Note: The building itself will be required to be fire sprinklered per the building code. All fire sprinkler plans must be submitted to the Fire Marshal/Inspector for review and approval. Fire lane signage and yellow curbing will be determined by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of fire lane signs and curbing to be painted yellow. Pursuant to Section 904-1, 1997 Uniform Fire Code. The buildings shall comply with Chanhassen Fire Department policy regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed. 7. If any trees are to be removed, they must either be chipped or hauled off site. Due to close proximity of neighboring homes no burning permits will be issued. 8. Regarding the existing buildings on site to be removed, contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for determination if any buildings can be burned if they prove training value. 9. Install and indicate on utility plans locations for PIV (Post Indicator Valve). Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. 10. Timing of installation. When fire protection, including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to Section 901.3, 1997 Uniform Fire Code. 11. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding fire department notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy 04-1991. Copy enclosed. g\safety\ml\plrev99-9 CITYOF CHANHASSEN ~ Ciry Center Drive, PO 3ox 147 3anhassen, Minnema 55317 ?hone ~1293~ l~O0 General F~ ~ I 2. 93 ~ 5 ?9 ,~gineering F~v 612~37. 9152 ~blic S~k~' F~ ~i293~.252q % zvtcw, ci. 3anhassen. ~,m. ns CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES TO BE INCLUDED ON ALL SITE PLANS Fire Marshal must witness the flushing of underground sprinkler service line, per NFPA 13-8-2.1. A final inspection by the Fire Marshal before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Fire Department access roads, shall be provided on site during all phases of construction. The construction of these temporary roads will conform with the Chanhassen Fire Department requirements for temporary access roads at construction sites. Details are available. Onsite fire hydrants shall be provided and in operating condition during all phases of construction. The use of liquefied petroleum gas shall be in conformance with NFPA Standard 58 and the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code. A list of these requirements is available. (See policy #33-1993) All fire detection and fire suppression systems shall be monitored by an approved UL central station with a UL 72 Certificate issued on these systems before final occupancy is issued. An 1 l"x 14" As Built shall be provided to the Fire Department. The As Built shall be reproducible and acceptable to the Fire Marshal. (See policy #07-1991). Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #04-1991 Date: 11/22/91 Revised: 06/05/98 Page 1 of 2 - Ci.~, of C]mnhasso~. -". Fowing cvmmum~ with c;ean lakes, auaiin, sci,ooh. ,~ ,'harming downtown, thriving businesses, and beautiful parks. A great place to/it'e, ~vork, and play. An approved lock box shall be provided on the building for fire department use. The lock box should be located by the Fire Department connection or as located by the Fire Marshal. 10. 11. High-piled combustible storage shall comply with the requirements of Article #81 of the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code. High-piled combustible storage is combustible materials on closely packed piles more than 15' in height or combustible materials on pallets or in racks more than 12' in height. For certain special-hazard commodities such as rubber tires, plastics, some flammable liquids, idle pallets, etc. the critical pile height may be as Iow as 6 feet. Fire lane si~nage shall be provided as required by the Fire Marshal. (See policy #06-1991). Maximum allowed size of domestic water service on a combination domestic/fire sprinkler supply line policy must be followed. (See policy #36-1994). Approved - Public Safety Director Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #04-1991 Date: 11/22/91 Revised: 06/05/98 Page 2 of 2 CITYOF Cig Center Drive, PO Box 147 hanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Phone 612.93Z I900 General Fax 612. 937.5.739 ~gineering F~v 612.937. 9152 blic Safe: Fax 612 93( 2524 %b www. ci.&anhassen, mn. tts CHAN-HASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY PREMISES IDENTIFICATION General Numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall contrast with their background. Size and location of numbers shall be approved by one of the following - Public Safety Director, Building Official, Building Inspector, Fire Marshal. Requirements are for new construction and existing buildings where no address numbers are posted. Other Requirements - General 1. 2. 3. 5. Administrative authority may require necessary. Numbers shall be a contrasting color from the background. Numbers shall not be in script. If a structure is not visible from the street, additional numbers are required at the driveway entrance. Size and location must be approved. Numbers on mail box at driveway entrance may be a minimum of 4". However, requirement #3 must still be met. additional numbers if deemed Residential Requirements (2 or less dwellinq unit) 1. Minimum height shall be 5 1/4". Building permits will not be finaled unless numbers are posted and approved by the Building Department. Commercial Requirements 1. Minimum height shall be 12". Strip Malls a. Multi tenant building will have minimum height requirements of 6". b. Address numbers shall be on the main entrance and on all back doors. If address numbers are located on a directory entry sign, additional numbers will be required on the buildings main entrance. Chanhassen Fire Department  Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992 ~ Date: 06/15/92 Revised: Approved - Public Safety Director Page 1 of 1 City of Chanhassen. A growing cammuniff with ,'lean lakes, qua/iff schools, a charming a'owntown, thriving bminesses and beautiful oarks. H Heat place to live, work, and play. CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 City Center Drive, PO Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Phone 612937. I900 General Fa.,: 612. 937. 5739 Engineering la.,: 612.937. 9152 Public S!/b~ Fa.,: 612.934.2524 ~b www. ci.&anhassen, mn. us CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY REQUIREMENTS FOR FIRE LANE SIGNAGE NO PARKING FIRE LANE (NOT TO GRADE SCALE) I. Signs to be a minimum of 12" x 18". 2. Red on white is preferred. 3. 3M or equal engineer's grade reflective sheeting on aluminum is preferred. 4. Wording shall be: NO PARKING FIRE LANE Signs shall be posted at each end of the fire lane and at least at 75 foot intervals along the fire lane. 6. All signs shall be double sided facing the direction of travel. 7. Post shall be set back a minimum of 12" but not more than 36" from the curb. 8. A fire lane shall be required in front of fire dept. connections extending 5 feet on each side and along all areas designated by the Fire Chief. ANY DEVIATION FROM THE ABOVE PROCEDURES SHALL BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING, WITH A SITE PLAN, FOR APPROVAL BY THE FIRE CHIEF. IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO ENSURE CONTINUITY THROUGHOUT THE CITY BY PROVIDING THESE PROCEDURES FOR MARKING OF FIRE LANES. Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #06-1991 Date: 01/15/9t Revised: Page 1 of 1 The (5~. of Chanhassen. A ~owing communi~, with dean iakes, qualiz7 sd, vo[s, a charming abwmown, thriving btainesses, and beautifid parks. .-'. ~ear ?/ace to h've, work, and p CITYOF CHANHASSEN 5i~y Center Drive, PO Box' I47 anhassen, Minnesota 55317 ?hone 612937.1900 ;eneral Fax 612.937.5739 ;ineering Fax 612.937.9152 'lic Safe~ tax' 612.934.2524 · b wwv. ci. chanhassen, mn. m MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous, Senior Planner ~.~ FROM: Steve Torell, Building Official DATE: May 10, 1999 SUB J: Site plan review for Chanhassen Housing Development, Planning case 99-9 SPR. I have reviewed the site plans for the above project and offer the following comments and recommendations: 1. Demolition permits must be obtained to demolish the existing structures and utilities, wells and sewage treatment systems must be abandoned. 2. The site utility plan was not reviewed at this time. 3. Access for people with disabilities must be provided to all facilities. 4. I recommend that the building owner and or designer meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. g:/safety/stYmemos/plan/chanhousingdevl uPI'O/ of C/]/lll/][l$.~ell. A gl'owl'~lg commum'ty with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. CARVER COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Carver County Government Center Administration Building 600 East Fourth Street Chaska, Minnesota 55318-2192 Phone (612) 361-1010 Fax (612) 361-1025 Administration Parks Engineering Highway Maintenance Surveying & Mapping March 19, 1999 Mr. Greg Hollenkamp, AIA President KKE Architects 300 First Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55401 Re: Chanhassen Housing Development KKE No. 99-10-1102-01 Dear Mr. Hollenkamp: This letter is in response to your March 10, 1999 letter requesting a review and comment from our office of the proposed preliminary site grading plan for the above-mentioned project. We have received a copy of the comment letter dated March 12, 1999 sent by Dave Hemple, Chanhassen Assistant Engineer, to Mr. Joel Anderson of your firm. Upon review of the plans submitted and the comments from the City, Carver County would concur with Mr. Hemple's comments, especially the comments regarding the length of the proposed right turn lane. As this proposal develops, we will request that the City allow for further reviews by the County to determine potential impacts this project has on TH 101. If there are any questions concerning the comments on the preliminary site- grading plan, please call me at your convenience at 612-361-1010. Sincerely, William d. Weckman, P.E. Assistant County Engineer Cc: Roger Gustafson Anita Benson, Chanhassen City Engineer Kate Aanenson, Chanhassen Planning Director I~VlAR, ~ 2 !99[ Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer Printed on 10% Post-Consumer Recycled Paper CITYOF CHANHASSEN ;iq Center Drive, PO Box I47 ~nhassen, Minnesota 55317 Phone 612937. I900 'eneral fax 612.937.5739 qneering Fax 612.93Z9152 lic Safety Fax 612.934.2524 b www. ci. chanhassen, mn. us March 12, 1999 VIA FACSIMILE Mr. Joel Anderson KKE Architects, Inc. 300 First Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55401 Re; Preliminary Review of Site Grading Plan - Chanhassen Housing Development - LUR File 99-5 Dear Mr. Anderson: Upon review of the preliminary site grading plan dated February 16, 1999, I offer the following comments and recommendations: Overall, the proposed site grades appear acceptable. Impacts to the existing site characteristics, infrastructure, street, and trail have been minimized as requested. After preliminary review of the site drainage improvements, it appears some adjustments to the storm sewer system will be necessary. An outlet control structure will be required in the Nurp pond north of the creek. The other Nurp pond, south of the creek, will not be required with this proposal. The City/County will construct it with the relocation of Trunk Highway 101 in the future'. The City most likely will require the extension of a storm sewer line across Market Boulevard (Trunk Highway 101) to intercept the existing ,storm sewer line(s) that discharge into the temporary Nurp pond on the east side of Trunk Highway 101 with this project (in accordance with the master drainage plan for Villages on the Ponds). Additional drainage improvements to intercept the ditch runoff along the west side of Trunk Highway 101 will be addressed after more detailed drawings and storm drainage calculations are submitted, i.e. adding FES, catch basins, etc. The trail impacts appear to be relatively minor. Vacation of the existing trail easements and dedication of new trail easements will be addressed with platting of the parcel. The auxiliary turn lane on Trunk Highway 101 appears to be too short. We recommend a minimum of 250 feet including the taper. The dri.v, eway access point onto Trunk Highway 101 should be 38 feet wide face-to-face of curb to provide three traffic lanes. The curb radiuses need to be wide enough to accommodate truck turning rfi0vements into the site as well (a minimum of 25 feet). The traffic island at the driveway entrance should be deleted. Mr. Joel Anderson March 12, 1999 Page 2 I apologize for the delay in responding to your submittal. If you have any questions, please feel free to call. Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN David C. Hempel Assistant City Engineer DCH:jms c: Anita Benson, City Engineer Kate Aanenson, Planning Director Roger Gustafson, Carver County Engineer \Xcfsl\vol~-ngXdaveXlettersXchan housing villages.doc Z Z 0 O. u.I L~K£ SUSN~ \\ 2ARVER 2OUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Carver County Government Center Administration Building 600 East Fourth Street Chaska, Minnesota 55318-2192 Phone (612) 361-1010 Fax (612) 361-1025 Administration Parks Engineering Highway Maintenance Surveying & Mapping May 12, 1999 To: From: Subject: Robert Generous, Senior Planner, City of Char:thassen Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer ~ 1U Site Plan Review ' ' Village on the Ponds, The Shelard Group (99-9 Site Plan review) We have reviewed the information regarding the Village on the Ponds site plan transmitted to Carver County by your memorandum dated April 20, 1999. These comments are based on that review. Further comments may be necessary as the plans progress. Though TH 101 is not presently on the County Road system, these comments would be applicable if the roadway were on the County system. Right-of-way widths listed in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study for roadways functionally classified as Minor Arterial (Class II) are: Urban Undivided 2-lane Roadway Minimum Recommended 100' 110' 120' Rural Undivided 2-lane Roadway Minimum Recommended 150' Urban Undivided 4-lane Roadway Minimum Recommended 100' 120' 140' Rural Undivided 4-lane Roadway Minimum Recommended 170' TH 101 (Great Plains Blvd.) is functionally classified as a Minor Arterial (Class II) roadway in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. The present 33-foot from centerline corridor shown on TH 101 would not provide for a potential minimum corridor to meet this roadway function. The future roadway corridor is shown with a 150-foot width and would meet the needs for this future roadway. The street entrance as proposed includes construction of a right turn lane. Carver County supports the City of Chanhassen in this requirement. A permit for this entrance will need to be acquired from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT). Any public utility lines that are to be installed within the TH 101 right-of-way are subject to the utility permit requirements Mn/DOT and subject to review by Carver County. Any proposed grading and installation of drainage structures within th~i~i~-~,-~ TH MAY 14t 1999 Affirmative Action~Equal Opportunio, Employer OITY OP Uf'Iat~rlASSEN Printed on 10% Post-Consumer Recycled Paper 101 is subject to review and approval of Mn/DOT. Development activities (including the installation of both public and private utilities needed to serve the development site) that result in any disturbance of the highway right-of-way (including tree removal, trench settlements, erosion, and sediment deposits) need to be completed in a manner that leaves the right-of-way in "as good or better condition" than what existed prior to construction. It is requested that the city include a provision in the developer's agreement that requires the developer to be ultimately responsible for the final condition of the county highway right-of-way. A clear understanding of this responsibility will result in fewer project oversight problems for both the county and the city. Any trees or landscaping completed within the right-of-way must be approved by Mn/DOT. When locating shrubs and trees, consideration should be given to maintaining an acceptable sight distance at the TH 101 intersection. Any trees or shrubs overhanging into the right-of- way could be subject to trimming for safety or overhead utility consideration. As this area develops, traffic volumes will increase. Carver County considers any potential noise abatement improvements to be the responsibility of the developer. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the site plan for the proposed development. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 1999 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE ,OPOSAL: Request for Site Plan for Lake Susan Apartment Homes APPLICANT: The Shelard Group, Inc. LOCATION: Hwy.101, adjacent to Lake Susan NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicants, Site Plan Review for 3 three-story 54 unit apartment buildings (162 total units) on 9.94 acres of property zoned PUD-Mixed Use and located on the west side of Hwy. 101 at Main Street in Villages on the Ponds, Chanhassen Housing Development, The Shelard Group, Inc. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob at 937-1900 ext. 141. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on May 6, 1999. State Lake Susan CHURCH OF ST. HUBERT 7707 GREAT PLAINS BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHURCH OF ST. HUBERT 8201 MAIN STREET CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 AUSMAR DEVELOPMENT CO LLC 551 78TH STREET W CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT ARMSTRONG 8400 GREAT PLAINS BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DON GALE 8402 GREAT PLAINS BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MILTON BATHKE 8404 GREAT PLAINS BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARK JESBERG 8407 GREAT PLAINS BLVD CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 LAWRENCE & TAMMY HARRIS 8408 GREAT PLAINS BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES & KATHRYN JACOBY 8410 GREAT PLAINS BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ANDREW A FRESETH PO BOX 40 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROSEMOUNT INC ATTN: PHYLLIS MARTINSON PC09 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 GEORGE JR. & M. SHORBA 304 CHAN VIEW CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 HEN & JUDITH SLACK CHAN HILLS DRIVE !HASSEN, MN 55317 ;NE KLEIN GREAT PLAINS BLVD .,IHASSEN, MN 55317 ~1AMUNDSON GREAT PLAINS BLVD ~IHASSEN MN 55317 LEY M. ROBINSON GREAT PLAINS BLVD ~IHASSEN MN 55317 D PAYNE GREAT PLAINS BLVD ~IHASSEN MN 55317 RGE & LESLIE GILMAN GREAT PLAINS BLVD ;~IHASSEN MN 55317 D WILLMSEN GREAT PLAINS BLVD NHASSEN MN 55317 N S. JACOBY GREAT PLAINS BLVD NHASSEN MN 55317 IA & THOMAS HOUSTON GREAT PLAINS BLVD .NHASSEN MN 55317 /IE NOONE ; GREAT PLAINS BLVD ,NHASSEN MN 55317 WALTER PAULSON 8528 GREAT PLAINS BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 STEVE STROMSNESS 8526 GREAT PLAINS BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 AL H. KLINGELHUTZ 8600 GREAT PLAINS BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JEFFREY SICHENDER 8508 GREAT PLAINS BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9749 KAREN & GARY SCHULTZ 8507 GREAT PLAINS BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 LESLIE & KYLE TIDSTROM 8679 CHANHASSEN HILLS DR N CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 May 18, 1999 TO: Chanhassen Planning Commission RE: Lake Susan Apartment Homes Ladies and Gentlemen: We are in strong opposition to this project or any other project along Highway 101 until Highway 101 South at Highway 5 is upgraded. You have put our family, neighbors and residents in Chanhassen in harms way by allowing the high-density construction along Highway 101. Mission Hills,Chanhassen Hills and Springfield in Chanhassen are all new developments, which have resulted in high vehicle traffic flow along Highway 101. The current walking path crosses Highway 101 South twice. 101 South/Market Blvd goes from two lanes down to one land, with a speed limit of 40 MPH over a bridge around a corner with 150 feet "line of sight" to our driveway. What happen if someone is driving 50 MPH? Going north the "line of sight" is just as bad. Our neighbor, Don Gale was hit broadside this spring by someone going over the centerline. The accidents and cars in the ditches are too many to count. The Chanhassen Post Office has made the statement that Highway 101 south of Highway 5 is "The most dangerous route in their delivery system". You cannot allow in good conscience and with concern for safety in Chanhassen any more development along Highway 101 South until this stretch of road has been upgraded. Sincerely, ~/~ Robert & Roberta Armstrong 8400 Great Plains Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 612-934-2636 N 0 Helght 25 ft. or Greater Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999 REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 3 STORY 54 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDINGS (162 TOTAL UNITS} ON 9.94 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED PUD- MIXED USE AND LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF HWY' 101 AT MAIN STREET IN VILLAGES ON THE PONDS~ CHANHASSEN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT~ THE SHELARD GROUP~ INC. Public Present: Name Address Brad Willmsen 8510 Great Plains Blvd. Kyle Tidstrom 8679 Chanhassen Hills Drive Gene Klein 8412 Great Plains Blvd. Tammy Harris 8408 Great Plains Blvd. Jim Jacoby 8410 Great Plains Blvd. Jim Amundson 8500 Great Plains Blvd. Kathy Holtmeier 8524 Great Plains Blvd. Barbara & John S. Jacoby 8516 Great Plains Blvd. A1 & Mary Jane Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Blvd. Milton Bathke 8404 Great Plains Blvd. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions ofstaff. Conrad: What are the heights of the buildings Bob? Generous: To the top of the parapet? Conrad: If our standard is 50 in that zone. What...? Generous: Yeah, they would be close to the 50 to the middle of the roof. You look at the garage ' elevation and add a 4 story to it. We were permitted, as part of the design standards we permitted that. So it's around 45. Peterson: Other questions of staff?. Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, this is to Bob. Can you talk a little bit about Highway 101. And the upgrade plan and how it fits in and what's going to happen with traffic. Generous: I think I'd defer to Dave ifI could. Hempel: Thank you Mr. Chairman, Planning Commissioners. The latest and greatest we've heard. Highway 101 is still under jurisdiction of Minnesota Department of Transportation or MnDOT as we call them. It is eventually going to be turned back over to Carver County 21 Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999 Highway Department and they, in a joint effort with the City of Chanhassen, will be upgrading 101 to a four lane segment down to proposed 212 at some future time between Highway 5 and down to 212. The time line that I guess we're hearing now is a 4 to 5 year period before that happens. Before the turnback and turnback funds are available to do that. The traffic. A traffic study was prepared for the Villages on the Ponds which did not indicate full upgrading of 101 all the way down to that level. All the way down to the 212 but they did recommend mitigation measures to help offset and alleviate some of the traffic congestion at the intersections of Highway 5, Market Boulevard and Great Plains and Highway 5. Some of the improvements at Great Plains and Highway 5 have been completed with the initial phase of Villages on the Ponds. With this proposal before us there was really no mention of mitigation measures along Highway 101 with this development. Staffhas indicated in the staff report that we'd like for the applicant to revisit that area now that all three apartment buildings will be accessing one singular access point across the main street at Highway 101. The preliminary plat for Villages on the Pond indicated two building, two apartment building units to be accessing here with the third or the northerly building being accessed through the Rosemount driveway across from Lake Drive at Highway I 01. That location there, the traffic study indicated that a future traffic light may be warranted with full development of Villages on the Pond. We are, or we have required the developer escrow a share of the cost for future traffic signals at that location. With this submittal here the only requirement that we see at this point is a right turn lane into the site on southbound Highway 101. We are cognizant of sight line problems along Highway 101. Speeding vehicles and so forth. A speed study was done here approximately a year ago by MnDOT and speeds did range, it was a wide variety of speeds along there. The conclusion was though the 40 mph posting was adequate or was appropriate given the 85% percentile of cars that drive that road. One of the things that will occur to help improve sight lines with this project is construction of the regional storm'water pond south of the buildings along and adjacent to the creek there out to existing Highway 101. All those trees that are in there would be removed and it would improve sight lines for the first home to the south of this site. But again we did have a condition in the staff report that the applicant revisit the traffic issues with this development to see what mitigation measures may be required with this site development. Thank you. Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman I have a couple more questions related to traffic so maybe I'I1 address them to you Dave. Second thing. Doesn't the fire department normally want two entrances to a neighborhood per se. We've got a lot of units here with a single entrance and I don't see any mention of that at all. Hempel: Typically yes. We would like to have emergency secondary access whenever feasible but given the terrain of the site, the elevation difference, and the building layout, that wasn't really feasible. There's a pretty good access into the site with a loop parking lot area. Aanenson: Plus the buildings will be sprinklered and there's close proximity to 101 so that was all taken into consideration. Blackowiak: Okay. And my final question has to do with the trail. I've heard rumors that with the upgrade of Highway 101 that there's going to be an underpass there for the trail connection. Is that true? 22 Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999 Aanenson: With the upgrade of 101. Blackowiak: So again we're talking then the upgrade of 101, turnback in 4 to 5 years and then when would construction be? Would it at 4 to 5 years or are you talking after that? Hempel: The construction that we're hearing would be a 4 to 5 year time table from now. The turnback should occur within the next year maybe. Blackowiak: Okay, and you're comfortable with the crosswalk? I mean I cross that area fairly often and I will not let my kids go near there without me. It's treacherous at best. And I'm wondering about adding a lot of people and again, we have a real bad area and the crosswalk, is there anything we can do to upgrade the crosswalk now or can we do the underpass now or what's? What are our options? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, maybe we can further research that with MnDOT to see if there's other measures that can be done. As far as the underpass, at this time I would say no. Because it requires the elevation of 101 to be elevated I think another couple of feet is the final design or the preliminary design for new 101. To be elevated up another couple of feet to provide enough elevation difference to have the underpass for the trail. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Peterson: We can do another pedestrian bridge. Let's not go there. Other questions of staff?. Burton: Mr. Chairman I have a question or two. On the landscaping, I was wondering if staff could discuss the replanting requirements or the planting requirements to get to the ordinance requirements. I was looking at the conditions and it talks about overstory trees and then they' have to submit a revised landscape plan. I'm wondering if you can just talk about how you got to those conditions and where we're at with all that. Generous: Mr. Chairman. They're meeting with the City Forester tomorrow to review that. To have their landscape person and our landscape person to come together. The way we get it is by ordinance. It tells us based on their tree removal plans. How much they have to put in and... So yeah, that's something we'll work out at the stafflevel with them. We know the numbers. It's just the location of things and that's what they'll work with Jill on. In addition with the sewer alignment we're going to get additional trees down on the Lake Susan side. That's something that we probably, as part of the tree preservation ordinance, what we tried to do is extend preserved treed areas so that we create a habitat area with these newer trees. Burton: When I look at that chart that you put in the report, just for example, it says, it looks to me like it's required to have say 45 shrubs and they have no shrubs. I mean are those things that are considered or. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999 Generous: Right. And that's in the buffer yard requirement. However there are shrubs in there. That's a mistake. They showed lots of shrubs and we'll review that again. Burton: All right. Another. question I had was on establishing the new wetlands and it says how either the developer of Villages or that this site developer has to take care of that and I'm wondering if we just leave it like that, who determines if they don't, if one of them doesn't go forward. How do you ever determine who's going to have to do it and by when? Generous: We should be able to work that by the time of final platting, which is really where the condition will stick. It was part of the overall PUD determined that we needed this and so that's where it really belongs. The developer, I assume that the developer of the apartment buildings will do it and be reimbursed by the owners. Peterson: Other questions? Kind: Mr. Chairman. I have a question about parking. Required is 324 and what's proposed is 302. I wonder if staff could speak to that. Generous: We reviewed their calculations. I think this is one that the applicant would be more appropriate addressing because it's the market project for them so they need to provide something that will work. Based on my analysis we reduced the number of parking spaces for one bedrooms. It's 1.7 parking stalls per one bedroom unit and 2 parking stalls for two bedroom units so we think that the numbers probably will work. In addition this is, we have the transit facility, or it will be available for this project over in Villages and that was part of the whole intent to provide this transit oriented development. But the specific question should be addressed by the developer. Otherwise we can go in and tear out more trees and provide it. Peterson: Other questions? Kind: Chairman I have one more question. Regarding the affordability units. The 20% that staff's recommending. Is that something that needs to be checked out with City Council or it's just sufficient being in the staff report that way or how does that work? Aanenson: This was a goal that was put into the PUD that is a part of this project. We wanted to try to make some of the goals of the Livable Communities Act. Obviously it's our objective to get as high as we can and we had looked at 35%. There needs to be some participation by the city and the EDA is looking at that but right now I think we've agreed that 35% is not achievable for this project to go forward. But at this point we're recommending at least 20%. We went for a grant based on getting affordable housing. It has to have some affordable housing to make it go forward. We're anticipating that we will still have additional affordable housing on the other side of 101 as a part of that project. Kind: Is that that new law that was just passed? 24 Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999 Aanenson: Well the Livable Communities Act is what we signed on for and we're trying to do our due diligence and this is an area because we're in close proximity to downtown and we've got the other services there, that this would be the opportunity to put it in this location. Conrad: Mr. Chairman I'll take off on that question and that answer. So how do we encourage affordable housing in that project? How does that work Kate? Aanenson: Well, Bob and I spent the last two months and so has the EDA trying to work through those issues. So has the applicant. It's really tough based on land costs, construction costs, and trying to get market rate rents and how you make that work. Try to get it to market rent and then go beyond that to subsidize it. It's a very complex issue. 20% is the highest we can go unless there's some other funding sources available..where we're at. Trying to do a housing district and that's what we're going forward with. That's the best we can get based on again, construction costs, land costs. Getting a rate of return. Joyce: Is there a contract set up? I mean I think that's what everyone's asking. How are we assured that these rates. Aanenson: Yes. Yes. They're working with the EDA. Yes, putting together the housing district, yes. Joyce: Do they come once a year and, I'm assuming you have a 25 year. So I think it's set so that there's, you have the Livable Communities Act has some sort of, every year it goes up I assume with inflation and that. The rents or whatever and it's pegged against that and you've checked that once a year or something. Aanenson: Correct. Looking at the life of the district and yes. There's a check and balance. Joyce: Was that your question? Kind: Yes. Joyce: I thought so. Generous: They would actually have two contracts. One would be the site plan agreement and the second one would be any redevelopment agreement with the EDA. Conrad: One more question Mr. Chairman, or at least one. The existing vegetation on the lake side. Talk to me about the screening on the lake side for the residents before they do. Generous: This is Lake Susan. I think these two areas are bluffs as defined by ordinance so no vegetation... And then as part of their.., so all these trees... Behind that we'll get additional landscaping. Our intention is to fill in any...that are created as part of the grading of the site with the new plants... They do have the storm water pond here...traditional over story trees, we look at putting in this area also. They will see the building from here. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999 Conrad: How high will the existing vegetation? How much will it cover? How much will it screen in terms of elevation against the 50 foot setback or 50 foot building elevation. Generous: At least half, maybe two-thirds. Conrad: The storm water pond, today that's all vegetation? Generous: Correct. Conrad: It's pretty much scrub vegetation there? Aanenson: Yes. Conrad: But it's not very high quality. Aanenson: No. Generous: Neither on the, the site doesn't have. You don't have oaks savannahs...you have the softer woods. Conrad: So that pond, we're removing all the vegetation in order to build that pond. That's a smart way to build a pond? Generous: That's the only way to build it. It's the low point for the entire development. Aanenson: Upside of the creek. Generous: And it has to be big enough to handle everything. And this. Conrad: Have to take down all the trees for buffering as much as I can. Generous: There should be some left along the lakeshore because they don't grade all the way to the lake. Their separation. That's also an area that we can look at additional landscaping if it turns out to be a big issue. We've made them relocate the discharge pipe from the storm water pond. Initially they had planned that into Lake Susan and so they're revising that to go into Riley Creek. So' you won't have that area being revegetated. Conrad: So really are we exposing the homeowners to Highway 101 as we take down that vegetation? Aanenson: There's two approaches to that. Number one, you're improving the sight line for one I think which is, and we can go back and relandscape it. So you're looking at noise continuation, is that kind of what you're saying? Yeah, yeah. I think that's something we can certainly look at. The pond needs to go there. We always said as far as the environmental assessment, but 26 Planning Commission Meeting- June 2, 1999 what I hear you saying is you're concerned about what's that going to do for what they're seeing. We can look at that. Conrad: Right, seeing and hearing. I don't think we're protecting any trees that are, you know I'm not too worried about cutting down the trees. They're there. I've looked at them. I've Rollerbladed by them. Alison's right in terms of that intersection. On Rollerblades that's just awful trying to get across so I don't do that anymore. But I don't know that we have a real good solution to that but I think we can have some solutions in terms of some screening there. Something. I think ifI were a lake homeowner there I'd... Peterson: Other questions? Blackowiak: Mr. Chair I've got just one more question. Can you talk to us a little bit about the changes on condition 39. Why they were made. Specifically is it going to be more tree loss? And if so, why are we doing it? Convince me that it's the best thing that we should be doing there. Generous: Well there might be a little bit more tree loss. I don't think it's...a lot of it. They haven't expanded their grading limits very much with that change. They just cut through a comer of the, actually it's the bluff impact zone. Not the...that they're going through this. It's, I think what they're looking at a 30 foot wide swath area and only half of that was not devegetated. Aanenson: Do you understand where it is? Blackowiak: Well I'm assuming it's kind of on the south end of Building C. Maybe show us on the. Generous: On the original plans. This third line runs down here. That's where they're proposing part of their... Their grading plans originally.., don't have the specific location of the trees in relationship to that. You could have canopy that over reaches that some. Blackowiak: Okay, and now wasn't it going to be on the other side before? Generous: No. The condition that we had in there would make them put it all...highway. At one time they looked at having it connect over on the west side. That's not feasible with the topography and the site layout because the buildings are in the way. They would have to come into this bluff area. They'd lose more trees then... We felt this was an acceptable area... It's open down at the bottom already along the sewer alignment. There is the metropolitan...It's just a little triangle piece... Blackowiak: So what happens to the bluff then in that spot? Just grade it away and we don't care? Generous: ...this is going to drop down significantly... 27 Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999 Hempel: The grades would be restored back to original elevations through there. Blackowiak: Okay, and you feel that that's the better alternative then going back between the building? It's an acceptable alternative? Hempel: The other way is much more expensive having to tunnel underneath Highway 101. That was originally how it was proposed to be served with the preliminary utility plan for Villages on the Pond. Blackowiak: Okay, why there? I mean just. Hempel: They're already creating the disturbance with the watermain being extended underneath 10 I. Eventually the storm sewer will be extended underneath 101 in that location as well so it was just economically it was more feasible to extend all three utilities at the same time than one and then come back and do another later. This option here will be much more economical for the applicant and much more feasible given the proximity of the buildings than having to mn it up the drive aisle and then branch off to the building site. Blackowiak: But they're going to be going under the highway anyway for the water, is that correct? Hempel: That's correct. Blackowiak: So why are we going off in another direction totally? Hempel: Well as Bob mentioned, the grading. The grading for the building and the site already will reduce the amount of canopy coverage from that comer and they could realign the sewer outside of the, or realign the sewer so it's within the grading that they're already doing and then not have to take down any more trees as well. That's an option too. Blackowiak: Okay. Peterson: Other questions? Conrad: I have one more Mr. Chairman. The lighting that would be visible to the surrounding neighbors in the area to the south. Would you describe what they might be. Generous: Well they have to do the 90 degree cutoff lighting for their parking lot area. Conrad: It could be screened. The parking lot area would be screened. Generous: Right, so the only openings they have is really on the driveway. They can get some through the trees in the winter. They'll see the lights from the windows and the general glow of the parking area. It's not heavily lighted. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999 Kind: Mr. Chairman I have one more crosswalk question. Alison and Ladd spoke to the treacherousness of the trail crossing. I am wondering with the vision that this apartment complex is a part of Villages on the Pond. Folks wanting to get over to Villages on the Pond. They're not going to go down the trail cOnnection to get back up to Villages. Should there be a crosswalk at Main Street? And if so, would that be just as treacherous as the trail connection? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. I would stronglyl would not recommend additional crosswalks at that location of Main Street given the close proximity of another crosswalk. Eventually there may be a crosswalk with the traffic signals at Lake Drive and 101 in the future. There is a trail along the west side of 101 from this site that takes you up to Rosemount. In that area. That would be more of an appropriate location for a crosswalk. Kind: Okay, thank you. Peterson: Other questions? Kate, my theme in the last few meetings I think I would prior to going to council again recommend that they do some color renderings and exterior renderings of the building be actually finished. It's difficult for me to really get a good clear sense of what the building feel was like. I know it was bullet pointed. How'd you get that? Kind: It just came this way. Blackowiak: I thought it was mine. I hogged it. Peterson: But I think give that in the same packet to council would be very helpful. I assume it would be helpful. With that, would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission. If so, please come forward and state your name and address please. Greg Hollingkamp: Hi, my name's Greg Hollingkamp. I'm with KKE Architects and we can give you a little bit of a presentation on the development and then answer some of your questions about the exterior and some of the other questions you had earlier here. First off on the site plan, if you can put this on the screen I'll point out a couple things. The site plan, well it's pretty straight forward but a couple things that you had questioned on the required parking. We show 302 cars and if you use that ratio that Bob talked about of the 1.7 cars per one bedroom unit and 2 cars per two bedroom unit, that would calculate out to 300 cars and what we're showing is 302 cars. The Fire Marshal had looked at the plan and had recommended through in this area that we increase the turning radius and that would eliminate 2 or I think it was 3 cars so we're basically in the same range as what we had talked about. On the wetland there was a question on the wetland. We need to increase the wetland by 3.7 acres or mitigate the wetland..37 acres. And currently there's a wetland on the north portion of the site, over in this area and there's also a wetland that occurs down in this area where the pond will be in the future. And when we look at that, just one thing we need to work with you on at the city. If we add .37 acres of wetland up in here it would basically take away all the woods on that part of the site and it might be a little odd to destroy the woods to put in wetlands so I think when we look at that, we may want to look at the ponding area that's going to be developed and look at mitigating wetland around that pond. I think that might be a more natural environment for that but we can work with staff on that. Also 29 Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999 on the entry to the development. We'd like to have you consider allowing us to put in a median in this location. We'd like to have a little nicer entry where the turn lane coming in and the turn lanes going out would be split by a landscape entry. When we looked at that early on with staff they had suggested maybe we eliminate that and I think it maybe had to do more with turning movements for emergency vehicles but we feel there's enough room there to accommodate both so we'd like you to consider that. On the lighting, as far as lighting from the neighbors to the south. Again, all of that should be pretty well screened because we will have the buffer of the bluffs here that Bob was talking about. We will have some wallpak lighting on the building but it will be limited to the garage entries which are on the ends of the building here. And those have to be shielded and that's again away from the residential area. The remainder of the lighting through the development and the parking lot would be a decorative type light that would fit in with the Village on the Ponds theme. And then also when you were asking about the view to the development and what the neighbors would see. One of the things we did when we laid out the development, again if you consider the trees in this area, that's going to screen out a fair amount of this development to begin with because it can't touch the bluffs. And then this building will be seen but the building's been turned sideways so really all you're looking at is the narrow view of that building as opposed to a long view of a building so we tried to minimize any impact there. I also think that when we look at the landscaping closer with staff, when we add more overstory trees, we may want to look at this area in here. Add additional trees to create that buffer, especially at the pond to reduce the amount of trees in this area. On the exterior of the building, we brought along some renderings and then also a sample board. And let's see here. You won't be able to see the colors. I can hand this to you here, but essentially what we've got is at each entry of the building, this would be a typical entry. We picked up on more of the traditional, old world flavor and then we've introduced a stone which you see here that will be an accent and nice warm colors to accentuate the entry area. The base material around the entire building is a textured rock face block that you see here.' Again, I'll hand these to you so you can see them a little closer. Then you can see the roof. It's a heavier shingle style roof. Has a little bit of shadow to it with, you know staying with the brown tones. And then we have a mix of composite siding and shakes. The shakes are used in the bay areas again to give a little older world flavor to it. We also have mixed in balconies in some units. Bay windows in some units. Optional fireplaces in some units so that You'll have the chinmeys breaking up the roof line as well. And the roof line has a fairly steep pitch to it because we want that old world flavor to kind of carry through there as well. This, maybe you can see it a little bit better here. These are the colors of the material. I think a nice blend with color. And I think with that we'll just answer any questions you have. Peterson: Questions of the applicant? Kind: ! noticed you spoke of composite. On the plan it talks of vinyl or composite material for the boarding and the shake. Can you speak to what you're preferring and why? Greg Hollingkamp: Well, what we're doing right now, frankly we're pricing out the entire project and we can do a lot with vinyl siding. There are some good products out there now and it's a nice product. Low maintenance. That would be a preference to go with a vinyl siding. 3O Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999 When you get into the shakes, typically those are cedar shakes and so we'd have a blend of the two materials. Kind: My concern is the composite. My experience is that that is not a great long term material and I'm hearing you agree with that. Greg Hollingkamp: That's correct. Peterson: Other questions? Blackowiak: Mr. Chair I have a question. Talked about the affordable units and we're looking at 20%. Do you plan to spread that 20% out among the buildings or are you going to concentrate it all in one building? What's your thought on that? Greg Hollingkamp: Well I think the idea has been to spread that out and Shel Wert can speak to that. Sheldon Wert: Hi. My name is Sheldon Wert. I'm the developer of the property. And the units are going to be spread throughout the buildings. It won't be in one particular area. The affordable income units are ali being built in the same fashion that all of the other units. There's no physical difference in them. And we have them in our proformas spread out through the entire rental scheme. Kind: I have another question. Could the applicant speak to the parking issue? Do you think that 1.7 is adequate for the one bedroom units? What if they have company over? How does that all work? Sheldon Wert: Yes, it should be adequate. Number of communities that we do apartments in actually go down to 1.5 per unit which would be 162 units. It would be 240 some cars. In that range so we're in excess of that already. One of the big driving factors for us is to make sure we have one car parking underground for each unit and that's driven primarily by the market and this achieves that and then we supplement it with the on grade parking. Peterson: Other questions? Sidney: One more question for the applicant. You mentioned optional chimneys. What are the materials that the chimneys would be made o~ Is it galvanized? Greg Hollingkamp: Actually it'd be optional fireplaces. And then the chimneys would go with that. We haven't picked out a material for the chimneys. Sidney: Blend in color I presume and everything like that. Okay. Peterson: Other questions? Okay, thank you. Can I have a motion and a second for a public hearing please. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999 Joyce moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come forward and state your name and address please. Jim Amundson: My name's Jim Amundson, 8500 Great Plains Boulevard. I'm concerned about, from what I see tonight, the holding pond on the south end. Is that going to be completely, is 101 going to be right to the lake then? There's going to be the road, the pond, the lake. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can address that. Jim Amundson: The way it looks, we're clearing all those trees out to the creek. Hempel: The location of the ponding. Existing Highway 101. Future Highway 101. The corridor through here will be expanded for additional... There's also going to be a holding pond south of the creek... Jim Amundson: My concern on that is, I mean that's all trees in there. It's the best, I shouldn't tell anybody, best fishing spot. And it's all trees and...and now we're going to tear that down and build a holding pond which will show 101. Increase our noise levels with cars going through there and I think as you know 101 is crazy. And when we're looking at this concept, we look at 101 and Market. I live south. That traffic horrendous right now. We always think of that intersection but we put a crosswalk there for the new trail system and you see people Rollerblading and running. Literally running with their kids across that street. So from what I see tonight I think there's a lot of questions to this thing and I don't see how anything can be passed and sent on to anywhere so I hope you take that in consideration. The property owners there and what we go through. I mean that's a beautiful lake and to start clear cutting some of that and putting in holding ponds, increasing noise, it just destroys the lake. Peterson: Thank you. Kathy Holtmeier: I'm Kathy Holtmeier. I live at 8524 Great Plains Boulevard. When I was listening to this I wrote down four concerns that I had. Number one's with the height of the apartment buildings. When this was developed before and the city owned the lake property around, most of the lake, we had talked about keeping the height of the properties so that the residents around the lake could not see it. So like right across the lake everything is tree lined. This sounds as if it's going to be higher than that and I'm concerned that that will, the apartment buildings will be kind of in our face if you want to say that. The second concern I have was the sewer that you had mentioned. If they have access to the sewer the way they talked about, they are going to really be ripping up that part of the lake rather than, and it seems like it would be to save the applicant money, even though that may not be the best solution for the lake itself. The third one I had was just the same thing. The amount of traffic that this would generate when we already know that it's a problem and there doesn't seem to be any kind of solution for that. And 32 Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999 the third I was wondering, we hadn't discussed what kind of lake access this apartment complex would have. I noticed on page 12, number 7 they talked about development ora beach lot. And my understanding was we already have a public access on the lake with the public, now we have a public beach. And that that should be sufficient. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Jim Jacoby: My name's Jim Jacoby, 84i0 Great Plains Boulevard. I had a couple things and some I would like to reiterate everything else I've heard from the public. I think those are all good issues. Another thing I think with the holding pond today, when it rains really hard, that water's flowing over 101 today even so I don't know how when you get more collection of water with more asphalt and more runoff, it's just going to get worse. I mean we've had a lot of trouble with the development across the street and the amount of runoff that's now going into the lake and coming across and how much I have on occasion seen the water going over I01 when it rains hard so I haven't seen that addressed at all in any of these plans because that culvert they put in when they redid that 101 there is not sufficient upon a heavy rain day to compensate for the water. And you know, and I think just everything else. What's the other thing? And also you know like you talked about parking. If the city has requirements on parking, you told the other people that came today that they can amend their plans. Well, I' heard a kind of flip comment saying well we can get rid of more trees. Well you can get rid of more units. There's more than one way to solve a problem so I'll throw that out there that those are my comments, thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Kyle Tidstrom: Hi, Kyle Tidstrom, 8679 Chanhassen Hills and I'd reiterate all that's already been said. But in addition, when they talk about well we'll take a few trees down there but then we'll plant some more trees in. Some of those trees may be those big cottonwoods that have all the canopy down there. And if you cut down a 50 or 60 foot tree, I haven't seen anybody planting trees that size yet. You've got a 50 foot building and you're going to landscape. At best you're putting in 15 to 18 foot trees and you put those in and they aren't going to grow for a while. We're not going to see any canopy or shade or sight line improvement from landscaping while I'm alive. Maybe while my grand kids are. If you cut that sewer line down there, my calculations are if the peak of that lot is listed here as 969 feet and the lake is 881, and the sewer runs below the level of the lake, you're talking about maybe a 100 foot down to get that. You've got to have a column cut 200 feet wide to get down 100 feet without collapsing and killing those people putting that sewer down. So it might be a small comer that it runs through when all is said and done for the pipe but in order to get that pipe down to that length, you're going to have a real wide aisle cut through there or you're going to risk burying these guys that are putting that pipe in. And in addition I heard this issue on the beach lot to the dock and I can't talk to the history of this thing but I think somewhere in the minutes of when Rosemount was developed, when the trail was developed, when Lake Susan Hills was developed, there must be somewhere in the minutes there that there's some belief that that existing public access, which is extremely active if you spend any time around that lake, was providing adequate access and that to me is a big issue as far as safety on the lake. When you get on there on a weekend, we don't even let our kids on there because it's already active to the point with that public access that you get more 33 Planning Commission Meeting- June 2, 1999 than two boats on a lake that size, it becomes unsafe. So I think that hits all the issues that I had written on. Other than you said that the zoning for that area was already talked about but is there an overall density zoning ordinance in town for high density housing? Aanenson: The entire city has a future land use. There is guiding for different zonings throughout the community. This was given a PUD zoning.as Bob indicated in the item before. An Environmental Assessment document was done for the entire Villages on the Pond, including how we're going to handle storm water, tree removal and zoning and specific land use. This area was guided for higher density and given a total number of units on the site. Which it is consistent with. Peterson: While you're talking you want to address the beach lot issue also. Aanenson: Beach lot is a separate permit. They'd have to come back in and get a beach lot application. It would have to meet the criteria. But they'd have to go through another public hearing and a process to get that. Generous: Mr. Chairman, I did a quick review of that based on the ordinance. They have 770 feet of lake frontage. By ordinance they would be permitted up to 3 docks. 9 mooring sites. Aanenson: They have to have so many dedicated acreage though. I'm not sure they've got that. They've got to have so many acreage on the lake also. Dedicated for the beach lot. I'm not sure they meet that criteria. I haven't looked at that, but it is a separate process. Peterson: Anyone else wishing to address the commission? Barbara Jacoby: I'm Barbara Jacoby, 8516 Great Plains. You mentioned that you're going to put 322 units across 101. Did you not say that tonight? Generous: As part of the entire development, up to 322 dwelling units were approved. Barbara Jacoby: For both sides? Generous: Total, yes. Barbara Jacoby: Oh okay. I misunderstood, I'm sorry. Gene Klein: My name is Gene Klein, 8412 Great Plains Boulevard. I just had a question on the trail that's existing there now. Is that not a city trail? City parkland? Aanenson: No. Gene Klein: How can you put a beach lot in front of, on city parkland? 34 Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999 Hempel: Mr. Chairman, it's actually a trail easement 20 foot wide over the property. We do not own the property. We have the right for a trail across the property only. Gene Klein: That was my question. Peterson: Thank you. Tammy Harris: Hi. Tammy Harris, 8408 Great Plains Boulevard. I support all of the opinions shared by the others of my neighbors here in this room. Some of my concerns, actually my primary one deals with the traffic on 101. 101 is an extremely unsafe road. And I also have a question for you Dave. The MnDOT study that you had mentioned earlier. Were the conclusions of that that 85% of the drivers on 101 are driving the speed limit? Because you threw out a 85 percent figure and I invite all of you to my home someday and we'll sit on the lawn and gauge that. I just have a really hard time believing that. And I would urge the commission not to even consider this project until the results of an updated traffic impact study are completed. Also I'm concerned about tree preservation in the area. I find it kind of ironic that the plans are showing the removal of all these trees and they're talking about well let's tear them down but when we're done we'll relandscape and put trees back in. Why don't we just leave the existing trees there? Peterson: Thank you. A1 Klingelhutz: A1 Klingelhutz, 8600 Great Plains Boulevard. I guess a big concern to a lot of people on the lake is the use of the lake. When the public access was put in, Rosemount Engineering came in the subdivision west of the lake. It was agreed that there would be no more dockage on the lake. How many boats do they expect to put on these docks? On this dock off the lake. A big question. Has there ever been a study done to show how many boats at one time can be used on the lake? We heard before on weekends, and I live on the lake, and I won't even go out fishing on the lake. All I've got is a pontoon. But the one end is up as high as your desk there and the other end is down here. With all the waves on the lake at the present time and if we get any more boats on there, we won't even have a shoreline left because it's going to wash it all out. It's only a 90 acre lake and to expect to put much more on it, and I think it was agreed at the time and I'm sure it was. When Lake Susan Hills came in, they all had to stay back from the lake. They were above the bluff. Went into the open fields. No trees were removed. We had all the big oak trees and all the trees that were there previously. That is the buffer. Even from my place and I'm not far from Lake Susan Hills, I can barely see any houses in the whole subdivision because of all the original trees. I think Rosemount Engineering, that came in when I was Mayor of Chanhassen. We made them stay above the tree line with their building and that's 300 feet away from the lake. In the summertime when the trees are leafed out you can hardly see it. In the wintertime through the trees without any leaves, you can see Rosemount Engineering. 50 foot building. Somewhere in the ordinance, unless it was changed, we've got a 40 foot height limit in the city of Chanhassen. And I can remember that distinctly when, I don't know ifI was on the council or Mayor at the time, but some people wanted to even make it lower. I said well you can't do it because the farmer's silos are all over 40 feet. So they put in this limit of 40 feet. I can't quite understand how things can change when the policy has been established on a lake. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999 If there wouldn't have been any homes on Lake Susan, no one would have had access to the lake. It'd be just like Lake Ann. Lake Ann has no access on the lake. Now you want to get more people and 152 units, possibly 350 people with the kids or more, to be able to use that lake with a dock and they have every right to have a boat and go onto public access. So I definitely would be against any dockage for this many units on the lake. If you put homes on a, single family homes along the lake, how many homes would you get.'? You've got 387 feet and you take 90 to 100 feet for each home. You'd have about 38 homes. Here you're looking at 162 homes. That's quite a difference. Just where is the open space on this? Can you show me in the map? The open space on this property. So it's along the side of the lake. You get down to the south end of the lake where the creek runs. Are you going to put a ponding area on the south side of the creek? Aanenson: When 101 gets realigned, correct. A1 Klingelhutz: I don't know, after all the rains we've had, you have a ponding area there already because it was all water almost up to Armstrong's house. Was there any consideration on the traffic problem on 101 after new 212 starts dumping traffic onto it? Plus the fact that there's a lot of area south of Highway 212. Hundreds of acres yet that have got potential housing developments on it. Has that been figured into the study on traffic on Highway 101 ? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, I believe it has been addressed. Pre-212 and Post-212 development conditions. Peterson: Chances it will go four lane...so the road will be upgraded substantially prior to 212. Al Klingelhutz: I know the road will be upgraded. There's already a 200 foot alignment with two lanes on each side with a center island. How much will 101 be raised where the crosswalk goes underneath? (There was a tape change during Dave Hempel's answer to A1 Klingelhutz' question.) A1 Klingelhutz: ...That underground trail, you say the trail only has to be raised 4 to 6 feet or 2 feet? Are the people going to crawl through it? I mean most people are between 5 and 6 feet tall and you want them to be able to walk through it. The road isn't raised anyplace there at the present time that I know of. Hempel: No it's not Mr. Chairman. It's very similar to the Powers Boulevard trail south of Highway 5. Similar street design I believe and that trail crossing. Aanenson: Or the one at Coulter. Hempel: Or the one at Coulter. Aanenson: ...structure that's under grade. Have them other places in the city. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999 Peterson: Gradual descent with a path going down. Winding around. A1 Klingelhutz: The new trail doesn't show on this map. Aanenson: Not yet. A1 Klingelhutz: ... Aanenson: 101's on this side. A1 Klingelhutz: ...How about the lighting? Is there going to be as much lighting as they made St. Hubert's put up? Sometimes I look at that as light pollution, not as something that's really pretty to look at. Peterson: Bob, do you want to address the lighting issue? A1 Klingelhutz: What? Peterson: I'm asking Bob to address the lighting question. Generous: Where do you start? It was in St. Hubert's proposal for security purposes. They recommended that lighting. We don't believe that this site will have as much lighting. Their parking area is very limited. The buildings will frame the lighting if you will, or will corral it all so it's concentrated in the center of their project. As development in the Villages on the Pond comes forward, a lot of this spillover lighting will be eliminated. Unfortunately it's vacant now and so you can see it for miles. Aanenson: Also we've changed our ordinance to require the cutoff lighting since that has been approved so... Al Klingelhutz: ...every time I look out of the picture window over the lake and I see all the lights up at Lake Susan...the waste of electricity. I've talked to Father Steve here a while ago and he says you know what our electric bill is? $3,500.00 a month. That's a lot of money. And a lot of it is wasted on way too many lights there. On the south end or the southwest end there is no bluff there. When we're set back...where the bluff is. Peterson: Ask that question again. Aanenson: Where they're showing it is where they're going to be. I mean there's a topo map that shows that. We'd be happy to sit down with anybody that wants to go through the topo maps or look through any of this. We'd be happy to sit down and explain it to them. But we've got the bluff outline on the topography, the topo map showing where that is and how the buildings relate to it. They cannot be in the bluff impact zone. They are not in the bluff impact zone. They're required to stay out of it by ordinance. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999 Peterson: be... So Al, if you want to sit down with staff maybe afterwards and go through that, they'd Al Klingelhutz: Okay. I guess that's all. Aanenson: IfI can make one more clarification about the beach lot. They are not applying for a beach lot at this time. That was brought up during the environmental assessment document. We know it's a sensitive issue. There's certain criteria they have to meet in order to get a beach lot. It has to be a separate lot. They'd have to split offa separate lot. Dedicated for the beach lot. It has to be a minimum of 30,000 square feet with 200 feet of frontage. That gives them one dock with three boats and then they would need additional square footage and additional frontage to get that. We're not sure that they've got the property to accomplish it at this time. It's not being proposed at this time. Does that mean they may not come back and ask it in the future? They may. But it's not being considered at this time. Make sure everybody's clear on that. Peterson: Thank you. Other comments? Brad Willmsen: My name is Brad Willmsen, 8510 Great Plains Boulevard. You just commented on that the beach lot is not being proposed right now. But I'd like to address it anyway just to, I'd like to give my feelings on it. 90 acres is a small lake. It's got to be one of the smallest lakes in Chanhassen. Right now it's in, being that small, heavy rains the level of that lake goes up and down very fast so since we had so much rain this spring, with all the activity we have now on that lake, the shorelines really take a beating a lot because the water levels can be really high quite often. And if you put that many more people with direct access to the lake and just to me it seems like that's just too much for that small of a lake. So I just wanted to express that. Thanks. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, motion and a second to close the public hearing. Blackowiak moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners. Anybody want to offer their, any comments on this one? Joyce: Could I ask a quick question Mr. Chairman of the. Kate, just so I understand this. Can you give us right.now, I know this isn't an issue but I think there is an issue for everybody here. Do you feel comfortable telling us right now what would be the maximum amount of docks or boats that, if they were requested. Aanenson: First of all they'd have to create a separate lot. A beach lot. I'm not sure how they could carve out a 30,000 square foot lot. When this originally, the original PUD came forward, the developer had looked at putting a recreational area down there. A tennis courts and some other facilities. The staff at that point was adamant against that. We wanted to leave this open. Certainly with the property being sold, they have a right to come back and request but they do 38 Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999 have to create a separate lot that has to have a minimum square footage just to get one dock of 30,000 square feet. 200 feet of shoreline. To get one dock which would allow 3 boats. I'm not sure that you'd want to approve that subdivision to create that lot. That's the first issue. Joyce: So I mean what we're saying is they, even if we were to approve that, you're only talking about three slips? Aanenson: Right. You may not choose to approve that subdivision. And then it would be a conditional use. You can attach any conditions you want to mitigate the impact. Our original recommendation from the staff was not to. Now if they came back and said we'd like to put a dock out there for people to go out and sit on, put a bench on the end. You may agree at some time in the future. Again they're not asking for that tonight but you may in the future decide that might be something, an amenity that you may want to put there as long as there's no boat launching or something like that. You could put those kind of conditions in there but we did look at that at the original proposal. Joyce: The other question I had, after listening to this and after listening to some of the commissioners comments is, I'm a little sketchy on what kind of buffers we were talking about. When we were talking about taking down those trees. I know Ladd you questioned how much of those were going to come down and, again just maybe some feedback from you. Do you have a good feel for what? Aanenson: Right, and I think the architect brought up a good point too as far as locating some of the trees~ We want to put those in the area where they're doing the best to buffer. Obviously the residents enjoy looking at that treed area. It is a significant stand of trees and making sense to put them down in that lower end if we're taking down for the ponding. Working and siting them in the best location to block the buildings and to mitigate the impact of losing those trees where the pond is. So that's something that we would work at between now and when this goes to City Council. Try to develop a better landscaping plan. Joyce: I'm just, I guess I'm on the fence whether we wait to see that. Maybe everyone would be more comfortable. I think there were three issues here. There's the recreational lot. Aanenson: Well the recreational lot's not before you. Joyce: It's not an issue so, as far as I'm concerned it's not an issue for me but I'm just saying it was an issue with the other people and I think maybe we've addressed that. Secondly is these trees that are coming down and their view sheds of what's happening with this project. And then thirdly is the traffic and I don't think that's ever going to be resolved so, where I'm at is just, I'm concerned about landscape I guess. I'm just throwing those, I don't have an answer. I'm just saying. I'm a little uncomfortable about it. Peterson: Kate can you, we can make that a condition prior to going to council that the landscaping issue be addressed more thoroughly, is the easy way out .... comfortable doing that as a commission. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999 Aanenson: Again we go back, our comfort level is there because we worked on the original environmental. We saw what was going to come out in the replacement. We looked at where the storm water was going to go and the traffic analysis so while some of you are newer, you're looking at it in a narrow time warp. We're looking at this over the life of and there are certain things that we recognize we would be giving up to be getting on the other side. Preservation of the bluff was important. We knew we would lose some of the interior trees but we want to preserve the bluffand the significant trees. And what they're agreed to in working with Jill is to go back and do a reforestation or rePlanting. Certainly we understand the concern of what they're going to look at, the neighbors across the lake and reducing that sight line and making it pleasant and trying to get it back. Are they going to be tall, some of the tall cottonwoods that are there now? No. I think we are going to preserve the significant stands. The no touch zones on the bluff and the north end at Rosemount. But there will be trees coming down. Peterson: Other comments? Kind: One more tree question that came up with one of the neighbors asked about the holding pond area. Will any of the trees right along the shoreline be preserved or do they all go away to create that pond? Aanenson: They should be preserved. Generous: Should be preserved. We have a strip that they're not grading into. Aanenson: I mean there's a buffer between the pond doesn't go right to the lake. Hempel: As well as along Riley Creek. Kind: So you won't be able to see Lake Susan from 101 when you're driving by? Hempel: I'd say there's probably going to be.openings in the trees because I mean you've got a swath of trees out there, 150-200 feet wide now. That may be narrowed up to 20 feet from the shore with trees left so. Peterson: Other comments? Burton: I have a question for staff again. On the, with respect to traffic and the study that they're being required to do. If the study shows that say they need a light at 101 and Main Street, does that mean that they can just go ahead and build a light there? Since they have to implement whatever it shows. Can they go ahead and put a light in if that's what their study shows? Hempel: If the study recommends that that be installed, then another step has to occur and that's with MnDOT to go through a traffic signal justification report it's called so it does take some time. And MnDOT would look to the city and/or developer probably to have that installed. 40 Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999 Blackowiak: But Dave would that be then, before the development's started? Hempel: Concurrence with the development, yes. It's going to take them many months to build this out. 120 days. Something like that to build this out. Aanenson: 18 months complete. Blackowiak: 18 months? Aanenson: To get all the units, yes. Burton: How long does it take to do a traffic study? Hempel: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. Burton: How long does it take to do a traffic study? Hempel: I would imagine that the original traffic study can be updated within 30 days. Peterson: Other questions? Conrad: Just some comments and maybe they're more comments than questions for the people that are here. I think their concerns were, are addressed in the staff report right now and you're probably not look at it but the lighting issue is addressed in the staff report. Landscaping issue is addressed in the staff report. And a third, the traffic study is addressed. It's there so whatever the motion is, if it's pro or con, it's those things are being looked at. Their concern of the staff and of us. In my mind it's probably good to send the 'signal to the developer that there's a concern with the beach lot so although it's not up tonight, there's a concern. The lake can handle five boats properly. Based on 20 acres per boat is what the DNR sets as a standard. So it's a tough one Al. I live with that all the time when I see boats out on lakes but there are standards out there but the beach lot is, when it comes back, it should be, I would sure like to see it. If it's there, more of a passive beach lot. I think it's a good project. I like the looks of it personally. I like, I think there's some really nice things. Underground parking is nice. I think the real issue, and you've heard it and I'm just going to repeat it because if I make the motion it's going to be there. I think we do have to look very directly at the ponding and the landscaping around the ponding and the buffering from 101. I think that's a real imposition on the lake owners right now and we've got to look at it and I'm going to be recommending, or whoever makes the motion, that we take a certain look at that and that we get the developer to do some perspectives for us so we can see it. And I'm not too terribly. I like the building elevations that they've presented there. Good looking elevations. To me they are so I think you're getting some quality stuff in there. We've known about this project, or about things happening for a long time so it's sort of probably shocking when you see it coming in but it's not a surprise to me. And no matter what, you're going to end up with ponding. No matter what... It's going to happen. But that's, those are the key things. Again, I just think everybody should know in the staff report are some 41 Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999 reviews. Critical reviews of the things that you brought up. I don't think anything was left out to my knowledge. Peterson: Thank you. Other comments? Questions? Hearing none, is there a motion and a second? Conrad: I would make that Mr. Chairman. I would move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #99-9 for a three building apartment development within Villages on the Pond development. Each building will be three stories with 54 units for a total of 162, plans prepared by KKE dated 4/16/99, subject to the conditions of the staff report 1 through 47 with the following changes. On condition 26. That the developer and staff review the landscaping that would be between or around the new holding pond and Highway 101. And to present this, a perspective of that to the City Council. With the intent, this doesn't have to be in the motion. But with the intent that we're trying to buffer noise and sight from the current homeowners. Condition 48. I would like to have the applicant show a perspective from the lake of the building with the tree coverage as, showing the amount of building that is seen from maybe across the lake. I think that's important to see. Condition number 49. That the staff review the, with the applicant, the median dividing the entry to the site to see if it adds to character but not at the expense of congestion or hazard. I'd be open to any other friendly amendments .... thanks Bob. Would you like me to note condition 39 as to the revision? Is that all I need to do? And then we would revise condition 39 in the staff report per the handout that we received tonight from staff on June 2nd. Joyce: Is there a traffic study in one of these conditions? Conrad: Yeah. Yeah, there sure is. The traffic study would be done before this got approved. Joyce: Okay. Burton: That's 36. Conrad: Would you like to make any kind of amendment to that? I don't know what I'd do. Burton: I'm not sure what I would say either. Peterson: There's a motion on the table. Conrad: I think you'd better second my motion and then there could be a friendly amendment. Joyce: I'll second the motion. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Kind: I have an offer for a friendly amendment. 46(b). Parking spaces must meet city ordinance of 2 per unit. What do you think? Okay, doesn't work. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999 Peterson: Is that accepted? Conrad: No. Peterson: Other discussion points? One thing I'd like to note, the applicant really hasn't locked in their materials yet and I think prior to Council I really would like to at least have staff work with them to be sure that the chimney has been picked out and materials and the exact materials are picked out. It's a sizable enough project that let's be sure we do it right. It's been moved and seconded, any further discussion? Conrad moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan//99-9 for a three building apartment development within the Villages on the Ponds development on Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds 6th Addition, each building will be three stories with 54 units for a total of 162 units, plans prepared by KKE, dated 4/16/99, subject to the following conditions: The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. Site plan approval is contingent on the city granting final plat approval for Outlot J, Villages on the Ponds, creating a block and lot designation for the site upon which the apartment complex is to be built. o A minimum of 20 percent of the units shall be affordable for a period of not less than 25 years from the date of certification of occupancy for the three buildings. Project identification signs shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than five feet in height. A separate sign permit shall be required prior to the installation of signage. o All rooftop or ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from public right-of-ways by walls of compatible appearing material or camouflaged to blend into the building or background. o A lighting plan shall be submitted to the city for review and approval prior to site construction. Wall pack units must be screened so that they do are not directly visible from off site. Development of a beach lot shall require separate Conditional Use Permit approval by the city. The applicant shall pay park and trail fees at the time of building permit application pursuant to city ordinance. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999 o An additional two fire hydrants will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. 10. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, bushes, shrubs, NSP, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. 11. Submit radius mm dimensions in parking lots to determine fire department vehicle access. Submit mm dimensions to Chanhassen City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. Pursuant to 902.2.2.3, 1997 Uniform Fire Code. 12. Required access. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided in accordance with Sections 901 and 902.2 for every facility, building or portion of a building, hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction of any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building that is located more than 150 feet from fire apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. Exceptions - #2. When access roads cannot be installed due to location on property, topography, waterways, negotiable grades or other similar conditions, the Chief is authorized to require additional fire protection as specified in Section 1001.9. Because apparatus access roads are'not accessible to within 150 feet of all portions of the building we are requiring the following additional fire protection features. a. Fire sprinkler the attic space with an approved NFPA 13 system. b. Provide fire sprinkler protection in the underground parking garage with an approved NFPA 13 system. c. Provide class III standpipes in all stairwells at each floor. d. Note: The building itself will be required to be fire sprinklered per the building code. All fire sprinkler plans must be submitted to the Fire Marshal/Inspector for review and approval. 13. Fire lane signage and yellow curbing will be determined by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of fire lane signs and curbing to be painted yellow. Pursuant to Section 904-1, 1997 Uniform Fire Code. 14. The buildings shall comply with Chanhassen Fire Department policy regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29- 1992. Copy enclosed. 15. If any trees are to be removed, they must either be chipped or hauled off site. Due to close proximity of neighboring homes no burning permits will be issued. 16. Regarding the existing buildings on site to be removed, contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for determination if any buildings can be burned if they prove training value. 44 Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999 17. Install and indicate on utility plans locations for PIV (Post Indicator Valve). Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. 18. Timing of installation. When fire protection, including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to Section 901.3, 1997 Uniform Fire Code. 19. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding fire department notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy 04-1991. Copy enclosed. 20. Demolition permits must be obtained to demolish the existing structures and utilities, wells and sewage treatment systems must be abandoned. 21. The site utility plan was not reviewed at this time. 22. Access for people with disabilities must be provided to all facilities. 23. The building owner and or designer should meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 24. Tree protection fencing shall be installed around all areas designated for preservation. 25. The number of overstory trees shall be increased to meet minimum reforestation requirements. 26. Developer and staff shall review landscaping between and around the pond and Highway 101 to assure adequate buffering. 27. Grading within the bluff and bluff setback areas shall be prohibited. The applicant shall redesign the site facilities and/or incorporate the use of retaining walls to eliminate grading into the bluff setback zone. 28. Utility improvements which lie outside of the public right-of-way for drainage and utility easements shall be privately owned and maintained by the applicant or successors. 29. The existing house and outbuildings on the property shall be razed within 30 days after final plat is recorded. In addition, the well and septic system shall be abandoned in accordance with local and state health/building codes. 30. The access point onto Trunk Highway 101 is subject to MnDOT approval. The applicant will be responsible for obtaining all necessary permits for construction of the right-turn lanes and 45 Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999 all work within Highway 101 right-of-way. 31. The applicant shall design and construct the public utility improvements in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and' specifications for the public improvements shall be submitted to city staff for review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat approval. The applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract with the final plat and provide financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the public improvements. 32. The applicant shall report to the city engineer the location of any draintile found during construction. The applicant will comply with the city engineer's direction as far as abandonment or relocation of the draintile. 33. The applicant shall develop a temporary sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH) to control erosion during construction. Additional Type I erosion control fencing will be required around the grading limits along Highway 101. Wood fiber blanket and/or sod shall be utilized at all slopes in excess of 3:1 and in the ditches along Highway 101. 34. The driveway access from Highway 101 to the site shall be a minimum of 36 feet wide, back- to-back with concrete curb and gutter with a left turn lane, shared through right turn drive aisle. The main driveway aisle width from the garage entrances to the parking lot shall be 28-feet wide, face-to-face. A 6-foot wide sidewalk shall be constructed along the north side of the driveway aisle from Highway 101 to the sidewalk proposed for Building A. 35. All private streets/parking lots shall be constructed in accordance with the City's Ordinance No. 20-1118 which requires a minimum 26-foot wide driveway aisle built to 7-ton design. 36. The applicant shall update the traffic study prepared by SRF for Villages on the Ponds to take into consideration the additional apartment building gaining access at the intersection of Main Street and Highway 101 and install any necessary traffic mitigation measures recommended in the updated traffic study. 37. The applicant shall be responsible for providing an interim trail connection around Lake Susan to the pedestrian crossing at Highway 101 during construction. This interim trail section may consist of a class V gravel surface. 38. The applicant shall petition the City to vacate trail easements which will be no longer utilized. In addition, the applicant shall rededicate to the City a new 20-foot wide trail easement centered upon the new trail alignment. 39. Sanitary sewer service to the site shall be extended to the connection at the manhole adjacent to the trail as shown on the plans. A reforestation plan in addition to the landscaping already required for the project shall be prepared and submitted to the city for approval to replace the 46 Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999 trees removed due to the sewer line extension. The water line shall be jacked underneath Highway 101. Open cutting on Highway 101 will not be permitted. 40. The applicant shall be responsible for the extension of the trunk storm sewer from the proposed regional stormwater pond to the driveway entrance to the site. The applicant will be entitled to credits against the SWMP fees for installation of the trunk storm sewer line in accordance the City's Surface Water Management Plan. 41. Plans shall be revised to incorporate an outlet control structure in the regional pond. The outlet control structure shall be located on the southwesterly comer of the pond to discharge into the creek versus Lake Susan: 42. The applicant shall re-evaluate the water needs due to the fact that a looped water system is not available. 43. If material is imported or exported from the site, the applicant will need to provide the City with a detailed haul route for review and approval. If the material is to be imported or exported to/from another site in Chanhassen, it should be noted that those other parcels will be required to obtain an earthwork permit from the City. 44. The applicant shall be responsi~'~. agencies such as the Minnesot. DNR, MPCA and MnDOT. tbr obtaining the necessary permits from the regulatory ~.partment of Health, MCES, Watershed District, Minnesota 45. The applicant shall submit det~:,.',t storm sewer and pond calculations for post- and pre- development conditions.' The c:.,~culations shall be for a 1 O-year and 100-year, 24-hour storm event. The pond shall be designed in accordance with the Villages on the Ponds storm drainage plan (NURP standards). 46. The applicant shall redesign the parking lot per staffs alternate parking lot plan dated May 12, 1999. 47. Either the site developer or the Villages on the Ponds developer must establish 0.37 acres of new wetlands to fulfill the obligation of the Wetland Alteration Permit. 48. The applicant shall provide to City Council a perspective from the lake of the development with the preserved tree coverage. 49. Staff shall review with the applicant the installation of a median at the entrance with respect to congestion and traffic hazards." All voted in favor, except Blackowiak and Kind who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 2. Peterson: The two people who said nay, would you like to make comments for the same please. 47 Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999 Blackowiak: I have three major comments. First I think the development is premature. We should not go ahead with this until 101 is upgraded. You're effectively land locking the residents with no safe crosswalks which I think is contrary to the pedestrian oriented nature of the Villages. So you're going to set them over there and say, they're in a pedestrian friendly environment but you take your life in your hands if you cross 101 so hop in your car and drive across the road. Secondly I think the sewer on the southeast corner is a mistake. I don't think it's in the city's best interest and we're not getting bluff preservation with that. And finally, I think that the beach lot will be coming. I don't care that it's not here tonight. I think that the issue needs to be addressed with the preliminary plat and show some possibilities for a beach lot because it will be coming. Kind: I echo what Alison said and I also have concern about parking. I've lived in apartment buildings. They have shortage of parking spots and it's no fun. Peterson: Okay. This goes on to Council on the 14th of this month. Thank you. Generous: No, the 28th. Peterson: The 28th of this month. So noted. Thank you all for coming and your comments. REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A %800 SQ. FT. SWIM SCHOOL TO BE LOCATED ON OUTLOT G~ VILLAGES ON THE PONDS 6TM ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD~ PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-MIXED USE AND LOCATED AT CORNER OF GRANDVIEW ROAD AND LAKE DRIVEl JON FOSS SWIM SCHOOL. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Any questions of staff?. Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman I've got a couple questions. Both have to do with building size. Building size and lot size. First I see that the lot size is listed at 2.4 acres. I'm wondering where you're finding those. And then my second question has to do with the sheet that I have, this old sheet from Villages and it lists all the different lot numbers. And I've kind of kept it. And according to this, this is Lot 15 or Building 15. It's listed as a one story, 8,825 square foot building. And I'm wondering if that is the high end. Is the building too large for that piece. Generous: The 2.4 is actually a mistake. They were showing all ofOutlot G. So it's gotten smaller. They're revising that plat and that will be going to Council June 14th. Exceeding that number. Within the Villages we're trading off all over. We have a cap that we cannot exceed and so we're still under that. Blackowiak: Okay, so then what is the impervious coverage with the new acreage? So if it's not 2.4, how big is it? What percentage are we at with? 48 Page 1 0fl Karen Engelhardt From: Matt Noah [noah@twistedpair. net] Sent: Monday, June 21, 1999 9:16 PM To: matt. noah@pobox.com Subject: Lake Susan Development I signed a petition last evening requesting that the city stop plans for a proposed 162-unit apartment complex on Lake Susan. I would ask that you vote AGAINST this proposed complex if and when it comes up for a vote. Please let me know how you intend to vote on this issue and your reasons for your vote. I want to share my main reasons for opposing this complex. 1. Too much traffic in and around St. Hubert's grade school. This poses a safety risk. 2. The complex would be along the route my children will eventually walk or bike to St. Hubert's. 3. Renters don't display the same respect for property and the surrounding environs as property owners. 4. The recreational use of Lake Susan would change dramatically. There are fewer than 162 - by a great deal - units on the lake right now. Yet, the park and lake enjoy a balanced amount of use. Adding 162 units would deluge the facilities. 5. Property values on the lake and near the lake would decrease. 6. Added population in and around the lake would pose a greater crime risk. 7. The housing would not be in keeping with the rest of the character of the lake. Respectfully, Matt Noah 980 Lake Susan Hills Drive Chanhassen (612)-974-9483 fax: 974-9482 06/23/1999