The URL can be used to link to this page

6 Powers Ridge Apt Homes - Z =t :..> J 1.. 1- =t I::( - ~ J.J - - './) CITY OF CHANßASSEH b. - PC DATE: January 5,2000 CC DATE: February 14, 2000 REVIEW DEADLINE: Mar. 31, 2000 SE #: 87-3 PUD, 99-19 SPR 99-14 SUB STAFF By:AI-Jaff:v REPORT PROPOSAL: I. Preliminary Plat Approval to replat 21.34 acres, Outlot A, Lake Susan Hills, into 4 Lots, 2. Site Plan Approyal for the construction of Phase I of five multi-family buildings (344 apartments units) 30. Planned Unit Development amendment to allow 33.7% hard surface coverage. LOCATION: Southwest comer of Powers Boulevard and Lake Drive West and east of Sunset Park. APPLICANT: Lake Susan Hills Partnership 7600 Parklawn Avenue, Suite 200 Edina, MN 55435 Attn. Tom Ries (612) 835-7600 anne ill eve DENSITY: 16.1 uIa (gross) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential High Density (8-16 uIa) SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval to replat 21.34 acres, into 4 Lots. Each lot will be occupied by an apartment building, which requires site plan review. The buildings will be constructed in four phases. The total number of proposed units is 344. The site is zoned PUD-R and is guided for High Density Residential. The standards of this specific PUD require the development to maintain a 32% hard surface coverage, which the applicant is proposing to exceed. The proposed change in the hard surface standard requires a Planned Unit Development amendment. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet LEVEL OF DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's "discretion in approving or denying a site plan is limited to whether or not the proposed project complies with Zoning Ordinance requirements. If it meets these standards, the City must then approve the site plan. This is a quasi- judicial decision. The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving amendments to PUD's because the City is acting in its legislative or policy making capacity. A rezoning or PUD, and amendment thereto, must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. ---- Park Road ~ -L- ,~ ~r~ \ W\ ~ ~~ l~ I C- 'r-\- '& ~ ~ î\o-~~~ \.a.\<.e Drive 1 Essex Rd ~ 2&~~ Q ~ Burlwood Dr ~' ) -7 ~·00.fßl ~~ fcf"c~ / ~ (fri Ii."" c cò, ¡y ~ % /::3 '1=1 ~ é ~'~;}~J1I;gh 't,"~~' ß I'd 5 ",&1, ~' 7(f .~'. ..JI ~ 1; J r-= e ~ ~ 1firl' ,~~t'~"'i,<Jn~~ ~ 3.8acV þ¡~i~ ~ l ~ :J~ ~\ b r--- ~ (lil' /; '" m,! :<0' . '" ,- foi I KÇ ~ lIi='/ I \ 'S" '" '. C vrn ':è. -I!' ' - _I~ ì ~ '" - 5 / ò L~I;----- , )/'= =-"'" 10 I 'Ü Á r ''1'''''1 ?;::\~j h¡;;). C '\f)l¡ ;\.~¡J,<I , . >fjØ;çXifffi ø ~(~' / ~~ti - ' .~\ ~ 35 44 rt \(i{W. ill .a. ~~ ~~~ _'" ~"" c---, L L_ ~ - . Ie. .....--. \P~o/ /" \.a.¥-,e '" N " 21.82 ac - I ( f- ::::! ~ -... - 91 I c: :J en - _L ~= - ~~ I~ it è)fð Û T - / ~yman Blvd (C.R. 18) I = I Powers Ridge Apartment Homes February 14, 2000 Page 2 proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi-judicial decision. This application has gone through several revisions since it first appeared before the Planning Commission. Some of the revisions include elimination of parking variances, wetland alterations, layout of the site, etc. Rather than edit the staff report that appeared before the Planning Commission, staff opted to write a new report. ' RACKl;ROIJNn In 1987, the city approved a mixed density PUD for Lake Susan Hills. The PUD permitted up to 411 single family units, created 3 outlots for medium density units and one outlot for high density units (Attachment #1). The PUD also created open spaces that were dedicated to the City as parkland. The single family lots have been platted in nine additions since the PUD approval. One of the outlots (Outlot C), designated for medium density units, was platted in April 1993 for 24 units. The second outlot (Outlot B), also designated for medium density units, was platted on April 1 0, 1995, for 48 units. The third outlot (Oultot D) was platted in May 1995. The remaining high density outlot (Outlot A) is the subject of this proposal. The following is a breakdown of the approved PUD: AREA PUD BUILT Hard Surface Hard Surface RSF 199 ACRES 25% Less than 25% R-12-A 21.5 ACRES 32% Proposed 33.7%* R-8-B 11.5 ACRES 30% 35% R-8-C 4.4 ACRES 31% 40% R-8-D 7.9 ACRES 27% 35% PARK-F 18.1 ACRES 0% P ARK-G 9.8 ACRES 0% PARK-H 3.9 ACRES 0% PARK-E 55.9 ACRES 0% TOTAL 332 ACRES * The applicant can meet the hard surface coverage requirement of 32% by eliminating the community building and internal sidewalks. Staff strongly believes that these are essential amenities that should remain as part of the development. Outlot A is designated as Multiple Family (High Density Residential). The PUD contract states that the development shall provide a minimum of 21.5 acres of high density multiple family residential units. The total number of dwelling units of high density multiple family residential property shall not exceed 375, or a density greater than 17.4 units/acre. Except as modified herein, the development of the high density multiple family residential shall be in accordance with the uses, standards, and requirements of the R-12 Zoning District. Powers Ridge Apartment Homes February 14,2000 Page 3 Standards applicable to this site (Outlot A) include: · The developer shall provide buffer areas, acceptable to the city, between multiple family and single family areas to assure adequate transition between uses, including use of berms, landscaping, and setbacks from lot lines. · The developer shall not damage or remove any trees except as indicated on the grading and tree removal plans to be approved by the city and submitted with each plat. Trees shall be protected ITom destruction by snow fences, flagging, staking or other similar means during grading and construction. · The maximum percentage of allowable impervious surface on Outlot A is 32%. · The developer shall provide $500.00 oflandscaping per multiple family unit. · The multiple family development shall be responsible for 50% of the required park fees and no trail fees (the ordinance requires $1,000 per unit, 50% of that amount is $500.00 per unit). · The development will be responsible for Water Quality fees of $1 ,640 per acre and Water Quantity fees of $4,360 per acre. PROPOSAL SIIMMARV The applicant is requesting preliminary plat, site plan approval, and PUD amendment to construct five apartment buildings (344 units) on Outlot A. The buildings are proposed to be built in four phases. Phase I is an "L" shaped building, located along the northeast comer of the site, containing I 00 units (Building A). Phase II consist of two buildings (BI & B2) connected through an underground garage. These buildings contain a total of 80 units. The community space (community room, swimming pool, wading pool, picnic area, fountain, etc.) will also be constructed as part of Phase II. Phase III is building C. This building is located parallel to Lake Drive West and contain 88 units. The fourth and final phase is a 76 unit Senior Independent Living Apartments (Building D). Outlot A was designated as a high density site as part of the Lake Susan Hills PUD approval. The apartments are proposed to be market rate rental and to be located on 4 lots. The 21.34 acre site is bordered by single family homes ~Lake Susan Hills 151 Addition) to the south, industrial sites (Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7 & 8th Additions) and Lake Drive West to the north, Powers Boulevard and Lake Susan Hills Townhomes to the east, and Sunset Park to the west. The gross density is 16.1 units per acre. Access will be provided through two entrances on Lake Drive West. The site is currently zoned PUD, guided for High Density Residential. Utilities are available for the area. Staff has been working with the applicant for several months. The plans have gone through several changes. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting to inform the homeowners of this proposal and to listen to concerns. Additional changes continued to evolve in response to these concerns. Staff held a neighborhood meeting to explain the process to the neighbors. In order for the City to process Powers Ridge Apartment Homes February 14,2000 Page 4 this application in a timely manner, staff will briefly surmnarize the other options that were investigated and analyze the official plans submitted to the City on December 3, 1999, and revised on February 2, 2000. The final plans appear to be the most viable. They meet or exceed the PUD requirements with the exception of the hard surface coverage. Staff will briefly compare them to other options that have been submitted in sketch form, responding to neighborhood concerns. There are compromises with each option. The single family homeowners prefer a low profile building with an increased setback. Over the last two months, the applicant revised the plans by increasing the setbacks to meet today's buffer ordinance and setback requirements rather than the 1987 PUD requirements. The plans have also included higher quantity and quality landscape materials. The applicant is attempting to meet ordinance requirements and address neighborhood concerns while building a feasible project. With these issues in mind, the following are the four options (refer to attachment 2, sketches). Option 1: This option contains four 3-story buildings. Building B, which is located north of the single family homes, is approximately 600 feet long. The buildings maintain a 100 foot setback from adjoining properties. Hard surface coverage and underground parking standards are not met. Option 2: (Full scale plans submitted on December 3,1999 and revised on February 2, 2000). This option contains five 3-story buildings. Building B, which is located north of the single family homes, was split into 2 buildings, approximately 250 feet long each. These two buildings are connected through the underground garage and are located on a single lot. The buildings maintain a minimum 137 foot setback from adjoining properties to the south. Hard surface coverage, while closer to meeting the PUD requirements than option I, is still not met. Option 3: This option contains four 3-story buildings. Building B, which is located north of the single family homes, was reconnected into a single building (approximately 500 feet long). The applicant added two level underground parking to meet ordinance requirements. The buildings maintain a 100 foot setback from adjoining properties. Hard surface coverage and underground parking meet ordinance requirements. Option 4: This option contains four buildings. Buildings A and D are three stories high. Building B is two stories high but rises to 3 stories in the center (total of 6 apartments on the third floor). Building A is a 3 story building but rises to a four story in the center (total of 12 apartments on the fourth floor). It provides two-level underground parking. The height of Building A is 45 feet at the midpoint of the roof and 53 feet at the peek of the roof. The ordinance allows a maximum height of 40 feet. Building B maintains a 125 foot setback, which exceeds ordinance requirements. The hard surface coverage and underground parking do not meet ordinance requirements, however, the applicant is proposing to provide proof of parking which, if built, will increase the hard surface coverage. COMPLETE ANALYSIS OF OPTION 2-0FFICIAL PLANS SUBMITTED DECEMBER 3, 1999 AND REVISED ON FEBRUARY 2, 2000: Density: This proposal is for five 3 story buildings (344 apartments) with a gross density of 16.1 units per acre. The site plan approval is for Building A only. The remaining buildings are proposed Powers Ridge Apartment Homes February 14,2000 Page 5 as future phases and as each phase prepares to be built, the applicant must receive site plan approval for it. The site is zoned PUD, high density residential. The PUD agreement specifies that the total number of multi family units on Outlot A, shall not exceed 375, or a density greater than 17.4 units/acre. The number of units on this site are less than that permitted by the agreement. Hard Surface Coverage: The PUD agreement specifies a maximum hard surface coverage on the site not to exceed 32%. The applicant is proposing 33.7% hard surface coverage. The PUD agreement states "Except as modified herein, the development of the high density multiple family residential shall be in accordance with the uses, standards, and requirements of the R-12 Zoning District". The R-12 zoning district permits a maximum hard surface coverage of 35%. The current PUD ordinance allows a maximum hard surface coverage of 50% for multi family. The R-16 district, which has a similar density to the subject development, permits a maximum hard surface coverage of 50%. The total density of this site is less than that permitted in the PUD, however, the hard surface coverage exceeds the PUD requirements by 1.7%. A similar situation existed with the medium density sites in which the hard surface coverage was amended. In the case of Prairie Creek T ownhomes, the PUD allowed a 31 % hard surface coverage, and the applicant was permitted 24 units, which required a 40% hard surface coverage. In the case of Powers Place, the PUD allowed 30% hard surface coverage, and the applicant was permitted 48 units, which required a 35% hard surface coverage. In the case of Lake Susan Hills Townhomes, the applicant was permitted 34 townhomes, which required a 35% hard surface coverage. It is reasonable to expect a higher density to require higher hard surface coverage. The applicant can meet the hard surface coverage requirement of 32% by eliminating the community building and internal sidewalks. Staff strongly believes that these are essential amenities that should remain as part of the development. Staffis recommending approval of35% hard surface coverage. Parking: The PUD governing this proposal requires parking to meet the R-12 standards. Parking plans have been revised to meet ordinance requirements. Under the R-12 parking district requirements, the applicant must provide 2 parking spaces per unit, one and a half of which must be enclosed. Senior Housing parking requirement may be reduced due to the low demand generated by seillors. The total enclosed parking required is 478. The applicant is providing 478 enclosed spaces. For individual buildings, the enclosed parking may exceed or be short of ordinance requirements, as shown in the table below Building A B C D Total # Of Units 100 80 88 76 344 Enclosed Parking Provided 136 129 124 89 478 Enclosed Parking Required 150 120 132 76 478 Powers Ridge Apartment Homes February 14, 2000 Page 6 Surface parking is required at a ratio of 0.5 space per unit and I visitor parking per 4 units. This translates to a total of258 surface parking spaces which the applicant is providing. Architecture/Site Plan: The proposal is for five 3 story buildings, each with underground parking. Each building will provide approximately 2,400 square feet of community space for uses such as multi-purpose room, exercise room, library, hobbies, etc. In addition, the buildings will share one community space in the center of the five apartment buildings. This location serves two purposes. It is centrally located and it breaks up the parking lot by redirecting the focus to the activities in the center. This space is proposed to include a one story 2,020 square foot community use building, swimming and wading pools, playground for younger children, picnic area, gardens, and fountain. Sidewalks surround the community space making it pedestrian friendly. The apartment buildings are proposed to range between I and 3 bedroom apartments. Each apartment has a deck (the applicant has converted the decks on Building B, facing the neighbors, to Bay Windows as a response to the neighborhood request). The exterior materials on all buildings will consist of brick and siding. All buildings are similar in design. The colors are proposed to be muted, earth tones. PRF.I.IMIN A RV PI.A T The applicant is subdividing 21.34 acres of property zoned PUD-R into 4 parcels for apartment buildings and a community space. The property is designated by the Comprehensive Plan as Residential High Density (8-16 Units/Acre). The subject site is Outlot A from the Lake Susan Hills PUD and was created as a high density residential site. The proposed buildings maintain a minimum 137 foot setback from the existing residential single family homes to the south, 100 feet from Sunset Park to the west (which are part of the Lake Susan Hills PUD). The buildings are also proposed to maintain 50 feet from Lake Drive West. There are no internal setbacks since the site is serviced internally by a private street. COMPLIANCE TABLE Rd2 mil Prnj""t Propo."] Orrl1nßnr.p. Hard Surface Coverage 35% 32% 33.7% Setback from Collector 25 feet NA 50 Setback from RSF District 100 feet NA 137 feet Density NA 17.4 units 16.1 units Powers Ridge Apartment Homes February 14,2000 Page 7 , 19nd~r9ping and Trp,. Pr,.~,.rvatinn Landscaping required for the proposed development is shown in the following table. Land"Ta()in~ Ittl)) Rl'IIUil"l'<I In 10<1,)\', Prono<.;td hulllT onlin"n,,"' Parking lot 2 2 8,599 ft landscape area >8,599 ft landscape area 34 overstory trees 41 overstory trees 40 understorv trees Buffer yard C* - South 24 overstory trees 25 overstory trees property line 60 understory trees 65 understory trees 60 shrubs 121 shrubs Buffer yard B* - North 14 overstory trees 16 overstory trees property line 29 understory trees 25 understory trees 29 shrubs 169 shrubs Buffer yard B* - East 6 overstory trees II overstory trees property line 12 understory trees 34 understory 12 shrubs 37 shrubs Boulevard Trees- 59 overstory trees 34 overstory trees Lake Drive West (! ner 30 feet) (! ner 50 feet) Boulevard Trees- 15 overstory trees Powers Boulevard (! oer 50 feet) . According to city buffer yard ordinance. the project developer is responsible for only 75% of the required plantings. Abuttin g property owners may plant the remaining 25% on their property. The applicant's revised plans meet minimum requirements for buffer yard and parking lot landscaping. The number of boulevard plantings needs to be increased to meet minimum number required. Plantings are required at one tree every 30 feet of frontage minus access points. The applicant has submitted ground cover plan showing areas of seed or sod. Minimum maintenance areas have been seeded with a ground cover that will not require mowing. These areas are generally sloped and would be difficult to manicure. The PUD agreement also states that the applicant shall provide $500.00 of landscaping per multiple family unit. This would translate to $172,000. The applicant is providing landscaping that exceeds $300,000. Staff is requiring the applicant to provide the city with a cost estimate for the required landscaping. T .TCwHTTNCw A lighting plan has been submitted with photometrics. The plan meets ordinance requirements. Decorative lights will be used at entrances into the site, buildings, or the community space. Shoebox type lights are used in the parking lots. All light fixtures are shielded as required by ordinance. Powers Ridge Apartment Homes February 14,2000 Page 8 WF.TT.ANns There are two agIurban wetlands located on the site. The wetland located on the south side of the property is directly adjacent to the existing Lake Susan Hills Development. This wetland has been influenced by agriculturaI activities to the north and residential development to the south. An existing buffer, approximately 15 - 20 feet, remains intact around the edge of the wetland. This buffer contains willows, cattails and reed canary grass, which is typical of most wetlands throughout the City. The wetland maintains an open water area which remains throughout the year. When the Lake Susan Hills development was constructed, an outlet structure was put in place to maintain the existing water level. Under the current wetland rules, the applicant must maintain a minimum fifty foot setback. The applicant is in compliance with this requirement. The applicant is also constructing an additional pond to pre-treat runoff before entering this wetland. The remaining wetland on site is located on the east edge of the property along Powers Boulevard. This area is classified as an aglurban wetland, but has actually acted as a stormwater pond for a number of years. Runoff from the Lake Susan Hills development, Powers Boulevard, and the existing agricultural land are directed to this area before entering the City's trunks storm sewer system. The applicant has proposed to expand this existing wetland to treat runoff and meet water quality requirements. This wetland has similar vegetative characteristics as the previously mentioned wetland: cattails, reed canary grass and willow plants. The applicant will be required to re-seed any disturbed wetland areas with MnDOT seed mix 25 A or a similar seed mix which is approved for wetland soil conditions. STJRFAC'F WATF.R MANAr.FMFNT PI ,ANT (SWMP) W A TFR QTJ AT ITV FFFS Because of the percentage of impervious surface associated with this development, the water quality fees for this proposed development would be based on high density land use at $1 ,640/acre. Based on the proposed developed area of21.34 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project would be $34,997. The applicant has proposed water quality ponds to treat runoff for 18.6 acres of the 21.34 acres, Therefore, the applicant is eligible for a water quality credit of $30,504. W A TFR QJ T A NTITV FFFS The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average citywide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels, and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. High Density developments have a connection charge of $4,360 per developable acre. Therefore, the applicant will be responsible for a $93,042 fee. These fees will be due payable to the City at time of final plat recording. Powers Ridge Apartment Homes February 14,2000 Page 9 r.RAnTNr. Most of the site was employed in agricultural practice. There are isolated groups of trees scattered in the northeasterly comer of the site. As a result of site grading, most of the site (90%±) will be graded for development. Some of the significant trees will be saved through the use of retaining walls. The wetland located in the southwesterly portion of the site will not be impacted for the most part. Mitigation measures are proposed as a result of impacts to the wetland. An existing storm water pond is located along the easterly portion of the site. This storm water pond is proposed to be expanded. The elevations of the property range from 900 along the east to 944 in the center of the development to 948 along the west. The grading plans propose to level off the site to an elevation of940 to develop the building pads and street systems. The first floor elevations of the buildings are proposed at 942 - 943. It is unclear whether or not the entire site will be graded with initial site grading. Due to the grade elevation difference over the site, staff assumes most of the grading will be performed with the initial phase in an effort to balance the volume of earthwork involved. Should earthwork quantities not balance on site and materials need to be imported or exported from the site, the developer will need to supply the City with a detailed haul route for review and approval by staff. In addition, if material is proposed to be exported to another location in Chanhassen, it should be noted that the properties would be required to obtain an earthwork permit from the City. The applicant is proposing the use of retaining walls on Lot I to minimize grading. A series of retaining walls, which range in height from 0 to 8 feet, are proposed in front of Building "A" to manage the slope. All retaining walls in excess of 4 feet in height will need to be engineered and require building permits. Staff recommends that the applicant consider relocating the proposed sidewalk along the east entrance to the opposite side of the drive aisle to eliminate the need for a retaining wall and possibly a fence. All retaining walls over 4 feet in height should be protected with fences and/or landscaping materials to prevent children from falling off the walls. On January 5,2000, the Planning Commission requested staff to revisit the grading issue to determine whether or not there was verifiable evidence to present to the Commission and/or City Council that there has been a change in land elevation on the apartment site. Staff has reviewed the final grading plan for the Lake Susan Hills development and the existing conditions shown on the Powers Ridge Apartments plan. Upon overlaying the two documents it appears there has been land alteration directly behind Lots 4,5,6 and 7, Block 2, Lake Susan Hills. Attached for your convenience is a copy of the final grading plan for the Lake Susan Hills development (Figure I). Staff would like to point out the large knoll (elevation 940) on Lots 5 and 6, Block 2, Lake Susan Hills prior to development which was lowered approximately 12 feet to facilitate Lake Susan Hills Drive and building sites adjacent to the street. In addition, the backyard areas of Lots 2 through 7, Block 2, including part of the apartment site, has been graded to provide an emergency overflow outlet for the wetland located north of Lots 8 and 9 on the apartment site. The existing elevation in this area ranged from 930 to 942. As a result of grading for Lake Susan Hills development, the backyard areas were lowered to 924 to 928. Staff has no evidence that the material was deposited on the apartment site; however, staff believes it may have been. Figure 2 (attached to the plans submitted February 2, 2000) denotes the area on the apartment site that appears to be altered since the grading plan for Lake Susan Hills was prepared. Based on Figure 2 it Powers Ridge Apartment Homes February 14, 2000 Page 10 appears approximately 1.77 acres were altered. The amount of fill placed in this area is approximately 5,700 cubic yards. The original elevations ranged from 938 to 942. After alteration the grades range from 938 to 946. Engineering staff believes that the grading plan for Lake Susan Hills Phase I development would be a good example for the Commission/City Council to use when comparing the two developments. As you will note, the existing contours in Phase I of Lake Susan Hills was significantly altered in order to prepare the site for streets and building pads very similar to all building sites within Chanhassen where topographic constraints require mass grading and land alteration. The apartment site has very similar constraints with Lake Drive West to the north, Powers Boulevard to the east, and existing wetlands and steep slopes on the site. Using these parameters, a site grading plan is prepared which tries to retain these natural or man-made features. The engineer also takes into account the balance in earthwork material to minimize importing to and exporting of material from the site. The other part of the equation is building type. Basements generate excess material that needs to be incorporated into the equation of the earthwork balance. Overall, staff believes that the site grading plan submitted on behalf of the developer is fairly well done and retains the natural features of the site (steep slopes and significant trees), protects wetland bodies, and is compatible with the adjacent street system. Due to the site characteristics, earth berms are not feasible. Development of this site is also very similar to the development of the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park directly north of the site and/or Villages on the Ponds apartments off of Highway 101. Both of these sites had significant topographic change, which requires significant alteration in order to prepare the building site, yet still have manageable street and parking lot grades. Staff believes overall the preliminary grading plan submitted for Powers Ridge is not excessive and retains the characteristics of the existing parcel. It is unfortunate that there is such a great difference in elevation resulting between the apartment site and the single-family development to the south. Although, as indicated on the grading plan for the Lake Susan Hills development, the original terrain was approximately the same elevation as the apartment site before development of the single-family homes. Staff is recommending approval of the grading plan for the Powers Ridge development as submitted nRÅTNA~F. The plans propose one new storm water treatment pond to pretreat runoff prior to discharging into the wetlands, In addition, the existing on-site storm water pond is proposed to be expanded to accommodate and pretreat runoff prior to discharging off site. The development's storm sewer system shall be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Ponding calculations including pre- and post- development runoff conditions for a 10-year and 100-year, 24-hour storm event need to be submitted for City staff review. Since the site is proposed to be platted into lots, the storm drainage system in the main drive aisle areas and trunk lines to the ponds shall be owned and maintained by the City of Chanhassen upon completion and acceptance. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public portions of the storm drainage system including ponds and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Emergency overflows from all storm water ponds and wetlands will also be required on the plans. Powers Ridge Apartment Homes February 14,2000 Page II The plan proposes one new stonn water quality pond and to expand the existing pond along Powers Boulevard to pretreat stonn water runoff from the site prior to discharging into wetlands or off-site water bodies. The stonn water pond shall be designed and constructed with 4 to I slopes or 3 to I slopes with a IO to I slope (bench) for the first one-foot depth of water. The existing outlet control structure in the pond adjacent to Powers Boulevard may have to be replaced with a more current type outlet control structure. Staff will be evaluating this further during the construction plan review process. Given the size of this development, staff recommends that an interim drainage and erosion control plan be developed to provide temporary sedimentation basins during the grading activities. The final construction plans will need to be submitted to city staff for review and fonnal approval by the City Council at least three weeks prior to final plat consideration. A Watershed District and NPDES pennit will also be required in conjunction with this development. 11TH .TTTF.S Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site. Sanitary sewer service is available from Lake Drive west at two locations. There is no need to open cut Lake Drive West, nor will it be pennitted, to extend utilities into the site. The plans will need to be adjusted to reflect the location of the sewer and water services to the site from Lake Drive West. Municipal water service is available along Powers Boulevard. The developer will be responsible for extending sewer and water improvements to provide service to the interior lots of the development. The extension of utilities throughout this plat will require submittal of detailed construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates for staff review and City Council approval. The construction plans and specifications will need to be submitted a minimum of three weeks prior to final consideration. Staff will perfonn a greater level of review of the utility layout upon submittal of the detailed construction plans and specifications. The developer will be required to enter into a development contactlPUD agreement with the city and provide a financial security in the fonn of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of final plat approval. The individual sewer and water services to each lot shall be privately owned and maintained by the property owner or association. Building pennits will be required from the City's Building Department for the private utility portion of the project. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over the public utility lines outside of the right-of-way on the final plat. Depending on the depth of the utilities, the minimum drainage and utility easement width shall be 20 feet wide. STRRRTS A preliminary traffic study/investigation was perfonned in conjunction with the EA W for the Redmond site (Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th) that is located directly north of this proposal. According to the preliminary traffic study, development of this area will generate traffic numbers to support the need for a traffic signal at Lake Drive West and Powers Boulevard in the future. The City's feasibility report for Lake Drive West did not take into account the cost ofa traffic signal along Powers Boulevard (County Road 17). The City and County will have to coordinate the installation of Powers Ridge Apartment Homes February 14, 2000 Page 12 a traffic .signal to accommodate trip generations from the area. It is recommended that the developer be required to escrow with the City a financial guarantee for a share, based on traffic generated from the site, of the local cost participation for a traffic signal at Lake Drive West and Powers Boulevard. The City's local participation cost of the traffic signal is not known at this time. Preliminary estimates between the City and County should be used for a security escrow. A condition to address this issue will be placed in the development contract/PUD agreement. Once a final traffic study is completed to address the traffic-related issues as a result of development, staff will be able to incorporate a methodology to determine the developer's share for a future traffic signal. The City has previously required a .security escrow from the developers of the Chanhassen East Business Center and Chanhassen Business Center for this same scenario. The City constructed the street and utility improvements for Lake Drive West in 1999. Lake Drive West is listed as a collector street on the City's Comprehensive Transportation Plan and is also a Municipal State Aid Route. Lake Drive West is constructed in accordance with the City's UrbanJIndustrial Street Section, which is a 9-ton road design, 36-foot wide face-to-face street section, boulevard street lighting and landscaping. An 8-foot wide bituminous trail will be constructed along the northerly right-of-way line of Lake Drive West in the spring of 2000. The plans proposed two crosswalks across Lake Drive West. Staff supports the easterly crosswalk. However, the west one should be deleted. There is an existing crosswalk just west of the site near the park entrance. Traffic signage for the crosswalk will be installed by the city and the applicant invoiced for the materials. All street construction associated with the crosswalk shall be performed by the applicant. The applicant is also constructing an 8 foot bituminous trail along the southerly right-of-way of Lake Drive West. This sidewalk will extend from Powers Boulevard to the parking lot for Sunset Ridge Park. The necessary right-of-way width (80 feet) has already been dedicated along Lake Drive West with the plat ofChanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th. No additional right of way is necessary with this proposal. The plans indicate that a bus stop will be provided on Lake Drive West where requested by the Southwest Metro Transit. The city will also need to be consulted on the location so that traffic safety can be evaluated. Upon review of the individual driveway access points along Lake Drive West, staff had some concerns with the west driveway location; however the applicant has revisited the driveway entrance to align with the intersection of Upland Circle. The easterly driveway entrance had a sharp curve proposed as you enter the site. The applicant's engineer has revisited the east entrance turning radius to meet radius turning requirements. The proposed drive aisle widths have been revised to meet the city's ordinances. The drive aisles shall be a minimum of 24 feet wide and 26 feet wide when adjacent to parking stalls and built to 7 -ton per axel weight pursuant to Ordinance 18-570-1 and 20-1101. Parking lots shall be designed and constructed in accordance with section 20-1118. Cross-access easements will need to be prepared and recorded by the developer over the lots in favor of the property owners. The minimum easement width shall be 40 feet wide. Powers Ridge Apartment Homes February 14, 2000 Page I3 FROSION CONTROl. Erosion control measures are proposed throughout the site. Due to the terrain and the amount of grading, additional erosion control measures may be necessary. Staff believes that a temporary sediment and erosion control plan should be developed which includes temporary sediment ponds, phasing of grading operations, and restoration and be prepared by the developer. Type III erosion control fence will be required adjacent to the wetland areas. Storm water ponds and/or temporary detention ponds shall be constructed with the initial grading phases to minimum erosion potential to the wetlands or downstream water bodies. Erosion control blanket will be required on slopes greater than 3: I. Revegetation of exposed slopes should occur immediately after grading is completed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. PARK ANI) RFCRFATlON As part of the whole Lake Susan Hills PUD, a significant amount of parkland was dedicated to the city and trails were to be developed by the applicant. Therefore, the PUD contract requires no trail fees and Y2 park fees. No parkland will be required with this proposal. FINmNr.s Site Plan When approving a site plan, the Planning Commission and City Council shall consider its compliance the following: (1) Is consistent 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) Is consistent with this division; (3) Preserves 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) Creates 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) Creates a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: a. 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; Powers Ridge Apartment Homes February 14,2000 Page 14 b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping; c. 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 d. 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 pedestriart and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. (6) Protects 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 substantial effects on neighboring land uses. FINDINGS: The proposed site plan is consistent with all plans and specifications with the exception of the hard surface coverage required by the PUD. Staff recommends the PUD standards be amended to accommodate an increased hard surface coverage consistent with current ordinance requirements for high density residential development. The applicant has attempted to create a pedestrian friendly character by providing focal areas for the residents to congregate and meet one another. Internal and external sidewalks connect the development. The atmosphere within this development, with the amenities provided, is pleasing. There is a reasonable transition between the subject site and the residential single family homes to the south. This transition consists ofa minimum of 137 foot setback and landscaped buffer. PUD Amendment The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are: a) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. b) The proposed use is or will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. c) The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. d) The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. e) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. Powers Ridge Apartment Homes February 14,2000 Page 15 t) Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. Finding: The PUD designation was approved in 1987. The applicant is simply making a reasonable request to be allowed to increase the hard surface coverage on the site uom 32% to 33.7%. This request will not have any negative impacts since ponds have been designed to accommodate this 1.7% increase. Since the project was originally approved, the city has studied and adopted a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) to address storm water management throughout the community. This plan allocated a higher impervious surface converge for high density residential developments than what was originally approved as part of the PUD. The proposed storm water improvements proposed as part of the plat shall adequately treat run off for quality purposes. Flood control is provided through the city's extensive storm water conveyance systems. It is reasonable to approve this amendment. Subdivision Findings: L The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding' The subdivision meets the intent of the city code subject to the conditions of the staff report. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county arid regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding' The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable plans. 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding' The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report. 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding' The proposed subdivision will be served by adequate urban inuastructure. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding' The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to conditions if approved. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Powers Ridge Apartment Homes February 14,2000 Page 16 Finrling~ The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finrling: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure. PLANNING rOMMISSION TTPOATF. On January 5, 2000, the Planning Commission reviewed and tabled action on this item. Several issues were raised by the Planning Commission and the neighborhood to the south of the subject site regarding the development. The application was reviewed again on January 19, 2000 and approved with conditions outlined in the staff report. The following is a sununary ofthe issues and the applicant's response to them: Setbacks: Plans dated received December 3, 1999, showed a 100 foot setback between the apartment building and the southerly property line. On January 5, 2000, at the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant presented revised plans that reflected a 125 foot setback. The Lake Susan Hills neighborhood representatives requested the applicant meet today's PUD standards, which require a 100 foot buffer. Plus the representative wanted additional setback equal to the height of the buildings. The applicant submitted revised plans that reflect a setback of 137 feet. This was accomplished by reducing the size of Building A, which allowed the applicant to shift Building B to the north. The density was shifted &om Building A to Building D. A rendering is attached to this report showing the views &om neighboring property. Within the 137 feet, the applicant intends to plant a concentration ofspruce trees. The trees closest to the apartment building will be 12 feet tall at the time of installation. Trees located down the slope to the south will be 7 feet tall at the time of installation. The applicant is also proposing to add ornamental trees at the most southerly edge of the site. Sidewalks: The direction given to the applicant included extending the sidewalk around the center community space area. The applicant submitted a revised plan that shows the sidewalk continuing around the playground and fountain area. The revised plans also reflect the sidewalk along the south side of Lake Drive West &om Sunset Hills Park to Powers Blvd. Bay Windows: An attached rendering reflects the use of bay windows on building B2 as requested by the Planning Commission. Powers Ridge Apartment Homes February 14,2000 Page I 7 Hard Surface Coverage: The revised plans reflect a hard surface coverage of33.7%. The PUD agreement allows a maximum of32%. The plans submitted December 3,1999, reflected coverage of 34.6%. Staff is still recommending the PUD agreement be amended to allow a maximum hard surface coverage of35%. Parking: Initially, the applicant requested a parking variance. However, through the different revisions, this variance was eliminated and the parking plans were revised to meet ordinance requirements Roof Pitch: The applicant revised the pitched roof pitch on the apartment buildings to show the difference between a 4:12 and a 6:12 pitch. The change in pitch lowered the building by 4 feet. Building Materials: The commission directed the applicant to apply the siding in a straight horizontal line under the third floor windows. The plans have been changed accordingly. Deck railing and end caps were revised from wood to metal as requested by the Planning Commission. Benches: Benches were added to the site plan within the common area. Signs: A sign plan reflects a sign with a brick frame. The ordinance allows one sign with an area not to exceed 24 feet and a maximum height of 5 feet. The signs must be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. The proposed sign meets minimum ordinance requirements. A separate sign permit will be required prior to signage installation. Trash: The buildings are equipped with trash shoots and dumpsters are stored in the enclosed garage. Utility Boxes: All equipment will be framed with siding that matches the building. Lighting: A lighting plan has been submitted with photometrics. The plan meets ordinance requirements. Decorative lights will be used at entrances into the site, buildings, or the community space. Shoebox type lights are used in the parking lots. All light fixtures are shielded as required by ordinance. Site Grading: The Planning Commission requested staff revisit the grading issue of whether or not there was verifiable evidence to present to the Commission and/or City Council that there has been a change in land elevation on the apartment site. The details of these finding are incorporated into the grading section of the staff report. Powers Ridge Apartment Homes February 14,2000 Page 18 RF.l'OMMFNnA nON PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves the preliminary plat of 21.34 acres into 4 lots (SUB-99-14) and Site Plan Review #99-19, approval of PHASE I (Building A), 100 units, as shown on the plans dated received December 3,1999, revised February 2, 2000, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Amend the PUD contract to state the impervious surface coverage of the site cannot exceed 35%. 2. A cross-access easement shall be conveyed to all the lots for use of the private street. 3. Park and trail dedication fees shall be paid in lieu of parkland dedication. The PUD contract requires no trail fees and Y2 park fees. 4. Boulevard plantings shall be increased to one tree per 30 feet of frontage. Landscaping along the south property line shall be installed with Phase I áfter review and approval by the City Forester. 5. The PUD agreement states that the applicant shall provide $500.00 oflandscaping per multiple family unit. The applicant shall provide the city with a cost estimate for the required landscaping. 6. Fire Marshal conditions: a. Fire hydrants: Additional fire hydrants will be required. Some proposed fire hydrants will be required to be re-Iocated. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of new and relocation of proposed fire hydrants. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 903.2. b. Install post indicator valves (Pol. V s). Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. c. A lO-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. d. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding fire department notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #04-1991. Copy enclosed. Powers Ridge Apartment Homes February 14,2000 Page 19 e. 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. f. Required access. Fire apparatus access roads shall be installed pursuant to Section 902.2.1 of the 1997 Uniform Fire Code. In reviewing the plans, because access cannot meet fire code requirements, the following additional fire protection shall be required: f-l. Attic spaces shall be sprinklered per NFP A 13. f-2. Class I standpipes shall be installed in stair towers. f-3. The exterior balconies shall be protected by the fire sprinkler system. g. Water supplies for fire protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to Uniform Fire Code Section 901.3. h. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all weather driving capabilities. These surfaces shall be provided for prior to construction. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 902.2.2.2. 1. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding premise identification. Submit plans to Fire Marshal for review of building identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed. 7. Turning radius shall be reviewed by the Chanhassen City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for approval. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 902.2.2.3. 8. Building Official conditions: a. The buildings must be protected with automatic fire sprinkler systems. b. An accessible route must be provided to all buildings, parking facilities, public transportation stops and all common use facilities. c. All parking areas, including parking garages, must be provided with accessible parking spaces dispersed among the various building entrances. d. Accessible dwelling units must be provided in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. e. The building owner and or their representatives should meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. In particular, the locations of the property lines must be reviewed prior to final plat to address allowable building area and exterior wall protection requirements. Powers Ridge Apartment Homes February 14,2000 Page 20 9. The developer shall supply the City with a detailed haul route for review and approval by staff for materials imported to or exported from the site. If the material is proposed to be removed off site to another location in Chanhassen, that property owner will be required to obtain an earthwork permit from the City. 10. The applicant will need to develop a temporary sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval in conjunction with final plat submittal. II. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 12. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. The construction plans and specifications will need to be submitted a minimum of three weeks prior to final consideration. 13. All driveway access points shall incorporate the City's Industrial Driveway Apron Detail Plate No. 5207. 14. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for storm water quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post-developed storm water calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basin, and/or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. Emergency overflows from all storm water ponds and wetlands will also be required on the plans. 15. The applicant shall enter into a development contract/PUD agreement with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 16. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County Public Works, Watershed District, Metropolitan Environmental Service Commission, Minnesota Department of Health, and Minnesota Pollution control Agency and comply with their conditions of approval. 17. No berming shall be permitted within the city's right of way. A 2% boulevard grade must be maintained. Landscaping may be permitted subject to staff review and approval. Powers Ridge Apartment Homes February 14,2000 Page 21 18. The utility improvements located within the main drive aisles and trunk storm drainage lines upon completion shall become City maintained and owned. The individual sewer and water services through each lot shall be privately owned and maintained. Building permits will be required from the City's Building Department for the private utility portion of the project. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over the public utility lines located outside of the right-of-way on the final plat. Depending on the depth of the utilities, the minimum drainage and utility easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Consideration for access routes to the ponds for maintenance proposes shall also be incorporated in the easement width. 19. The developer shall escrow with the City a financial guarantee for a share of the local cost participation based on traffic generated from the site for a future traffic signal at the intersection of Lake Drive West and Powers Boulevard. The cost of the traffic signal is not known at this time. Preliminary estimates between the City and County shall be used for a security escrow. 20. Type III erosion control fence will be required adjacent to the wetland areas. Storm water ponds and/or temporary detention ponds shall be constructed with the initial grading phases to minimize erosion potential to the wetlands or downstream water bodies. Erosion control blanket will be required on slopes greater than 3: I. Revegetation of exposed slopes should occur immediately after grading is completed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 21. Storm water ponds must have side slopes of 10: I for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. 22. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 23. All retaining walls in excess of 4 feet in height will need to be engineered and require building permits. All retaining walls over 4 feet in height should be protected with fences and/or landscaping materials to prevent children from falling off the walls. Emergency overflows from all storm water ponds and wetlands will also be required on the plans. 24. The plans shall be revised to utilize the existing sewer and water services provided to the site from Lake Drive West. Open cutting of the street Lake Drive West will not be permitted. 25. The bus stop location along Lake Drive West is subject to city review and approval. 26. The drive aisles shall be a minimum of 24 feet wide and 26 feet wide when adjacent to parking stalls and built to 7-ton per axle weight pursuant to Ordinance 18-570-1 and 20-1101. Parking lots shall be designed and constructed in accordance with section 20-1118. Cross- access easements will need to be prepared and recorded by the developer over the lots in favor of the property owners. The minimum easement width shall be 40 feet wide. The applicant's engineer shall work with city staff in reviewing the turning radiuses requirements over the entire site and make the necessary changes. Powers Ridge Apartment Homes February 14,2000 Page 22 27. The proposed high density residential development of21.34 net developable acres is responsible for a water quality connection charge of $34,997. The applicant has provided a water quality ponds to treat 18.6 acres which will waive $30,504 of this fee. The applicant is also responsible for a water quantity fee of$93,042, for a total SWMP fee of$97,536. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. 28. The applicant shall re-seed any disturbed wetland areas with MnDOT seed mix 25 A, or an approved seed mix for wetland soil conditions. 29. The staff and the applicant work on a landscaping plan that shows all materials presented to City Council supporting each other in terms of what actually will go into that transition area on the south side of the property between Building B2 primarily and the single family residences. 30. The applicant seriously review the angularity of building B2 in an attempt and to work with staff to see if there is any other angle that lessens the transition impact so that those buildings aren't face forward into the residents to the south. 31. The applicant shows the following specific materials on the buildings. The low maintenance siding must be flat, not ship lap. Asphalt shingles must be textured, not smooth. Balcony railings must be metal, not wood. 32, The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement prior to issuance of the building permit. 33. Site Plan approval is contingent upon final plat approval. 34. Each phase of the development shall conform to the overall master plan. 35. All signs must receive a separate sign permit." A TT ACHMF.NT~ 1. Reduced Lake Susan Hills PUD, and PUD contract. 2. Options I through 4. 3, Memo from Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer, dated December 23, 1999. 4. Memo from Steve Torell, Building Official dated November 19, and December 16, 1999. 5, Memo from Mark Littfin dated November 15, and December 13, 1999. 6. Memo from Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer, dated November 23,1999. 7, Memo from MNDOT dated November 17, 1999. 8. Application and Notice of neighborhood meeting. 9. Notice of public hearing and property owners notified. Powers Ridge Apartment Homes February 14,2000 Page 23 10. Letter from Lois and Jim Dyvig, dated December 17, 1999. 11. Memo from Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer, dated January 13, 2000. 12. Planning Commission minutes dated January 5, and January 19,2000. 13. Figures 1 and 2 prepared by Engineering Staff, and Plans dated December 3, 1999, revised and received February 2, 2000. g:\pJan\sa\1ake susan hills pud\lshapt.pc.doc r R!-t.D. e....~,..,., 81 r " t. A ". eû:t\....~':!Þ Þ.o..,~ . .~.:> \ \::.=- - .......... .Þ-> %"c. ...... .........':'vll ".-:.-/ 0 ...~ ~ ì ~~~ I "3nJ. tJ1. / -_./ OUT,-OT A "'W'oH C)1E.t.,a.I......... R&.=oII:.IIE...,-yo,,,,- ILl&, '.".0.",) LI.:I'AC.. , I ti_ í r V- I ------.-- . .. ~L..O'TF..'.. 'ð.1 ....G.. '.. , , . , ~~", ~.' .. " , , \, ", ' \I~, \ . " Þ"'''-'c:. u.._.."...__ UIUI.aU! tu œw 11WW.JSI.I -...···...........c__....... ..-...............-..............., ····..·..-·...·............11.. ......II.COO····,.......,.......I.... ..-................................ -··..'.'.....h_............._...... -..... U.. ~ ... __....., "._'_.. .......-..,...............-........ ..1.._.......................... ....·..·-···......_....'.....f -..-............-............ .................-..-..-...... -··.."-..··-...-.....,....11 .................................-.. 1···'..···..........11_...."....... -:i%.:...::::::.'.:.::'.':::..:::..~....... ........-.. ........11........11. ...··,..··....·......u............ ..........-.-....._........c.o.... .- -"....... .....-. _...... -.-......................-....... ...................:............. .................-.,...,-..-... ....-..--.-. -"~ ¡-x5. A rTAC'¡{' .......-.-...........,............ ·....···-....···.,.......u....... ·....···-·-..··.........u...... u...._ _.. ,.__.. ,,;,) ( I~Þ~I JamesR. Hill, inc. :-:':~-":'''':'''""".,. Or \",..,rD~ , eo..................... ......_ ._ LAIt. au",," Mlu.a '1.111'"''''"1' ~~~-~~ AHo.c.r.me..rd· I/- CITV PA.s:t.K.. _U......nu. ... "'"LI.I.. .... .......1". '.11'.1 ... II"" _tl'UI'" "L"""IIII. n..oe 1t.IOC. _,'.......n ".IOC. 1_".'..... ...... ... fl. _.u '".'oC. ..········"'"..·..".11.. ..........101. II.' ....Unn.... n' "U· "'''If_.", ......."'.._....".." It._..r....".'''".... 11·.uc...."""............ ,."t_'u.~... .."................... ...·...·....../U·.,.·... ....... ... EtJT ..., 1'.1-'.1>. (.... ............. · .. r- . .'. 4""Aq~~~+ t\" " A " - - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AGREEMENT, dated November 16, 1987, between the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the MCityM), and LAKE SUSAN HILLS, a Minnesota general partnership, and JAMES A. CURRY and BARBARA CURRY, husband and wife (the MDeveloperM). 1. Request for Planned Unit Development Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a Planned Unit Development to be known as "LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST PUDM (the MDevelopment") on the land legally described on the attached Exhibit MA". 2. Planned Unit Development Concept Approval. The City hereby grants general Concept Plan approval of the plan attached as Exhibit "B". Approval is subject to the following: d~y~lopmen~and final stage approval, a negative declaration of the EAW, compliance with the EAW review findings and compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Except as modified herein, each plat shall also be subject to the standards of the City's Zoning and SUbdivision Ordinances as may be amended from time to time. 3. Density and Use. The following densities are approximate and subject to change: A. Single Family Residential. The total number of single family lots in the development shall not exceed 411. Except as modified herein, single family lots shall be developed in accordance with the uses, standards, and requirements of the RSF Zoning District. )\ B. Multiple Family (High Density Residential). The development shall provide a minimum of 21.5 acres of high density multiple family residential units. The total number of dwellin~~~~~f - ~ NOV 1 9 iDB7 CITY OF CHANHA:;:;¡:,\ r11/16/87 -. ... 'J high density multiple family residential property shall not exceed 375, or a density greater than 17.4 units per acre. Except as modified ' - herein, the development of the high density multiple family residential shall be in accordance with the uses, standards, and requirements of the R-12 Zoning District. C. Multiple Family (Mixed Medium Density Residential). The development shall provide a minimum of 23.6 acres of mixed medium density residential units. The total number of dwelling units of mixed medium density residential property shall not exceed 221, or a density greater than 9.3 units per acre. Except as modified herein, the develop~ent of the mixed medium density residential shall be in accordance with the uses, standards, and requirements of the R-8 Zoning District. 4. Parks. The Devel~per shall dedicate to the City Outlot F (18.1 acres), Outlot G (9.8 acres), Outlot H (3.9 acres), and Outlot E. A credit of 6.7 acres for park dedication will be given for Outlot E. Unless otherwise required by the City, conveyances of the park land shall be made when the final plat, wherein a park is located, is signed by the City. The land shall be platted as Outlots and transferred to the City by warranty deed. The Developer, at its sole cost, shall grade the land for the City in accordance with a timetable and plans to be furnished by the City. The Developer shall be given a credit of 50% of the park fee per dwelling unit in the plat for the conveyance of the above described land to the City. The balance of the park dedication fees shall be paid in cash in an amount and at the time required by City' ordinance and policies in effect when final plats are approved. -2- '. /'2 ....."c::; ". .. S. Trail and Sidewalk Development. The Developer shall dedicate trails and sidewalks throughout the Development to the City as indicated on the Comprehensive Trail Plan. This dedication satisfies the city's trail dedication fee requirements. Trails shall be completed at the time street improvements are constructed in the phase where the trails and sidewalks or portions thereof are located. The Developer shall construct the following trails and sidewalks: (1). Eight (8) foot wide bituminous trail along the west side of Lake Susan. (2). Eight (8) foot wide bituminous off-street trail along the east side of Audobon Road; and an eight (8) foot wide bituminous off-street trail along the east side of Powers Boulevard. (3). Five (5) foot wide concrete off-street trail-sidewalk along one side of all internal streets except cul- de-sacs..when the streets are constructed. (4). Twenty (20) foot wide bituminous off-street trail easement on -the west side of Powers Boulevard. This trail segment shall only be constructed if ordered by the City Council. If ordered, the Developer will convey the easement to the City without cost, but the City will pay for the construction. Construction timing will be at the discretion of the City Council. 6. Additional Conditions of Approval. A. The Developer shall provide bUffer areas, acceptable to the City, between multiple family and single family areas to assure adequate transition between uses, including use of berms, landscaping, and setbacks from lot lines. B. The Developer shall not damage or remove any trees except as indicated on the grading and tree removal plans to be approved by the City and submitted with each plat. Trees shall be protected from destruction by snow fences, flagging, staking, or other similar means during grading and construction. -3- . I~/ __ · . 'J C. Wetlands Nos. 14-10 and 23-01 as shown in Exhibit "r." shall be preserved in their natural state. D. The following shall be the maximum percentage of allowable impervious surface: Outlot A 32%, Outlot B 30%, Outlot C 31%, and Outlot D 27%. E. The Developer shall provide $500.00 of landscaping per multiple family unit and $150.00 per single family unit. 7. Effect of Planned Unit Development Approval. For five (5) years from the date of this Agreement, no amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, or official controls shall apply to or affect the use, development, density, lot size, lot layout, or dedications of the development unless required by state or federal law or agreed to in writing by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to ~he contrary, to the full extent permitted by state law, the City may require compliance with any amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, official controls, platting or dedicating requirements enacted after the date of this Agreement. 8. Phased Development. The Developer shall develop the development in eleven (11) phases in accordance with the EAW. No earth moving or other development shall be done in any phase prior to approval of final plats and development contract for the phase by the City. 9. Compliance with Laws and Regulations. The Developer represents to the City that the proposed development Complies with all applicable City, County, Metropolitan, State, and Federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to: Subdivision Ordinances, Zoning Ordinances, and Environmentnl Regulations. The Developer agrees to comply with such laws and regulntions. -4- . /~ ~~ .. 10. Variations from Approved Plans. Minor variances from the approved plans may be approved by the City's Planning Director. Substantial departures from the approved plans' shall require an amend- ment to the Planned Unit Development, in accordance with the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance. 11. License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, and officers a license to enter the plat to inspect the work to be done by the Developer and to perform all work required hereunder if Developer fails to perform in accordance herewith. 12. Utility, Pond, and Drainage Easements. The Developer shall dedicate to the City at the time of final plat approvals utility, drainage, and ponding easements located within the plat, including access, as required to serve the plat. 13. Responsibility for Costs. A. The Developer shall hold the City, its officers, agents, and employees harmless from claims by the Developer and third parties, including, but not limited to, lot purchasers, other property owners, contractors, sUbcontractors, and materialmen, for damages sustained, costs incurred, or injuries resulting from approval of the Agreement, the development, final plats, plans and specifications, and from the resulting construction and development. The Developer shall indemnify the City, its officers, agents, and employees for all costs, damages, or expenses, including reasonable engineering and attorney's fees, which the City may payor incur in consequence of such claims. B. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this Agreement, including reasonable engineering and attorney's fees. The Developer shall pay in full all -5- . // '" · . " submitted to it by the City for such reimbursements within sixty bills (60) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the City may halt all development work until the bills are paid in full. Bills not paid within sixty (60) days shall be subject to an eight (8%) percent per annum interest charge. 14. Miscellaneous. A. Breach of any material term of this Agreement by the Developer shall be grounds for denial of building permits, plats, and certificates of occupancy. B. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph or phrase of this Planned Unit Development Agreement is for any reason held invalid as a result of a challenge brought by the Developer, its agents or assigns, the City may, at its option, declare the entire Agreement null and v.oid and approval of the Final Development Plan shall thereby be revoked. C. The action or inaction of any party shall not consti- tute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Agreement. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. Any party's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Agreement after expiration of time in which the work is to be completed shall not be a waiver or release. D. This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded in the Carver County Recorder's Office. E. This Agreement shall be liberally construed to protect the public's interest. ~- . /~ -~ ç :iI F. Due to the preliminary nature of many of the exhibits and plans and the timing of the overall Development, addendums to this Agreement may be required to address concerns not specifically set forth herein. G. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs, successors or assigns, as the case may be. H. The Developer represents to the City that the plat is not of "metropolitan significance" and that a state environmental impact statement is not required. However, if the City or another governmental entity or agency determines that a federal or state impact statement or any other review, permit, or approval is required, the Developer shall prepare or obtain it at its own expense. The Developer shall reimburse the City for all expenses, ..including staff ti¡n~and rè-rsonable attorney's fees, that the City ,may incur in assisting in preparation. 15. Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, their employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by certified or registered mail at the following address: 7600 Parklawn Avenue, Edina, Minnesota 55435. Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Clerk or mailed to the City by certified or registered mail in care of the City Clerk at the following address: P.O. Box 147, 690 Coulter Drive, Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317. -7- .' /$/ ,-}. <) , . .... IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands the day and year first above written. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor BY: Don Ashworth, City Manager LAKE SUSAN HILLS ,'"'" /" ( BY: '.........,~b·~C~,..,'V'-"''\.-, A pártner J:E:: A·4u..Ç'7 ß~~ BARBARA CURRY c1 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1987, by Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor, and by Don Ashworth, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ~/ - (ss. COUNTY 0 ...,".;/.'-.&Á.. ) ~". J { NOTARY PUBLIC day of partner behalf. he f;~egoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ ~ ..:/" :...;,'.......'I!....... ,1987, by ,,-::ï;.1·;7~c.. /~.) .(/-I/l7c;t:/L/ , a of Lake Susan Hills, a Minnesota generalPartnershi~Ðn its -- -'. /' .... ':"- :~i',!./¿ q :/,.7 ¡. ~:-'",¿-...;{ NOTARY PUBLIC k=", BARBARA FISHER ~~n!.~.~ NOTARV Pl.':!LI~ _ MINNe.OTA .. <'I: E \:~Ih H NNEj>Ir~ ~CUNTY ~. My Com,"ls:':Ion llI:þlros J..lly t' '~Ð2 -8- ,r- . . , STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF ';'t'~'~'<t? .' ) : :~";\r ..... .....þ. ''''1':,'':-', ',:-". . .. . ..'~V,·.··.·'¡. .t. :.... .. '. . .. .',. ,_..,. .... . The foregoing day of VI'C'l_!>"i'( , husband and wife. instrument was acknowledged before me this 1987, by JAMES A. CURRY and BARBARA CURRY, \'¡ J~,,<1 ,¡Kb. (1 .d'J'-4''>-'1~~ íft0TARY PUBLIC V/ DRAFTED BY: Grannis, Grannis, Farrell & Knutson, P.A. 403 Norwest Bank Building 161 North Concord Exchange South St. Paul, MN 55075 (612) 455-1661 -9- ¿:¿ð r::P5 '.--- - ( -r-. ....1 ~ ". Æftaq,me¡¡t :# 2. --.-. ...- ,...-..... -.. .. .. ....-..-.. \ , 1 ......-\ ---- \ ....- \ 1__~ ---- \ ) Ii ~...----; , ~ --] ,:.....c....j 1 í - , , "'j------j ! - -...... :' , I j'-",I ". " '. , ./ "~.......... / ~~ .... t . ." " ' / ..... .../' ..,.} ,~ ........... /~.... ......... .... , " 'r , , , , , , , r-------____ I --__ I -_ I ....-....... " " " "', '... '-... ...... & '..., ...... ...... ...... ?> A~N"""" , . . . CD <:: ZS~d~ ~2:?i0~ ~mz~~ O:I:(;)0:I: <::"'$!:I:m· ~~a$:~ (;)rnc~ »orna ;U'Uorn »-00<:: C>°m~ m(l')(I)':'T1 "TJ!!J2:~ 5;»Om "'-i-i> zrn:E~ (;)OOm , ç::c> ....."'''' ;:r'T-< On ~O 'TIO -m ;I, m a m j; ~ ..... s: m :z ;-! @z' I I ----.I ] , I L_ County stat.. ----, I I I I 1!!I~i~ iII,lII!!II , ·J:lmz · aC:;¡m II IO~ ..¡ CD · c ~ · · - , , , , , ,1'/ .' ~' '\ .' I \ .. I ¡t l , , / ! / .. G .. .. . .. .. ~ .. , .. , , I / ,. , ,I' i ~ G .. . .. . . . , '" ~, /' ..¡ ./ III..........·.. I I I I I .; / ~ ..'" -- <'..,/ "f,,,, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ... I ""', '- ~ ~~) ;» :Þ-~ ~ :-"'0 ::0 ~g¡~~~~~ rncn_"ï~ptJ CCS;z:EenC ~~200:»)';! ~l1~m~~ÃJ mm" µ!" 9~ ~~ ~ ::;!GJ m> '" ::oen :>J= c mO ,,(.0 - CI)¿ £z 9 ~~ (')'U ~ ~m oS;: . Õ ;;::0 0 2 ':1: m "' en c:» ëñ ' Zen N " ::;¡::c en ~ ",¡g a 2S cc ::0 2 F$ -< ~ Om ." en zC 0 m G> '" ::0 -i --( ~ ~ eno C (') ~::c 2 7' >º ::¡ ::t: ;;::2 en m m> z Q 22 ::t: ::;¡h1 £ ~ -i 0 C o !JJ::o "D -I;: ::c 0 0 ;:> :» m ffi ('):» :1 ::t: en -I iñ "'D < ~ m ,.. -i .:-i o ." ~ Iii ." -i ::0 C o ::0 1;; 2 ~ s;: ~ 2 m en '" m z GJ ::0 m en ~ ;c o ::t: m o '" c: -i ¡" en ~ ,.. ,.. en '" m ,.. o :E G> ~ o m - + "''''en 00>- ~....O C¡enl] õ-i<: -:»> 2õl"" ~¡;;'" ::0 a ::0 ~ (~..\ /....~I 1\ \..1 I \ ~ , \ \ 01' . \ ~\"i_ \t'~ \ -~ \ \..,,~ \ \~\ \_J I I I I I I 00"'> ~~"'........ O.....¡:ONC» :,......ÕJNm :5~~~~ rn oocncn ï1"'T1ï1"'T1" II '" o :f! ........~ "'~'" ~-0>8 o~o cncnin ."."." - / I . ,) J } J f , ~ . ·t 'f r . I '., , , '/ - - "....,.. - ~ '-. f~ L,. . . I , . °N99£?~ ~:Þ::;!::;!::;!ï5 ~§~~~~ §õ c:¡; ¡; ? i!; -I~00:E ~;;~~~g g~~~~5 ~cn'T"."m o~~~~z "'Cï<:rO ê5rn:Þ!!JE - en<!!øo ºfflcn~~~ z'",~o<_ Glc ï m > Z m;= r-O:O "'0 . -tC/)'"TI$::U O-l¡:ZO z°"tJ°ffi "'tJlDmmo ::om::O:Þ-I O"'<-I~N <-C-œ ~-~ ~ ~ ~ -I "''''z::O 0~!5C')¡jj 0"tJ""'> ~::Oo~~-I '" m . mo '" ~."fIJ ._ 00 .... 0." ~ en" ~ -I» ñ 0::0 .J .,,;>: oz 0C') ~~ !;;c -1,- "'0 0", ;JJm »- ."z 0" cç ;¡Oo ~!11 o ;JJ -< '" c ï= o z (¡) » z o z m ." ." Õ ffi z ...¡ v .;( . ' " ) I - , Vi Zf i ~ [ Ip- . ~. ... . . ,) ') . JI - / CITY OF CHANHASSEN ¡ City únter D,ive, PO Box 147 :hanhOSJen, Minn'lota 55317 Phon, 612,937. 1900 General Fax 612,937.5739 ngineering Fax 612,937.9152 ,blic Saftty Fax 612.934.2524 ~b www.ci.chanhaslen.mn.UI Arto..ch\V&f\t .# 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin AI-Jaff, Sr. Planner David Hempel, Assistant City Engineer ~/ FROM: DATE: December 23, 1999 SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat for Powers Ridge Apartments LUR File No. 99-35 Upon review of the plans prepared by Loucks and Associates dated November 30, 1999, I offer the following comments and recommendations: GRADING Most of the site was employed in agricultural practice, There are isolated groups of trees scattered in the northeasterly comer of the site, As a result of site grading, most of the site (90%±) will be graded for development. Some of the significant trees will be saved through the use of retaining walls. There is a wetland located in the southwesterly portion of the site and will not be impacted for the most part. Mitigation measures are proposed as a result of impacts to the wetland, An existing stonn water pond is located along the easterly portion of the site, This stonn water pond is proposed to be expanded, The elevations of the property range from 900 along the east to 944 in the center of the development. The grading plans propose to level off the site to an elevation of940 to develop the building pads and street systems. The first floor elevations of the buildings are proposed at 942 - 943, It is unclear whether or not the entire site will be graded with initial site grading. Due to the grade elevation difference over the site, staff assumes most of the grading will be perfonned with the initial phase in an effort to balance the volume of earthwork involved, Should earthwork quantities not balance on site and materials need to be imported or exported ITom the site, the developer will need to supply the City with a detailed haul route for review and approval by staff. In addition, if material is proposed to be exported to another location in Chanhassen, it should be noted that the properties would be required to obtain an earthwork pennit ITom the City. The applicant is proposing the use of retaining walls on Lot I to minimize grading. The retaining walls range in height ITom 0 to 8 feet in height. All retaining walls in excess of 4 feet in height will need to be engineered and require building pennits. Staff recommends that the applicant consider relocating the proposed sidewalk along the east entrance to the opposite side of the drive aisle to eliminate the need for a retaining wall and possibly a fence, All retaining walls e City o(Chalthalleu, A K'owin~ community with eI,an IakfS, quality schools, a chdrmin~ downtown, th,ivin~ bUlin'llfI, and btautiiùl parkl, A V'tat Dlaet to live, work, and Dia" Shannin AI- Jaff December 23,1999 Page 2 over 4 feet in height should be protected with fences and/or landscaping materials to prevent children from falling off the walls, Due to the site characteristics earth berms are neither proposed nor feasible. DRAINAGE The plans propose one new storm water treatment pond to pretreat runoff prior to discharging into the wetlands. In addition, the existing on-site storm water pond is proposed to be expanded to accommodate and pretreat runoff prior to discharging off site, The development's storm sewer system shall be designed for a lO-year, 24-hour storm event. Ponding calculations including pre- and post' development runoff conditions for a 10-year and 100-year, 24-hour storm event need to be submitted for City staff review. Since the site is proposed to be platted into lots the storm drainage system in the main drive aisle areas and trunk lines to the ponds shall be owned and maintained by the City of Chanhassen upon completion and acceptance. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public portions of the storm drainage system including ponds and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Emergency overflows from all storm water ponds and wetlands will also be required on the plans. The plan proposes one new storm water quality pond and to expand the existing pond along Powers Boulevard to pretreat storm water runoff from the site prior to discharging into wetlands or off-site water bodies, The storm water pond shall be designed and constructed with 4 to I slopes or 3 to 1 slopes with a 10 to I slope (bench) for the first one-foot depth of water. The existing outlet control structure in the pond adjacent to Powers Boulevard may have to be replaced with a more current type outlet control structure. Staff will be evaluating this further during the construction plan review process, Given the size of this development, staff recommends that an interim drainage and erosion control plan be developed to provide temporary sedimentation basins during the grading activities. The final construction plans will need to be submitted to city staff for review and formal approval by the City Council at least three weeks prior to final plat consideration. A Watershed District and NPDES permit will also be required in conjunction with this development. UTILITIES Sharmin AI- Jaff December 23, 1999 Page 3 Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site, Sanitary sewer service is available fÌom Lake Drive west at two locations, There is no need to open cut lake Drive West nor will it be permitted to extend utilities into the site. The plans will need to be adjusted to reflect the location of the sewer and water services to the site fÌom Lake Drive West. Municipal water service is available along Powers Boulevard, The developer will be responsible for extending sewer and water improvements to provide service to the interior lots of the development. The extension of utilities throughout this plat will require submittal of detailed construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates for staff review and City Council approval. The construction plans and specifications will need to be submitted a minimum of three weeks prior to final consideration, Staff will perform a greater level of review of the utility layout upon submittal of the detailed construction plans and specifications. The developer will be required to enter into a development contactIPUD agreement with the city and provide a financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of final plat approval. The individual sewer and water services to each lot shall be privately owned and maintained by the property owner or association. Building permits will be required fÌom the City's Building Department for the private utility portion of the project. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over the public utility lines outside of the right-of,way on the final plat. Depending on the depth of the utilities, the minimum drainage and utility easement width shall be 20 feet wide, STREETS A preliminary traffic study/investigation was performed in conjunction with the EA W for the Redmond site (Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th) that is located directly north of this proposal back in 1990 and 1999, According to the preliminary traffic study, development of this area will generate traffic numbers to support the need for a traffic signal at Lake Drive West and Powers Boulevard in the future. The City's feasibility report for Lake Drive West did not take into account the cost of a traffic signal along Powers Boulevard (County Road 17), The City and County will have to coordinate the installation of a traffic signal to accommodate trip generations from the area, It is recommended that the developer be required to escrow with the City a financial guarantee for a share, based on traffic generated fÌom the site, of the local cost participation for a traffic signal at Lake Drive West and Powers Boulevard, The City's local participation Shannin Al- Jaff December 23,1999 Page 4 cost of the traffic signal is not known at this time. Preliminary estimates between the City and County should be used for a security escrow. A condition to address this issue will be placed in the development contract/PUD agreement. Once a final traffic study is completed to address the traffic-related issues as a result of development, staff will be able to incorporate a methodology to detennine the developer's share for a future traffic signal. The City has previously required a security escrow from the developers of the Chanhassen East Business Center and Chanhassen Business Center for this same scenario. The City constructed the street and utility improvements for Lake Drive West in 1999. Lake Drive West is listed as a collector street on the Citýs Comprehensive Transportation Plan and is also a Municipal State Aid Route. Lake Drive West is constructed in accordance with the Citýs Urban/Industrial Street Section, which is a 9-ton road design, 36-foot wide face-to-face street section, boulevard street lighting and landscaping. An 8-foot wide bituminous trail will also be constructed along the northerly right-of-way line of Lake Drive West in the spring of2000. The plans proposed two crossw;¡lks across Lake Drive West. Staff supports the easterly crosswalk, however the west one should be deleted, There is an existing crosswalk just west of the site near the park entrance. Traffic signage for the crosswalk will be installed by the city and the applicant invoiced for the materials, All street construction associated with the crosswalk shall be perfonned by the applicant. The necessary right-of-way width (80 feet) has already been dedicated along Lake Drive West with the plat ofChanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th. No additional right of way is necessary with this proposal. The plans indicate that a bus stop will be provided on Lake Drive West where requested by the Southwest Metro Transit. The city will also need to be consulted in the location so that traffic safety can be evaluated. Upon review of the individual driveway access points along Lake Drive West, staff concurs with the east driveway location; however the west driveway entrance should be shifted easterly to align with the intersection of Upland Circle. The easterly driveway entrance has a sharp curve proposed as you enter the site. This curve may impede the turning movements of larger vehicles such as moving vans and emergency vehicles. The applicant's engineer shall work with city staff in reviewing the turning radius requirements over the entire site and make the necessary changes. Sharmin Al- Jaff December 23, 1999 Page 5 Many ofthe proposed drive aisle widths do not meet the city's ordinances. In addition, some of the turning radiuses are not large enough to accommodate turning of emergency vehicles or moving trucks. The drive aisles shall be a minimum of24 feet wide and 26 feet wide when adjacent to parking stalls and built to 7-ton per axel weight pursuant to Ordinance 18-570-1 and 20-1101. Parking lots shall be designed and constructed in accordance with section 20- 1118. Cross-access easements will need to be prepared and recorded by the developer over the lots in favor of the property owners. The minimum easement width shall be 40 feet wide EROSION CONTROL Erosion control measures are proposed throughout the site. Due to the terrain and the amount of grading, additional erosion control measures may be necessary, Staff believes that a temporary sediment and erosion control plan should be developed which includes temporary sediment ponds, phasing of grading operations, and restoration and be prepared by the developer. Type III erosion control fence will be required adjacent to the wetland areas, Storm water ponds and/or temporary detention ponds shall be constructed with the initial grading phases to minimum erosion potential to the wetlands or downstream water bodies, Erosion control blanket will be required onslopes greater than 3: 1. Revegetation of exposed slopes should occur immediately after grading is completed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1, The developer shall supply the City with a detailed haul route for review and approval by staff for materials imported to or exported from the site. If the material is proposed to be removed off site to another location in Chanhassen, that property owner will be required to obtain an earthwork permit from the City. 2, The applicant will need to develop a temporary sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval in conjunction with final plat submittal. 3, All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or Shannin Al- Jaff December 23,1999 Page 6 sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 4. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. The construction plans and specifications will need to be submitted a minimum ofthree weeks prior to final consideration. 5. All driveway access points shall incorporate the City's Industrial Driveway Apron Detail Plate No. 5207. 6, The applicant shall provide detailed stonn sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year stonn events and provide ponding calculations for stonn water quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post-developed stonn water calculations for 100-year stonn events and nonnal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basin, and/or creeks. Individual stonn sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to detennine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. Emergency overflows from all stonn water ponds and wetlands will also be required on the plans, 7. The applicant shall enter into a development contractIPUD agreement with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the tenns ofthe development contract. 8. The applicant shall apply for and obtain pennits ITom the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County Public Works, Watershed District, Metropolitan Environmental Service Commission, Minnesota Department of Health, and Minnesota Pollution control Agency and comply with their conditions of approval. 9, No benning shall be pennitted within the city's right of way. A 2% boulevard grade must be maintained. Landscaping may be pennitted subject to staff review and approval. Shannin Al- Jaff December 23, 1999 Page 7 10, The utility improvements located within the main drive aisles and trunk stonn drainage lines upon completion shall become City maintained and owned, The individual sewer and water services through each lot shall be privately owned and maintained, Building pennits will be required from the City's Building Department for the private utility portion of the project. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over the public utility lines located outside ofthe right-of-way on the final plat. Depending on the depth of the utilities, the minimum drainage and utility easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Consideration for access routes to the ponds for maintenance proposes shall also be incorporated in the easement width. 11. The developer shall escrow with the City a financial guarantee for a share of the local cost participation based on traffic generated from the site for a future traffic signal at the intersection of Lake Drive West and Powers Boulevard, The cost of the traffic signal is not known at this time, Preliminary estimates between the City and County shall be used for a security escrow. 12, The westerly driveway access point shall be redesigned to align across from Upland Circle, 13, Type III erosion control fence will be required adjacent to the wetland areas, Stonn water ponds and/or temporary detention ponds shall be constructed with the initial grading phases to minimize erosion potential to the wetlands or downstream water bodies. Erosion control blanket will be required on slopes greater than 3: 1. Revegetation of exposed slopes should occur immediately after grading is completed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 14, Stonn water ponds must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the nonnal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes, 15, The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 16, All retaining walls in excess of 4 feet in height will need to be engineered and require building pennits, All retaining walls over 4 feet in height should be protected with fences and/or landscaping materials to prevent Sharmin Al- laff December 23,1999 Page 8 children from fallong off the walls. Emergency overflows from all storm water ponds and wetlands will also be required on the plans. 17. The plans shall be revised to utilize the existing sewer and water services provided to the site from Lake Drive West. Open cutting ofthe street Lake Drive West will not be permitted. 18. The bus stop location along Lake Drive West is subject to city review and approval. 19. The drive aisles shall be a minimum of24 feet wide and 26 feet wide when adjacent to parking stalls and built to 7-ton per axle weight pursuant to Ordinance 18-570-1 and 20-1101. Parking lots shall be designed and constructed in accordance with section 20-1118. Cross-access easements will need to be prepared and recorded by the developer over the lots in favor of the property owners. The minimum easement width shall be 40 feet wide. The applicant's engineer shall work with city staff in reviewing the turning radiuses requirements over the entire site and make the necessary changes. c: Anita Benson, City Engineer CITY OF CHANHASSEN City Center D,ive, PO Box 147 ,anhassen, Minnesota 55317 Phone 612.9311900 ':leneral F/IX 612937.5739 gineering F/IX 612,937.9152 blic Safety Fi/x 612.934,2524 éb www.ci.chanhtlssen.mn.u5 A+\o...J..r>\~t- # L¡- MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin AI-Jaff, Senior Planne:--- ~. Steve Torell, Building Official"7 ì November 19,1999 FROM: DATE: SUBJ: Site plan review for: Lake Susan Hills Apartments Planning Case: 99-14 SUB & 99-19 Site Plan 1 have reviewed the plans for the above project and offer the following comments. These comments should be included in the conditions of approval. 1. The buildings must be protected with automatic fire sprinkler systems. 2. An accessible route must be provided to all buildings, parking facilities, public transportation stops and all common use facilities. 3. All parking areas, including parking garages, must be provided with accessible parking spaces dispersed among the various building entrances. 4. Accessible dwelling units must be provided in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. 5. The building owner and or their representatives should meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. In particular, the locations of the property lines must be reviewed prior to final plat to address allowable building area and exterior wall protection requirements. G/safety/stlmemos/plan/lakesusanhillsapts ~ City ofClJ011hasse11. A f!OWÙlf. community with clelln lakes, qualit¡! schools, fl r/Jannillf dOll'l/toulJl, thrivinf businesses, dnd bealftif,d park.( A e:reflt pfacf to live, work, and p/av. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 City Cmltr Drivt, PO Box 147 Chanhassm, Minnesotil55317 Phon,612,937.1900 G'ntTal Fax 612,937.5739 Enginetring Fax 612,937,9152 Public Safety Fax 612,934.2524 ~b www.ci.chl1nhassen.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Shannin AI-Jaff ---- SI FROM: Steve Torell, Building Official DATE: December 16,1999 SUBJ: Site plan review for: Powers Ridge Apartments Homes (previously Lake Susan Hills Apartments) Planning Case: 99-19 Site Plan I have reviewed the revised plans for the above project. The requirements provided to you in a memo dated November 19, 1999 for Lake Susan Hills Apartments still apply. GIsafety/stlmemoslplan/powersridgeapartments Th, Citv ofChanhassm, A ~winf communitv with cI,an lakes, qllalitv schook, a charminf downtown. thrivinf business", and b,autifi¡! parks. A rreat pia" to live, work. and I 11 Ha.t-hW\e4 t¡. , CITY OF CHANHASSEN ) City Center D,ive, PO Box 147 MEMORANDUM :hanhasJen, Minnesota 55317 Phone 612,937.1900 TO: Sharmin AI-Jaff, Senior Planner General F/IX 612,937.5739 .gineering F/IX 612,937.9152 FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal ,blie Safety F/IX 612.934.2524 Veb www.ci.ehanhllSsen.mn.us DATE: November 15, 1999 SUBJECT: Replat of Outlot A, Lake Susan Hills into 4 lots, site plan review for the construction of 4 multi,family buildings (343 apartments) on property zoned PUD,R with an area of 2] ,34 acres, and a planned unit development amendment to allow 34,9% hard surface coverage, Lake Susau Hills apartments, located at the southwest corner of Powers Boulevard and Lake Drive West, Lake Susan Hills Partnership, Miller, Hanson. Westerbeck, Berger, Inc. Planning Case: 99,14SUB and 99,19 Site Plan I have reviewed the site plan for the above project. In order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, I havethe following fire code or city ordinance/policy requirements, The site plan is base on the available information submitted at thIs time, If additIonal plans or changes are submitted, the appropriate code or policy items will be addressed, I, FIre hydrants: Additional fire hydrants will be required, Some proposed tire hydrants wIll be required to be re,located, Contact the Chanhassen FIre Marshal for exact location of new and relocation of proposed fire hydrants. Pursuant to 1997 UnIform Fire Code Section 903,2, 2, Install post indicator valves (P,I.Vs). Contact the Chanhassen FIre Marshal for exact location, 3, A 10,foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e, street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, cable TV and transformer boxes, ThIs is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters, Pursuant to Chanhassen City OrdInance 9-1. 4, Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding fire department notes to be included on all sIte plans, Pursuant to Chanhassen FIre Department Policy #04-1991 , Copy enclosed, 5, 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, e City ofC/J{l1IIJtlSJeu. A !!owinf. communil1,' with clean Lzkes, quality schools, a channi1w downtown, thrivinl! businesses, and beautifiÛ Parks. A ffeat place to live, work. and olav. Shannin AI-Jaff November 15,1999 Page 2 6. Required access, Fire apparatus access roads shall be installed pursuant to Section 902.2,1 of the 1997 Unifonn Fire Code, In reviewing the plans, because access cannot meet fire code requirements, the following additional fire protection shall be required: a, Attic spaces shall be sprinklered per NFPA 13. b. Class I standpipes shall be installed in stair towers, c. The exterior balconies shall be protected by the fire sprinkler system, 7. Water supplies for fire protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction, Pursuant to Unifonn Fire Code Section 901.3, 8. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all weather driving capabilities. These surfaces shall be provided for prior to construction, Pursuant to 1997 Unifonn Fire Code Section 902.2.2.2, 9. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding premise identification. Submit plans to Fire Marshal for review of building identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed. 10. Turning radius shall be reviewed by the Chanhassen City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for approval. Pursuant to 1997 Unifonn Fire Code Section 902,2,2.3, g:\safety\ml\pJanningcase99·19 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 'City Ctnt(/' Drit·(. PO Box 14} 1~nhauln,Afinn6o~553Iï Phont61l,9T1900 Gen"al Fax 61l,93ï.5739 ':ginming h\' 612,937.9152 ,Vlie Sdftty lit< 612.934.252-1 ~'(b It'U'w.ci.cl'dnl'JSS(11.mn.llS CHANHASSEN 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 Reau!rements - General 1. Numbers shall be a contrasting color from the background. 2. Numbers shall not be in script. 3. If a structure is not visible from the street, additional numbers are required at the driveway entrance. size and location must be approved. 4. Numbers on mail box at driveway entrance may be a minimum of 4-. However, requirement '3 must still be met. S. Administrative authority may require additional numbers if deemed necessary . Residential Reauirements (2 or less dwellinq unit) 1. Minimum height shall be 5 1/4-. 2. Building permits will not be finaled unless numbers are posted and approved by the Building Department. Commercial Reauirem.ents 1. Minimum height shall be 12-. 2. 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. 3. 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: Page 1 of 1 ~/ Approved - Public Safety Director It CiJy ofCh.znlwssm. A grou.';ng community with eltdn lakes, qUi/lity schoob, d chd"ning downtown, thriving busint,m, dnd bfdutijùl ",ria, Ag,tat pl4l:( to lill(, work, dnd play. CITY OF CHANHASSEN . 690CityCtnttl'Drivt,POBnx147 Chanh4SJtIl, Minnmlld 553/7 Phon, 612,9311900 , GtIlmrl h, 6/2,9375739 E/lginwing FItX 6/2,9379152 Public Saftry Fax 612.934.2524 \fib www.â.chanhflSImmn.us CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY CHANHASSEN FIRE DEP ARTMENTNOTES TO BE INCLUDED ON ALL SITE PLANS I. Fire Marshal must witness the flushing of underground sprinkler service line, per NFP A 13-8-2.1. 2. A final inspection by the Fire Marshal before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. 3. Fire Department ~ roads shall be provided on site during all phases of construction. The construction of these temporary roads will confonn with the Chanhassen Fire Department requirements for temporary access roads at construction sites. Details are available. 4. Onsite fll'e hvdrants shall be provided and in operating condition during all phases of construction. 5. The use of liauefied petroleum gas shall be in confonnance.with NFP A Standard 58 and the Minnesota Unifonn Fire Code. A list of these requirements is available. (See policy #33-1993) 6, All fire detection and fll'e suppression svstems shall be monitored by an approved UL central station with a UL 72 Certificate issued on these systems before final occupancy is issued. 7. An II" 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: 11122/91 Revised: 06/05/98 Page I of2 'l7N City of Ch..hltSSm. A grou';ng community with ckan lakes, quality schoo&, a cbarming downtown, th,iving busin",es, and brdurijùl pa,*" A gt'dt place to IiI/(, u.Tk, and 8. 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, 9. High-piled combustible storage shall complv with the reauirements of Article #81 of the Minnesota Unifonn 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 low as 6 feet. 10. Fire lane signage shall be provided as required by the Fire Marshal. (See policy #06-1991). 11. Maximum allowed size of domestic water service on a combination domestic/fire sprinkler supply line policy must be followed. (See policy #36-1994), Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #04-1991 Date: 11/2219l Revised: 06/05/98 Page 2 of2 Approved - Public Safety Director CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 City Cmttr Drill<. PO Box 147 Ch"lh4ssm. Jfìnnesot4 55317 Pho..612,937.1900 GtllmJ Fax 612.93ï.5739 Enginming F"" 612,937.9152 PlIblU' 50ftty F"" 612,934.2524 Wtb www.ci.ihlJ1lhassm.mn.lu CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY REOUlREMENTS FOR FIRE LANE SIGNAGE NO . PARKING FIRE LANE / ~ 7'0" "- ./ (NOT TO SCALE) GRADE 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 5. 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 SUBMIITED 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. ðL'%Dm<ID'- Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #06- I 99 I Date: OI1I5/91 Revised: Page I of 1 Tht Cil> of ClNznhassm, A trUWin{ communi,., wirh ckan lakes, qUJJiry schook ,¡ chamling downrown. thriving busints1es. and btautifùl path A f1'at plact to Jill<, u~'¡r, ana CITY OF CHANHASSEN 'City Center Driv" PO Box 147 hanhalsen, Minnesota 55317 Phone 612,937.1900 General Fax 612,937.5739 sgin"ring Fax 612,937.9152 'blic Safety Fax 612,934.2524 7eb www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin AI,Jaff, Senior Planner FROM: Mark Litttìn, Fire Marshal DATE: December 13, ¡ 999 SUBJECT: Lake Susan Hiils Partn~rship and Milier, Hanson. Westerbeck, Berger, lnc, Request for a site plan review of five three level apartment bnildings and a Community buildir,g for a total of344 apal1ments on property zoned PUD-R With a~ area of 21.34 acres and a planned unit development amendment to Allow 34,9% hard surface coverage, amended parking standards 2nd Preiiminarj plat approvai to divide 21.34 acres inte four lots located at the Southwest comers of Powers Boulevard and Lake Drive West, Powers Ridge Apartment Homes, Planning Case: 99,4 Site Plan I have reviewed the site plan far the above project. In order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Divisiotl, 1 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, In reviewing the revised plans 1 will still use the original site plan review comments submitted to you on November 15. 1999. No additional changes or modifications would be required at this time. g:\safety\ml\sa99-4 , City of Chal/hass",. A !(I'owin; community with clean lakes, quality schoob, a ,halmine downtown, thrivine businesses, alld beauti/ù! parks. A ereat place to I¡oe, work, alld play, AttCkc..I<.~-e.t\t #-b ~ ~ 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 RlCEIVE§J1 NOV 2 2 ~tion Engineering CITY OF Ct1J(iIffl'~~n~c. Surveymg & Mappmg CARVER COUNTY November 23, 1999 To: From: Subject: Sharmin AI-Jaff, Senior Planner, City of Ch~nh ssen Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer .11 Site Plan Review ' Lake Susan Hills Partnership; Miller, Hanson, Westerbreck, Berger Inc. (99-14 SUB and 99-19 Site Plan) We have reviewed the information regarding the proposed replat of Outlot A, Lake Susan Hills, transmitted to Carver County by your memorandum dated November 8, 1999. This proposed development does not directly impact a County roadway but it appears that a majority of the traffic from this proposed development will access County Road 17 (Powers Blvd) from Lake Drive West. Based on the information provided of the planned 343 living units and using the planning number of 10 vehicle trips per day from a living unit equates to a traffic generation of 3,430 vehicles per day. Consideration may want to be given to the impacts this proposal makes on the surrounding transportation system. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the site plan for the proposed development. A.i(im¡,lIi¡'( ACIÙi!JJ::qllal O!lpnrfUlÚry Employer /'!...,""'/ '1fJ l(JC; POSl-CU/lS/(/ne,- Ren'c!u/ Paper AH~# 7 f~'I\ \!.. ...~ Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road 82 Roseville, MN 55113 November 17, 1999 Shannin AI-Jaff, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 690 City Center Drive Post Office Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Subject: Replat of Outlot A, Lake Susan Hills (99-14 SUB and 99,19 Site Plan) Dear Mr. Shannin: Please be advised that the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnJDOT) has received the above-referenced plans. We have detennined that a fonnal review by our agency is not required as the subject property is not adjacent to MnJDOT right of way and the level of development will not significantly impact our highway system. Your submittal of these plans to MnJDOT is appreciated, Please address all future correspondence for development activity such as plats, site plans, environmental reviews, and comprehensive plan amendments to: Sheny Narusiewicz MnJDOT ' Metro Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Feel free to contact me at (651) 582,1771 if should have any questions. 1'3' Paul Czech Senior Transportation Planner/Local Government Liaison cc: MnJDOT LGL - Chanhassen REC!=I\f/,:'f' NO\! 1 9 1999 An equal opportunity employer CITY vr '-'ni':\,"-.~.'';'':: Affa,-,hMerJ 11 'Z Neighborhood Meeting December 2nd 7:00 P.M. at ST. HUBERT CATHOLIC COMMUNITY 82()J Main Street Clrallha.\'sen, Minnesota 55317 ~.. See map on back side for directions. Informational Meeting for Powers Ridge Apartment Homes December 2, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. We would like to invite you to an informal neighborhood meeting at St, Hubert's Catholic Church on December 2nd, 1999 at 7:00 p,m.. The church is located at 8201 Main Street and will be held in the St, Lukes Meeting Room, The Powers Ridge Apartment Homes are being proposed for the Southwest comer of Lake Drive West and Powers Blvd, (Highway #17) in the City ofChanhassen, This complex will consist of a total of274 rental units and 70 Senior Apartments, Amenities include a Central Community Area consisting of an outdoor swimming pool, community building, a picnic area, fountain, gardens and several play lots, This meeting is to give adjacent property owners an opportunity to gather more information about the site and to ask questions in a very informal setting, The City of Chanhassen will be conducting a formal Planning Commission Meeting, prior to the City Council's review of the project. We hope you can attend, v~ /2" Tom Ries Lake Susan Hills Partnership Tom Ries Lake Susan Hills Partnership 76000 Parklawn Avenue Suite 200 Edina, MN 55435 Ph# (612) 835-7600 A.tfo.4WteAt #- g q-fi( ~ Czp"",'-.J NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, .JANUARY 5, 2000 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE PROPOSAL: Powers Ridge Apartment Hom_ APPLICANT: Lake Susan Hills Partnership Miller Hanson Westerbeck Berger, Inc, LOCATION: Powers Blvd. and Lake Drive W. NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Lake Susan Hills Partnership and Miller Hanson Westerbeck Berger, Inc., are requesting site plan approval for 5 three level apartment buildings and a community building for a total of 344 apartments on property zoned PUD-R with an area of 21.34 acres, and a Planned Unit Development amendment to allow 34.9% hard surface coverage, amended parking standards, a wetland alteration permit and preliminary plat approval to subdivide 21.34 acres into 4 lots located at the southwest corner of Powers Boulevard and Lake Drive West, Powers Ridge Apartment Homes. 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 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, Cötnments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall durihg 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 Sharmin at 937-1900 ext. 120. 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. ~/ Smooi:h Feed Sheets™ VARD A PAULS 7 TOP OF THE V\ORLD DR ,TlAKECITY,UT 84121 :E SUSAN HILLS o PARKLAVIoN AVE 'NEAPOLlS, MIl 55435 \IRIE CREEK TOVloNHOUSE ASSN 'MULTIVENTURE PROPERTIES IN o 65TH STW INEAPOLlS, MIl 55435 æ SUSAN HILLS lW'IHOMES ASSN "N: TOM SIMPSON 8 ROSEV\OOD DR ~HASSEN, MIl 55317 IVERS PLACE T01M'JHOUSE ASSN BOX 18099 ST ST PAUL, MIl 55118 "PHEN C & JUDITH A SLACK 19 BURLV\OOD DR ANHASSEN, MIl 55317 VIES E & CORICE V JASPER I PARTRIDGE CIR ICONIA, MN 55387 ;¡PER DEVELOPM:NT CORP )F WACONIA ~ EAST FRONTAGE RD \CONIA, MN 55387 DY E MOELLER 25 BURLV\OOD DR IANHASSEN, MIl 55317 .NCY L ZINMER 42 BURLV\OOD DR IANHASSEN, MIl 55317 ~. PATRICK A & V<ÆNDY K NELSON 8411 EGRET CT CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317 . BARRY LEE LlBENGOOD & SUZANNE LEAH LlBENGOOD 8420 EGRET CT CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317 JOHN R & KRISTIN K BILDEN 8421 EGRET CT CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317 PERRY RANAN 8430 EGRET CT CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317 BERNARDINO R LANZI JR & lONNA M LANZI 8431 EGRET CT CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317 GEOFFREY D & HOLLY N KUCHERA 8441 EGRET CT CHANHASSEN. MIl 55317 JANE E EVANS 8283 ESSEX RD CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317 MARY M LEIRDAHl 8291 ESSEX RD CHANHASSEN,MII 55317 ROBERT J JENSEN & MARY A ZEHRER 8299 ESSEX RD CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317 DOUGlES R & DONNA MJOHNSON 8305 ESSEX RD CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317 Use template for 5160® FLOYD R & GRETCHEN E RADACH 8313 ESSEX RD CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 ROGER A & BEVERLY H SEVERSON 8321 ESSEX RD CHANHASSEN,MII 55317 DORIS S LARSON 8324 ESSEX RD PO BOX 66 CHANHASSEN,MII 55317 BETTY L GIBONEY 8329 ESSEX RD CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317 KAREN A K NELSON 8330 ESSEX RD CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317 SHAWN J JENSEN & MICHEllE l VOlK 1230 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317 HAMID R HOODEH 228 MEADOW IN ST PAUL, MN 55127 DAVID R & DIANNE E RUEGG 1250 LAKE SUSAN HilLS DR CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317 JOHN B & ANN M SICHAK 1251 LAKE SUSAN HillS DR CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317 JAMES E & lOIS E DYVIG 1260 LAKE SUSAN HillS DR CHANHASSEN,MII 55317 Smooth Feed Sheets™ MOUNE & SOMPONG KHAKHAM 1261 lAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, M'I 55317 MICHAEL P & JULIE RAE SMTHSON 1311 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, M'I 55317 RICHARD 1 & JEANNE L DERBY 1270 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, M'I 55317 DOUGLAS & SANDRA WLDER 1320 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN,M'l55317 CHRIS A & AUDRA L MJLLET 1271 lAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, M'I 55317 KERRY L & KIMA SIMENSON 1330 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, M'I 55317 ROBERT J CRAV\FORD 1280 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, M'I 55317 DANIEL P & SUSAN J FAGAN 1340 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 ARLENE C STENE TRUSTEE OF TRUST 1281 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN,M'l55317 JUAN F & RAM:JNA R PENA 1350 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 WILLIAM P & RHONDA D V\lEBER 1290 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317 DOUGLAS R & SHARON LEE TAYLOR 1360 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN. MIl 55317 LOUIS J & MAUREEN A PISTULKA 1291 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317 JAMES 0 MERIWETHER 8445 POWERS PL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MARK DANIEL WAGNER 1300 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN. M'I 55317 CARL L & MARY L ALEXANDER 8447 POWERS PL CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 STEPHEN P NEURERER 1301 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, M'I 55317 BRIAN E HARMS & TAMARA G STERNER 8448 POWERS PL CHANHASSEN. MIl 55317 MARK T & KAREN ANN M::NZU8ER 1310 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317 CAMILLE K CARLSON 6456 TURTLE POINT PL MASON, OH 45040 ~_u_ Use template for 5160® LORRAINE I POHLEN 8387 ROSEVvOOD DR CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 MARY JANE TYLER 8391 ROSEVvOOD DR CHANHASSEN,M'lSS317 DARRELL K & JO ANNE K CHAYER 8395 ROSEV\OOD CHANHASSEN. M'I 55317 TROY C & LISA A Mð.TCHAN 8410 ROSEVvOOD DR CHANHASSEN. MIl 55317 GWEN LEIGH KUHRT 8304 SUFFOLK DR CHANHASSEN. MIl 55317 ARNOLD W & ELAINE L KLOCKE 8312 SUFFOLK DR CHANHASSEN. MIl 55317 WILLIAM J & JUDITH A HANDKE 8320 SUFFOLK DR CHANHASSEN.MII 55317 JAMES L CRAB8E & CINDY A CMERON-CRABBE 8328 SUFFOLK DR CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317 ROBERT R & DOROTHY J SVlANSON 8344 SUFFOLK DR CHANHASSEN. MIl 55317 THOMAS A KELM 8345 SUFFOLK DR CHANHASSEI'iI. MN 55317 Smooth Feed Sheets™ >N J & IRIS E ST LAW¡ENCE ,1 SUFFOLK DR I>.NHASSEN, M'I 55317 3EPH P MCATROTTO & NSTANCEJ MCATROTTO i2 SUFFOLK DR I>.NHASSEN, M'I 55317 IN l & BEVERLY J SCHIRO ;7 SUFFOLK DR ANHASSEN, M'I 55317 NRENCE E & LINDA L BERNDT ;0 SUFFOLK DR ANHASSEN, M'I 55317 .BERT B & SANDRA K OVERSON 38 SUFFOLK DR ANHASSEN, M'I 55317 ,RV SDOWNING !4 SUFFOLK DR ANHASSEN, M'I 55317 ~HARD J & JUDITH H DYBEVIK US1EES OF TRUST 39 SWEET DR FAYETTE, CA 94549 lOMAS C & LYNDA M DOTZENROD 80 WEST LAKE CT IANHASSEN, M'I 55317 IDREWK & CHERYL A OLSON 90 WEST LAKE CT IANHASSEN, M'>J 55317 )NALD & CYNTHIA TONN 00 WEST LAKE CT ~HASSEN,MN 55317 ~ -.,-.--- Use template for 5160® PAUL A & DARLENE R RYAN 8310 WEST LAKE CT CHANHASSEN, M'I 55317 BARRY G & ANITA E STECKLlNG 8320 WEST LAKE CT CHANHASSEN, M'I 55317 Sent By: LOUCKS & ASSOCIATES, INC. j I'&JV .11.~::f;f; 11"; 4~1·,' 612 424 5822; Nov,16-99 1 :04PMj Page 2 NO.51!!9 P.2 CITY OF CHANHA88I!N _ C::OUL.lIFI DRIVE CHANIWIIEIf.IIN 55317 (112) 187-1. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPUCAll0N APP~ Lake Susa~ Hills Partnership ~ 7600 Parklavn Avenue, Suite 200 Edina, MN 55435 'T!I.ERHONE (Daytlme>-~I.Y835-7bOO CWVNER' Lake Susan Hills Partnership ~: 7600 Parklavn Avenue, Suite 200 Edina. MN 55435 TELEP~: 612/835-7600 .. _ com¡Ítehensiw PI~r. AmenØ/ntnt _ TempoœJYSIIes Permit -.- _ Candlllanal Use P,,;mil _ Vaœdon of RCWVIEaMm_ -, . _ /nIeIIm Use Permit ...L VIIIIInc8 ~ .~ _ NorKonformlng U$~ P~rmìt . ~ WeIIInd AJteraIiDn Permit , ,....... ~ 'PIanned Unit Deve':>¡m,enr 1:::( _ Zaning Þ4lPlII jV ......0- _ R8zDnIng _ ZonIng 0nInen0e Amendment -,.... . _ SIgn Perml1s ~ Sign Plan Review _ NDIIfIoa1Ion SIgn ..._u_ -.!- SII8 PIIn fleview" ...Ã. &craw for ~ FeetlAaomey Cosr ($110 CUPlSPRNACNAFVWAP/M8!8S III'ICI !bmdr,14OO Minor SUB) .~.. ...L Subdlvilkmo TOfALFEES 3..485 .00 - -.- A IIat afal prupert¡ ownerswltldn ICIOfIII of the boundarteII elf.... II'OpIfIymult be Included with the IIppllcdorL BuDding mlll8rial s~;pplcs must be.ubmltllld wfth.... II"" review-. "Tw8nt~full ab.<:bJ.I!.aI copies afthep/arlllmuat buubmlllilcl, Indudlng en IM~ X 11"NdurAId copyof 1nInsparenc:y for eë ch plan sheet. oO Escrøw will be r~.j'" r.d for oIher IpplIcatlOI1ll tbrough the drtelopment contnIc:t NOTE - When mulllple applica tbns are processed, !he spproprim* fe. ahaII be charged for 8ICh application. PROJECT NAME Powers Ridge Apartment Homes .OCAllON Southwest corner of Lake Drive West and ŒAH #1 (Powers Boulevard) ..EGAl DESCRIPTION See Attached 'OTALACREAGE 21.34 acres VETI.ANDS PRESENT X YES NO 'RESENT ZONING High densitv residential, 8 - 16 units/acre IEQUESTEDZONING Hiffll density residential, 8 - 16 units/acre RESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION High density resi.dential, 8 - 16 units/acre EQUESTEDLANDUSEDESIGNATION High density residential, 8 - 16 units/acre EASON FOR THIS REQUEST Develonnent of apartment ccmplex consistinl?:' of 274 rental units and 70 senior housing units. lis application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information ,d plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before fding this application, you should confer with the Planning epamnent 10 determine the specific ordinance and procedural requlremems applicable to your application. determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written )!ice of application deficiencies shall be mailed 10 the applicant within ten business day~ of application. . ". J . ¡is is to cenify that 1 am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with I City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed In my name and I am the party whom e City should contact regarding any matter pertaining 10 this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either 'py of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Tille, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make 's application and the fee owner has afso signed this application. "in keep myself 'infonned of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further Idersrand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees. feasibility stiJdies, etc. with an estimate prior to any thorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of ( knowledge. Ie city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing ~uirements and agency review. Therefore, the city Is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day tension lor development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review tensions are approved by the applicant ' ~~~V~'1 ¡nature 01 Ap~' e Susan Hills Partnership - / ~..<-" r£"-/~ ,nature of Fee Owner Lake Susan Hills Partnership' 1/~:}ll-t7?' Date ,.) 'I ÿ"[.71i:/ c}C}' , Date ' plicatIon Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. e applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report whIch will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. Sent By: LOUCKS & ASSOCIATES, INC.; LEGAL DESCRlPTION; 612 424 5822; NOV·16,99 1:05PM; Page 4 That part ofthc South Half of Secdon 14, Township 116, Range 23. Carver C'.ounly. Minnesola, describud as follows: Dc¡innine al the inrerscction of the Westelly rI¡¡ht-of-way linc of County State Aid Highway No. 17 as described in the Cum:cted Highway Easement, Book 157 of Deeds, pagc 6, on file and of record in the omce of the Cowlly Recorder, said Carver County, with the Northerly line nfLot I, Block 2, Lake Susan Hills West, said Carver County; thence on an assumed bearing of NOM 84 decrees 01 minuw 42 seconds Wut, aloll/l!ho Northerly line of said Lake Susan Hill. West, a distance of95.oo feet to the NorthWCSI comer of said Lot I, thence North 34 depes 30 minutes 03 secouds West, along said Northerly line, a distance of 115.51 feet to the moal Northerly comer of Lot 3, Blodt 2. said Lake Susan 1JUIs West; thence North 74 deSteCS 12 mJnulc$ 22 seconds Wesc, alonll said Northerly line, a eIi.lance of 119.11 fcellO the Northwesl comer of Lot 4, Block 2, said Lake Susan Hills West; thence North 71 decrees 42 minutes 01 seconds Wesc, along said Northerly line, a dill8Dce of232.73 feet to !he Northwest com.. of Lot 6, Block 2, said Lake Susan Hills West; tbenc:e Soutb 79 deareea 32 minutes 51 seconds Wesl, alone said Northerly line. a distance ofB9.11 fect 10 the Northwest comer of Lot 7, Block 2, said Lake Susan Hills West; thence South 71 degrees 54 minutes 03 seconds West, aloog said Northerly line, a distaDce of 101.58 feet 10 the NottItweSl cOmer of Lot I, Block 2, said Lakc Susan Hills West; !hence North 64 cleere" 36 minu!c$ 00 seconds West, " distancç of 767.28 feet 10 th~ Soutberllline of OutiO( D. Chanhassen Lakes Business PIrl<, said Carver County; thence Northeasterly along .aid Sou!herly line, a distance of 45.00 feet, aJoog a nootangential curve, concave 10 die Sowheasl, having a radius of 250.00 feet, a ccnual angJe of 10 degrees I I minutes 48 iCCOndS and a chord bearing of North 50 dc:gRCS 41 minutes'30 seconds East; thCIIU Nurtheasteliy, along said Southerly line, a distance of 909.49 feet, alon¡ a compouud curve, Concave 10 the South, having a radius of2850.71 fc:c:t and a o:enual angle of 18 degrees 16 minutes 47 sec:oilCls; thence North 74 dep'ees 07 minutes 41 seconds East, tangent to said curve. along said Soudlerly line a distance of 19.84 feet; thence Easlc:rly, along said Southerly line, a dlitaDce of 492.18 feet, alonll a tangcntial curve, concave to the South, having a rmlius of 600.00 feet and a central angle of47 degtees 00 minutes 00 seconds; thence Soull158 dellrce5 51 minut... 19sec:onds Eat, tanllenllO .aid curve, along said Southerly line:, a distance of 350.45 fc:c:t to said Westerly right-of-way line; thence South 3 I degrees 08 minut.. 0 I seconds West, along said Westerly right-of.way line, a dislance of 244.64 feel; !henw Southwesterly, along said Westerly right-of-way line. . distance of 536.18 feet, along a taDllet1liaJ curve, cDncave to ,he £asl, having a radius of 1220.92 feet and a o:eJ.lrII.l onglc of25 degrees 09 minutes 43 seconds to tbe point of beginning. Pï+to.d\W1~ "# 10 December 17,1999 Dear 11Ä First, we would like to introduce ourselves. We are Lois & Jim Dyvig living at 1260 Lake Susan Hills Drive in Chanhassen, We moved to this address in April 1999 ITom the Glen Lake area of Minnetonka. We are both now retired. Secondly, we located this property on Lake Susan Hills Drive that seemed to fit our needs very well. It was smaller, moderately priced, nice neighborhood, and spacious and private backyard, The previous owner informed us that the property behind the hill (berm) in our backyard was zoned for single-family units. Upon further discussion with neighbors we learned that the undeveloped areas were zoned for light industrial, when proved to be partially correct, In either case we rationalized that we would visually see little more than the rooftops of our newest neighbors. Thirdly, we received notice of an informational meeting for the Powers Ridge Apartment Homes on December 2,1999, We were completely surprised to read about ''rental apartments". Of course we attended along with a few of our neighbors, the Mayor and some of the developers, What we saw and heard were far beyond our worst fears--there standing on "TOP" of the hill in our backyard 41evel buildings, plus roofs, --gone was our beautiful, private backyard, The mayor told us that we should have checked with the City regarding zoning before purchasing our home, We had to agree, but also realized that never would we have been told that four stories of concrete were going to be built on TOP of the hill in our backyard, Next, two of the developers, Messrs Ries & Lampson, visited our place on December 6th to get a visual perspective of their project ITom the current homeowners view of the property, They plan to return on December 18th along with architect to meet with additional homeowners, We also attended a meeting on December 15th with Kate Aanenson in which she explained variuos zoning and review processes, Lastly, we would greatly appreciate it if you would visit our home to view the proposed develop- ment ITom our deck and living quarters, We strongly believe that considerations that were part of the zoning reviews and approvals in 1987 and 1991 were incomplete regarding buffer restrictions for visual and noise levels between the single family dwellings on Lake Susan Hills Drive and the property being zoned for high density, We are attaching a list of suggestion sic on sider at ions we provided at a neighborhood meeting on December 12th, Thank you for your considerations and we hope to hear ITom you considering a visit to our home, Lois & Jim Dyvig 612/4484135 :-,. ~,- -- ._.' 'n -:-.,. !"~. Attachment; aJs Copies furnished: Mayor, Kate Aanenson & Developers ",:-t. ') {) 1M'" L ... ".:j~.j:1 ;'...1., To: Kate Aanenson Sub' '.Jeer: P01V~ JUdge J\partnJent HOllies On tbi~ date bOllleoWn~ fì; .. """"'..... " ... r."..... ,.., ""'" .... .~ ......-. II< ;....- or '" -... _...... "' ~ "'............ "'......... . . - . ..." """"" "'" . ............... .... - ... - of", -..... """"""" -....... . , "'" -., of", ......-. on ~ ..., ""'................ "'" ... _ of2..... BoI,w 2Oa, ""... "'" ~ /!Of "'" '" '" 1. COnsider Bldgs B-1 and B-2 fOr . 2. ÞIom 2 "'"' of """- 10.15::::,........ "'II .. BJdo D 3 ..., of", """'""- ...... .... ..... '" _ Q, 1 . Lo..",.......... '" _ of" . " '" 4. Lo..",.......... "B. & B 2 ... B. & S,2 ..... "-2 '" '-12 or 3 """.. . '" "'" ."'" "'" ..... .... d 'f . IJ So B-1 & B-2 December 18, 1999 5. Add an 4tb st . 6. Change balco;fe? ~~ ~~ons Ofbldgs C and/or A.. l At........ B'I & B.d' s, I & S,2 t, boy_...... 8 li,;Jy bo.... '" · 2{)0 I1>at """'" "'m ""'P<>y "" of.... ·R.educe nl11nber of OUtside arkin 9.1.0""",-... S,I/s · _.. S,I &S,2 ("'87 , -2 by POSSIbly 10 to 14 feet. a OVe). ~any Otber issues and consid . -""" -.." "'" t, be'::: -........., /be _ ''''.. w -..., 1.... ~ but........ -::.":..~ _", Tho", ""y.... "7.., "-n ones, L LOis DYvig -. .~ .. ~ """:-,"",:. f)!-.., '..,...., 2:,\ 1"...." . _,c I, "'''',' <~. , - I 1:.//. '<I~'.' " .";~,,,~;;;.~~.;if~~ ~ ....."...(..-~~..._,~'....., . -: ,':~ . ,.-,'.,::,~( " . .. it:;"wiì.!¡Î.~'......;1i'j;; .' ,,' .' '-" ","'·'r~".~'::,._·k,Jf..¡-. ....'.;.:;.".... r;,·_!"·-''. , ,'" . ~'f"'~:<"~7I"","~'7:""'~_~~.""- '.~.1 Suggestions re Pfoposed 343 apartment rental complex ifétr,4ß':k13f!/; . *i~Move building B-2 50 feet north to be on even plane with B-1; th~~},{f:;;":;ét!:t. " . creating a 150 foot setback instead of 100 feet. ., .-' . ..,-...., ..,. 2. Make buildings B-1 and B-2 and D into Town Homes or Condos 3. Make buildings.B-land B-2 senior living as well as D -jt 4. Make buildings B-1 and B-2 two stories ¡fr 5. IÌigher hill (birm) at south edge of complex -j( 6. Add 'a fence to maintain privacy at south end ¡Jr 7. Use m~e~vergreens to block view at south end 8. Who will compensate home owners for lost valuation of their properties? ;IF 9. Please respect home owners need for privacy; visually, auditorialy, and esthetically 10. How will homestead evaluations be adjusted for property tax assessments? 11. How will the current road situation tolerate the high density population of this complex? Ex.; 2 exits from complex onto high traffic roadways. 12. Will there be a need to add a traffic light at Lake Drive and Powers., '. . Blvd? Left hand turns without a light will certainly be a )1a7.7.ard and' .., result in many accidénts and probably' deaths. . . iY fÎ1osfT,-n f~~+ .....,-: I I..,. ../- -1-1 . _ -/-, / :2~ð ,Ú1K.cParM ¡j'/J/r 0,... CITY OF CHANHASSEN '0 City C",It, Dri"" PO Box 147 ChanhtlSsen, Minnesotl155317 Phon, 612,9311900 General FIlX 612,937.5739 :ngin"ring FIlX 612,937.9152 'ublic Softty FIlX 612,934.2524 Mb www.ci.chanhtlSSm.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Shannin AI-Jaff, Senior Planner ,\\\ '\*I\¡' Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer s;jj FROM: DATE: January 13, 2000 SUBJ: Update from Planning Commission Meeting of January 5,2000 Powers Ridge Apartments Grading Issues Land Use Review File No. 99-35 The Planning Commission requested staff revisit the grading issue of whether or not there was verifiable evidence to present to the Commission and/or City Council that there has been a change in land elevation on the apartment site, Staff has reviewed the final grading plan for the Lake Susan Hills development and the existing conditions shown on the Powers Ridge Apartments plan, Upon overlaying the two documents it appears there has been land alteration directly behind Lots 4, 5, 6 and 7, Block 2, Lake Susan Hills, I have attached for your convenience a copy of the final grading plan for the Lake Susan Hills development (Figure I). I would like to point out the large knoll (elevation 940) on Lots 5 and 6, Block 2, Lake Susan Hills prior to development which was lowered approximately 12 feet to facilitate Lake Susan Hills Drive and building sites adjacent to the street. In addition, the backyard areas of Lots 2 through 7, Block 2 including part of the apartment site has been graded to provide an emergency overflow outlet for the wetland located north of Lots 8 and 9 on the apartment site. The existing elevation in this area ranged from 930 to 942. As a result of grading for Lake Susan Hills development the backyard areas were lowered to 924 to 928. Staff has no evidence that supports the material was deposited on the apartment site; however, staff believes it may have been, Figure 2 denotes the area on the apartment site that appears to be altered since the grading plan for Lake Susan Hills was prepared. Based on Figure 2 it appears approximately 1.77 acres were altered. The amount of fill placed in this area is approximately 5700 cubic yards. The original elevations ranged from 938 to 942, After alteration the grades range from 938 to 946. I believe that the grading plan for Lake Susan Hills Phase I development would be a good example for the Commission to use when comparing the two developments. As you will note, the existing contours in Phase I of Lake Susan Hills was significantly altered in order to prepare the site for streets and building pads very similar to all building sites within Chanhassen where topographic constraints require mass grading and land alteration. The apartment site has very similar constraints with Lake Drive West to the north, Powers Boulevard to the ~, City of Chmlhassen, A !(l"owin~ community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charmin~ downtown, thrivinf busin,sses, and beautiful þa,ks, A mat p/oce to Ii"" work, and p/o, .' Shannin Al-Jaff January 13, 2000 Page 2 east and existing wetlands and steep slopes on the site, Using these parameters, a site grading plan is prepared which tries to retain these natural or man-made features. The engineer also takes into account the balance in earthwork material to minimize importing to and exporting from material from the site. The other part of the equation is building type. Basements generate excess material that needs to be incorporated into the equation of the earthwork balance. Overall, staff believes that the site grading plan submitted on behalf of the developer is fairly well done and retains the natural features of the site (steep slopes and significant trees), protects wetland bodies and is compatible with the adjacent street system, Development of this site is also very similar to the development of the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park directly north of the site and/or Villages on the Ponds apartments off of Highway 101. Both ofthese sites had significant topographic change which requires significant alteration in order to prepare the building site yet still have manageable street and parking lot grades. Staff believes overall the preliminary grading plan submitted for Powers Ridge is not excessive and retains the characteristics of the existing parcel. It is unfortunate that there is such a great difference in elevation resulting between the apartment site and the single-family development to the south. Although, as indicated on the grading plan for the Lake Susan Hills development, the original terrain was approximately the sàme elevation as the apartment site before development of the single-family homes. Staff is recommending approval of the grading plan for the Powers Ridge development as submitted. Attachments: 1. Figure 1 - Grading plan for Lake Susan Hills Phase 1. 2. Figure 2 - Land alteration for apartment site. c: Anita Benson, City Engineer g:\eng\dave\pc\powers ridge memo.doc Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000 Burton: That staff review the definition of automobile and incorporate it into the ordinance. Peterson: All those in favor signity by saying aye. Kind: I'm sony. Mr. Chair I have one friendly amendment to number 4. To have it read, no public address system or outside phones shall be pennitted. Joyce: Accepted. Joyce moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission approve Zoning Ordinance Amendment (Sec. 20296, Sec. 20-714 and Sec. 20-1124) to pennit automobile rental facilities as a conditional use in the BH, Highway Business District as shown in Attachment #4 with the condition that staff review the definition of automobile and include it in the ordinance. Amending Section 20-296(b)(4) to read, No public address system or outside telephones shall be pennitted. And adding under Section 20-296(b), item 12. No signage shall be attached to vehicles. All voted in favor, except Peterson and Conrad who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of5 to 2. Peterson: My reasoning is probably the same as Ladd's where I think it's too restrictive. Conrad: And I would add to that, I think 20's too high and so, I think 20's too high, I'd like to see it low and we can always raise it in the future. And I'm a little bit concerned about the signage restriction based on your definition... PUBLIC HEARING: REOUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REOUESTING 5 THREE LEVEL APARTMENT BUILDINGS AND A COMMUNITY BUILDING FOR A TOTAL OF 344 APARTMENTS ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R WITH AN AREA OF 21.34 ACRES. AND A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW 34.9% HARD SURFACE COVERAGE. AMENDED PARKING STANDARDS. A WETLAND AL TERA nON PERMIT AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE 21.34 ACRES INTO 4 LOTS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF POWERS BOULEVARD AND LAKE DRIVE WEST. POWERS RIDGE APARTMENT HOMES. LAKE SUSAN HILLS PARTNERSHIP AND MILLER HANSON WESTERBECK BERGER. INC. Public Present: Name Address Geoff & Holy Kuchera Erick Ries 8441 Egret Court Lake Susan Hills Partnership 12 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000 David Ruegg Bill Weber Doug & Sandra Wilder Dan Fagan Mark Menzuber Rhonda Weber Scott Berquist Diane McCarron Doug Taylor Ronald & Cindi Tonn Jim Dyvig Tom & Pat Simpson Kerry & Kim Simenson Marliu Stene Lake Susan Hills Partnership 3122 Club View Court, St. Cloud Loucks & Associates, 7200 Hemlock Lane, Maple Grove 1201 Hawthorne, Minneapolis 55403 Loucks & Associates, 7200 Hemlock Lane, Maple Grove 1250 Lake Susan Hills Drive 1290 Lake Susan Hills Drive 1320 Lake Susan Hills Drive 1340 Lake Susan Hills Drive 1310 Lake Susan Hills Drive 1290 Lake Susan Hills Drive 1321 Lake Susan Hills Drive 1331 Lake Susan Hills Drive 1350 Lake Susan Hills Drive 8300 West Lake Court 1260 Lake Susan Hills Drive 8418 Rosewoód Drive 1330 Lake Susan Hills Drive 1281 Lake Susan Hills Drive Jim Lamson Mike Stoebe Bill Sharbono Link Wilson Jeff Shopek Shannin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of staff? Kind: Mr. Chainnan, I have a question or two. Sharmin, I'm just unclear on this hard surface coverage thing. The applicant could just simply delete the sidewalks and then they would meet that 32%? Al-Jaff: Yes. Kind: And I want the sidewalks. Let's see, what else? .. . sidewalk down to Powers, and also to the park... Al-Jaff: It was only discussed in the staff report. We didn't talk specifically with the applicant in regards... Kind: Okay, I'll ask them about that. And then I'm assuming that the bay window discussion would be happening when Building B comes before us. Is that. .. Oh, there were a couple items that were not in the staff report but sometimes customarily are and I just wanted to run them by you. I'm assuming that trash will be enclosed in the underground garage. Al-Jaff: Yes it will be, 13 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000 Kind: And that the utility meters and boxes will be screened with landscaping of some sort. AI-Jaff: Yes. Kind: And that signage will comply with city ordinances. AI-Jaff: Correct. Kind: Didn't have that here so.. .And the pool area will be fenced. AI-Jaff: Yes it will be. Kind: City ordinance that we do comply with there. And that's it for. .. staff report you recommended... the westerly crosswalk and I couldn't find a condition for that. Am I missing it or do you not want it anymore or? Hempel: Those type of items would be.. .little more detail and review. You can certainly recommend it as a condition at this point but it would be one of our recommendations, . . Kind: And then I have a question about the elevation. The soil that's there right now, is that a lot of it, part of a stockpile that was done when the neighborhood to the south was developed and then Powers redeveloped. How did that benn get there? Hempel: Chainnan, commissioners, based on the city's aerial topography maps from 1989 it did show what looks like some additional fill material being placed on the outlot. That was generated from the.. .It's not a very large pile. I think the elevation.. .is probably 80 feet wide by a couple hundred feet wide and up to 10 feet high, Kind: And do you view that as being a part of what's driving the overall elevation that's being recommended at 940? Hempel: Not necessarily. I believe the engineers looked at the balancing of earth work material on the site. There's the balance... Kind: Okay. And then the east driveway on the contour map looks like it's.. .or am I bad at looking at contour maps? Hempel: I believe they did have a...proposed on it in the range of5%. It's not excessive. Kind: You're okay with that? Hempel: Yes. Kind: My last Dave question is, staff report talked about the traffic increased based on this development. ..being 3,430 cars per day and that that will probably a force a light at 14 Planning Commission Meeting-January 5, 2000 Lake Drive West and Powers. I'm wondering how soon you anticipate that would be happening. Hempel: ...in the staff report we looked at this area in conjunction with the development north of the property, actually with the industrial park. That EA W document takes into account these properties land use and what traffic would be generated from it. From that data they estimated that at sometime in the future when the sites are all built out, that traffic warrants would be met for a signalized intersection at Powers Boulevard and Lake Drive West. That will be reviewed as the site's develop in the commercial industrial area and this will add increased traffic to Lake Drive West now. We'll have to monitorthat... Kind: But you're not going to give me a guess as to how many years out we're talking here. Hempel: If this all was to develop in the next two years, then a traffic signal would be installed in two years. Kind: Okay, thank you. That's all for now. Peterson: Other questions? Joyce: I have one question for staff Mr. Chairman. The $500 landscape, how'd that come about being a number that they picked? Do you have any idea at all? Al-Jaff: Good question. Joyce: I guess the reason I ask is that was decided in 1987. Aanenson: That's correct. Joyce: Yeah, so that's obviously 1987 dollars might be considered. Aanenson: But that's what we're bound to. That was the contract. Joyce: That's what's in the contract. Is there any, where can that landscaping be placed? Could that be placed on each lot or is there a. AI-Jaff: There was an Outlot A. Joyce: No, not lot rather but can it be placed between, as a buffer to use all of that funding? Probably not the intent but. Aanenson: Right, I'm not sure that would make it a good project overall. It would solve one problem but it may create another. Joyce: Right. I'm just, I'm curious if there were two. 15 Planning Commission Meeting-January 5, 2000 Aanenson: .. .amenities of that development. Joyce: Okay. Peterson: .. .include the landscaping plan that's attached tonight, and they don't spend, the landscaping plan does not cite spending the $500 per unit. Are we saying that they have to spend $500 per unit someplace in there and so something? Aanenson: I'm certain they're exceeding that. Peterson: That's my question. Aanenson: Yes, they will... We require escrow for landscaping. Joyce: Is this additional money? Am I understanding, maybe I'm misunderstanding it. Is the $500 above and beyond what is required of them? AI-Jaff: No. Aanenson: Generally if a PUD was to come in today they'd have to meet certain landscape standards based on our PUD ordinance. This one has a contract with a different standards than we would use today. What we require on a site plan to complete the landscaping plan as per the ordinance, then they're required to give us a letter of credit... It goes in that way. Then you take that letter of credit, add a value to it and then we hope.. .So there is a value attached of landscaping with this project. This project, because it was done in 1987, instead of using the formula that we've created since then and that ordinance has been modified a couple of times, was given $500 per unit as a way to achieve that goal. Joyce: I understand. Peterson: Netting it out, $500 is the minimum. Other questions? Blackowiak: Mr, Chair I've got a couple questions about trails and sidewalks. Sharmin, doesn't it mention something about the fact that if they delete the internal sidewalks they would meet the hard surface coverage. But as I read the development contract they're required to have internal sidewalks so that wouldn't be an option would it? AI-Jaff: What we did is alter...outlots with multi-family or medium density. Whenever you have private streets, it does not require them to put in sidewalks. Blackowiak: Okay, but this contract specifically says 5 foot wide concrete, off street trails/sidewalks along one side of all internal streets. Aanenson: The public streets, which they have. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000 Blackowiak: All internal streets? AI-Jaff: No, that's private. Aanenson: No, not on private. We're talking about Lake Drive West and Powers. That's what she's talking about there. And that's what we've applied through the rest of the PUD. Blackowiak: Okay, so this is not talking about this development right now? I'm looking specifically at page 3. Aanenson: It is. .. talking about public streets, not the private streets. Blackowiak: Okay what, how do you define internal streets? I guess that's my problem. I thought that the internal streets that were in this development were all private. Aanenson: Right. You go through the rest of Lake Susan, Lake Drive West, those are all public streets. Not all those streets have sidewalks either. Blackowiak: Okay, so show me how this applies then? I'm sorry, I'm really confused. .53, page 3. Aanenson: That's for the entire PUD. All of Lake Susan. Blackowiak: Right. Yeah, I understand that. Aanenson: All of Lake Susan, every street.. .has a sidewalk. Al-Jaff: For instance Lake Susan Hills Drive should have a sidewalk on it. Blackowiak: So what I'm saying is, help me out. Where does this apply? Does this point apply or something got overlooked or? Aanenson: Generally... we generally apply it to more collector streets where there's a greater traffic volume. Pedestrian volume which would be your perimeter streets or your collector streets. That's how that's been applied to the whole PUD. Blackowiak: Should it have been done that way? Aanenson: Yeah. We think it's repetitive to put public streets, to plow and maintain them when you're not serving a lot. We are requiring sidewalks on the perimeter of this project, which is an internal street between one side of the street and the other. Blackowiak: I guess I'm just not understanding how you're defining internal streets. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000 Aanenson: Well, if we were to say internal streets, then every street in the Lake Susan Hills would have sidewalks. .. .not every street in that subdivision has a sidewalk, Blackowiak: Correct. Aanenson: So, that same rule is being applied to this project. Aren't those internal streets? Blackowiak: Right, but I'm saying maybe they should. I mean I'm just curious about that. Aanenson: Well we don't put sidewalks on every street in the city though. Aanenson: It depends on how you're reading it too, I understand. Hempel: Chairman, commissioners, maybe I can just add to that. The intent of this was for your connecting streets. Residential neighborhoods like from Lake Drive West. You've got Flamingo Drive up in that neighborhood. Heron Drive I believe. The streets, the thru streets essentially are the intent to put sidewalks on those type of streets. The cul-de-sacs, short streets like that, there was no need, and no requirement to put sidewalks in on those. It's more of a collector type road as we do,. . subdivisions that have dead ends and cul-de-sacs, we typically don't require sidewalks with those streets. Blackowiak: Okay, I'm still not following but I'll move on. Aanenson: Lake Susan Hills, I mean compared to any other PUD project we've done in the city, Mission Hills, it only has it on West 86th Street. We don't put them internally on all PUD projects either. I mean it's consistent with what we've done in other PUD's. Blackowiak: No, I'm not arguing whether it's, I'm just saying that it says you're supposed to have them and I'm just curious if we're supposed to have them. That was my question, Blackowiak: Okay. Let's move along. Then if we're talking about major streets and sidewalks, nothing is proposed for the south side of Lake Drive West, leading from this massive development over to the trail that borders on the west side of Powers. And I'm wondering if that's an oversight or if that could be something that we should be looking at because we're talking a major collector street. Hempel: This spring we'll be constructing an 8 foot wide bituminous trail on the north side of Lake Drive West. Blackowiak: Right. I'm concerned about the south side and the fact that we're going to have probably 1,000 people you know living in this new area that are going to be either forced to cross the street, cross a collector street to get to the trail. Go down the trail and cross a collector street again, or could possibly keep on the same side. That's my major 18 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000 concern. Are we missing an opportunity here to get a sidewalk along a collector street that we should be seizing at this point in time? Hempel: Chairman, commissioners. They are proposing the two crosswalks, one of which we proposed or recommend be deleted which is the westerly one because another 400-500 feet from that location is the existing pedestrian crossing to Sunrise Park. They are proposing a crosswalk from the east drive aisle across Lake Drive West to gain access to the proposed trail on Lake Drive West. Staff did not view the need to duplicate sidewalks on Lake Drive West. Did not recommend. Kind: It's condition number 32. Which needs to be reworded because.. .north side. Blackowiak: That's what I thought was., ,north side. Kind: North of the property... Blackowiak: .. .on the north side of the property which I thought we had already. ..side of the road but north of the subject site. Kind: Exactly. Peterson: Are we on the same page here? Kind: Mr. Chairman? Sharmin condition number 32 means that sidewalk? AI-laff: Correct. Kind: This red sidewalk going here. Aanenson: I would defer to Dave on that one. Hempel: We could review it further then. I guess my initial review of it, I don't believe I had it in the staff report because we were essentially duplicating a trail system that will be in place this spring. Peterson: Based upon the comments you've heard tonight though, as far as the sheer numbers of people that are going to be on the opposite side of the road, with one crosswalk on a major street, I think your sensing from a couple of the commissioners that we would like it looked at. Hempel: Sure. Peterson: Other questions? Conrad: Mr. Chair, a couple. Going back to what Kevin talked about, the $500 landscaping per home equates to like $170,000. Yet they do have to accomplish what our 19 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000 buffer yard ordinance says. So regardless they have to achieve that no matter what. So it could mean more but no matter what they have to spend $500 per household, Aanenson: Correct. Conrad: Would you turn to page 6 and clarify the chart for me. I like charts but under density. AI-Jaff: Under density, instead of8 it should read 12. Instead of9.3 it should read 17,1. And under project proposal, instead of 4.6 it should read 16.1. Conrad: Okay. Let's talk buffer yards a little bit. Basically our ordinance talks about trees and the buffer. If you, because you use the R-16 district for rationalizing some changes to the agreement, should we be, does the buffer yard ordinance for an R-16 change in tenns of landscaping and distance setback? Or are they pretty much, is it pretty much the same as an R-12? And I didn't check that out but that'd be a question I would have because we are using the R-16 for some of our rationale. AI-Jaff: It goes under density rather than actually specifying R-12 or R-16. It says high density residential. Conrad: Okay. In our ordinance do we have any situations in Chanhassen where we go from single family to a three story building? AI-Jaff: Yeah, on Chan View. They're apartments that were built in the 60's, They're located on the north side ofChan View. Then you move from three story apartment building immediately to single family. Conrad: Is the elevation that's pennitted in an R-12 is 40 feet? AI-Jaff: Correct. You're referring to the height of the building? Yes. Conrad: And this site, especially where Building B is, is what 12,14 higher than the single family. AI-Jaff: Approximately, yes. Conrad: As you've worked with the developer on that part, which to me becomes more sensitive than the other parts. What has our objective been? Are we applying the ordinance or do we have a bigger objective for buffering? It's easy to say our ordinance says 100 feet, but do we have a vision in tenns of what Chanhassen Planning Commission, residents would like in tenns of buffering a single family from a high density? AI-Jaff: Discussions that we had with the applicant included the use of a benn, which wasn't an option in this case only because of the layout of the land. We then looked at 20 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000 fences and said was it, we did not believe that a fence would achieve the objective of screening so we then looked at evergreens. And ifI may. This is what this building would look like. Three story fÌ'om the neighborhood to the south. We then discussed the option of having 10 to 12 foot trees. The ordinance specifically requires an average of6 feet. In this case they would add 10 to 12 foot trees and we will need to in time, they will accomplish what the buffer ordinance requires. Conrad: I noticed you asked the applicant to break that building. Was it basically them came in once upon a time with a long building and so one of the things you did do was to separate it so we have 40 and 40 units. So visually speaking staff is saying we're trying to visually break up a big wall. It sounds like that's one of your. Aanenson: It has moved a lot. As Sharmin indicated we've been working with the developer. You know when it first came in obviously their first choice was to try to move that building back. They had a certain number of units they were trying to achieve on the site. They're not maximizing that. The first goal was to try to see if we could put four somewhere else. Four stories and make this as low as possible. Eventually we did get to that exercise. The developer may want to speak to it. It didn't work based on the required use. It further complicated the underground parking and cost. The next situation was try to break the mass of that up. Where those homes are obviously is the most sensitive. We looked at things such as balconies versus bays. The developer also worked hard to try to push the buildings as far forward. We went through a lot of different exercises in that too. And I'm sure the neighbors can attest to that. There has been a lot of different targets trying to see which is the most. Conrad: Palatable. Aanenson: Exactly. I mean nobody wants the three stories there. I mean we all understand that. There's a number of units there and we're trying to find the best way to achieve that. Conrad: So, let me take that further. Why not two stories? Aanenson: Put the two stories there? They can talk about that. You get the underground parking. Conrad: I'm sure they will, but why not two stories? Aanenson: And the four stories and the cost and the changes, what happens to the other piece. That was one of the versions which you had in your plan. And what that does. What we, what the applicant got down to is pushing the building as far forward as they could, moving it away fÌ'om the homes and leaving the break in there and trying to change the mass and actually turning the buildings so you're not looking at that.. . articulation a little bit more. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000 Conrad: Why not, okay. So you pushed on this issue as much as you can and what they're presenting tonight is something that you feel is the best of all alternatives that you've looked at? Aanenson: Right. We believe, I mean we understand that nobody wants to look at the three stories. We understand that, and also we have rules under the PUD contract. Can we make them do the impervious surface? Certainly. I mean they'll take out the inner parking lot. Is that going to make a better project? Maybe. Maybe not. Can you do, provide additional parking, put two stories somewhere? Certainly. Is that going to take some money from landscaping budget out somewhere? Maybe. So certainly they can achieve all the requirements and meet the zone and that's where we have the discretion to say, you know if they meet the criteria, what we've tried to do is to say, what can we do to get the best project to be a good neighbor and that's where we've been and we believe the developer's been working hard at trying to achieve to be the best neighbor and yet meet their goals. These units are, the cost of construction is $100,000 a unit so it's expensive when you start changing the stories and they'll talk to that. What that does to cost. Conrad: So you pursued two stories here, and some other place doesn't work, You pursued breaking the two buildings into three buildings. You pursued, you know really why not line Powers with a bigger profile versus? Aanenson: They can speak to that, their engineers. Just so, just to be clear too. To try to achieve the underground parking that's required or the attached parking, what that does to the proximity. Even the building that's separated has parking that's attached underneath to make it work, So while the building's aren't attached, the parking underneath to make the buildings function, so it gets a lot into cost as far as excavation and replacement of fill and again to achieve what they need to do, there's cost per unit. Conrad: But just to be clear, we do have a contract but we've really never, it is a PUD and we do have control over building height. It is a PUD. Aanenson: It's limited to 40 feet. If you were to go over that you would have to amend the PUD. Correct. Right, and we said if. Conrad: Because it's not like this is a done deal. A lot of it is done in tenus of how many units can go in here. That is contractually the way it is, but in tenus of how it's laid out, where the units are. How high the units are. That's not a done deal by any means. Aanenson: Yes it is in the fact that it's guided by anything that's not specifically, and Sharmin went over this in the beginning. Anything that it's silent on is in the R-12. There are specific units, 17.1 units an acre is what was given at the time that this was built. It was given the R-12 which had one underground parking. That changed over time. We added an R-16. So there are specifics, the landscaping call out was one, Otherwise you go to the underlying R-12. Those are the rules that they contractually are bound to under that PUD agreement. So there are rules that they followed and they and 22 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000 our recommendation to you is that they are meeting those based on the plan that was submitted with the two variance requests. If you choose not to give those to those, there will be changes, modifications made so they can meet. . . Conrad: My last point, and I'll stop this but if we could find a spot, if they could find a spot for their approved number of units, we have control to say okay, Outlot B, or Lot B, or Building B, they're only going to be two stories high. If they could find a place and our ordinance on that site for 370 or whatever the number of units are, we could say Building B, two stories high. Aanenson: You possibly could. We've gone through that exercise. If you can figure out a way to do it, that'd be great. Conrad: I'm trying to push you to what you know. Aanenson: We've all tried to achieve that. When they came in that was our first goal. To try to minimize the impact on the neighborhood. That's the first exercise we went through. We don't believe you can accomplish that. In order to give the two stories, to get to two stories you have to give somewhere else. You've got to go higher, which would require an amendment to the PUD. There's no way you can accomplish that without giving them a variance. They were willing to look at that and they'll go through that, the reasons why. Certainly. We couldn't figure out how to make the parking standards, the landscaping requirements, put some amenities in there, give them the units that they needed to make the numbers... Peterson: Okay, is that it? Burton: Mr. Chainnan, I had a couple questions, I think I'll just wait until after the applicant. Peterson: Anyone else? Sidney: One quick question for staff. How many motions are we actually looking at? Does the wetland alteration pennit drop out because they're talking about moving the Building B back? AI-Jaff: If the building meets the required setback, then we don't need a wetland alteration pennit anymore. Sidney: And with their present thought of moving the building back. AI-Jaff: Correct, and according to the drawing that was faxed to us this morning, you won't need a wetland alteration pennit. Peterson: Okay. Would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please. 23 Link Wilson: My name is Link Wilson. I'm from Miller, Hanson, Westerbeck, Berger Architects. My address is 2203 Stanford Avenue in St. Paul. If I could have just a minute or two to just put my boards up on the easel and I didn't realize however that they've got an overhead camera. I brought overhead projector items which I must prefer this and if! could just at times just point to these and then turn them over to you at the end of the meeting. I would like to take just a moment to introduce the rest of the team. I've hidden most of them now with my boards, but I'd like to introduce Erick Ries and Jim Lamson. They are two partners from the Lake Susan Hills Partnership. Also Mike Stoebe from INH Property Management and Mike is going to help me just for a couple of moments to address a couple of questions that have come up about the type of people that will live here. The rents. The taxes that are contributed to the City. The overall project cost. Also Bill Sharbono and Jeff Shopek are here from Loucks Civil Engineers. Our consultants. And then also Larry Guthrie our legal counsel. All of us together as a team have really endeavored to create a plan here that has a site plan organization and also a building design that we felt met the intent of your city zoning requirements. An issue which I will continue to probably repeat during my presentation is that what our intent also was to keep a high quality level to the design, both the site layout and the buildings themselves. We have had subsequent to our December 2nd meeting with staff where we handed our final design, and I say that with quotations, "final design". Because it has changed considerably since we have had many meetings with the neighborhood and as Sharmin described, even this morning we did have some evolution to the plan which I think that I can walk you through this evening and just try to keep it as simple as possible. But also to keep it as simple as possible because there have been so many different schemes that we have brought before the neighborhood and that have been faxed to the planning department, I would like to really focus just on this option 2 and that was what was submitted to the City on December 2nd and then see if we can find this evening just some common ground within this plan that can hopefully meet some of the needs of the neighborhood. Lastly I do want to say that we respect the planning department's opinion in that they feel that this plan should be approved in the form that it's in now. But as you'll see over the next probably just 20 minutes, if you could give me that much time, I'll try to just show you the evolution of how this has moved slightly. I also need to spend just a couple minutes on site history and also the parkland dedication. These are two things that Sharmin did a very good job in her report, but I just wanted to go through that and just remind people that this particular piece of property, and this is the entire piece here, was purchased in 1972 and developed as a nine part parcel starting with single family homes in this area in 1972. As the different phases developed, the final phase was this townhome development here, which was just built a couple of years ago. So really since 1972 this red object here on the screen has always been slated as multi-family housing. Even previous to neighbors moving in to this area here, and I think that's an important component to remember that this has always been a part of this plan. We did not prepare this plan. It's dated down here and it's quite an old drawing. In addition, Sharmin touched upon the parkland dedication that in 1987 this green portion right here, 5.6 acres was dedicated to the city as park. Now previously that was owned by the Lake Susan Partnership by the group that Erick and Jim are representing this evening. And this is my understanding and just very simple interpretation of that, but at Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000 24 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000 that time what was agreed upon as a contract was that an R-16 density, which is 377 units. It might be 375 units. We don't have nearly that many units on the site, was agreed could be built here. However, the surface appurtenances and the buildings had to meet the R-12 statutes at that time. So I'm just going to take a quick break from that, and I'm going to let Mike come up just real quick and talk about just the property management for the building. He really has only five points to cover and then I can get back to just describing the appearance of the buildings and then the site design itself. Mike Stoebe: Good evening. I'm Mike Stoebe. I reside at 3122 Club View Court in St. Cloud, and I can also attest to the poor road conditions. I was invited here this evening by the development group to address five concerns that were raised by the neighborhood and the first of which is rental property value to the city and it's tax base. According to the development team the targeted total development cost may well exceed $30 million. The correspondent taxes will be based upon the, as we know the assessor's estimated market value and the tax capacity extension rate. For comparison sake, residential single family households have a tax class rate for those homes exceed $76,000 in value of 1.65%. Apartments general occupancy apartments like these have a tax class rate of 2.4% so if you look at the variance it's .75% which translates into the apartments having a tax class rate that's 45% higher than single family homes. One of the concemed residents asked about, or wanted to have a breakdown of the real estate taxes by sector so I contacted the Carver County Auditor's office and Link, could you pass that out please. Link Wilson. I did. Mike Stoebe: Okay. Thank you. Second item refers to monthly rents. The preliminary scheduled target opening rents for this development will exceed $1.00 per square foot. This pricing will translate into one bedroom's exceeding $800 monthly. Two bedrooms ranging from $900 to $1,300 depending on floorplan, and three bedrooms exceeding $1,300 monthly. The parking amenity that was referred to earlier, those base rents will include one underground parking stalL Property maintenance and upkeep, which is a very valid concern, this apartment development will be a multi-million dollar investment that will be maintained at a high level, both short and long tenn. The planned construction type that the architect will refer to shortly will ease the physical plant maintenance. Although both preventative and long tenn maintenance schedules will be in effect, we refer to a site this size and our finn manages greater than 5,000 units. We have properties this size and larger. We refer to it as a self contained site, meaning that there will be a full compliment of professionally trained staff and in the maintenance arena itself it will probably have, once fully built out, probably three plus full time maintenance persons. Or personnel, excuse me. The property will be inspected regularly. Lenders will put in place or require escrows and replacement reserves for capital improvements so I'm rather certain it will be very well maintained. The last item was a concern relating to admission procedures and policies. Management will thoroughly and carefully screen all applicants for admission. Screening will include criminal background checks, credit reports and obtaining previous rental histories. All residents will be required to abide with both written lease policies and with handbook 25 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000 Link Wilson: Mike touched on the fact that what we were geared towards was really a maintenance free structure. Shown on the elevations here is a masonry structure all the way to the base of the third floor. Above that is a vinyl siding band that runs continuously around each building and that was done really to create more of a horizontal line throughout the whole project. To try to bring a horizontal continuum that emphasizes the horizontal rather than vertality of the project. We are within the height restrictions which in this particular area, the restrictions are 40 feet. Weare to the midpoint of the roof at 37 feet, and that's actually being a little bit conservative. It's 36.85. So we are under the height restrictions for the project. In addition, we have after discussions with the neighborhood, we previously developed the best appearance for this project would be to have a 6:12 roof. We have subsequently lowered that down to a 4:12 roof which over a 32 foot rise, which is Yz of the roof side, it does bring the roof down quite a bit. The visual quality of the buildings themselves, they're very important to us. They're very important to the owners of the project. However first and foremost, and Mike touched on this, we do want to be good neighbors. And we also want to be good neighbors within the project itself. And so that means with 344 units that we need adequate space within the community itself around each building so that there is a feeling oflight and ventilation and space for each tenant that is renting there. And as Mike outlined, these are very high rents and the clientele there will be very demanding. Also...the neighbor is being a neighbor to the east and to the south and we've tried to take that into account in our meetings with the neighborhood and this has probably been the hardest part of our task is trying to find a happy median. And one of the things that we've done initially, we have 375 units that we could play with here. We only have 344 units. That's what we felt comfortable on this site. In addition, Sharmin had touched upon the initial design that we submitted to the city and that project was a continuous Building B which stretched along the south side, which subsequently is right against these properties to the south. After that we did break up, and I'm giving the camera person a workout here. We broke these buildings up as Sharmin had discussed previous, Also we feel very comfortable with the idea along this face and Sharmin showed the image here that we can create bay extensions for the living rooms here which will give an added amount of privacy to these people's yards. We also do have a buffer zone here, and I will talk more about this 100 foot setback, which by the way it was brought up during just the discussions that what are the setbacks for instance in an R-16 zone the setbacks are 50 feet. So we're 100, which meets all the requirements. In this buffer zone what we are proposing to do is to plant spaded trees. Not balled and burlapped trees, so we can get spaded pines at 10 to 12 feet high. They will be planted at that height. ... tree spaded trees are going to create a 70 foot high visual fence between the neighbors to the south and to the proposed Buildings Bland B2. But I think that they do help. Another focus that we had to the design of the project was that it was more of an interior focus. Now this is not a landscape plan per se, and I'mjust saying this as an aside. But I think that we will have this many trees and I think the commission is correct in that $500 per unit doesn't even touch the surface of what we're proposing for a quality project here. And we do feel comfortable that we can provide to the City Council a landscape plan that rules. Our rules and regulations are well enforced and we're known for running a very tight ship. Thank you. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000 is designed by a landscape architect that gives species. That gives heights. That gives diameters of trunks and we can provide that information to you in the future. I want to touch on just the sound environmental practices and Jeff Shopek &om Loucks Engineers can answer any questions that you may have about cut and fill on the site. The existing slopes on the site. The heroic effort that it would take to for instance cut 6 feet of grade out of this entire site. Just to give an example, and I'm stealing information &om Jeff here. But &om the 1987 aerial photographs, what was seen as dumped on the site &om surrounding construction, if you spread that fill out on the site it would only be 2 inches of dirt on top of that site. So it's literally just a thimble full of earth that was moved around on these adjacent properties in this very, very large area. Lastly before I move on to really the three critical issues this evening for this plan is also the interior focus once again. I think that we've got a beautiful facility in the center of this project in which all the occupants of this project can use. Swimming pool, wading pool, very large community facility and playgrounds. We do have, I don't know if the camera can focus in. This is just a rendering of that facility itself with the playground and the pools, and I think that it's a really nice feature that again focuses this community inward. Probably one of the most difficult decisions this evening will be the areas where we're asking for variances. Currently what is required of this site is that there be a 32% impervious surface area on this site. We currently have 34.7. Now we can bring this down to substantially less than 32, and I'm going to get like this. This particular plan shows a slightly different concept, and this gets back to my original discussion of quality. What we have on this particular plan, and on a night like tonight it makes a lot of sense. This is a 26 foot wide drive aisle and it provides you access in and out of the site as a visitor or as an occupant. You have your choice of where you want to go on the site as you progress through this boulevard essentially. It can be tree lined. It can help just to create a lot better atmosphere for people to look out upon &om across the way. Their view is somewhat buffered by this boulevard. But what this does is it adds 34.6% surface area. This particular scheme, and I know it's really hard to read, basically gets you down to less than 32% but as you drive through you are now driving through a parking lot, and then you have another drive and then you drive through a parking lot and then you get out. Now this still meets the fire department turn arounds. It meets the intent of your code, but we don't think that the quality of that driving experience and that living experience is as good as this one here. So we're willing to take your guidance. This is an engineered plan prepared by JeffShopek of Loucks. We can do this. We know that the grades work but we think that this is a superior approach. One of the meetings that we had at Jim and Lois' home, and I don't know if they're here this evening. Lois had asked that this building right here, this is Lois' house, is 100 feet away. She asked is there any way that you can move this back. She'd like it 150 feet away &om her home. We tried in every way, shape and form to get this 150 feet back. All we could do without really compromising what we felt was the interior community, was to get it back 125 feet, and you can see. I know this is very small. That dimension is 125 feet. We might be able to push it 127.5, right in that area. We wanted to be conservative and we've got it at 125. So what that does, just so you can see it a little bit easier, it takes and it moves this building back. We also have access, two points of entrance into this. This is one continuous parking... below grade that you don't see. We would then eliminate this egress and outlet into here so that you just have one point of access. And for an 80 unit 27 Planning Commission Meeting-January 5, 2000 parking structure, that's not a problem. We do that all the time. This is nice. We've got two ways in and out but we can make that work and we feel comfortable with that and we feel that we can offer this plan up as a solution that works tonight. So what that does is it gives us 125 feet between Lois' property and our building. It also does another thing. Is it allows us to get more tree spaded pine trees here. It allows us to get those pine trees higher. The last point is that currently we have, we're short 36 stalls below grade. Those are heated and conditioned stalls below each one of these. By the code. What we're also proposing that we could do is build a small element under the parking garage that comes in here. We can make it work. It's extremely expensive. Just for those 36 stalls it's going to cost us probably half a million dollars to do that. So what we're looking for your guidance this evening that we would want to do in order to compensate for that, is to be able to remove some quality level from this park. We would still have a park here. We would still have open space but we need to pay for that $500,000 of parking. This community area, as nice of a feature as it is, is not a requirement in any of the codes. Right now we're probably at about a million dollars for all of these appurtenances here. Somehow we've got to take $500,000 out of that. I'm confident that we can. But we can get to 1.5 stalls. Also, we have been able to move this building here out of the wetland. All it's doing is just nipping the wetland. So as we discussed that's really not even an issue. So what we're talking about tonight are two items. One is surface area. Hard surface on the site. We can make that work but we feel it's lesser quality. Parking, 1.5 stalls below grade, we can make that work too but we've got to reduce some quality level from this parkland in the center. I also just want to comment that we've got a design team in place. We're confident also that items such as water and sewer access plans. I already talked about professionally engineered landscape plans. Grading and erosion control plans. Site lighting. The developer is willing to escrow a portion, what they feel is a percentage of this entire development that will contribute to the traffic light here. The developer is willing to escrow funds to participate in the future light at this comer. So some of those details such as communication with tran stop and MTC to get a bus stop along here and find a great place for it, we're confident that we can do that and incorporate that into the plans that then will go onto council. I thank you very much for your time. I know this took a bit of time to explain all this, and I would just ask that prior to closing the discussion this evening if I could just be given 5 minutes to respond to any comments regarding engineering or setbacks. That I just be given a couple minutes at the very end of the evening. Thank you very much. Peterson: Before you go away we might have some questions for you so, questions ofthe applicant. Kind: Yes Mr. Chainnan I have a few. Building materials that were passed around here don't show entire pieces. For instance the siding. At Centennial Hill, which Shannin directed me to go take a look at, there's a beveled type of siding, which I don't really care for. I prefer a flat siding. It looks more realistic. Link Wilson: What we used at Centennial Hill was what's called in the business a ship lap. So there are different kinds of siding. Shapes and profiles that can be used. That's very easy, I'd be happy to have you write that into tonight's discussion. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000 Kind: And could you speak to the shingles as well. Centennial Hill I noticed that they're kind of rippling. It's a very flat shingle as opposed to a textured shingle. What type of shingle are we looking at here? Link Wilson: Well, you're really taxing my memory on what shingle was used at Centennial Hill, but I believe that it was a 25 year Owens Corning shingle. What we've gone to right now, and Consumer Reports calls it the number one shingle to use in this part of the country, is the Certainteed XT25. It's a 25 year shingle. I think it will hold up very well. Also on that project, you may just see some of that ripple effect may be that, I've noticed this too that some of the trusses seem to show through 24 inches on center and I can't explain why that is. When it's hot. When it's cold and sometimes it changes. Kind: Okay. And then could you speak to the two story brick concept. I really like that idea. I think it visually makes the building look shorter. But it staggers up and down. What's your rationale there? I would rather see that just be all one continuous line. Link Wilson: Okay, where it's staggering here? Kind: Yes. Link Wilson: I guess you know and these are extremely long buildings but what we're trying to do right near the entry, and that's what you see here, is, you've got this line coming up and then we tried to build up the brick at the entry just to create more attention to the entry. We also feel that entries are important. Frankly, I don't know why the brick does jump sort of around right here and that can be just one continuous line. Kind: Okay, that's good. I like the all brick going up at the entry but why it jumps up and down in that area. Link Wilson: Right, and I guess I see, I'm just looking over here. I feel that this is probably more ofa consistent run right here that you're going to see, which is right at the top of the second floor window. Kind: Yeah. And then the drawings here, is this with a 6:12 or a 4:12 pitch? Link Wilson: This is with a 6: 12 pitch but you know, we want to work with the neighborhood and especially Buildings BI and B2. I think those really need to be 4:12 just to play down. If you'd like to see all the other buildings A, C and D as 6: 12, certainly I like that aesthetic. Kind: The height that you mentioned, 37 at the midpoint which is how you measure buildings. Link Wilson: Yeah, it's a 36.85. That's with a 4:12. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000 Kind: Thank you. Link Wilson: And still at a 6:12 we're way under the 40 feet. Kind: Moving right along. The evergreens on the south property line, do you have a quantity in mind or a density as to how frequent they would be? I'm thinking a condition here. Link Wilson: Well no. What we showed here was trying with Building, and this is an old model that just shows B, the B Building continuous. You know we're trying to create a stagger along that hill so that if you looked in a line that you're going to see a continuous band of pine trees. Now that's not to say that when you walk up that hill you're not going to have trees that are so tight that you can't walk through them but they're going to create a visual screen. And they are going to be 10 to 12 feet high. I can find out what the diameter of those is and we can try to create a stagger. I always think though that when you, it's not so much of a problem when you put in a larger tree but it has been a problem for us when we put in smaller trees, is that especially with pines, we end up coming back 8 years later and cutting down half ofthem because they're so overwhelming each other and I think that that's a danger. I know that there's an immediate buffer that we're trying to achieve here, but I also think that you can do environmental damage too and you'll either have to cut down the trees or they're just going to die and I think that even looks worst. Kind: What type of species do you normally put in when you spade in a tree? Link Wilson: Oh man. That one's over my head and. Kind: Well, you mentioned the pines just rang a bell in my head. Every pine I've seen along a highway is brown and I think it needs to be a higher grade tree than that. Link Wilson: Well there is a species of spruce that you see that in the wintertime. Kind: That are all brown too? Link Wilson: Well it turns sort of a reddish color. But I think that we need to go back to our landscape architect and get a tree that's going to (a), be able to participate with some of the soils that get near this wetland area. And (b), are trees that are going to work well on a slope and that's defining then a very narrow grade of tree that we can use there. Kind: You also brought up the point about how they die. What happens if they do die? How long do you replace them for? Link Wilson: Well, I really have to search my memory here to think about the City of Chanhassen's requirements but from a management standpoint, they're going to be required to maintain their grounds. And especially if we consider this as a buffer zone, So I think that you can hold the development team to, that's why we've got to get a 30 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000 species that works within the soil type and the grade there so that they don't die. But our feet are going to be held to the fire to replace trees that aren't living. Kind: Especially if they're planted in the buffer, it's going to be tough to keep watered because that's going to be steep. Oh, and that south border, could those trees be planted right away with Phase I? Link Wilson: Well, that's interesting because we brought that up both at neighborhood meetings and then amongst ourselves. There's a danger there iflet's say just in the spring, right now we went out and we planted those. That could work. However, you know construction is a messy business. As we talked about, it's $100,000 per unit to build these and even with that you have construction people that are trying to move as efficiently as they can and my concern is that some of those trees will be killed by construction workers who are just trying to get their job done expediently as they're trying to keep their profit and loss margin working so it can certainly be done lower down but I get real concerned about those trees during the construction process. That even some of, just the movement near them can kill them. Especially right now. They're m~re fragile. And right now we're seeing construction 12 months out of the year. Kind: I have a question about the commons area. I love the pool idea. I mean I think in this level of apartment I think a pool is really important. The playground that is in the commons area seems a little redundant to me because of how close this development is to that Sunset Ridge Park. Have you considered other more adult oriented kinds of activities, maybe basketball or tennis? Link Wilson: That's a good question. I guess the one thing that at times we get complaints about is that if we don't have a place for kids to play, then they're on the peripheries of the project finding another place to play. And so at risk of maybe limiting some of the adult recreation, we felt like we didn't want to get that kind of a criticism. We want to keep those kids in sort of a monitored area. It's certainly something that we could look at, but I also have a problem with sometimes the nighttime activities that occur on tennis courts and basketball courts. Other people are disturbed who have different work habits and sleep habits than hoopsters. Kind: You've convinced me. And then I have a petty thing to ask you to consider and that is in the park area, the totlot and the playground area, I would love to see benches for moms. Whenever I go to a park, I don't do it as much anymore. My daughter's getting older but that was always a pet peeve of mine that there was no place for mom to hang out while the kids were playing. That's all for now. Peterson: Thank you. Other questions? Sidney: Well Mr. Chainnan, maybe two quick questions and I might think of some more here. I guess back to materials, what will the balconies be made of that you're proposing to be, you're looking for something maintenance ftee, then I'm wondering if these are going to have to be painted or not. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000 Link Wilson: Yeah, that's true. The balconies will be made out of treated lumber, 6 x 6 posts. Probably 2 inch by 2 inch pickets that are running vertically. That's really just to keep kids trom using it as a ladder to,. .so that is true. The balconies will not be made of maintenance tree materials. They will have to be painted. Sidney: And they will be on a routine basis to maintain the quality of the building. Link Wilson: Yeah. But if you look in the percentage of surface area on the building, and I'm just looking at this rendering. We're really only talking about this particular area right here. That is vinyl siding which is maintenance free. This is vinyl siding, so we're really only talking about 2 x 2 pickets which are there and then a 2 x 12 facia board right there. And another thing that we've just found as an experience there is that we like to leave those unpainted for one growing season because it is treated lumber. Then if you come back and paint it after that point, the paint will last longer if you use an oil based primer with a water base cover on it. Sidney: And then I guess my second question, I still can't visualize bay windows and what that actually would look like. To me it sounds like it might look kind of funny. Will you have renderings or drawings of that? Link Wilson: Sure. I think though a better thing to do is just to look at the north side of Centennial Hill. Those bays, they're extensions of the living room so you have a living room which is the same size as let's say in the senior building or Building D, and then that bay just extends out making their living room larger. And so at Centennial Hill those bays are two stories high whereas here they'll be three stories high. And to my knowledge we haven't had any problems with those, and I think they look nice so it's just right out your door, you can go take a look at them. Sidney: Okay. Peterson: Tagging onto that same question. I think that one of the concerns that I had was, will the bay windows make the building more onerous versus the breaking up ofthe side of the balconies? Another perspective perhaps. Link Wilson: I should have really brought photos of Centennial Hill, but I don't particularly think that the north side of Centennial Hill has that sort of heroic scale to it. And you can really see a comparison there because on the south side you've got three story balconies and then on the north side you've got the bays but I don't particularly find them too out of scale really with the development itself. And we're also talking about, even though these two buildings are broken up, still the scale of those balconies in comparison to the façade is still fairly small. Peterson: Okay. Other questions? 32 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000 Blackowiak: Yes Mr. Chainnan. Talk to me about, what I would like to say is the proposed trail on the south side of Lake Drive West. What do you think about a trail? Link Wilson: Well, if I just look at it fÌ'om a dollar and cents standpoint, if you have 5 feet wide, 4 inch deep concrete on. Blackowiak: Oh forget concrete. Bituminous. Link Wilson: Right. What I'm saying is what we have proposed right now is 5 feet wide, 4 inch thick concrete, you know controlled joints 4 feet on center, 9 inch sand base below. Probably to do an 8 foot wide bituminous trail with less subsurface material, it's probably a toss-up in cost. Blackowiak: Okay, so you were proposing a concrete trail is what you're saying? Link Wilson: Well, as a sidewalk. Blackowiak: A sidewalk okay. I'm talking about the length from the project, all the way east to Powers Boulevard. Link Wilson: Right. You're just, you're talking about from the park all the way to here. Blackowiak: Right. We're talking about the same thing so okay. Link Wilson: I guess from a cost standpoint I see the two as pretty much would offset each other. Blackowiak: Yeah, I just want to make sure that it is in there and that we're on the same page with that. Link Wilson: And on a night like tonight it'd be a lot easier just to pull your Bobcat out of a heated garage and just run it right down the sidewalks so from that standpoint it could make sense. Blackowiak: Okay. Well as long as you're planning to do one, that's what I'm concerned about. Link Wilson: So what you would like to do however is to write it into this evening's proposal that... Blackowiak: Well I'm thinking it is but I just wanted to make sure that you were also understanding the same thing because condition 32 I guess it was talking about the sidewalk and I just read it wrong or just interpreted it in a different manner. So I just want to make sure that we've got that in there. That it's going to be on the south side of Lake Drive and meet Powers Boulevard. Then I'm happy. 33 Peterson: Other questions? Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000 Conrad: Yes, a couple Mr. Chair. Ifwe had given you 50% impervious surface, would you have done this project differently? Link Wilson: No, probably not. I think we have a layout that works well. In fact, right now I think we would have the luxury, if we built this 36 unit car structure there, we actually have the luxury by the ordinance to eliminate some of this parking and add some more trees, which I think makes for a better interior court. Conrad: So your longer building footprints, what's that? Why do you choose to have two long buildings? Why not break them up? Is that just purely a cost factor on your part? Wasn't because of impervious surface. It was simply one building was cheaper to build than two with the same number of units? Link Wilson: For one I just want to get back to the plan that we're focusing on, because this is Option I. So when you say long building you're referring to Building A? Conrad: Building A is a long building. Link Wilson: There's no question that there are some efficiencies on this project, and yet with all the efficiencies that we've tried to build in, what we're seeing right now is a construction cost of $100,000 per apartment unit. And it's incredible because you look at the square footage. The number of bedrooms. You just can't believe that these buildings are costing that much. But they are. And so with the bond market as it just rose yesterday, which is how this project will be funded. Every time the bond market shifts it's raising the price and really every month that we wait, regardless right now of what the economy is doing, it's really the shortage oflabor. The price of construction just continues to rise. So we've got to create some efficiencies in how we build and how we group ourselves together to, I even think it's a national problem. It's a city problem. Creating affordable housing. And the only way that we can do this is by creating efficiencies, Conrad: My next question. Building B2 is the one that bothers me the most. You have it directly facing the residents. Now architecturally, which I try to stay away from architecture things but in this case why didn't you use angles to reduce the impact? You know instead of being perfectly perpendicular to the neighbors, did you look at some other alternatives that put it at a, every other building, Building B I angles away, even though it fits within your site plan. It angles away. I think that lessens the impacts. B2 is right up face forward, right in the face. Did you look at anything else? Link Wilson: Well here again I think it's how does an apartment unit layout? Typically a one bedroom apartment has an outside length of27 feet. A two bedroom apartment anywhere from 36 to 38 feet. So now we're talking about inside that building let's just say for instance if we try to create as you say some type of angles that perhaps would mitigate, let's just say this type ofa structure in here. At least to me, I don't see that that 34 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000 wall, even though it may have some 45 degree angles and some 30 degree angles, at least personally I don't see how those angles mitigate the fact that that building is there. And that was one thing tonight. We can't pretend that the buildings aren't there. They will exist. They will be to the facia line, you know 28 foot I 1/8 feet high and we can't escape that whether we angle the wall or not. Also, the more angles you create the more inefficiencies you have within the floorplan itself. Conrad: I don't buy that but, because all your visuals are angled. So there's got to be something in terms of an angle that makes it more pleasing. So you haven't really looked at angling is what you, did you look at it? I don't think you did. .. Link Wilson: Well right now as you can see, I mean we have, and I'm just going to flip this back. We do have along Powers, and also along Lake Drive West, really a continuum of three story wall other than the entrances into that courtyard area. Really along here there is more break for people to see through. I know that in England there are some super blocks that just take you know this entire strip and they just connect it along without any ability for.a person to move through or a car through and they're not really pleasant places, Conrad: No they're not, and that's what I'm trying to prevent here. I am trying to make some transition. I don't think our ordinance took care of this situation very well. It just didn't. Our ordinance is taking, you know it just really never considered what was going to be there in terms of the elevation and the height of the property that you're on so, but basically you have a contract that allows you to do these things and I think you're doing a pretty good job but I don't think, you know so I'm really trying to somehow see if there was a transition. Staff has worked with you for quite a while. I'm still not convinced we made the right transition. The neighbors will state their opinion in a few seconds but I'm just not convinced that we really, even though you're legally permitted to do what you're doing. If it was me, and I guess I'll challenge the Planning Commission. I'd have seven buildings here versus five. I'd break them up. I'd put them at different angles. And I'm not trying to reduce density at all, and maybe that can't be done. Maybe what I'm suggesting is impossible but density is not an issue. You get the 370 or the 340 or whatever. I'm just looking at what fits into a better transition than what we have right now. B, Building B2 is not a very good transition. I think everything else works so I was, I'm curious what the rest of the Planning Commission feels about that. I think the rest, so anyway. Those were my questions and thanks for your comments. Peterson: Other questions? Kind: Yes Mr. Chairman, I forgot to speak to my sidewalk ideas to see what the applicant thinks of them. Alison reminded me of them. I have a list of it here and I don't know if it's better to go over there and put it up or to just show it to you like this. But it's the same site plan. Alison was talking about this sidewalk going all the way down here. That's condition 32 I believe. Interior wise this commons area sidewalk stops here. I'd like to see it continue across to that point. I think if somebody was walking along 35 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000 here.. .go back through this building and cross here and then go back over here to get out to the street is ridiculous. Link Wilson: I think that's a good suggestion. Perhaps, I don't know if it's easier to see here what Mrs. Sidney is saying, ifI'm hearing you right... Kind: Kind. That's alright. Our names are a little off I'm sure. Link Wilson: To just continue this sidewalk to this location. Kind: Exactly. And then. Link Wilson: ..,along there and then connect it then across. We thought this was a better place to, as a transition to come across. Kind: I would maybe leave that one there, I don't know. I'm talking about this one in addition. And then I think Alison spoke to this but I just want to make sure I'm clear on it. This sidewalk that's going along Lake Drive West will continue past the said properties and then there will be a path or a sidewalk that would allow pedestrians to get to that Sunset Ridge Park. Link Wilson: I'm wondering if anyone else from our team can speak to the connection to the park. I don't know whether there is currently a sidewalk in this park area, I can't speak to that. Kind: I tried to pay attention when I was there. I don't think there is. It would be great. The PUD agreement says that when the developers in the area, when the streets are developed that's when the sidewalks will get put in and it would be nice to have, people who are on wheels especially be able to get to that park. Playground, Whatever, Those were my sidewalk things. And then the wetland, was that spoken to? Just this site plan here is now what's,.. Link Wilson: We're out of the wetland so really no wetland mitigation is required, Kind: So that's this site plan here? Link Wilson: That is correct. Because that's the edge of the wetland so we pulled ourselves out of there. Kind: And that moves that Bl building. Which B building? Link Wilson: This is B 1. Kind: B2, that moves that one back 25 more feet. Link Wilson: 125 more feet. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000 Kind: Total? Link Wilson: Right. Kind: Okay. Thank you. Link Wilson: You bet. Peterson: Other questions? Sidney: Yes Mr. Chair, I thought of one more thing. I guess I haven't heard any discussion of senior housing and Building D. What, are you doing anything special for the seniors that would occupy that building in tenns of amenities or what do you have planned? Link Wilson: The seniors asked the same question at one of our neighborhood meetings. There's a very active senior community in Chanhassen and right now subsequent to May, 1999 building codes have changed within all apartment units, whether it be family or senior and so this is really a good thing for seniors in that all apartments in the State of Minnesota now have to be built basically to senior standards. So within the units, no. There really are no changes other than some really subtle ones where let's say we don't have a microwave over the top of the stove and we have it on the counter. We don't do cabinets over the top of a refrigerator because we found that seniors climb up on chairs and are more apt to fall. We have bathroom doors that swing out rather than swing in because if someone falls in the bathroom, then it's easier to rescue them and what not. The other differences in Building D would be that there is slightly more conference space. But at this time we don't have any space for let's say a commercial kitchen. It would only be for greater daytime activities. Sidney: Would you consider that? Link Wilson: We could leave space for a commercial kitchen. For instance at Centennial Hills there's certainly space for a commercial kitchen but in that kitchen right now it's just plastic laminate counter tops and wood faced cabinets so that would have to be something that.. . and we'd at this time rather stay away from the State licensing that that requires to have the Health Department review yearly commercial kitchens so at this time there will be space for it but we would not be. . . Peterson: Other questions? Okay, thank you. May I have a motion and a second for a public hearing please. Kind moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. 37 Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come forward and state your name and address please. Planning Commission Meeting-January 5, 2000 Doug Wilder: Yeah, my name is Doug Wilder and I'm going to have Dave and Bill also up here to help out with this. Bill Weber: My name is Bill Weber. I live at 1290 Lake Susan Hills Drive. Dave Ruegg: Dave Ruegg at 1250 Lake Susan Hills Drive. Doug Wilder: I'm at 1320. This is going to be kind of a tag team, because we've been working on some different pieces together. I think just before we start we'd like to state that we are not against the use of Outlot A for high density, multiple family residential use. We understand this outlot has been slated for this type of use for a long time. That's not a problem. At the same time however we believe that the existing site proposal does not meet Chanhassen city code and zoning ordinance requirements. And that will be the focus of our presentation tonight. What's difficult for us is that we're talking about a number of different plans tonight and we've been talking with the planning department. With the architect. With developer. Kind of going back and forth with a lot of different things for a number of weeks now and we're not really sure what to really focus on but because this staff report is what is being considered tonight, we're going to focus on the staff report because that is really the thing that is under consideration. We don't know and we don't have infonnation before us that really gives us a feel for what the end result is going to be. We don't see infonnation that shows us what the sight lines are going to be with a 6:12 roof versus a 4:12 roof. I think it's going to be a 4:12 so we don't know what that's going to look like. We don't know what it's going to look like with bay windows. We'd like to see that before a vote is taken on this proposal. And for that reason, as we go through this, we're looking to you to reject the site plan approval as it stands today in the report. And to reject or table the hard surface coverage amendment, the amended parking standards until we've had a chance to really look at the entire picture. We have six different issues. I guess one of them we've already dealt with but I think I'll use that as landscape instead but we do believe that the city has a relatively high level of discretion in approving amendments to PUD's. And it's our understanding that any amendment to a PUD must be consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. We believe that the current proposal is not consistent with the comprehensive plan and there are six different areas that we'd like to show that. In the hard surface requirements, the parking requirements, the topography and original elevation requirements, transitional requirements and buffering setback requirements. In our opinion the first three issues are relatively minor issues. While the last three issues are major concerns for us as residents, How we deal with the minor issues depends on how we deal with the major issues. And as a group of concerned citizens we want to cooperate with the City of Chanhassen, We want to cooperate with the developer. We want to cooperate with the architect, but until we see the finished plan and have something concrete to look at, we're going to ask the Planning Commission to require strict adherence to the original PUD agreement, the Chanhassen City Code and the zoning ordinances. With that in mind, the hard surface requirements are the first thing that we've looked at. The original PUD agreement signed 38 Planning Commission Meeting-January 5, 2000 on 11116/87 granted the higher density of a R-16 zoning district to what was originally zoned as an R-12 zoning district. That PUD agreement goes on to state that the maximum percentage of allowable impervious surface on Outlot A is 32%. The applicant again is proposing 34%. This is not a major change. We're willing to cooperate in seeing that this amendment is eventually granted but we believe that the rationale used by the planning department is in error. When it seeks to justify the additional hard surface coverage in saying that the R-16 district pennits maximum hard surface coverage up to 50%. This is not an R-16 district. This is an R-12 district with a variance for R-16 density only, not for hard surface coverage or anything else. The original PUD agreement states unequivocally that except as modified herein, the development shall be in accordance with the uses, standards and requirements of the R-12 zoning district. The PUD agreement calls for 32. So for the time being we would ask that the original PUD agreement be honored, with or without the sidewalks. Second, parking requirements. The PUD requirement or agreement governing proposes or requires parking to meet the R-12 standards. R-12 standards call for 1.5 enclosed parking spaces per unit. The current proposal has a range of 1.28 to 1.48, and even then we don't know what is happening with Building D because these are senior housing units and it could very well be that when we're all said and done we're going to have a total number of enclosed stalls in the range of 1.3. And so again we beli,eve that the reasoning for granting this amendment as put forth in the Planning Commission staff report is faulty. Staff reports seeks to draw comparison to an R-16 district. This is not an R-16 district. It's an R-12 district. And as noted above the original PUD agreement states except as modified herein, the development shall be in accordance with the use and standards and requirements of the R-12 zoning district. So again, until some of our more pressing issues are resolved we would ask that the current amendment regarding parking requirements be rejected and that the original PUD agreement be honored. With regard to landscaping. One of the things that we found was, and maybe I'll address that a little later. Someone mentioned earlier that whether or not this $500 landscape fee could be increased and I do believe that it's within the rights of the Planning Commission to do that. In the original PUD agreement it states that for the first five years the city could not make any new amendments or changes to that PUD agreement. That was in 1987. That lapsed in 1992. The PUD agreement states therefore, notwithstanding anything in this agreement to the contrary to the full extent pennitted by State law, the City may require compliance with any amendments to the city's comprehensive plan following that five year period. So the City is in the position to require that the proposal add additional dollars for landscaping if you so choose, and you're also in the position to require some other things that we'd like to get into in a minute. Topography and original elevation. When the PUD agreement was originally signed in 1987 there was little or no hill on the southeastern portion of Outlot A. The hill currently standing is a result of grading done to the back yards of the single family homes adjoining Outlot A. And the current elevation of that hill is 10 to 20 feet higher and 20 to 30 feet wider than what was originally there. The staff report however states that the site plan should preserve the site in it's natural state. And that designing grade changes, this is a quote, designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developing areas. It also states that the site plan should create a hannonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features. In our opinion the site has not been preserved in it's natural state since the 39 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000 signing of the PUD agreement. You may disagree with me but I think it's a little more than a thimble full. It's tons and tons of topsoil that should have been hauled away in 1989 that were instead relocated onto Outlot A creating a hill upon which Building B is now supposed to stand. And what many residents now face is a prospect of looking out their back window or off their porch to see little more than a 600 foot building or two 300 foot buildings looming 60 feet above them on a hill that didn't even exist when the original agreement was signed. In our discussions with the developer and the city planning department we've asked that either the topography in the section of Outlot A be restored, fully or partially to it's original state, or that the setback be increased to improve both screening and view preservation and I believe that some of those concerns have been addressed and we're heartened by the fact that they're wanting to move that back 25 feet. We'd like to see that though in writing. We'd like to see the finished project before any approval is given to a site plan we would ask that that be taken into account. But as a Chanhassen homeowner we would ask that you put yourselves in our shoes. If you had to look out your back window at a 600 foot building rising 60 feet up above your back yard just 100 feet tì-om your property line, would you feel that your property had been protected through "sight and sound buffers and preservation of use". Would you feel that efforts had been made to create a "harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features". We don't believe as residents that that is being taken into account. Section 20-1455 of the City Code states that were natural topographic patterns contribute to the beauty of utility of a development, they shall be preserved to the greatest extent possible. The current topography in the southeast portion of Outlot A is not natural. It was man made. It will not contribute to the beauty of the development and will not create a harmonious relationship with existing buildings as called for by the code. We would therefore request that unless some type of compromise is found, the developer be required to restore the southeast portion of Outlot A to it's original state, We would also request that the developer work with the City and residents to provide a type ofberming in place of that hill and screening that truly complies with the intent of the city code. Transition is an issue as welL There are a number of sections in the city code that talk about transition. In fact 20-501 of the City Code states that PUD's are to encourage sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses. Section 20-503 calls for adequacy, location and screening of non-compatible land uses, According to the staff report there is a reasonable transition between the subject site and the residential single homes to the south of 100 feet, but we disagree. And we find that the City Code agrees with us as the next and final argument will show. But again if you had to look out your back window at what is being proposed, would you consider that a reasonable transition? And I don't know, we have some photographs to show them. Bill Weber: .. .relating back to parking, on page II of the staff report it indicates that you're not meet ordinance as far as the safety issue. Fire trucks needing to get into your buildings. If you widened those aisles, are you, where are you going to take up that safety? Is that going to come into the surface as far as how they're going to accommodate that. I know they mentioned about five plans tonight, one of which I think they hinted that they're going to meet that ordinance. But the ones in the staff report don't. 40 Planning Commission Meeting-January 5, 2000 Doug Wilder: I have some pictures here that we're just asking you to pass around. These are pictures from someone's home looking out to the, what is the hill that was created when this topsoil was relocated. And that's apparently the land upon which the building is going to be built upon. The last and final issue that we're concerned with is, and it's tied to this transition issue. Is the buffer yard and setback requirements. The staff report above uses these two tenns interchangeably but if we examine the City Code closely we find that there are actually two separate requirements. First we have the setback requirement. According to City Code, quote, the setback for all buildings from exterior PUD lot lines not abutting a public street shall be 30 feet, except that in no case shall the setback be less than the height of the building. And I can provide you with a specific places in the City Code where it states that. The setback requirement then would require a setback of roughly 36 feet, if! understood length correctly. Second however we have the requirement for a buffer yard. According to the City Code, the buffer yard is an additional setback requirement. It is to be cumulatively calculated with the required setbacks. Buffer yards are to be established quote, this is all quoted directly out of the City Code. Buffer yards are to be established where high intensity uses interface with low intensity uses. A 100 foot buffer yard is required where the interface occurs on internal lot lines. So what we're saying here then is that the buffer yard requirement would require an additional setback of 100 feet, bringing the total setback and buffer yard requirement on this project to at least 135 feet. If the code was truly followed and the setback was indeed 135, 136 feet on the southeast portion of Outlot A, we would very likely not have an issue with the hilI that we were noting in the previous case. It could possibly serve as a large benn and help provide some of the screening necessary to provide an adequate transition between property uses. The Planning Commission and City Attorney have interpreted the code to require 100 foot setback. We believe that they're mistaken. Partly because the two tenns tend to be used interchangeably. Partly because it's my impression that they believe that the agreement having been signed in 1987 needs to be considered with the. Aanenson: Where the ordinance is silent on setback you follow, the City Attorney's opinion is that you follow the R-12 setback requirements. Doug Wilder: Okay, my interpretation was differently but the City Code is not silent on that. Aanenson: That's your opinion, correct. Which is different than our City Attorney's. Doug Wilder: It's also been stated that the current ordinance on buffer yards and setbacks was not in place when the original PUD agreement was enacted so the City cannot enforce any requirements. I don't know if that's true or not, but it's our understanding from the PUD agreement that the city could not make any new amendments or changes only in the first five years. After that time they are able to do that and so it is possible for us to enforce the requirement as stated in the code regardless of when that was enacted. And we would ask that that be adhered to. As we noted at the outset, we're not against the use of Outlot A for high intensity purposes. However, we're strongly against any provisions that are not consistent with the official city 41 comprehensive plan, the PUD agreement of 11/16/87 City Code and the Zoning Ordinance says. Despite all that we know that compromise is necessary and we're willing to work with the city and the developer to find ways to ensure that all interests are protected. Because we need time to do that however, our request to the Planning Commission is that the proposed site plan approval as listed in the staff report be tabled or rejected and that the hard surface coverage amendment, the parking standards amendment, be either rejected or tabled. And again, until a complete package has been presented to the residents and to the Planning Commission that addresses all of the issues that we've outlined, we believe that to proceed with any of these individual issues would be counter productive. Thank you. Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000 Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the commission, please come forward. Dan Fagan: Hi. My name's Dan Fagan. I live at 1340 Lake Susan Hills Drive. And I just had a couple of points that I kind of wanted to see where we're at. Where the developer is in the process, and that goes to the PUD agreement that was signed in '87, Talking about, it's an additional conditions of approval, the developer shall not damage or remove any trees except as indicated on the grading and tree removal plans to be approved by the city. First of all have those plans been approved already? Link Wilson: At this point you should probably just address. the commission. Dan Fagan: Okay. Well have those plans been approved by the city yet at this time? Aanenson: The grading plan is submitted. Not a finalized one. It will be as a part of, it is a requirement. Dan Fagan: Okay, because Ijust don't know if anyone's actually been to the site but there is considerable amount of aged trees that are on the south side and according to these plans they're just going to be. Aanenson: Our City Forester has walked the site and she's given specific recommendations which are in the report. Dan Fagan: Okay. So in looking at the plans it looks like all the trees will be eliminated? Aanenson: I don't think that's true. Dan Fagan: I'm sorry, I'm looking at the pictures because there is a picture from the comer of Lake Drive and maybe the trees haven't been in there saved but it appeared as though the trees were going to be removed and that was just a concern. Aanenson: There is a retaining wall on the comer of Powers and Lake Drive where the significant trees are that we're trying to save. Based on species and type and that's how 42 Planning Commission Meeting-January 5, 2000 the decision was made but the City Forester did walk the property and made a recommendation. It probably has to do with type and age. Dan Fagan: Okay, because I guess my main concern is those seemed pretty close to the road and it seems like the more they actually do get in there with the setbacks, I guess I'm not. Aanenson: ...I'd recommend that we can talk to you too. Dan Fagan: Okay. And the next thing I'd like to just talk about would be the landscaping budget, and the agreement was $500 per unit. That is a budget of roughly $175,000-$172,000 at this point and that was in 1987. I know there is in the code, or in the City Code, there is minimum landscaping budgets and actually you may be able to answer this question. Do you know what the landscaping budget is? Peterson: I think that we as a city will approve as a council. .. Dan Fagan: Alright, well my point is that in the code it does have projects over $4 mÍlIion to be 1% and that would be double of what, at $100,000 per unit we'd be at $344,000 on a budget which is twice of that so I'd just like to have that as a consideration. One of the other points that I just wanted to bring up would be the, you know as written in the agreement it talks about under conditions of approval, the developer shall provide buffer areas acceptable to the city between multiple family and single family areas to assure adequate transition between uses, including the use of benns, landscaping and setbacks from lot lines. I also would read further in the agreement that the agreement, under miscellaneous shall be... to protect the public's interest. Obviously our real concern here tonight is the buildings, how close they are to the homes. And I'm not a lawyer, I don't interpret legal documents but in here it would appear to me that the city would have some discretion according to this contract to... be brought out. And finally, the last thing I just wanted to talk about is the developer talked about you know time as an issue. The bond rates are up. Yes, that's true. We're talking Phase I here. A construction loan I don't think, I think this is a serious project. There's been years in the process that this has been able to get built so the fact that expediency in this matter does not sound reasonable to me. I understand there's a project on line. There's been dollars up front but for them to ask for this to be, I don't want to say pushed through as quickly as possible, but I think there should be adequate time for the city and/or the residents to fully see the plans. This isn't something that all of a sudden needs to be done right now because this is obviously a considerable project, Considerable dollars at risk and you know considerable concern from the residents. That's it. Thanks. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Kind moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000 Peterson: Public hearing is closed. You had asked for a few minutes to respond, I guess if I do that I would also probably let the public hearing probably come back so I guess, you don't have to respond. I think it's my preference that you not. Because of doing the right thing so I'll leave that to your discretion. If you feel there's something really salient, I'll re-open it up again. Link Wilson: I think my only comment is that, if! can approach the microphone, is that I do feel that there's adequate information that is in your packet that describes what the architecture of the buildings are. I ran 40 copies of this. This is what was presented on board which shows 125 foot setback for the building. I brought 40 of these tonight. I've only got 3 of them in my hand but there are enough in this room that we could give to oh, there's a stack. That we could give to each and every one of you that then describes that site plan. And therefore I do believe that we have adequate information to describe the project. Peterson: Thank you. Pass those around. Commissioners we have, I don't know if controversial is the word but I think a difficult thing to review so I would offer and look for your comments. I think overall and then if we need to get specific we can from there but let's talk conceptually and then granulate from that so. Does anyone care to tackle this one first? Kind: Mr. Chairman I have a question of staff. Regarding what was presented by, I wish I could remember your name sir. Mr. Weber, thank you, On the last page of his handout, talking about how you calculate the buffer yard. Could you speak to that please? Aanenson: Certainly. The neighbors are aware of this. We had a very good meeting with the neighbors. It's been a good process. I think a lot of give and take and providing information. As in these situations, it never seems like there's enough time to try to get an understanding of the ordinances. This question was brought up in the meeting that we had with the neighbors. We did get a legal opinion on that. Certainly they're looking for areas, ways that they can benefit their property certainly. And I hope they understand this. That was our first approach too. We want to make this project work but we're trying to strike a balance. He's demonstrated, the applicant has demonstrated a plan that works. He has a right to that plan. In the spirit of cooperation he's trying to make additional changes that are not required by ordinance. As indicated by the last time I spoke he's going way beyond the landscaping ordinance, so what we're trying to do is get more than what was required by that ordinance and still stay within, so we're doing a give and take on both sides. And in that particular one, it's the City Attorney's opinion that we're interpreting the ordinance correctly. And to go to the R-12 setback. We don't go back, the PUD standard wasn't in place. It said, it speaks, if it's silent it says go to the R-12 as far as setback. That's what, and that's the City Attorney's opinion. I certainly understand that they want the buildings as far back as they can get it and I believe the developer has worked very hard to try to accomplish that. Moving as far a they can. Kind: But if we were developing this situation today, their calculation is correct, it would be 100 in addition to the 35 foot buffer? 44 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000 Aanenson: Yeah, probably today, correct. AI-Jaff: And they're going through the zoning ofPUD today. Aanenson: Right. But the other thing too is I mean they're coming in with larger trees than are required so I'm saying there's give and take on both sides and that's what I'm trying to say. I think that's what I hear the neighbors saying too, that they recognize that, trying to strike that. And part of their ITustration is that they haven't seen the fInal plan. It just came in today and it has been a moving target. The fact that they're trying to respond to our concerns and their concerns. Kind: And then the next thing is the date that we have to have this done. What's the date in our new fonnat that, review deadline. February I st. Aanenson: There is a 60 day requirement, and we're getting close to that. I guess I'd ask if the applicant wouldn't have a problem if we could table this to get a fInal drawing, if they're comfortable with that. They do have a plan that meets the conditions but I think in the spirit of cooperation, and I'm not sure if we could get another two weeks so everybody could see the fInal plans. Kind: The stuff they handed out now does not give us enough time to really give it the, that's where I'm going. Aanenson: I guess I'd ask the applicant. Kind: If we could get an extension on the. Link Wilson: I really feel that, do I need to go to the microphone? Peterson: If you would, yeah. Link Wilson: I really do feel that especially with the engineered plan that you have, the 8 Y2 x II that was submitted, that is a design plan created by Bill Sharbono and Jeff Shopek. We stand behind it as an engineered drawing and we feel that that is what has changed in the last 48 hours. That change really is precipitated by the spirit of cooperation that we tried to create with the neighbors so I guess I still stand that we feel that we have enough infonnation to you and we don't really see a continuation as an option this evening. Peterson: Even if we could fIt it into the next Planning Commission meeting, which is in two weeks? Link Wilson: At this time, no. We would really prefer that it just be struck down tonight in that case and then we would take our issues to the City Council. Thank you. 45 Planning Commission Meeting-January 5, 2000 Aanenson: Mr. Chairman, I believe it's in your discretion if you believe you don't have enough infonnation based on that, that you do have the discretion to demand another time period based on state law. There is a 60 day but you can ask for it based on the fact that the site plan changed. If you feel that's not enough infonnation. I think the staff would concur that the engineering's not going to change that much based on pushing the building forward. I think in fairness, I'll let you make that decision. Peterson: I think what I'd like to do is listen to the continuing comments from the commissioners and then we as a group make that decision in a few minutes. Burton: Can I ask one more question of staff while we're kind of asking questions here? There's been some discussion about in the PUD agreement that I think it was '87 and it expired after, well some of the provisions expire after five years, And now the neighbors are citing some of the other code provisions, I think they've taken some stuff out of the PUD ordinance. Aanenson: Correct. Burton: ...how you feel about that. Aanenson: That's what I'm saying, you can't go to the PUD ordinance. You have to go to the R-12, It specifically sets that. But there is. I mean the rules are set in place for five years and they had that timeframe. It's gone beyond some of that, but even if you said that they had to double the ordinance, the landscaping values, they've gone beyond that. They've gone beyond that in the tree size so I'm saying there is, they're trying to go beyond the ordinance already and I don't think we want to make it a minimal project. They certainly don't want and we don't want to push that either. That's what I'm saying, there's give and take and the neighbors recognize that and they're willing to give and take. Peterson: Let's start talking about this general thoughts of the project as it stands independently of some of the technical issues. Joyce: I'll throw my comments in. I think that, I guess the way I'd start this is I like the project. I like it a lot. The problem is I don't like where it's at. I think there was a mistake made by the city years ago that they didn't realize they were making, I know that this day and age we would have a transition, not only of a buffer transition but of a density transition. And we don't have that luxury now, obviously. So we have to deal with what we have. I know one of the residents said put yourself in my shoes and I've been there. You look out at an open field, it's almost your field. This guy's going to go into your field and do something with it and that's difficult. So in that regard I certainly empathize with you. Understand what you're going through. But I do like the project as far as what they're trying to do here. I don't know how much more they can do. I think Ladd certainly is trying his best to figure out a methodology of making it a little more palatable as we said. I don't know ifthat's possible or not. I guess what it boils down to is that you're going to have a high density building in your back yard and that's, I think 46 Planning Commission Meeting- January 5, 2000 you have to accept that. How it's going to be positioned, how it's going to be buffered and that is what we're all talking about here. I do think that the applicant's done an excellent job as far as trying to buffer it with what he's had. I think pushing that extra 25 feet is important. I think we're close. I really do. And I, the one thing I disagree with the applicant is that he doesn't consider giving us a little more time to swallow this. I'm talking about both the neighbors and the Planning Commission. I think you might be surprised what kind of good ideas someone will come up with when their feet are to the fire and we've had a good time to look at this and kind of get a feel for it. So I would suggest, I would hate to strike it down. I think our job as a Planning Commission is to clean things up so that you have a smooth halfway to the City Council and I think that's what we're trying to do right now and I get the feeling the neighbors aren't real happy but they realize that it's going to be developed in a certain method and I don't think you're real happy because you don't want to delay this any further but you might be saving yourself time by tabling it now versus what could happen at the City Council. So I'll listen to other comments but I'm in favor of tabling it and giving it another shot in two weeks and let's try to clean things up just a little bit and move forward with it because I think it's going to move forward. Peterson: Specifically cleaning things up, I mean do you have any recommendations? Joyce: Well I mean just, let's see what that looks like, I mean that's only fair to these people. They should be able to see what this looks like. Peterson: So a better rendering of. Joyce: Yeah, I mean Alison had a good point. It was something I looked at and she was, you know let's just make sure that's the right, what we're doing with the trail system. There's just a few things in here. I don't think this is a huge, maybe Ladd would have an inspiration in the next week or so or something. Conrad: Wait until I get it. Joyce: See, I'm waiting. Peterson: Vision is maybe the word. Joyce: Vision, yes. Peterson: Other comments? Sidney: Mr. Chainnan, we'll go around here. Go down the line. I agree with Kevin's comments and yes, I've been there and understand the importance of transition zone between different uses and in this case this is a really important project to the city. It's an unusual situation where we have single family homes abutting high density development. There aren't that many in the city and I think we need to be super careful about what we do and we want to do the best job we can for the community and for the residents. I think 47 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000 the thing that I thought of immediately, you know what was I going to comment on. I think the thing that Ladd brought up about building locations, angles are really important and I don't think you would want to look at a huge blank wall or wall of these buildings as he stated. And I think in that way the developer should seek to create some better drawings and have everyone take a look at it another time and go through it. Also I think we need a better understanding of the landscape situation on the south side. Exactly where are trees preserved and where are trees going to be planted. What are these trees? When re they going to be planted? I still think, especially with evergreens you can go in and plant sooner than later. I don't think that construction's going to hurt them as much as some other trees. Larger, mature trees. That's my opinion. But I would be in favor of taking another look at this. Make sure everyone's in agreement, especially with the configuration of the buildings. I'm glad, I'm very pleased the buildings were pushed back farther and I think we're almost there like Kevin says. We need a little bit more work. Peterson: Deb. Kind: Moving right along. I also would like to table this, if we can and get a time extension on it. But I will speak to what my loose ends are that I'd like to see tied up in a neat little box before it goes to the City Council. I would like to see the idea of that B2 building being angled or changed somehow. The way Ladd was suggesting. I think that's a good idea because right now they're just kind of parallel to each other and if you just changed some things by putting some angles in there, I think that that can be done. That's something new that came up tonight that I'd really like to see. My predisposition to this is that we're following the 1987 PUD agreement when it benefits the applicant. We also need to follow it when it does not benefit the applicant and there's some things in there that don't benefit them, like the surface area, which I' willing to concede if it's really true that you can just take away the sidewalks and meet that. I'd like to have, or change the roads to meet that because I really disliked that plan that you showed with driving through the parking lot. That is not going to work. And if that really does meet the letter ofthe law, you've convinced me that we need to increase the impervious surface. And I don't want to give up my sidewalks. I think pedestrian flow is really important. I think city staff did a great job of getting that in there so I need to have some proof! guess that building reduction isn't the result of that impervious enforcement. The parking is the same deal. The R-12 requirement for enclosed parking is 1.5 per and I'd like to see for sure that that commons area would be sacrificed to make up for that. That's an important part to me, that commons area and I think that's worth having. Is that really what would be sacrificed to get that or is that just kind of, I don't know, I feel like it's a little threat to me but. But if that's true that that's what would go, then I probably would be willing to give that up because I think that's really important to the site. I've lived in apartments a lot in my lifetime. My parents were divorced when I was 10. I lived in apartments pretty much since I was 10 through my married life. When I was a new professional and I've lived in cheap apartments and I've lived in really nice apartments and what you're trying to do here I think is really nice and I don't think it's going to be poor people, like myself when we were first out of college. We wouldn't be able to afford this but I think this will be more young professionals to young families 48 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000 getting their start and I think I would make a good neighbor and I think these people would make good neighbors. And the pool is important to that. To that life so. Let me see, what else I have on here. I really want you to consider the sidewalks that I talked about and I think some of these things I know can just be addressed on the next site plan but I want it to be presented in a way, there's just too many things that are missing ftom the site plan that we've looked at that's dated December 3rd that I'd like to see there so that the neighbors can see it. So we all can see it. And that's some of the stuff there. Peterson: Other than the sidewalks, what's missing? Kind: I'd like to see specifics to the landscaping. How they're going to exceed the buffer requirements, especially on that south lot line. And species of trees and size specified so that, otherwise it just ends up being a huge laundry list of conditions and I would really like to see that come from the applicant and not from us adding a laundry list of conditions. We can load it up with conditions tonight too. That is an option I guess. The bay window thing, I would like to see what that looks like. The roof pitch, I'd like to see what the 4: 12 looks like. I'd like to see the deck railings be in a low maintenance metal. You pointed out there's so little of it showing so I'm thinking it's po'ssible to do it. I don't know. And then the wetland thing, it is in the PUD agreement that you can't touch that wetland and I was glad to see that you're not going to. I want to see that not touching that wetland. 50 foot setback. A plan that we look at. And I would like to see some of the things that were not, that were missing in the staff report addressed in your site plan like the trash. Where that's going to be located. I'd like to see where the utility meters are going to be. Architects never show where the utility meters are in the buildings because they're pretty ugly and I'd like to see where they're going to be. Right? And I'd like to see where they'll be and how they're going to be screened. Because they're going to probably be on that back side where all the neighbors get to look at them. And I think that's it. Peterson: Thanks. Matt. Burton: Well first I thank everybody for coming here tonight and giving us your perspective because it really helps to get a picture of what's going on and to talk about putting ourselves in your shoes and I know, I think a lot ofus had the experiences, well maybe not exactly similar to your's but that drove us to get on the Planning Commission because things were going on in our neighborhood, you know. They were talking about putting a dealership, car dealership on Highway 5 a couple years ago and that's how I ended up on the Planning Commission because that was right by where I lived so I kind of know where you're coming from. I guess there are a lot of issues and looking at it, the different things that we have to look at, one of them would be the site plan. And the statute that, in the ordinance I guess it is that we have to follow and the case law on site plans does not leave us a lot of discretion and this PUD agreement didn't have any standards in it either, but I'm still not convinced that this project necessarily meets that site plan standards even though they're not that strict. One of the elements I think is, I think the neighbors noted this in that report was that it has to protect the adjacent neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound 49 Planning Commission Meeting-January 5, 2000 and sight buffers, preservation of use, light in there and that aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations, which may have a substantial affect on neighboring land uses. And I do think that these buildings, at least in my opinion, they seem to tower a bit over the neighborhood so I question whether that provision is met. And my main focus then is on buildings B I and B2, but the problem is tonight we're really supposed to be looking at Building A. That's what the site plan is for. But I think you can tie them together because how you place Building A affects what you can do with Bl and B2 and we'd be, if we just blindly, I'm not saying we're doing that but if we just blindly pass Building A, then we'd be limiting our options down the road and I'd really like to have a better picture of where everything's going before we pass on Building A because I have the concerns with Bl and B2. So therefore I guess I'd be more inclined, I would like to table it and see if we can take another look at those and see if we can resolve that before I would pass on that. And if! was forced to, I'd vote no tonight on the site plan. Issues like hard surface cover area, I think that that's pretty easy to get around. I think that it does make the project better to increase it, just by the little bit they're asking for. And disallowing it wouldn't kill the project, it would just make it a worse project so I think it just makes sense to let it go through. And I would also give the developer credit in considering to allow the hard surface to be increased for things that they've done like dropping the roofs and moving the buildings that they've done and breaking up buildings and all the other things they've talked about doing. I think· the developer has done a good job of trying to cooperate with the neighbors and I give them credit for that. The only other item that I really think I need to comment on is the change in land elevation perhaps over time and the neighbors have alleged that increased substantially and I don't think there's any evidence that's been given to us that the elevation has changed. Just the people stating that it has on both sides. I think it would be very relevant ifit could be established that it has changed a lot since 1987 and if there was some verifiable evidence that could be presented to the commission or the City Council showing that. I think it may, it would affect my decision anyway, if it had increased substantially. SO if that's something that's a contention that continues, then 1 think that people have to do their homework and be able to establish it so that we can rely on it and not just, because what we have so far we can't rely on. I guess that's it. I pretty much agree with the other comments. Peterson: Alison. Blackowiak: Yeah, I basically would like to thank everyone for coming too and thank the neighbors because they certainly did a very professional job in giving us their side of the story and that's very helpful when people give a nice, organized, not terribly emotional plea to us because it makes things a lot easier and I know that this is a very emotional issue for everybody concerned so just thank you for that. I'm not going to add a lot but what I would like to say is that things that would have helped me make a decision tonight are things such as color renderings, materials that I could have seen maybe beforehand or sketches with materials that I could have seen. Sight line sketches. Give me a sketch of what the person standing in a back yard will see as they look up. Show me how the trees would help buffer that. That's the kind ofinfonnation that I did not have in my packet. 50 Planning Commission Meeting-January 5, 2000 Aanenson: Oh you had the board..., right. Blackowiak: Right, we saw the board but that was when I got here and I like to kind of see things ahead of time and stew over them. Unfortunately I'm not a real, I don't make a lot of real quick decisions. I usually have to read a packet a few times over to make sure I'm getting everything that I need and that would really have helped me tonight. I do realize that I now have a revised plan but again, I like to look at it. I like to kind of stew over it a little bit before making a final decision. I need to clarify, Dave didn't you say something about there was an elevation change due to grading. 10 to 20 feet high, 20 feet wide, 80 feet long. I mean isn't that, didn't you say that that was the estimated change and I just remember thinking that was about the size of a football field. Hempel: Mr. Chainnan, commissioners. That's correct. I've estimated about 200 feet long, 50 feet wide, approximately 10 feet high. Blackowiak: Okay, so that is a change. So I mean that may help you Matt, or not, but as I think of the B2 hill, I mean the developers or the applicant comes and says it's a thimble full. I mean maybe that thimble full can be spread along and add 2 inches to the overilil project. I don't know. But to have it all sit on that B2 hill, I don't know if that's fair to the neighbors who are going to be directly impacted by it so that would be one of my things I'd like to have researched is what can happen. You know if it is created by the developer, regardless of whether it's not the cuttent developer, should that situation be remedied before we do anything else? I know there was a situation out on 101 where there was a huge benn that ended up getting changed down by, I can't think of the name of the development, by 101 and Lyman. Springhill, yeah. So there was, there is precedence set. I mean we have done this before so if there's something to change, maybe it needs to go back to the way it was and then again look at how B2 would be ttom the back yard because I think that that's a valid point. If it was indeed changed by development then maybe we should start over at, you know ground zero so to speak and look at things again. Overall I would say I would like more time to look at this. I need more infonnation. I'd like to kind of make sure that I'm getting the full impact of things. If! were forced to vote tonight, I would say no because I don't have enough infonnation. So that's it. Peterson: Thank you. Ladd. Conrad: .. .nice professional job, that's terrific. Generally I agree with all the variances or amendments that they're asking for. I think they're just rationale things. Makes it a better project. Real disappointed in the transition. I think you met the letter of the law but you really didn't meet the intent. The B2 building I think staff got you at least to separate that but again based on, and maybe the 125 setback might solve some things in terms of some buffering but it really didn't meet what we've ever done here as we try to move single family, multi-family next to single family, and this is a big, you're up on a 12 foot grade and so I think that's the disappointment that I have in the project. The other thing I would have done is instead of five buildings I'd make them seven. And 51 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000 when you have big profiles, how possibly can that fit into a neighborhood. How possibly? It can't. We have to table it whether it's nice or not, we have to table this, I think we should take a look at the bay window situation. I'd like to see the new setback for the B2 building. I'd like to challenge the applicant to see, and you can come back and say we can't do it but I'd really just like to challenge you. I'm not an architect. But some angles there so it's not absolutely in their face. You've got it right in their face and I'm not asking, you know I'd probably say I don't care if it's 100 foot setback. The neighbors wouldn't want me to move it back to that but it's a wall on the back yards. I don't know. I'd challenge you on that one and maybe you'll come back and say we don't want to do it. I think I'd like to see a site plan with the sidewalk on it. I would like to see a final landscape. The one thing that you can do to make this work is the landscape plantings and I haven't really seen the final draft of that. That's the one thing that you've got to do and I sure want to see a final landscape plan. That's what they're asking for and to want to go through tonight and get it onto City Council I think would not be appropriate on our part to do that. I think the other comments I'll pick up in the motion that I've heard. I think they're all pretty valid that have been said here tonight. That's all. Peterson: Thank you Ladd. I also reiterate almost to a point my fellow commissioners, items that they want to see further clarification on a more detail on so I won't go into those. The only one addition that I would have, and it goes back to building materials that Deb went through a little bit earlier. On that top portion ofthe building, when I saw the initial packet and looked at it I just said it doesn't fit. It doesn't work for me. I don't, and even looking at the color renderings, it just doesn't, it seems so awkward as it's defined. Again that's my opinion and take that for what it's worth but it jut doesn't seem to fit regarding other projects we've had of this size. It's just disjointed. Whether that, you go brick all the way up, that has some negatives along with it too but it just doesn't seem to work the way it is so with that, both that comment and those comments I would also vote to table this to give the applicant and see staff and the residents around there to give a little bit more time. Kate, what is realistic based upon our current schedule? Is it feasible to do it the next session or not? Aanenson: I guess I'd turn it over to the applicant. Two weeks is a quick turn around because we'd have to have it out and back to you next week. Next Thursday so we're talking really a week's turn around to get it back to you. And for the neighbors to get in. Peterson: Can we set that as a target and have it being moving? Aanenson: Sure. Otherwise it'd be the first meeting in February. Peterson: Because I think the things we talked about can be addressed relatively quickly. I mean I think you've got a sense generally from the commissioners that the variances aren't really the issue. It is more design in nature. I'll give you the fact that if we start moving the buildings around that is pretty substantial. So why don't we shoot for the next meeting and adjust accordingly so a motion please. 52 Planning Commission Meeting-January 5, 2000 Conrad: I would make that motion. I can't read on the staff report what the case is so, I would recommend that we table Planning Case XXXX, whatever we're looking at. Including site plan review and planned unit development amendment and wetland alteration pennit so I'm recommending that we table that for the applicant to come back and address the following issues. A review of the bay window and maybe a rendering of the bay window on the buildings facing the south. A site plan that shows the detailed site plan that shows the setback that has been changed to 125 feet or something like that. I would like to have the landscape plan updated with the most current thinking and plantings that you feel will buffer this site adequately. I'd like to see a site plan with the sidewalk on the north side of the site. I would like to have staff review the, and maybe the neighborhood can help in tenns of establishing the original elevation of that hill. Maybe Dave has already done that but I guess the planning staff should come back to us, the way I would interpret it is that's been altered and that should be restored the way it was original. I'd like to have a recommendation from staff on that. I'd also like to have staff review the residents response to us, I think it was well drafted. I don't want to just let it go. I think if there are any relevant things that we think are legal issues in there, I'd like the staff to bring those back up. I'd like to challenge the applicant to angle Building B2. If it makes no sense, I sure expect you to come back and say that to me, but right now you haven't done, other than distance and maybe some trees, you haven't mitigated a, you haven't really established much of a transition area. So I'd like to challenge you in tenns of angling Building B2. I'd like you to review the building materials presented tonight. I'd like to have you take a look at, or present to us a 4:12 roof pitch for the neighborhood to see. And I'd like to make sure that on your plat, identifY where the trash enclosures are. Peterson: Is there a second? Joyce: Dh yes, second. Peterson: Any discussion? Kind: I do have one thing to add to Ladd's list, seeing that you're trying to put in a neat package at the end. Show where the utility meters are and the boxes, the free standing boxes, where they'll be on the site. Blackowiak: Lighting? Kind: Lighting. Aanenson: We've got that. Kind: You're awesome. Peterson: Balcony railing. 53 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000 Kind: That the balcony railings, the building materials I think Ladd covered on his list there but also in that landscaping plan, show the tree conservation plan as well of existing trees. What ones will be saved. I think that's a pretty good laundry list. Peterson: Friendly amendment accepted? Conrad: Yes. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Conrad moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission table the preliminary plat of 21.34 acres into four lots (SUB 99-14) and table Site Plan Review #99-19 for Phase I (Building A) 106 units as shown on the plans dated received December 3, 1999 to review the items outlined by the Planning Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ONGOING BUSINESS. Aanenson: Anyway, the home occupation, because I knew this would be going late, we did table that. On the next meeting we do have another complex PUD that's requesting a comp plan change. So I assume that will be also.. .so that is complex. So depending on what else is with that, the home occupation is a discussion we need to be examining. It is a timely issue but it isn't on the same relevance as the applications are the thing that we have to keep track of. The second meeting in February is a work session. If you have suggestions, the staff has a few ideas. We'd like to do some training. Some brainstorming. Planning staff put together a design standards exercise with the City Council. It went really well. I'd like to run that past you. we Put some slides together, Exercise, some games. To give us some direction to where to go. I think it's appropriate that we bring you into that exercise to examining materials and the exercise we did is kind of quality oflife issues. essentially plays right into that discussion. things that make this community livable and makes it a great place to live so I think that's something that we'll be taking up with our work session. if there's something else that you would like us to discuss on that meeting, again second one in February. otherwise, design format. I noticed one glitch. Obviously Ladd caught it. we blocked out case numbers... I hope that you noticed a little bit of the changes. the level of discretion. we put that at the bottom again when we do variances. just to be clear when we're doing a variance versus a conditional use. we can't deny conditional use. we attach conditions to mitigate those. just to be clear and try to keep us a frame of reference so we did take off some of the other redundant things that we end up putting into the paragraph. Conrad: location. you're mixing location. Aanenson: that's what I took off. Conrad: It's so nice to see the context of where the site is. 54 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION - REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 19, 2000 Chairman Peterson called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and opened with a general statement regarding meeting procedures. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Ladd Conrad, Deb Kind, Matt Burton, and Alison Blackowiak MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Joyce and LuAnn Sidney STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmin AI-Jaff, Senior Planner; Cindy Kirchoff, Planner I; and Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer REOUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REOUESTING 5 THREE LEVEL APARTMENT BUILDINGS AND A COMMUNITY BUILDING FORA TOTAL OF 344 APARTMENTS ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R WITH AN AREA OF 21.34 ACRES AND A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW 34.9% HARD SURFACE COVERAGE. AMENDED PARKING STANDARDS. A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT AND A PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE 21.34 ACRES INTO 4 LOTS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF POWERS BOULEVARD AND LAKE DRIVE WEST. POWERS RIDGE APARTMENT HOMES. LAKE SUSAN HILLS PARTNERSHIP AND MILLER HANSON WESTERBECK BERGER. INC. Public Present: Name Address Ted Lamson Geoff & Holly Kuchera Tom Ries Larry Guthrie Jim Lamson Don Patton Erick Ries Jeff Shopek Link Wilson Bill Scarbono David Ruegg Doug Wilder Mark Menzuber Chris Mollet Louis P. 2606 Kipling Avenue 8441 Egret Court 6600 Sally Lane, Edina 3740 Drexel Court, Eagan 5132 Meadow Ridge, Edina 7600 Parklawn #200, Edina 7600 Parklawn, Edina 7200 Hemlock Lane, Maple Grove 2203 Stanford Avenue, St. Paul 7200 Hemlock Lane, Maple Grove 1250 Lake Susan Hills Drive 1320 Lake Susan Hills Drive 1310 Lake Susan Hills Drive 1271 Lake Susan Hills Drive 1291 Lake Susan Hills Drive . Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000 Jim & Lois Dyvik Bill & Rhonda Weber Marlice Stene Keny & Kim Simenson 1260 Lake Susan Hills Drive 1290 Lake Susan Hills Drive 1281 Lake Susan Hills Drive 1330 Lake Susan Hills Drive Sharmin AI-Jaffpresented the staff report on this item. (Taping of the discussion began at this point.) Kind: I was just wondering on condition 27, to me there's a difference between a bus stop and a shelter and I'd like to clarify that. Aanenson: I'm not sure we can force them to provide a shelter. We would like them to provide the opportunity for some, whether it's a shelter or a stop and they've agreed to that. We would work with Southwest Metro to coordinate that. I'm not sure what their obligation is for building an actual shelter but certainly we would work with Southwest Metro and they've agreed to that. To what that actually is. Kind: Okay. I guess that's all at this time. Burton: Mr. Chair, I have a question. Peterson: Please. Burton: Shannin, at the last meeting one of the issues we talked about was the site grading and you did go back over that in the report and I'm just wondering if you could just summarize what you found for us and for the people here because I don't know is the applicant going to do that. Al-Jaff: I'd defer that question to Dave please. Burton: Yeah, I didn't think the applicant might address that so I was hoping that staff could, Hempel: Mr. Chainnan, commissioners. Digging through the archive files on this project. I'll give you the short version. We did find evidence that the property was graded on to facilitate a drainage outlet for the wetland on the property. It appears that the material that was excavated for the drainage way was deposited on the site. Overlaying the two plans, the original grading plan for Lake Susan Hills development and the proposed grading plan, it appears 1.8 acres was impacted by building or land alteration which generates approximately 5,700 cubic yards of material. Also received some soil boring data from the applicant and there happens be one soil boring right in that location and the boring revealed approximately 9 feet of fill on the trail had been placed in that area. Peterson: Other questions? 2 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000 Blackowiak: Mr. Chainnan I have a couple. Shannin, when you were summarizing the applicant's response to the issues, at this point we have a hard surface coverage of 33.6%. Why is staff still recommending 35%? AI-Jaff: Whenever we work on an application there are always some modifications that take place. For instance, we are recommending that the applicant expand a sidewalk north of the pooL We don't know how much more hard surface coverage that is going to take. So just to be on the safe side we're asking for the 35. Blackowiak: Okay, and you feel comfortable that the additional 1.4 will suffice? I mean it's not going to come in at any more than 35? AI-Jaff: No. Blackowiak: Okay. Good, thank you. And then my second question has to do with the westerly driveway access point, and this was stricken. It was an original condition 21 and I just couldn't find on my plans that that had been changed, and I don't know if it's to you or to Dave but has that indeed been changed to your satisfaction? Hempel: Mr. Chainnan, commissioners. Based on revised drawings I've received, they did make some alterations to the driveway alignment. It appears to align with the cross street, Upland Court I believe developed at the Lake Drive West intersection. So I did recommend eliminating that condition. Blackowiak: Okay. Ijust couldn't tell rrom the plans that we had received. All right, that's it. Thank you. Peterson: Any questions Ladd? Conrad: Yeah Mr. Chair. Dave, tell me how that added soil, the 9 feet in one spot, tell me how the, whatever the additional soil affects the elevation ofB2? Can you do that? Hempel: The elevation ofB2, the first floor elevation as proposed is in the area of942 I believe. And the stockpile area that's in place of the site right now is approximately 946,947. So that area will be leveled off down to the 942 for the first floor elevation of the Building 2. Conrad: Mr. Chair, one more question ofShannin. What's bothered me a little bit about the footprints of the building has been the angles ofB2 in tenns oftransition. When it's face to face with the neighborhood. That's maybe not always the best transition. Shannin, could you tell us a little bit about, in the last week or even before that, what you've done with the applicant to review the angling pros and cons? Trial and error. AI-Jaff: The first thing we did was they pushed the building 137 feet rrom the property line so we have a distance that has been increased. After that they submitted a plan that separates the 3 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000 buildings into seven, basically going from five buildings to seven buildings, That still does not address Buildings Bl and B2. Aanenson: The issue that I think we want to make sure was addressed is you had, can we reduce the size of the buildings? Can there be another configuration? Just to elaborate on what your question was. They went through that exercise and that is what the exhibits in your packet and what they did is they broke down the number of buildings but in order to accomplish breaking down the number of buildings, it eliminated the amenities. Otherwise in order to get that same number of units you'd have to go higher. So in accomplishing that the amenities was left out of the middle. They did look at some other iterations. Al-Jaff: This was a sketch that was submitted by Commissioner Kind, looking at different angles on the building. One of the problems that the engineer stated was the scenario deals with the underground parking. You no longer have that connection between the two buildings. Access into those underground parking spaces also becomes an issue. Aanenson: Can we elaborate on that? If you remember Bl and 2 was one building, The continuity of the parking underground still maintains and if you offset it too much it makes it very difficult to maintain that connection in order to see the project. work so that's what's driving some of the upper level design is to maintain the continuity of the underground parking, And getting the angles to come in and out and make that work. Al-Jaff: The third point with that design, the applicant has tried to maintain anywhere between 60 and 80 feet separation between the buildings. As we angle them, this separation turns into approximately 30 feet. From a distancê this looks like a tunnel and it brings those buildings closer together and all of a sudden you have the impression of a continuous building rather than separations between those two. Between buildings. So really that's, oh the other thing it does is it pushes the building closer into the center reducing the size of the community space in the middle. So these were some of the things that we looked at with it. Burton: Mr. Chainnan, a follow-up question. I guess it's directed to Dave or Kate. You said it was 9 feet higher, 9 feet of fill in the area and then I think when you answered Ladd' s question you said B is at 942 as proposed? B2 is at 942. What was the area ofB2 originally? What elevation was it originally? About. Hempel: Before the filling? In that area. Burton: Yeah. Hempel: Shannin, can I borrow one of your drawings? It appears to be in the range from about 936 to 942. Where Building B2 sits. Burton: Is that the same for B 1 ? 4 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19,2000 Hempel: The fill on B 1 is located a little bit further to the east and actually on the sloped area. It probably varies fÌ'om 930 to the 942 elevation. Peterson: Other questions? Okay. What I'd like to do is, this is not a public hearing. However, I would like to hear fÌ'om both the applicant and then some potentially brief comments if the neighborhood would like to make a few, so I'd like to have the applicant come fOIWard now if you would and kind of go through some of the things that you presented us tonight. You've given us some additional drawings. Just kind of walk us through those if you would please. Link Wilson: Commissioners, my name is Link Wilson, 2203 Stanford Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota. We submitted to you a packet of the 17 revisions and at least we understood were requested at the last meeting. I can go over those 17 items or you've got them right here so I'd just like to move on to what we felt were the most critical elements of the revisions that were made. I would like to however give each one of you just what I'm going to submit for the record also just to save time this evening. This is just, I'll just hand them off to you. And really all this . is is just a brief history of the parkland dedication that they're, I did misspeak at the last meeting where I had stated that there was S.7 acres dedicated to the overall PUD. That was a misstatement. There's actually 61.7 acres of parkland that was dedicated as part of this overall PUD so there's just a brief history of that. Also, there is a history of what we feel are the taxes that will be generated by the project, and also the monthly rates, parking amenities, etc and all that was reviewed by Mike Stoebe at the last meeting. Then in addition, in your packet I had a couple of site sections which were just sketched by hand and now the ones that you have are computer generated. And I can review those if need be. I guess I'd like to just move on to what we feel is the most critical element ofthis discussion and that is that we were able to move the two B buildings, instead of 100 feet away, 137 feet away fÌ'om the south property line. Also at the last meeting there were some issues regarding what exactly the bays would look like. It is difficult to see the bays because of the, I will call just S year old spruce that would be in place after the planting. It's difficult to tell fÌ'om that location exactly what the building looks like, but also in your packet is just a rendering of what one ofthe B buildings would look like with bays on it. And I think also, just as important and I did want to speak to Ladd's questions on January Sth. We did explore also looking at cutting angles into the building. I think that Sharrnin and Kate stated it best that if we tried to angle the building too much and squeeze it together, that it would appear as one continuous wall of building whereas here you can see that there is a significant amount of relief between these buildings. And I also want to state that this is an auto cad generated drawing. It's not faked. It's accurate. It's based on an auto cad civil engineering drawing produced by Loucks. This is just a blow-up of the actual plan, three dimension elevation. This is just the actual camera angle from the computer. In addition, you have a rough sketch ofthis. I felt that it was also important to show really the distance at 137 feet fÌ'om the property then with the spruce tree buffer which I will get to the exact specimens in a moment. How far we are just fÌ'om a graphic standpoint. You can see here, this is just a scale figure. One in the parking structure, which is below grade. Then one on the second story building. So we felt that this was a significant distance. In addition, we just wanted to cut a section through the site showing what people across the street would see fÌ'om their homes. And as you can see, this is a, I don't know my truck species very well. 18 wheels? 16 wheels? This is as very large truck that you see in scale. These are the townhomes as they're located per survey, and then this is our S Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000 g ~ t building, which is a significant distance away. There were also some questions regarding landscape. This is what, you have a copy of this in your packet. This is a landscape plan created by Damon Farber, and we could go species by species but Damon Farber feels that three rows of spruce in this area will be adequate to again buffer the view from the neighbors homes, Also, there's a plant matrix which gives on center spacing of all of the plant mixtures within all of these areas. We are also looking at a cost of$303,515. I did not do a calculation of our apartment units times $400 per unit, which is our landscape budget. But this is way more than double that. I think that we would be required the landscape budget to be approximately $135,000. So 303 we feel is a good conservative estimate. I am submitting this as really a legal document that we could gain bids from. In these areas we have on center spacing. We have sizes of trees, and this could easily be enforced by myself as an observing architect on an architectural or construction site. We can review that ifthere are any questions. The last item, and I'll just sàve the rest for questions, is that there have been some issues regarding grade and I'm going to have JeffShopek from Loucks just come up here for a minute and speak about those, but one of the issues that was brought up by the neighborhood was that we should drop the entire site by 6 feet. Maybe I should just back this off a little bit. So one of the suggestions was to drop the entire site to cut the grade. Just from an approximation that would be 20,000 dump truckloads of dirt traveling the highways and moving about on this site for a considerable amount of time . But also one of the things that some people may not observe as they're driving up this hill is that this rises about 32 feet. And so if, and we can perhaps zoom in on this sketch. Ifwe were to cut the site by 6 feet, you can see right at this point, this·is a roof so if you're driving along this road, Lake Drive West, you would be looking into these people's second to third floor window right at that point. This building would be even further down in a hole. We really feel that that would look like subsidized housing. We don't want that appearance at all, So I will reserve just any questions that you may have after Jeff Shopek from Loucks answers a few historical questions on the grade. ': 6 JeffShopek: Thank you. Good evening. My name is JeffShopek. I'm with Loucks and Associates. I'm at 7200 Hemlock Lane in Maple Grove. And just to more re-emphasize what Dave has already said and what Link has said, that yes there has been some dirt that was placed in this area here and I calculated 5,900. Dave I found out tonight calculated 5,700 yards so we're vel)' close on our estimates. On that, if you spread that all over the site, when you start looking at how we position the buildings and the elevations, it's 2 inches. If you cut one foot off this site, it's about 34,000 cubic yards to take one foot off the whole site. So to spread 5,900 yards or to adjust building elevations we're talking 2 inches to all the buildings. The other really significant thing, it's not how building B 1 sits with the existing ground.. .any ofthem sit, but it's how Lake Drive was built and the grade elevation between, again Powers Boulevard and our two entrances, There's about 23 feet of rise from Powers Lake to our easterly entrance and then there's about another 23 feet rise, or 17 feet rise from our easterly entrance to the westerly entrance. And it's getting those driveways into the site and working with the buildings that more detennined what the grade of the buildings were going to be than how much this dirt and where it was placed. So on our easterly drive we got about a 4% grade going. On our westerly drive we got a 5Y2% grade going down. And we don't really want, what we're trying to achieve is somewhere between 2 and 5% grades into the site and still get to the garage elevations. Ifwe tl)' and lower this site 2-3 feet, our westerly drive will become 7-8% right off the street dropping right down and we won't Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000 be able to get to our garages. Also, because the garages have connecting drives, these people are like dominoes that once you start changing one elevation, the next one changes, the next one changes so we're trying to get it so it works with our entrances. Works with the perimeter grades around the site as well as the neighbors. We have done some earthwork analysis on this and actually that 5,900 yards, the way the buildings sit right now, we're still short dirt. We should actually bring dirt in. What we will essentially do as we finalize the plan and go to a final grading plan and submit to the City Engineer when we go to construction, we'll try and achieve the closest we can to balance for the site and we'll probably lower the site somewhere between 6 and 12 inches. And we might have 6 inches fluctuation between some buildings but because of the underground parking and the drives, they're going to be relatively fixed. I think with that, if there's stilI any more questions but it's again the site was really set from Lake Drive and the entrances and trying to get it to work with all the perimeter grades and not just one side. Peterson: Any questions on the elevation? Kind: I do have a question on elevation. The 2 inches is if you spread it over the entire site, which}s not being the graded, the entire site. You're talking about the entire footprint that would be. Jeff Shopek: Correct. Kind: If you just spread it over the building pad areas, how much? JeffShopek: Well we'd have to spread it over, I guess I want to say the grading limit area. Because you can't just spread it in the buildings. You've got to spread it in the parking lot and of course it's not that exact same dirt. But I would say we'd probably be at three inches is probably, you know 2/3 ofthe site or even % if it's being graded so it might make a difference of another inch. But we're actually going to probably lower it again 6 to 12 inches to make it balance so we're not short dirt. So that is not really affecting how the buildings are sitting. It's more the drives and how we can get the overall site to balance and not just this little pile of dirt. Kind: So it's your opinion that the stockpile is not what's driving the elevation. JeffShopek: Not at all. Absolutely not in fact. In fact we weren't, you know until it was brought up at the last meeting, we didn't even consider it a fact. We look at existing topographic elevations. Driveways and it was just, I mean it's more an explanation than it is really something we considered and designed because it's the overall site we designed, not just one little area. That dirt could have been next to Powers or Lake Drive West, the same volume and it stilI would have had the same affect. Kind: Got it. Thank you. Link Wilson: Before questions I did have one question of you. Just on item 4 from the recommendation from the planning department. We just wanted to make sure that item 4, we 7 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000 l t I ~.. just would request clarification from staff and we just want to make sure that this is not a suggestion that there's a change to the PUD. Peterson: Shannin, do you want to respond to that? AI-Jaff: This is what the PUD says. That's part of the contract. That's what we've done with all other phases of Lake Susan Hills. There are no trail fees but they do have to pay half park fees, Link Wilson: Thank you. Peterson: As you mentioned earlier, you were planning on speaking a little bit more to the type of deciduous trees going in. Link Wilson: Just a minor clarification in that we were referring to those always as pine trees. Our landscape architect is suggesting that those be a spruce tree. Either that or a balsam fir. They feel because ofthe wetland area and the type of soils that are just right on that slope, that a pine itself would die. So they feel very comfortable that those three, the Colorado Blue Spruce, the White Spruce, the Balsam Fir will all flourish in that soil type and water content within that soiL Peterson: Okay. Other questions of the applicant? Kind: Yes Mr. Chainnan. 1 have a list. Where it'd go? There we go. Since the building has been pushed back, the B buildings have been pushed back 137 feet, do you have any issues with putting in that buffer on the south property line with Phase I? Link Wilson: No.1 think that just as it's shown in this drawing, the two compliment themselves, You've given the fir trees enough space to grow and to flourish. At 137 feet we feel the buildings are far enough back that they don't have a significant impact on the adj acent properties but we do feel that the two need to go hand in hand. Kind: And originally when we talked last week, or two weeks ago you weren't sure if they could be installed with Phase I. Phase 1 being the A Building. But now that that construction site is further away. 8 Link Wilson: Right, we have more space. Kind: Yeah. So you would be okay with a condition requiring those to go in in Phase I? Link Wilson: You know I'd like to be conservative and instead of just jumping off of a cliff here, we have three rows of spruce. Some that are closer to the property line than the intennediary, Just to be safe 1 guess 1 would prefer to plant the first two rows. Leave the third one for after buildings BI and B2. Just because it's really, it's just too hard to police a construction site and the movement of materials and supplies around that building. Ijust still would like to be conservative and request that. But I'll leave that to your judgment. Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000 Kind: Now I just heard you say three rows. The plan showed five rows of spruce. This cad drawing. It shows five rows of spruce. Link Wilson: You are correct. We did show five rows in the cad drawing. Kind: And is that what you're. Link Wilson: And what Damon Farber is requesting is that you can do a tighter on center spacing in the three rows as opposed to the five. We did do this drawing I think the day after our meeting with you. The latest revisions to these were just.. .three. Kind: And then I couldn't find it on the site plan, anything that specified materials that we had talked about two weeks ago. I'm assuming you're still okay with those being conditions as far as flat, not ship lap and shingle quality and metal railings for the balconies. Link Wilson: Right. Metal railings are definitely one of the 17 conditions that we feel comfortable with and I think in your packet we just submitted a specification that we would use for those metal rails. That was an 8 Yz x II in your packet. Kind: I wasn't sure ifthat was for the balconies or for the pool fencing. What the deal is there. Link Wilson: Well they would be both the same material that would be used, so you would get a level of consistency to the site. Kind: I like that. Link Wilson: And then we are comfortable with the materials. This is just of course a photograph but you received actual materials in your packet. Kind: That was a surprise. Link Wilson: Those will be the materials used on site. Kind: Oh, and I appreciate the benches. Thank you. I know that was a minor thing but I thought I'd mention that. Oh, on Building D I noticed that the utility boxes are on the fronts of all of the buildings except Building D. I guess on utilities. Link Wilson: Right. Building D, the only reason why it is on the back side, and I believe it's shown at this location. Really what we're trying to do is to coordinate those transformer locations with the egress stairs and what Commissioner Kind is referring to is this particular drawing that shows a masonry screen, the transformer at this point and then the emergence egress door at this location and then stairs of course with rails, and it just happened to turn out in Building D, which was different than all the other buildings, in that all the other buildings have 9 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000 the egress coming out towards the court. Just this one location. It's on the back side of the building. But it still will be screened by masonry wall. Kind: I have to find it. It's actually closer to the pond I think than what you just pointed out. There. I'm just trying to keep it away from what the neighbors have to see. Here. It's right there. t Link Wilson: You are correct. Kind: Is there any opportunity to move that down the line, oh! There's another one there. There are two of them. Link Wilson: Right. Right. Yeah, we've got them on the back sides there. I guess I would prefer at this time that the buildings are designed and that particular building to egress out onto the back. We could certainly, if you wish, try to reverse the building layout so that we egress to the court side. However even on this, even with the egress staying on the back side of the building, those transfonners are going to be screened by a masonry wall which matches with the masonry that's coming up out ofthe ground. So from a distance of, I'm just looking here, If this is 137 feet, we're probably looking 200 feet away conservatively. I guess I feel that they're still going to be adequately screened. Kind: And I know we're talking about Phase I which is just Building A at this point anyway, I'm sure we'll be seeing this again when D comes on line. Link Wilson: I believe we still need to ·submit and come back to you with each building as it is introduced onto the site. We need to bring full architectural plans, elevations and then the site areas in those specific locations. Kind: And then lighting. Will there be building mounted lighting? Link Wilson: The only place where there are building mounted lights are at the automobile entries. You have to, a lot of foot candles right where the vehicles enter the building so we do have face mounted and also code requires that you have to have a significant amount of light at the emergency egress. I don't want to make any suggestions but you could achieve the same, especially since we're putting this masonry wall and I'll go back to this drawing. It could be fairly easy for us to mount a light in that masonry wall. Really what code is requiring is that a certain amount of foot candles be, I don't know if we can zoom in tight enough on this. You need to have a significant amount of foot candles right at this area, but since we have a wall we could easily just put a wall pack there. At the emergency egress. However, Building D's the only one with emergency egress that faces out to the south. So if that were an issue we could certainly put that in the walls. 10 Kind: And then the underground entrance, I think its Building D and Bl, there will be headlights and activities shining towards the backs of the homes there, or will there be retaining walls? Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000 Link Wilson: There isn't a retaining wall but there again, if you look at my landscape plan, we do have a pretty tight buffer of spruce right in this location. Kind: I think that would be key. Link Wilson: That's going to block those headlights. Kind: Okay, thank you. Peterson: Other questions? Okay, thank you. Would anyone from the neighborhood like to make a few comments? If so, please come forward. Dave Ruegg: Dave Ruegg, 1250 Lake Susan Hills Drive. Commissioners to start off, I know there's a lot of! think faith that we have to put into your group to preserve or protect our residential parts so I do appreciate that but I think even here tonight I think we've seen a lot of confusion still. And one that I noticed right away, I think Deb you pointed out what we were presented with for screening was five rows oftrees. And now we come here tonight and we see three rows of trees. We don't see a good representation of what that actually is going to look like. The other point that I noticed on some of the, I don't know what the plans are that you handed to me. There's a matrix of trees and they identify the Building Bl and B2 as 12 foot trees. But identified on the color prints they show 6 foot trees so I think there's some confusion there too on what we're reading. And again I think we initiated this response last time. It's been brought up before about the distance, moved back to 137 feet. And just to maybe share with the neighbors or address the neighbors, it's my understanding that that's the way it should have been and it kind of is coming across that maybe you know they were doing us a favor but my interpretation and what we read in the code perhaps says that it does need to be 100, or 137 feet. And that to me should be the way ít is. It shouldn't be you know look what we did for you. I think from a standpoint oftransition, from what we've seen tonight and what we've been presented throughout the week prior to the last meeting, I do not still see that there's adequate transition here. The plans and the drawings show 20 foot trees. That's after 5 and 10 years, You know I'm basically kind of have to look at these trees and see ifthey're going to grow 20 feet. I feel I'm being kind of stuck here until that actually develops where I can actually offer somebody maybe my home at some point and say well, look. You know there is adequate buffering here. There is adequate transition. And also, I don't think we've really addressed again the 15 foot differential between my lot line and that hill. I know we talked about the grading. I know we talked about historical facts and the soil, but reality is I'm looking up 15 feet still and that falls into the transition category. The other thing is the land alterations. I don't think it's really been clarified tonight and the PUD agreement says no alterations. Well we know we have talked about that and I appreciate that. The grading issue, but I don't think that's really clarified. We do have, you know when our homes were being built there was soil put on there. We do know that. The last point is the buffering. Why not, nobody's really talked about this hill that's there. In using that as a buffer zone. Grading behind it. Using it as a buffer. A benn. Anything of that nature. You know when you grade that down and it's great, it's flat but now I'm still looking at that apartment building. And in summary, you know again this is how you can take this and I wanted to share this with the rest of the residential people here tonight. It's a quote on page 6 of 11 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000 I I the 1987 PUD agreement. This agreement shall be liberally construed to protect the public's interest. I think we're the public and I think we have an interest in how this is developed and stuff and that's why we're here tonight so, thanks. Peterson: Thank you. Mark Menzuber: Hi. I'm Mark Menzuber. I'm at 1310 Lake Susan Hills Drive, The main concern for both myself and some of the other neighbors that I've talked to, is and always has been this whole idea of transition. And the lack of an acceptable transition ITom single family homes in this case to 3 story apartment buildings. We're concerned that the proposed development does not provide sufficient transition that meets the intent ofthe City Code and the PUD agreement. Attachment A to the 1987 PUD agreement states, the developer shall provide buffer areas acceptable to the city between multiple family and single family areas. Now we can talk about dirt that should or shouldn't be there, and what it might cost to move it. We can talk about lowering the buildings a few feet of a three story building by changing the pitch of the roof. We can talk about all the scenarios that have been suggested over the past several weeks and quote, 'Just didn't work". But the bottom line is that this proposal before you today does not provide adequate transition. This plan calls for three story buildings in the back yards of single story and split level homes. So what would provide adequate transition. Well, if! were just to speak personally, it would require that all the development that is adjacent to the land of single family homes, which would include Buildings B I and B2, and also the southern portion of Building D, be two stories. If that were the case then I think this landscape plan appears reasonable. With three story buildings the landscape plan is insufficient, and it just doesn't seem fair to talk about what the trees might look like 5 or 10 years ITom now. I think it's very easy to take a color marker and paint along a border and make it appear that these trees are just going to present themselves as a wall. I don't think that's reality. I know that this group is willing to put in more trees than a typical development would require, but from our last meeting we know that this is not a typical development. So Ijust ask you to please enforce what you feel would be an appropriate transition in this scenario. Thanks. Peterson: Thank you. 12 Lois Dyvik: I'm Lois Dyvik, 1260 Lake Susan Hills Drive and I'm sorry I missed the last meeting. First of all I want to say that what I heard that Ladd Conrad say at the last meeting about tilting that B I building, of course our back yard is B I. And I really like that and I am forever pasting papers here, but I think there's some validity to this. If you can zero down, making B I can be made across as such without them losing any other apartment buildings. We can still have 14 units per floor, if you put it this way. Sure, the space here is not quite as, that 50 to 70 feet that they want but you could still have a curve in here as continuity for the basement or underground parking. So I'd like to leave this an exhibit here. And we've already talked about, and the rest of them have talked about the plants and the trees and so forth and so I won't address that again. But I do want to address environmental sound that we're going to get from rental property. There are at least 200 ui1Ìts of two to three bedroom units, family buildings. You said these are family buildings so that could put in anywhere from 400 to 600 kids in this particular Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000 small area. That is a loud noise. Ijust want that, wanted you to hear that and that's all I have to say. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Jim Dyvik: Hi. I'm Jim Dyvik and I'm fÌ'Om the same address on Lake Susan Hills Drive. If you'll recall in our letter to all of you, we recently moved into this area in April oflast year and in retrospect it apparently was not a very good decision on our part, except we have, we've met some awfully nice people. And I'd like to thank the members of the commission that were able to come out, accept our invitation and come out and actually come to the home and stand on our deck and look at what this is going to look like, on top of this hill. I also wish to extend appreciation to Jim and to Tom and to Link because they were out there twice and did that. First time at their own invitation and second time at ours so we do appreciate that. Along with the other things I was going to say tonight, I'm not because they're issues that dealt with assessed values and all those sort ofthings which I dealt with the county over the last few weeks and I'll leave that and handle that with the county. But there was, in our initial meeting there was a state~ent made, and I know statements are made but I take them all seriously. And it started with that, Link said this is an asset to your neighborhood. Now had he said the city of Chanhassen I wouldn't have objected to that, but it is not an asset to the neighborhood or the people that live on Lake Susan Hills Drive. Next in our meeting with Kate, it was explained in this whole process and I said you know this is going to have a negative, putting these apartments up on these hills looking down into our bedrooms, into our kitchens, this is going to have a negative impact on the property values and she said no. It is not. So I called the realty agency that sold our house over on Minnetonka and asked them to come out which they did on Monday and we spent three hours. First they went through the house making an appraisal, and then we went over the plans and showed them the plans, and I guess they were awfully surprised at the buffering. They couldn't believe an ordinance would allow a transition fi:om single family to heavy density with, plus sitting on a hill like that. But anyway, the bottom line is, and they are going to give us an evaluation. We'll have it on Friday but the thing they told us they'd love to have our business but do not sell at this time because with that going in back there, that if we were to get an offer, it's going to be a low ball and that's their opinion. I asked how much is it going to affect it? They called me back today and said they could find no studies to say that the value of properties is going down 5%, 2%, 20%. There is nothing out there. No one has done it. Either realtors or developers or cities. So anyway, I'djust like that, that's about all I have to say. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Thank you. Commissioners. Thoughts on this one. What do you think of the changes fÌ'Om two weeks ago? Conrad: I can start Mr. Chairman. The applicant's done a real nice job responding. It's as thorough a job as I've seen responding to our concerns. Our needs. Our requests. I think the materials presented tonight and over the past week are good. The perspectives that we see in general are good. They've done a thorough job and I've tried to move some things around in my mind, figuring out how to do this. Everybody knows we're, my key concerns are transition. I didn't need the neighbors to come in and talk about that. And I think the applicant has, they're 13 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000 moving that way. I don't think we have an ordinance that really takes care ofthis particular situation. That is a real problem but I think the applicant is doing a fair job right now. Just a couple thoughts in the whole process so I wanted to stroke the applicant a little bit saying that the materials are good. I think one of the flaws that I see in the materials is, most of the materials furnished in perspectives make you feel good about a transition. But then the final design is coming in and it's really not what we've been shown. So ifthere were five rows oftrees and they were 12 feet, I think we'd have one transition based on what we saw tonight. Maybe there's only three rows so I don't, I think per what one of the residents was saying, we really don't know what we have so a big concern that I have is, the thing that sells me on transition really is what the applicant has been doing fairly well here and that's giving us kind of good perspectives and the perspectives for a while satisfied me until maybe we saw the final swatch of color and maybe that's not, I don't know what I've seen anymore so that's a problem for me, One of the other concerns that I do have is the size of the trees going in for that buffer. The only other thing that I probably recommend, and I still think that Building B2, at least I'm calling it B2. The one on the southeast corner. I think the angulation is still of concern to me and I understand what the applicant is asking for in terms of connectivity to BI and the driveway, underground driveway, I understand that. I'm not sure we've really pushed on that so that would be my concerns is the angularity ofB, again I think it was B2. Building B2. Sometimes perspectives make things a little bit better for the neighbors but just from the neighborhood standpoint I think what we've seen since the last meeting has been some fairly significant movement on the applicant's part. I'm not satisfied yet with it but it's getting there. That's my comments Mr. Chairman. Peterson: Okay, thank you Ladd. Anyone else? Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, I'll just make a couple comments. I too noticed the difference in the inconsistencies in the plant matrix and the plant drawing that we were shown, For example the blue is showing a 6 foot high coniferous trees. On the matrix it says 12 foot. I don't think he could put this out for bid with this inconsistencies like that and I don't think that the neighbors or even the commission can be totally certain of what we're going to get when we get two very disparate numbers. There's a huge difference between 6 and 12 foot trees. But I do want to commend the applicant for sending out a nice packet the second time around. I was certainly much more pleased with what I got. I liked seeing the perspective and I liked looking at the different colors and it really helped me get a feel for what is potentially going into this area, I too am rather concerned about the transition area. I don't think it's a good decision. I know we would not do this at this point in time. I know there's an agreement in place and that really puts us in a very difficult situation I think because what we do, what we know and what we would do today is probably very different ti-om what was done in the past so I again, don't really know if there's an easy way out of that or not. But to put high density next to single family, I don't believe would happen today and I think that we have to take a real hard look at how it's going to transition and those trees on the south side, could make or break this. And it may sound like a rather simple thing but I think that that's very important. I'm glad to see the sidewalk. I'm glad to see a lot of the different things. I think that the building looks a little more put together with the changes to the rock. To the siding. That type of thing. Those are positives. It's a transition that still kind of scares me and I'm not really sure what to say so I'll just listen to other comments. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000 Peterson: Thanks. Matt. Burton: Mr. Chairman, I'll jump in. First of all I agree with the comments of my fellow commissioners. I've been taking some notes. I'm just going to kind of follow off these. First, I've come to agree I guess that the change in land elevation is not a factor here. I had been concemed about that but I think with the explanation provided by staff and the applicant that I'm comfortable that I do not believe that the land, that the earth that was moved onto this site or moved around this site is really a significant factor going forward. So I think I've moved beyond that as a concern. I appreciate the applicant's efforts. I think they're trying very hard to make this an acceptable project. You know things like moving the setback further back. I think they are trying to come up with a landscape plan that works, although I agree with my fellow commissioners, I don't think that it's there yet or we've seen it yet. Or that we understand it yet. I appreciate the changes in the windows and they changed the roof slope and things like that and I do think the applicant is trying fairly hard to put together a project that appeases everybody. Having noted that, I'm still not comfortable with this site plan and I guess I'd rehash a bit what I said last time. We were asked tonight to look at the site plan for Building A and not BI and B2. But like I said last time, I think how we handle Building A locks us in on how B I and B2 may be developed and I'm not comfortable still with BI and B2. Now how we review this is govemed by the PUD agreement and the city ordinances. Now the PUD agreement is pretty poor and not forward looking at all, and as Alison said, that there won't be another PUD agreement I think in Chanhassen like that one. But we're stuck with that one. And when we look at the ordinance with respect to site plan, there are different elements that we have to consider and I keep coming back to the sixth one which I'll read which says that the site plan essentially protects adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for a surface water drainage, sound and light buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial affects on neighboring land uses. And as I said last time, I'm still not convinced that they have met that element or the applicant has met that element of our analysis of the site plan. And I do respect the staffs opinion. I think staffhas done a great job on this project. I think Ijust differ on that one point from staff. When I look at why I disagree, I think the main thing as has been noted, is that there's not an adequate transition. I'm not sure exactly how to address it. Whether it's the number of stories in the buildings. Where there's a setback. The positioning ofthe buildings. The buffering. All I know is at this point I'm not comfortable with the site plan of A and Band BI and B2. So I guess those are my comments and as, well what we were presented I'm not happy with it. Peterson: What can we do to make you happy? Burton: I don't know. It's a combination ofthe factors Ijust said. I think that when you look back, especially I have this drawing here that was submitted so people what I'm referring to. I do think it still seems as ifthe buildings are towering out there right above these houses without adequate transition and I, maybe it'd be the plantings or changing the angles of the building or reducing a story, I don't know. But I'm skeptical of the drawings and I just, I'm concerned that this is not an adequate transition and I mentioned, I'm not sure how it gets to be made to feel comfortable about it except, I would love to see B I and B2 just move very far away, or angled in 15 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000 a different way or you know, I look at their drawings and I see A, up in the comer there and I wonder why A can't be pushed further into that comer and then B slid up that way and maybe moving the recreation facility more towards the houses and doing different things. I don't know, I'mjust not convinced that everything's been explored and why, I'm just not comfortable with it. Peterson: Okay, good. Kind: ... with the previous comments. And I think Ladd was saying, and I agree with him that I am comfortable with this transition. And then I heard that it changed from this and that does not make me comfortable at all. And 5-10 years sounds like a long time but man, it's a heart beat and I really feel that if a lot of the neighbors had planted trees when the homes were built, and I know a lot of the people who live there right now were not the builders, if they had put trees in 10 years ago, there would be a nice buffer and as big as what we see here. So part of the onus goes on the homeowners as well in creating that buffer. It's not all the last person who comes in. And if the transition looks like this, I would be comfortable with that but I feel like the landscaping plan that we were given here just tonight, that we haven't had a chance to look at, is a moving target and it's different than what the view perspective we've been given is, So I don't know, I'd kind oflike to see the landscaping plan detailed out more. The way we're used to seeing it with specific circles, with specific trees so I can see that there's going to be trees blocking that driveway and five rows versus three rows and staggered or not staggered or what the deal is. Just having marker drawn in areas is not what I'm used to looking at for a landscaping plan. Peterson: Good, thanks. The only thing that I'm really uncomfortable with is the transition. I think that I'd be more comfortable if whim we do make a motion that if we had the City Forester work with the applicant to do a little bit of research. You know the three rows versus five rows, Insure that 12 foot trees are in there. I think that I'm not convinced that five rows is better than three. The biggest thing I'm worried about is sticking them too close together and within a year or two that they're half dead, I've seen that more times than I have successful trees that are farther apart, You know I think as a commission, my personal thoughts is that we've brought this as far as the statutes really, that guide our commission have allowed us to go so I'm for one comfortable that based upon some of the caveats that my fellow commissioners have cited this evening, that we push this on. So with those comments, 1'11 entertain a motion please. Conrad: I would make the motion Mr. Chairman that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat of21.34 acres into four lot subdivision #99-14 and Site Plan Review #99-19, approval of Phase I (Building A), 106 units as shown on plans dated and received December 3,1999, revised and received January 12, 2000, subject to the conditions in the staff report, plus condition 32. And this is just for ease of convenience rather than going back and really attaching it to one ofthe other conditions but condition 32 is that the staff and the applicant work on a landscaping plan that, and all materials presented to City Council support each other in terms of what actually will go into that transition area on the south side of the property between Building B2 primarily and the single family residence. I don't, parenthetically, I don't want renderings, cad drawings going that aren't real. I want them not future tense, Current tense. Related to that would be to clarify the 12 foot trees versus the 6 foot trees, What 16 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000 the applicant is proposing, I don't understand it. Condition 33 would be for the applicant to seriously review the angularity, if that's the right word, of building B2. And to attempt and to work with staff to see if there is any other angle that lessens the transition impact so that those buildings aren't face forward into the residents to the south. I think if those two things got done, this would be a reasonable project. Kind: Mr. Chairman I have a couple, oh. Do we need to second that before I have a mendly amendment? Peterson: Yes. Kind: Second it. And I have a suggestion for a friendly amendment. Condition number 5, add a sentence that says landscaping along the south property line shal1 be instal1ed with Phase I. Conrad: I will accept. Kind: And let's see. Peterson: Can I add a mendly to a mendly? Kind: Yeah. Peterson: We don't want to put that in before, before the right time so I'd like to have somebody other than ourselves, City Forester probably review and ascertain if that's the most prudent thing to do. Kind: What he said. And then you're up to condition 34, is that what your last one was? Conrad: Yeah, up to. Kind: I have a suggestion for condition 35. Along the lines of building material conditions, just because I couldn't find and spel1 it out in here. Ijust want to make it clear that the low maintenance siding must be flat, not ship lap. Asphalt shingles must be textured, not smooth. Balcony railings must be metal, not wood. Peterson: That'd be 34. Kind: 34? Conrad: Yeah, 34. Peterson: Okay. Any other mendly amendments? It's been moved and seconded, any discussion? 17 Planning Commission Meeting - Janual)' 19, 2000 Conrad moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat of 21.34 into 4 lots (SUB-99-14) and Site Plan Review #99-19, approval of PHASE I (Building A), 106 units, as shown on the plans dated received December 3,1999, revised and received January 12,2000, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Amend the PUD contract to state the impervious surface coverage of the site cannot exceed 35%. 2. A cross-access easement shall be conveyed to all the lots for use ofthe private street. 3. Park and trail dedication fees shall be paid in lieu of parkland dedication. The PUD contract requires no trail fees and \Iz park fees. 4. The applicant shall increase proposed buffer yard landscape plantings for the north, south and east property lines in order to meet minimum requirements. Native species are recommended. Landscaping along the south property line shall be installed with Phase I after review and approval by the City Forester. 5. Boulevard plantings shall be increased to one tree per 30 feet of frontage. 6. The applicant shall show the sod/seed limits on official landscape plan submitted to city. The PUD agreement also states that the applicant shall provide $500,00 oflandscaping per multiple family unit. The applicant shall provide the city with a cost estimate for the required landscaping. 7. Fire Marshal conditions: a. Fire hydrants: Additional fire hydrants will be required. Some proposed fire hydrants will be required to be re-located. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of new and relocation of proposed fire hydrants, Pursuant to 1997 Unifonn Fire Code Section 903.2. b. Install post indicator valves (P.LVs). Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. f c, A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, cable TV and transfonner boxes, This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters, Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. 18 f ~ ;- f I f £\ l~· ':' '\ '''. d. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding fire department notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #04-1991. Copy enclosed. Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000 e. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of fire lane signs and curbing to be painted yellow. Pursuant to Section 904-1 1997 Unifonn Fire Code. f. Required access. Fire apparatus access roads shall be installed pursuant to Section 902.2.1 ofthe 1997 Unifonn Fire Code. In reviewing the plans, because access cannot meet fire code requirements, the following additional fire protection shall be required: 1. f-l. Attic spaces shall be sprinklered per NFP A 13. 2. f-2. Class 1 standpipes shall be installed in stair towers. 3. f-3. The exterior balconies shall be protected by the fire sprinkler system. g. Water supplies for fire protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to Unifonn Fire Code Section 901.3. h. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all weather driving capabilities. These surfaces shall be provided for prior to construction. Pursuant to 1997 Unifonn Fire Code Section 902.2.2.2. i. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding premise identification. Submit plans to Fire Marshal for review of building identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire DepartmentlFire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed. 8. Turning radius shall be reviewed by the Chanhassen City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for approval. Pursuant to 1997 Unifonn Fire Code Section 902.2.2.3, 9. Building Official conditions: a. The buildings must be protected with automatic fire sprinkler systems. b. An accessible route must be provided to all buildings, parking facilities, public transportation stops and all common use facilities. c. All parking areas, including parking garages, must be provided with accessible parking spaces dispersed among the various building entrances. d. Accessible dwelling units must be provided in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. e. The building owner and or their representatives should meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and pennit procedures. In 19 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000 particular, the locations of the property lines must be reviewed prior to final plat to address allowable building area and exterior wall protection requirements. 10. The developer shall supply the City with a detailed haul route for review and approval by staff for materials imported to or exported from the site. If the material is proposed to be removed off site to another location in Chanhassen, that property owner will be required to obtain an earthwork pennit from the City. 11. The applicant will need to develop a temporary sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and fonnal approval in conjunction with final plat submittal. 12. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook, 13. AU utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. The construction plans and specifications will need to be submitted a minimum of three weeks prior to final consideration. 14. All driveway access points shall incorporate the City's Industrial Driveway Apron Detail Plate No. 5207. 15. The applicant shall provide detailed stonn sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year stonn events and provide ponding calculations for stonn water quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post- developed stonn water calculations for 100-year stonn events and nonnal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basin, and/or creeks. Individual stonn sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to detennine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. Emergency overflows from all stonn water ponds and wetlands will also be required on the plans, 16. The applicant shall enter into a development contract/PUD agreement with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the tenns of the development contract. 17. The applicant shall apply for and obtain pennits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County Public Works, Watershed District, Metropolitan Environmental Service Commission, Minnesota Department of Health, and Minnesota Pollution control Agency and comply with their conditions of approval. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000 18. No benning shall be pennitted within the city's right of way. A 2% boulevard grade must be maintained. Landscaping may be pennitted subject to staff review and approval. 19. The utility improvements located within the main drive aisles and trunk stonn drainage lines upon completion shall become City maintained and owned. The individual sewer and water services through each lot shall be privately owned and maintained. Building pennits will be required ttom the City's Building Department for the private utility portion of the project. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over the public utility lines located outside of the right-of-way on the final plat. Depending on the depth of the utilities, the minimum drainage and utility easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Consideration for access routes to the ponds for maintenance proposes shall also be incorporated in the easement width. 20. The developer shall escrow with the City a financial guarantee for a share of the local cost participation based on traffic generated from the site for a future traffic signal at the intersection of Lake Drive West and Powers Boulevard. The cost of the traffic signal is not known at this time. Preliminary estimates between the City and County shall be used for a security escrow. 21. Type III erosion control fence will be required adjacent to the wetland areas. Stonn water ponds and/or temporary detention ponds shall be constructed with the initial grading phases to minimize erosion potential to the wetlands or downstream water bodies. Erosion control blanket will be required on slopes greater than 3: I. Revegetation of exposed slopes should occur immediately after grading is completed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 22. Stonn water ponds must have side slopes of 10: I for the first ten feet at the nonnal water level and no more than 3: I thereafter or 4: I throughout for safety purposes. 23. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 24. All retaining walls in excess of 4 feet in height will need to be engineered and require building pennits. All retaining walls over 4 feet in height should be protected with fences and/or landscaping materials to prevent children ttom falling off the walls. Emergency overflows ttom all stonn water ponds and wetlands will also be required on the plans. 25. The plans shall be revised to utilize the existing sewer and water services provided to the site from Lake Drive West. Open cutting of the street Lake Drive West will not be pennitted. 26. The bus stop location along Lake Drive West is subject to city review and approval. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000 27. The drive aisles shall be a minimum of24 feet wide and 26 feet wide when adjacent to parking stalls and built to 7-ton per axle weight pursuant to Ordinance 18-570-1 and 20- llO!. Parking lots shall be designed and constructed in accordance with section 20-1118. Cross-access easements will need to be prepared and recorded by the developer over the lots in favor of the property owners. The minimum easement width shall be 40 feet wide. The applicant's engineer shall work with city staff in reviewing the turning radiuses requirements over the entire site and make the necessary changes. 28. The proposed high density residential development of 21.34 net developable acres is responsible for a water quality connection charge of $34,997. The applicant has provided a water quality ponds to treat 18.6 acres which will waive $30,504 ofthis fee. The applicant is also responsible for a water quantity fee of $93,042, for a total SWMP fee of $97,536. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. 29. The applicant shall re-seed any disturbed wetland areas With MnDOT seed mix 25 A, or an approved seed mix for wetland soil conditions. 30. The staff and the applicant work on a landscaping plan that shows all materials presented to City Council supporting each other in terms of what actually will go into that transition area on the south side of the property between Building B2 primarily and the single family residences. 31. The applicant seriously review the angularity of building B2 in an attempt and to work with staffto see if there is any other angle that lessens the transition impact so that those buildings areu't face forward into the residents to the south. 32. The applicant show the following specific materials on the buildings. The low maintenance siding must be flat, not ship lap. Asphalt shingles must be textured, not smooth. Balcony railings must be metal, not wood. All voted in favor, except Matt Burton who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Peterson: For the reasons being the similar comments before? Burton: Yep. 22 Peterson: All right, thank you. This goes on to Council. Aanenson: Mr. Chainnan, can I make an announcement. This was scheduled to be on the 24th meeting. Based on the comments and the input that you need for this to be carried forward, just so the people here understand when this is being tracked. I'm not sure we can accomplish that to put it on the agenda. lfit was on the agenda, in good faith we'd have to recommend denial because it's missing some components. So for the applicant's edification and the neighbors, Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000 we're scheduling this for the Febmary 14th meeting to get the landscaping and those issues resolved. So February 14th City Council meeting. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Everybody thank you very much for your patience and tolerance. PUBLIC HEARING: REOUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 43.000 SO. Fr. OFFICE WAREHOUSE BUILDING TO BE LOCATED ON LOT 1. BLOCK 1. CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARKSTH ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED lOP. OFFICE INDUSTRIAL PARK AND LOCATED WEST OF POWERS BLVD.. NORTH OF LAKE DRIVE WEST ON MALLORY COURT. ANDREAS DEVELOPMENT. Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Any questions for staff? Kind: For a change, no. Can you believe it? Peterson: No. Would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? Ifso, please come forward and state your name and address please. Mark Undestad: Hello. Mark Undestad, 8800 Sunset Trail, Chanhassen here. Whittling down our lots out there. This one actually ITom the landscaping on there, we are going to increase landscaping through the entire site and the owner of this building, Andreas Development and ourselves are going to kind of take ,care of a little more around the entrance of Mallory Court is kind of it's own little park within a park down there. This one. The one that's coming up next and then the building we're already starting constmction on back there. They all tie together into this one. 1 don't really have a lot to add to it. Another project in Chanhassen and staff, we kind of just plug away and try to make them look nice. Do you have any questions? Peterson: So the colors on this one, me being color blind, 1 was trying to tie this building with the next one and with the other one that's going on the closest to it. Me they similar colors? Me they the same? Mark Undestad: They're similar. The architect, RSP Mchitects we've hired, they've designed all the projects. All the buildings. So they've tried to kind of carry a little bit of a theme through it but not make cookie cutter. This is that one, that one's that one so, but they are similar. 1 wouldn't say they're exact colors. 1 mean if you look at, this would be the building next to it. The brown's a little redder. The gray's a little grayer but still in the earth tones and stuff. Peterson: Other questions of the applicant? Thank you. Mark Undestad: Thank you. 23