The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Staff Report A y o PC DATE: 4/18/2017 0c CC DATE: 5/8/2017 CITY OF CHANHASSEN REVIEW DEADLINE: 5/16/2017 q % CASE#: 2017-07 N H A S BY: Al-Jaff, et al. PROPOSED MOTION: "The Chanhassen City Council approves a Planned Unit Development Amendment to the existing standards (Mission Hills PUD), Site Plan Approval for the construction of a 136-unit multi-tenant senior housing apartment building, eight twin homes(16 independent living units) and a daycare center, and Preliminary Plat approval to replat 8.64 acres into Lot 1,Block 1, Mission Hills 3rd Addition, and resolution approving a Limited Use Permit with MnDOT for a trail connection on property zoned Planned Unit Development(PUD) and located at 8600 Great Plains Boulevard(Outlot E,Mission Hills); and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact." SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a Planned Unit Development amendment,replat of 8.64 acres into one lot, and site plan review for the construction of a four- story senior housing apartment, eight twin homes and a daycare center. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within the required 500 feet. Staff is recommending approval of the request with conditions. (On February 23, 2015,the Chanhassen City Council approved a Planned Unit Development Amendment to the existing standards (Mission Hills PUD), Site Plan Approval for the construction of a 134-unit multi-tenant senior housing apartment building and nine twin homes, and Preliminary Plat approval to replat 8.64 acres into Lot 1,Block 1,Mission Hills 3rd Addition,on property zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) and located at 8600 Great Plains Boulevard(Outlot E,Mission Hills). On February 22,2016,the Chanhassen City Council approved the final plat, development contract and construction plans for Mission Hills 3rd Addition subject to the conditions. These documents were never recorded and the approval lapsed.) LOCATION: 8600 Great Plains Boulevard(Outlot E,Mission Hills) North of Highway 212, east of Great Plains Boulevard and southwest of 86th Street APPLICANT: Sperides Reiners Architects, Inc. Mission Hills Senior Housing Owner, LLC Eric Reiners Michael Hoagberg 4200 W. Old Shakopee Road 17550 Hemlock Avenue Bloomington, MN 55437 Lakeville, MN 55044 P: 952.996.9662 952.378.4386 E: eric@sra-mn.com mhoagberg@a,,headwatersdevelopment.biz PRESENT ZONING: Planned Unit Development Mixed Use—PUD, Mixed Use 2030 LAND USE PLAN: Mixed Use ACREAGE: 8.64 Acres (376,358 square feet) DENSITY: 17.5 Units per Acre Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2017-07 April 18, 2017 Page 2 of 36 LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The city has a relatively high level of discretion in approving amendments to PUDs because the city is acting in its legislative or policy-making capacity. A PUD amendment must be consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan. The city's discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the 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. 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. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The request consists of multiple applications to facilitate the construction of a four-story senior housing apartment building that contains a child daycare, eight twin homes and a daycare center. The requests include a Planned Unit Development Amendment to existing standards, a site plan for an apartment building that houses a daycare,twin homes and a subdivision to replat an outlot into a lot. The site is located North of Highway 212, east of Great Plains Boulevard and southwest of 86th Street. The site is zoned Planned Unit Development-Mixed Use. Sewer and water are available to the site. Access to the parcel will be gained off of 86th Street. The applicant scheduled a neighborhood meeting on April 13, 2017 to brief the neighborhood within 500 feet of the subject site on the project and seek comments and suggestions. (report continued on next page) t ,, ��sr. Mission Hills Senior Living __ . \,,,,: , \qv, „iv Planning Case 2017-07 . .-4 April 18, 2017 Page 3 of 36 :40.,,45., cf cv,;(4.,,, r•''+Y�' t /•412. / $ '\: :, 1 � 4 �� R.Si� t Qa AS�. J • t" r/ � ..y4Y . \.4 ••, ♦A5{i t- r 1� 5.4 �,�R521 Q2''� ... ti. } :` 1t A �� 544 8525 �i k„ • R51.,y 50 ' f -./ 2�S`...7„,,,,, : w 5 Y 1 , 5c��/ \ ( 44 51G 5.4 P .1•",„535 ' ' oSGfi �.5r� [ . \75�t�i\> 540 �/::,,,5 14 5:2 528520 51z :�' r 524. 484 • 8' 4_ • '14 -:4 ,•, —480 5c5�f57 '`555 9 Is r .i1fi 508 '. CM °r 577 'S5r'i5 7� 525 f 1SCCi • r - .,...:::54,? I 517 50c fr e522' +! t _4.. 545 .1' 521 ,5135015 0•T� ! . `.x, 500475 63 13;1 r — 02t-,t.L92 �'El , 5-' -5 2� yrA( 125 L'. 5,,1 5 72 A` j •. I t , r r e . 45 1 Y 5 ' 1,,,,� +, ,Milia rI:Any) 11/41 SUBJECT • 5 1 'a<t5&355;x( ___,,,,.q, ,r1 4,4r:1,' 4% PROPERTY „,-.'..57-...,:'-'-": ” 5 5''55; 54,5 ' 14 b4-".:11, 4 244t7G. '5,----,;,76,57, CA ".55 .55 5252 _ f'15',) 5'3 5515•'x' .. 5„y 45 475 • 1 ,' S5'1 -25,5 .-12447.. k,._454. *s 7. 51.'5.1 t iv •�AK�L41U tI �5f .bt .. if t' -:212 The following is a summary of the requests: 1. Planned Unit Development Amendment: The first request is to amend the ordinance regulating the use on the site from Commercial to Residential and/or Commercial. 2. Subdivision/Preliminary Plat: The second request is for subdivision approval to replat 8.64 acres into a lot. 3. Site Plan: The final request is for a site plan to construct a four-story, 136-unit senior housing apartment building that houses a daycare center and eight twin homes. Site coverage is averaged over the entire development. This is permitted under the PUD ordinance(Section 20-505 (e)). The total permitted site coverage is 50 percent. The proposed development has a total hard coverage area of 47.8%. Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2017-07 April 18, 2017 Page 4 of 36 The design of the building is attractive and is proposed to be constructed of high-quality materials. They include masonry,painted siding, and exterior finish and insulation system (E.I.F.S.) and the structures will have sloped shingle roofs. The twin homes will reflect some of the architectural elements of the apartment building yet maintain their individuality. All elevations that can be viewed by the public have received equal attention. Parking is buffered from views by buildings and landscaping. Sidewalks and trails allow for connections between the subject site and the surrounding buildings and separates pedestrian from vehicular traffic. Access to the site is provided via West 866 Street. There will not be direct access to Highways 212 or 101 (Great Plains Boulevard). 4. Limited Use Permit with MnDOT for a trail connection that requires grading within Highway 101 right-of-way. Staff regards the project as a well-designed development. The overall design is sensitive to the surrounding area. Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending approval of the site plan, subdivision and planned unit development amendment with conditions as outlined in the staff report. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 18, Subdivisions Chapter 20,Article II,Division 2,Amendments Chapter 20,Article II,Division 6, Site Plan Review Chapter 20,Article VII,Planned Unit Development District Chapter 20,Article XXIII,Division 9.—Design Standards for Multifamily Developments (report continued on next page) Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2017-07 April 18, 2017 Page 5 of 36 ...ill ,�'�BACKGROUND �+;�"' 1 11. OFiii IP ii Ma h 1111 The Land Use Plan designates ; Lake Susan D , Lake P rk"� areas around the Highways p OHW 881.8 i ....7, R 101/212 interchange as mixed I • •, AllirMarsh use. This category has been �` NI i ��'��' a , ,..TO . 00•411. ..),__H established to accommodate �t or 1�� Iii i, either commercial or high- ir Lrl_ � - ti./%44,1ril: "...Vans• w' residential 1 SUBJECT /` Eh, density PROPERTY I WJ / n M rshland raddevelopments. The high- � , .%a 381.ACM' CRT 4 . r0,�, t Heantnnd,rt densitycategory,which �`��a 11 - r.:___ r;;,K14: includes units with a maximum ;��;ik i : �, _ - - �� ,t�t' net density of 16.0 units per ; A• ir 1911 - i �� i6 YMILL1�� :�' acre,accommodates apartments •i.41 +,�qtr 4 It V - �`�' off i j- ='' : and higher density . ♦ Z#�� 4 ►apn-—I. condominium units,but would ��`�+ ,, �. r." nhas. pii: ialso permit the development of ;,,, ;,, ` "■'k .. :' � townhome-type units. rk IIE ■■ The Mission Hills development was approved prior to the realignment of CSAR 101 (Great Plains Boulevard) and the construction of Highway 212. The subject site was platted as an outlot to accommodate this road work,which has since been completed allowing the site to be developed. On October 24, 1994,the City Council approved the following: • Rezoning the site from RSF to I a, ,, PUD (#93-4). The uses within /2 ' ' w the PUD allowed for Low ? 4'`^'' %0 ' `° '�.,t Density Residential at the ,„s northeasterly portion, Medium ,t I =;, •-.'`°`{ " • '.jii 1140 ig Density along the center of the , • 5,'14,,,/ . 4C site and Neighborhood ,,• , r'.", MIL`r yy:; •�, ";` Commercial along the ,t', • ?: a : southwesterly portion; �,I , • Final plat of Mission Hills for - 4E2;4 ....,ii 16 single-family lots and 75 ,,,,o‘ 6j I medium-density lots to ' ' accommodate a total of 210 •N 4:. units and an outlot for future " 'L commercial development; and -- • Site Plan#94-5 for ther construction of 194 ,` ,o, �p -mow , • c. townhouses. I ,r r a 1- Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2017-07 April 18,2017 Page 6 of 36 The site permitted a total of 212 units within the medium density section of the site. The total number of units built was 194 units(18 units remaining). The low density residential section of the site allowed 34 units. The total homes built were 16 (18 units remaining). The Planned Unit Development Ordinance allows the transfer of density within the boundaries of a PUD. These remaining unused units are proposed to be transferred to the proposed senior housing site to accommodate the proposed 136-unit apartment building and eight twin homes. Total Acres Density #of Units Permitted #of Units Built Low Density 8.5 4 units per acre 34 16 Medium Density 26.5 8 units per acre 212 194 Total 246 210 On February 23, 2015, the Chanhassen City Council approves a Planned Unit Development Amendment to the existing standards (Mission Hills PUD), Site Plan Approval for the construction of a 134-unit multi-tenant senior housing apartment building and nine twin homes,and Preliminary Plat approval to replat 8.64 acres into Lot 1,Block 1,Mission Hills 3rd Addition,on property zoned Planned Unit Development(PUD)and located at 8600 Great Plains Boulevard (Outlot E,Mission Hills). On February 22,2016,the Chanhassen City Council approved the final plat, development contract and construction plans for Mission Hills 3rd Addition subject to the conditions. These documents were never recorded and the approval lapsed. SITE PLAN In order to provide a better understanding of the overall development, staff will first review the site plan component,which in turn leads to the PUD amendment. The building must comply with the Development Design Standards for Mission Hills. PUD is required to be developed to a higher • A q p 4.. • �d�y /'quality than other projects. Site coverage is /40 �,� averaged over the entire development. This is a / 4-4* permitted under the PUD ordinance (Section 20- G ,�'��1'►� 505 (e)). The total permitted site coverage is 50 percent. The proposed development has a total ' i hard coverage area 47.8%. , � The site plan request is for the construction of a ,/ �! four-story senior housing apartment building that 3" contains a daycare center and eight twin homes. In order to accommodate those residential units,the ��~ planned unit development standards pertaining to ` ^ = uses on the subject site will need to be amended. The proposed daycare is proposed to be accommodated within the footprint of the main Tfh,� a. 212 Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2017-07 April 18, 2017 Page 7 of 36 housing structure and occupies approximately 8,600SF. The daycare provides child care for up to 90 children. Sidewalks and trails allow for connections between the subject site and the surrounding buildings and separates pedestrian from vehicular traffic. Access to the site is provided via 86th Street. There will not be direct access to Highway 212 nor Great Plains Boulevard. Parking is proposed along the middle of the site and below the apartment building. It is buffered from views by the buildings and landscaping. The minimum setback in the PUD district is 50 feet from the residential district. The apartment building maintains a minimum of 90 feet at the closest point to the stwa, westerly property line and •' g a ry 7OM M/BBu.vera increases to 110 feet. There is a - ,LLB 1 20-foot parking and drive aisle setback from all exterior property lines. The proposed development complies with the required setbacks. The trash enclosure will be located within the underground parking area serving the apartment building. L The design of the building is attractive and is proposed to be constructed of high-quality = D Q materials which include masonry, Q painted siding, and exterior finish and insulation system(E.I.F.S.) and the structures will have sloped =3 mom shingle roofs. All elevations that can be viewed by the public have received equal attention. Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2017-07 April 18, 2017 Page 8 of 36 The building has pronounced entrances,utilizes durable exterior materials, and exhibits articulation. All elevations have received well-articulated attention to detail. MAP.L'1•LL,N C\TirA`. I::i:.0 7.r,(T.rr rry-Fr•- •11,, • ,.(' .t.,La fir; 1• .-.� '.it r,� I ., ~41 _ - `� .�y lea. m AERIAL VEIN FROM NMT 111 a — L •_- _ Ali. 1 MAN 1301LVNr L'NTF&Y V[:TCI)LL-AND DRWE UNDER CANOPY VILA OF MAIN MONUMENT 51;7N ALONG NtCihWAY 101 • • ADRIAL\M['1 FROM NgtTNEA5T • I.;.I 1: .1 i .1 Ei _.:.7yI',. 'i t..1 Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2017-07 April 18, 2017 Page 9 of 36 `y R� t'. I ' ',s, ,.. .. '1u. iI ,sye : ' .--'- , _ \itV51()N 1111.11 .. _. -��+.it1 .1 , i.'l:; YIG'�'I.IH 1.1,'1�.. - _ VIM OF SirE FROM THE MAIN ENTRY PRIVE ' ems. N:: • '.. ,. ,.�{I II A i ; 111 . .r ^i '4"At'- z iL __t l 1 Y l'.'.; amu_` , As.0441444.: _. 47,-- 1 ••.M fir. I�p a_ � r MAIN BUILDING Nat IAL FROM 50UTHYf4''T V1EY,OF SITE HIGHYYA.Y 101,115T PAST 50UNP Y.ALL A dT. , 111911 _,1116, 1 I"::.12.1:, r .?!I a ,, N. µ s. \MN OF SATE FROM THE CORNER OF 86TH STREET Y'CaT ANP HIGHYYAY 101 The eight twin homes will be located along the -y northeasterly portion of the site. The design and . ,� colors used on the buildings will complement the apartment building and remain within the �-, I�____ same color family,however; each unit will have /'. ..,VO '' ')'' ` ` . ` some unique features. ° ,10 " )':',4 44.), , , 3 Utilizing the basic building footprint,the �� ... \/, . ) ".414,",:', applicant modified the exterior components and 3 ;� / / colors to create four unique yet compatible „ ' >R �ins for the twin homes. The location :,,,,,,,,,,) ,,,,,,,. ,...„‘,/0 ' 'desi o t oof each design type is placed within the layout I ''. !�\ of eight buildings to create a maximum ` ` °'- / separation between each design option. ' Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2017-07 April 18, 2017 Page 10 of 36 ME Design Option#1 Features color scheme#1 with a shed roof design over the front bay window,tapered I • siding column at front walk and standard j '4 sa,i garage door. \hot . ik" 1 4 A - - I Design Option#2 i;,- Features ;YFeatures color scheme#2 with a gable roof design over the front bay window, square four- 46--,4 post column at front walk and garage door with ' transom windows. 1 %Aii _ Design Option#3 MNIMIINIIIIprPr- It- , Features color scheme#1 with a gable roof design over the front bay window, square four- - I IP • 0 1 i post column at front walk and standard garage idoor. Design Option#4 Features color scheme#2 with a shed roof 4 , design over the front bay window,tapered siding a,,,. 4 i `T" ... , column at front walk and garage door withIiir I' transom windows. Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2017-07 April 18,2017 Page 11 of 36 The total number of units proposed on the site is 136 units housed in the apartment building and 16 units in nine twin homes. When the Mission Hills development was created,the development was allowed a density of: Area #of Units Permitted #of Units Built Total Remaining Medium Density 26.5 212 194 18 High Density(subject Site) 8.64 138 0 138 Total 35.14 350 194 156 The total number of units proposed is 152. The PUD ordinance permits the transfer of density within the boundaries of a development. Staff is recommending approval of the transfer of the remaining medium density to the high density site to accommodate the proposed development. The day care component which will be housed inside the apartment building is a complementary use for the senior housing and is intended to promote intergenerational interaction which has proven beneficial for both children and older adults. Staff regards the project as a well-designed development. The overall design is sensitive to the surrounding area. Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending approval of the site plan with conditions as outlined in the staff report. LIGHTING/SIGNAGE The applicant has submitted a lighting plan and a photometrics plan has been prepared for the site. Light levels for site lighting shall be no more than one-half foot candle at the project perimeter property line. This does not apply to street lighting. All fixtures must be shielded. The development is permitted one monument sign. The total sign area may not exceed 24 square feet and 5 feet in height. A sign is proposed along the west facing Great Plains Boulevard. This sign is in a "V" shape. MONUMENT ARCHITECTURAL 14 60.FT, ELEMENTS !Y • • • • - MONUMENT ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS =ION PANEL , • ' �'i�1,1 •- 11 MI millef 13ION HI LS _J_ IMMO AVG.GRADE ._- ��- Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2017-07 April 18, 2017 Page 12 of 36 The city code allows double-faced signs if the angle between the two faces does not exceed 45 degrees. The plans reflect a 30-degree separation. City code limits the number of monument signs to one per lot. The total area of the monument signs is 24 square feet and the height is 5 feet which is in keeping with the district regulations. PARKING The ordinance requires one parking space per twin home unit for a total of 16 spaces. The applicant is providing 16 spaces. The ordinance requires one parking space per independent living apartment unit. Sixty-six spaces are required and provided. The ordinance requires one parking space per three assisted-living units. Twelve spaces are required and provided. The ordinance requires one parking space per employee. The applicant is providing 24 spaces. The ordinance also requires one space per four units. The total number required is 38. The applicant is providing 38 spaces. The ordinance requires on space for every 6 children in the day care. The space is designed to allow for a maximum capacity of 90 children. This translates to 15 spaces which are provided. The total number of spaces required is 186 which is the number provided by the applicant. ARCHITECTURAL COMPLIANCE Sized,Portion and Placement Entries: The building has pronounced entrances. Articulation: The buildings incorporate adequate detail and have been tastefully designed. The architectural style is unique to the buildings but will fit in with the surrounding area. The buildings will provide a variation in style through the use of masonry,painted siding, and exterior finish and insulation system (E.I.F.S.) and the structures will have sloped shingle roofs. The building utilizes exterior materials that are durable and of high quality. Signs: All signage must meet the sign criteria in the Planned Unit Development Ordinance prescribed for this development. Material and Detail High quality materials are being used on the building. Color The colors chosen for the buildings are earth tones. The selection is unique,but blends in with the surrounding buildings. Height and Roof Design The building ranges in height between 14 and 51 feet. The number of stories ranges between one and four stories. The setback of the building exceeds the height of the building which will allow Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2017-07 April 18, 2017 Page 13 of 36 for a balanced appearance and will not appear imposing. The roofline is staggered and contains dormers which adds articulation to the design of the buildings. All rooftop equipment must be screened from views. Facade Transparency All facades viewed by the public contain more than 50 percent windows and/or doors. Loading Areas, Refuse Areas, etc. The trash enclosure is located inside the building. Recycling space and other solid waste collection space should be contained within the same enclosure. SITE PLAN FINDINGS In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the following: (1) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides,including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; (2) Consistency with this division; (3) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing areas; (4) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; (5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: 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; 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 pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2017-07 April 18, 2017 Page 14 of 36 (6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers,preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. Finding: The proposed development is consistent with the city's design requirements, the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance and the site plan review requirements. The site contains a number of outdoor seating areas and walking paths that connect to city trails. The overall design provides adequate open space. The design incorporates the curb appeal criteria listed in the city code which includes: (1) Orientation to the street or access road: (a) Setbacks (b) Spacing between buildings and view sheds. (2) Architectural detail/decorative features. (a) Windows. (b) Flower boxes. (c) Porches,balconies,private spaces. (d) Location and treatment of entryway. (e) Surface materials, finish and texture. (f) Roof pitch. (g) Building height and orientation. (3) Location of garages. (4) Landscaping including fencing and berming. (5) Street lighting. (6) Screening of parking, especially in apartment and condominium developments. (7) Variations/differentiations in units including,but not limited to, color,material, articulation etc. Staff is recommending approval of the request with conditions. The site design is compatible with the surrounding developments. It is functional and harmonious with the approved development for this area. Staff regards the project as a reasonable use of the land. The overall design is sensitive to the city's image. Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending approval of the site plan with conditions outlined in the staff report. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING The applicant is proposing 8 twin homes, 136 unit senior housing structure and a daycare center for 90 children on an 8.64 acre parcel of land. As part of the development, the applicant is requesting that the zoning be changed to PUD-Residential. The land is currently in agricultural production. Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2017-07 April 18, 2017 Page 15 of 36 SITE CONSTRAINTS Wetland Protection The City of Chanhassen Wetland Inventory and the National Wetland Inventory do not indicate the presence of any wetlands on the subject property. A review of historic aerial photographs and on-site observations supports the conclusion that there are no wetlands on the subject property. Bluff Protection There are no bluffs on the property. Shoreland Management A significant portion of the subject property lies within the shoreland district for Lake Susan. The development will need to meet the PUD requirements for the DNR shoreland rules. This includes having a minimum of 50%preserved as green space; they are proposing just over 53%. In addition, they must meet the minimum standards for stormwater management and erosion prevention. They have provided a stormwater management plan and an erosion prevention and sediment control plan. By meeting the requirements of the city and the Watershed District the applicant will have satisfied the DNR standards. Floodplain Overlay This property does not lie within a floodplain. Bluff Creek Overlay This property does not lie within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. SITE GRADING: GRADING AND DRAINAGE Currently the site has three drainage areas. The majority of the site either drains north to 86th Street West or south to the Right-of-Way for MN T.H. 212. Approximately 16%of the site drains to the east to Mission Hills with much of this watershed making it to a storm water pond located at the intersection of Mission Hills Way and 86th Street West. Under the proposed design, the site is divided into seven drainage areas that will leave the site at three distinct locations. A majority of the site will be treated and discharged to existing storm sewer systems: at the intersection of Great Plains Boulevard and 86th Street West, or the SW corner of the site goes either under Great Plains Boulevard and discharges onto 8601 Great Plains Boulevard, or enters the MnDOT stormwater system for TH 212. The low area where filtration basins #1 and#2 discharge shall be modeled or the discharge pipes shall directly tie-in to the MnDOT drainage system. Any discharge to MN/DOT or work within their right-of-way will require MnDOT approval and permitting. Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2017-07 April 18, 2017 Page 16 of 36 Plans must show the location and elevations of the Emergency Over-Flows (EOFs) on the project, specifically for Filtration Basin#1, #2, #4 and #5. Plans must show the style of home for the twin homes. SITE GRADING: EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL An erosion control plan consistent with Section 19-145 of city code will be required. This development exceeds the threshold for the NPDES Construction Permit. A Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP) will be required for review and approval. Many of the elements required in the SWPPP have been included in the Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan sheet C100 and SWPPP plan sheet C500. The city has checklist of required SWPPP elements. This checklist will be made available to the applicant and the consulting engineer for use in their preparation of the SWPPP. The stand-alone SWPPP document shall be submitted for review with the final plat documents and will be required prior to any earth disturbing activities. The NPDES construction permit must be granted to the applicant prior to any earth disturbing activities. Stockpile locations shall be shown on the plans. A planting plan for the filtration features will be required before recording the final plat. Staff strongly recommends using plantings rather than seed, as seed can take up to three growing seasons to establish. The city will not release security until the vegetation is established. RETAINING WALLS The developer is proposing one retaining wall along the south of the proposed,main building and one retaining wall around the northern-most twin home. The following materials are prohibited for retaining wall construction: smooth face,poured in place concrete(stamped or patterned is acceptable),masonry,railroad ties and timber. Walls taller than 6 feet shall not be constructed with boulder rock. Any wall taller than 4 feet must be designed by a professional engineer licensed in the state of Minnesota. The southern wall is approximately 360 feet long,with a maximum height of 19.5 feet. It runs parallel to the walkway around the southwestern side of the main building. The plans show a guardrail along the top of the wall to provide separation from the sidewalk. The northern retaining wall is approximately 200 feet long with a maximum height of 5 feet. This wall wraps around the northern most twin home,running between the home and Infiltration Basin#5. TRAFFIC STUDY The developer commissioned a traffic study to determine what impacts the proposed development would create compared with not developing the land. The study also reviewed the Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2017-07 April 18, 2017 Page 17 of 36 maximum build-out of the site for the proposed zoning: residential apartment building. The results of the study show that the intersections of CSAH 101 and Lake Susan Drive, CSAH 101 and W. 86th Street, and W. 86th Street and Mission Hills Drive would have a negligible change in Level of Service and all the studied intersections are expected to function at acceptable levels. The city has been contacted by the Mission Hills Gardens Homeowners Association. This HOA is located nearby on the north side of W. 86th Street. The two letters staff has received are included in this report. From these letters and a discussion with their Vice-President,the HOA's main concern is with,not an increase in delay from traffic,but the safety of the left turn from W. 86th Street onto CSAH 101,intersection design as it exists today. Carver County cited that the intersection of CSAH 101 and W. 86th Street may need future improvements. City staff will continue to work with the County to determine if improvements at the intersection are warranted at this time. Staff also received notice that residents were concerned about the visibility around W. 86th Street curves when cars are parked on that street. Staff completed a sight distance analysis and determined that the sight distance at the intersection of Mission Hills Drive and W. 86th Street is restricted when cars are parked on the north side(per the MnDOT Roadway Design Manual). On February 23, 2015,the City Council approved designation of a"No Parking"zone on a portion of West 86th Street. STREETS The proposed plan consists of two private streets, Oriole Drive and Oriole Lane,to provide access to the nine twin homes and the main building and parking lots. The developer's engineer must submit documentation that the street pavement meets a 7-ton design. The developer shall incorporate the recommendations from the traffic study into their plan set: o Special consideration should be made to limit any sight distance impacts from future structures,landscaping, and signing. o When designing internal traffic controls, incorporate improvements based on guidelines established in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. In particular, it is important to identify traffic controls at intersections between internal roadways/driveways to minimize vehicular conflicts and driver confusion. o Implement stop control at the site access to 86th Street to reduce the potential for driver confusion. o Review truck turning movements to ensure that large vehicles have adequate accommodations to negotiate internal roadways. o Implement one-way operations at the main entrance to the senior living facility primary parking lot. Continue one-way operations into the facility pick-up/drop-off zone to provide an orderly flow of traffic. Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2017-07 April 18,2017 Page 18 of 36 o Modify the raised median at the 86th Street/Mission Hills Drive intersection and stripe 86th Street to help delineate the travel/turn lanes. PARKING&WALKWAYS The site plan includes two parking lots for the main building and a smaller parking lot for the twin homes. The parking lot aisle of the twin home lot must be a minimum of 26 feet wide and the stalls shall be 18 feet long. The plans include sidewalks and trails throughout the property. The pedestrian ramps shall meet ADA requirements. Railing shall be provided near retaining walls taller than 6 feet. RESOLUTION FOR A LIMITED USE PERMIT MnDOT has required a Limited Use Permit (LUP) for the trail connection within MnDOT right- of-way. Attached is a resolution for City Council approval of the Mission Hills LUP. WATER MAIN AND SANITARY SEWER MAIN—PRIVATE UTILITIES All water main and sanitary sewer main constructed in this project shall be privately owned and maintained and must meet the city's requirements for public utilities. The plan shall use 2017 Chanhassen standard detail plates,which are available on the city's website. The plans call for 8" C900 water main and 8" SDR 35 sanitary sewer main to connect to the services stubbed out in the city's previous utility projects on W. 86th Street. ASSESSMENTS This property was assessed and has paid in full for property assessments for the projects that constructed water main and sanitary sewer main under W. 86th Street. Currently,no assessments are owed by this property. This parcel has paid the city for one(1)water and sanitary service hook-up. The additional twin home units (7)must pay a water and sanitary service partial hook-up fee at the time of final plat. The remaining hook-up fees would be paid with the building permit. The developer shall work with the Building Department to determine the city SAC and WAC fees for the main building. The hook-up fees for the main building are due with the building permit. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Article VII, Chapter 19 of city code describes the required storm water management development standards. Section 19-141 states that"these development standards shall be reflected in plans prepared by developers and/or project proposers in the design and layout of site plans, subdivisions and water management features." This site will need to be compliant with Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2017-07 April 18, 2017 Page 19 of 36 the City of Chanhassen's MS4 permit. Part III D. 5 requires that new developments with a disturbance equal to, or greater than, one(1) acre must have no net-increase from pre- development conditions of stormwater discharge volume,total suspended solids (TSS) and total phosphorous (TP). The site will also need to be compliant with the NPDES Construction Permit. The site will fall under the jurisdiction of the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District and be subject to their stormwater management rule. This rule requires the abstraction of 1.1 inch of runoff from all new impervious surfaces and removal of 90%TSS (Total Suspended Solids) and 60%TP (Total Phosphorus). This is the same removal as indicated in Chapter 19 of city code. It is staff's understanding that this site received approval from the Watershed District in 2015 for a restricted site condition that reduces the requirements due to the unique features of the site. The applicant's engineer will continue to work with the Watershed District to update their permit. City staff will evaluate the design based on the requirements above until the city receives confirmation from the Watershed District that this project will be evaluated under a different requirement. The applicant provided a summary of the water quality benefits of the proposed practices from the MIDS calculator. The annual reduction by the proposed BMPs (Best Management Practices) are 67%removal for TSS and 60%removal for TP. This does not meet the requirements for TSS, so the design must be revised. The applicant has concluded,based upon the geotechnical report,that the soils are predominately lean clays which have a low infiltration rate. While this is a condition under which infiltration is limited,under the requirements of both the MS4 permit and the watershed district rules,the applicant must implement,to the"maximum extent practicable"volume reduction techniques other than infiltration. The applicant states that volume storage and some infiltration will be provided below the draintile elevation of the filtration basins. The P8 model shall conform to the MN Stormwater Manual's estimation of 0.06"/hour for Type D soils. The infiltrometer testing results for each basin shall be submitted to the city to verify the infiltration rate prior to release of the security for the filtration basins. The draintile shall have a grade of 0.5%to facilitate drainage flows and minimize sags. The construction plans shall include the following: cross-sections of each filtration basin with invert elevations called-out, source and quantity of iron filings, and method of mixing the filings and sand prior to placement. Staff recommends control outlets in filtration basins#3 and#5 to reduce saturated lawn conditions during basin drain-down. The current design removes only 20%of the required 1.1"of impervious run-off volume. The design must be revised to meet the 1.1"volume removal or the applicant must receive designation of a restricted site from the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District. Staff recommends volume reduction by stormwater re-use for irrigation purposes as a preferred method. Given that as much as 4.5 acres could be irrigated upon final build out, storm water reuse could also result in a significant reduction in potable water use. Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2017-07 April 18, 2017 Page 20 of 36 All basins must have pretreatment of water prior to entering the feature. For those areas where curb cuts serve as the inlet,rip-rap is an effective energy dissipation method reducing the risk of scour however, it is an ineffective pre-treatment method. City staff has found pretreatment chambers, such as the Rain GuardianTM to be an effective pretreatment practice for curb cut inlets. The applicant is proposing pretreatment by grass swales and sump catch basins. In areas where storm water is directed to the basin through a catch basin, a sump manhole, at least three feet in depth should be used, four feet is recommended. Staff recommends installation of Downstream Defender or Preserver on sump manholes to reduce maintenance frequency on the private stormwater system. The plans shall label the sump catchbasins. The proposed BMPs will be privately owned. However, as these will be routed to the city's storm sewer system it is in the city's interest to assure that these function as designed for their life. It is also required under the city's MS4 permit that we have a mechanism in place to assure proper operations,maintenance and function of the practices. The applicant must provide an operations and maintenance(O&M)manual to the city for review and comment. The applicant must provide a drainage and utility easement over the filtration basins for city personnel to inspect the practices and to require maintenance if the property owner is negligent in their duties under the O&M. A planting plan for the filtration features will be required before recording the final plat. Staff strongly recommends using plantings rather than seed, as seed can take up to three growing seasons to establish. The city will not release security until the vegetation is established. The design should follow the MN Stormwater Manual guidelines and recommendations wherever possible to do so. The applicant shall provide justification for any deviations from the guidelines. For instance, it has been staff's experience that filter socks around drain tile are prone to failure. The Minnesota Stormwater Manual recommends bedding the underdrain in#57 stone and using a choker course above the bedding. Surface Water Management Fees Section 4-30 of code sets out the fees associated with surface water management(SWMP). The fee is based on land use type and are intended to reflect the fact that the more intense the development type,the greater the degradation of surface water. The daycare SWMP fee is pro- rated at the commercial rate and the senior living is pro-rated at the high-density residential rate. The city gives credit toward the SWMP fee of 25% for volume reduction of 1.1". However,the proposed design only removes 20%of the required 1.1", so the credit is $6,625.59. Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2017-07 April 18, 2017 Page 21 of 36 This fee calculation is shown on the table below: Acres (pro-rated based on building square Per Acre Fee footage) Totals Surface Water Management Fee for Daycare $30,600.00 0.43 $13,219.20 Surface Water Management Fee for Senior Living $14,510.00 8.21 $119,098.08 Credit 20% *of the 1.1"volume reduction ($6,625.59) Total due at final plat $125,691.69 LANDSCAPING Minimum requirements for landscaping include 7,891 sq. ft. of landscaped area around the parking lot, 2 landscape islands or peninsulas, 31 trees for the vehicular use areas, and bufferyard plantings along the property lines. The applicant's proposed as compared to the requirements for landscape area and parking lot trees is shown in the following table. Required Proposed Vehicular use landscape 7,891 sq. ft. >7,891 sq. ft. area Overall trees required for 31 trees 31 trees vehicular use area Landscape islands or 2 islands/peninsulas 2 islands/peninsulas peninsulas/parking lot The applicant meets minimum requirements for trees and landscaping in the parking lot/vehicular use area. Bufferyard requirements: Required plantings Proposed plantings Bufferyard B—north 4 Overstory trees 4 Overstory trees prop. line, 240' 9 Understory trees 6 Understory trees 14 Shrubs 16 shrubs Bufferyard B—south 5 Overstory trees 4 Overstory trees prop. line, 540' 10 Understory trees 10 Understory trees 20 Shrubs 20 Shrubs Bufferyard A—east prop. 6 Overstory trees 6 Overstory trees Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2017-07 April 18, 2017 Page 22 of 36 Line, 650' 6 Understory trees 5 Understory trees 12 Shrubs 20 Shrubs Bufferyard B—west 20 Overstory trees 20 Overstory trees prop. Line, 1000' 30 Understory trees 16 Understory trees 50 Shrubs 10 Shrubs The applicant does not meet minimum requirements for bufferyard plantings. Underplanted areas are shown in italics. Staff recommends that the applicant meet minimum requirements for landscaping for the development. The east property line buffer is short only one tree,but the existing trees now serving as a buffer for the Mission Hills development are schedule to be removed and graded according to plans. Staff recommends that the south half of the east buffer yard area receive further review for additional plantings. The applicant should also consider locating landscaping near the corner of 86th St W and 101 to block headlight glare from turning vehicles. The corner unit is exposed to incoming light from turning vehicles and ", buffer plantings outside of the sight triangle could help alleviate the issue. ,, s "t«, h. P`r As noted in the Landscape Plan General Subject `' ?: Site Notes, 'park grade' trees are to be s' __ provided (item#12). This type of plant j . / material does not meet city standards and r '�� is unacceptable. Item 12 of the general ter,.=°Q / notes shall be deleted. 1'".' -�'" H "Ph ;;Nassb 1, r01 ,` 1 I a PARKS ,;PARK j`- , 18 - rvru"GO.v This property is located within the %2-mile '' ..1114,.. neighborhood park service area for I "•,,,,,N Chanhassen Hills Park. Residents of the 212 Mission Hills Senior Living community "p V*,,, ` rH"� will have convenient access to this publicly "'"""P', maintained recreation facility. Chanhassen Hills Park is eight acres in size and features a playground,basketball court,picnic shelter,ballfield,benches,and walking trails. Off-street parking is also available on Chanhassen Hills Drive South. Bandimere P Community Park and Lake Susan Community Park are both located within the one-mile community park service of the new Mission Hills Senior Living housing. These two parks Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2017-07 April 18, 2017 Page 23 of 36 are more robust in their recreation facility offerings,including features such as a fishing pier,boat landing,tennis courts,soccer fields,and extensive walking trails. No additional parkland acquisition is being recommended as a condition of this subdivision. TRAILS The subject site has convenient access to the public trails along Great Plains Boulevard,the three- mile Rice Marsh Lake Trail Loop, and the lakeside trail route to Lake Susan Park.No additional trail construction is being recommended as a condition of this subdivision. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT The site is zoned Planned Unit Development. The designation for the southwesterly portion of the site is commercial. The land use plan designates the site for Mixed Use Development. This category allows commercial uses meeting the daily needs of a neighborhood and/or high-density residential uses. Amending the PUD ordinance regulating this site will be in keeping with the comprehensive plan. Staff is recommending approval of the amendment and adoption of the revised standards. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT FINDINGS The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six(6)possible adverse effects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) effects 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. Finding: The site is guided mixed use(residential and neighborhood commercial). An apartment building with a daycare facility and townhouses are a permitted and a reasonable use in this location. b) The proposed use is or will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. Finding: The proposed use is and will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area through the implementation of the design standards, landscaping, architecture, etc. c) The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Finding: The proposed use will conform with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance such as design standards, signage, durable materials,uses, etc. Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2017-07 April 18, 2017 Page 24 of 36 d) The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. Finding: The proposed use will complement the surrounding area and will not depreciate it. e) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. Finding: The site is located within the Municipal Urban Service Area. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. f) Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. Finding: Based upon traffic studies conducted by the applicant's traffic engineer,traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. SUBDIVISION The developer is requesting preliminary plat //MIS'S'/UN approval to replat 8.64 acres into one lot—Mission • 7z Hills �Addition. Lot 1 is proposed to house an �' 3' apartment building with a daycare and eight twin ,. homes. v �> The ordinance states, "All lots shall abut for their full ,'"-j;' required minimum frontage on a public street as - required by the zoning ordinance; or be accessed by a ,� �y f tr private street; or a flag lot which shall have a minimum of thirty feet of frontage on a public = " k street." lock 1 • BLaA , The lot has street frontage. Access to the lot is gained from a curb cut off of West 86th Street. ..w• The subdivision request is a relatively straightforward action and staff is recommending approval with conditions. Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and generally consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. SUBDIVISION FINDINGS 1. 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 and the PUD. Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2017-07 April 18, 2017 Page 25 of 36 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and 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 infrastructure. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to conditions of approval. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding: 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. Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure. Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2017-07 April 18, 2017 Page 26 of 36 COMPLIANCE TABLE Lot Ordinance Requirements Subject Site Lot Coverage 50% 47.8%* Building Height Ordinance Requirements Subject Site Principal Four-story Four-Story Building Setbacks Ordinance Requirements Subject Site West Front yard 0' 110' South Front yard 0' 35' North Front yard 0' 30' East Rear yard 50' 80' Parking Requirements Ordinance Requirements Subject Site Stalls 186 186 West Front yard setback 35' 90' South Front yard setback 35' 260' North Front yard setback 35' 150' East Rear yard setback 50' 90' RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt of the following three motions: 1. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT "The City Council approves the Planned Unit Development amendment in the attached ordinance for Mission Hills to allow High Density Use with a Childcare Center on the site and set standards for the structures as shown below (amendments are shown in bold and highlighted in grey) with the following conditions, and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact. 1. The site must comply with the DNR Shoreland Rules. 2. The site shall comply with the following standards: Mission Hills Zoning Standards a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD neighborhood commercial/mixed density housing zone. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to be placed underground. Each structure proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. Except as modified by the Mission Hills standards below, the mixed density housing development shall comply with the requirements of the R-8,Mixed Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2017-07 April 18, 2017 Page 27 of 36 Medium Density District. Except as modified by the Mission Hills standards below,the commercial development shall comply with the Neighborhood Business District, BN. Lot 1,Block 1,Mission Hills 3rd Addition shall comply with the R-12,High Density District. b. Permitted Uses commercial and service uses consistent with the neighborhood. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. The type of uses to be provided on this outlot shall be low intensity uses. Churches are a permitted use in the commercial area of this district. The permitted uses within the development shall include the following: • Single Family Residential • Medium Density Residential • High Density Residential with a Child Daycare Center c. Setbacks In the PUD standards, the building setback for commercial is 50 feet from any public right-of- way. The commercial High Density parking setback shall be 35 feet from any public right-of- way and/or interior property line. There shall be a buffer separating the residential portion from the eemmereial High Density portion of the site. This buffer shall be in the form of a berm and landscaping. The following setbacks shall be observed: Commercial Residential Residential Commercial Street High Density Medium Density Parking Parking Building Setback* Building Setback Setback Setback* Highway 101 * 50' 20' * Highway 212 * 50' 20' * West 86th Street * 30' 20' * O'(from commercial) 0, 0, 0' (from commercial) Interior Lot Lines 50'(from residential) 35' (from residential) * Setbacks shall be established pursuant to section 20-505 of the Chanhassen City Code. d. Development Standards Tabulation Box Minimum Lot Size multi-family units: Mission Hills: As approved on October 24, 1994 in the Plat of Mission Hills; Mission Hills Villas, A Condominium, Common Interest Community No. 8, 9th Supplemental filed April 10, 1996; Mission Hills Villas, A Condominium, Common Interest Community No. 8, 10th Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2017-07 April 18, 2017 Page 28 of 36 Supplemental filed April 10, 1996; Mission Hills Villas, A Condominium, Common Interest Community No. 8, l 1 t Supplemental filed May 7, 1996; and Mission Hills Villas, A Condominium, Common Interest Community No. 8, 12th Supplemental filed May 20, 1996; Mission Hills 2"d Addition: Area: 2,100 square feet Width: 46 feet Depth: 47 feet Mission Hills 3rd Addition: Area: 376,358.4 square feet Width: 480 feet Depth: 620 feet Net Lot Hard Surface BLOCK USE Area Density Coverage Outlet Commercial 7.72 acres Mission Hills 3rd 152 Multi-Family Addition Units/Child Daycare 8.64 acres 17.5 50% Center Block 1, Mission Hills 138 Multi-Family 18 acres 7.66 37% Units Block 4, Mission Hills 56 Multi-Family Units 8.92 acres 6.28 43.2% GOMMERGIAL - • . - . 4. Concrete may be poured in place, tilt up or pre cast, and shall be finished in stone, textured or coated. 5. Metal standing seam siding will not be approved except as support material to one of the 6. All accessor . • - • . - • - -• •. - • - -- • - 8. All buildings on the Outlot shall have a pitched roof line. Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2017-07 April 18, 2017 Page 29 of 36 RESIDENTIAL 1. Building exterior material shall be a combination of prepainted 5-inch aluminum siding and brick. 2. Arched transoms and soffit returns shall be used over the entries of the one-story units and horizontal transom windows over the 2 story windows. Introduce some variation among the buildings through the shape of windows, adding louvers, shifting entry ways, and adding dormers. 3. Colors used shall be earth tones such as soft gray, creamy white,pearl gray, shell white, etc.). 4. Each unit shall have a minimum of one overstory tree within its front yard. 5. All units shall have access onto an interior street and not 86th Street. 6. The apartment building located on Lot 1, Block 1, Mission Hills 3r`' Addition shall: a. Have pronounced entrance. b. Insure that all foundation walls are screened by landscaping or retaining walls. c. Have materials which include masonry, painted siding, and exterior finish and Fnsulation system(E.I.F.S.) and the structures will have sloped shingle roofs. All jelevations that can be viewed by the public have received equal attention. e. Site Landscaping and Screening The planting plans prepared for the site are intended to create a strong sense of street tree plantings using overstory deciduous trees such as Summit Ash, Linden, and Sugar Maple. Highways 101 and 212 will be buffered with a combination of overstory evergreen trees and ornamental deciduous trees. The outdoor private living areas will be buffered with the use of evergreen trees. The wetland will be highlighted with the introduction of native wetland species. In addition, to adhere to the higher quality of development as spelled out in the PUD zone, all loading areas shall be screened. Each lot for development shall submit a separate landscaping plan as a part of the site plan review process. Berms of 2 to 3 feet high shall be added along the Highway 101 and 212 right-of-way. These berms shall be seeded and/or sodded and bushes and trees shall be planted on them. All disturbed areas within the single family lots shall be seeded and/or sodded. Two trees with a minimum of a 21/2 inch caliper shall be planted within the front yard setback. These two trees shall consist of one overstory evergreen tree and one ornamental deciduous tree. 1. All open spaces and non-parking lot surfaces (outlot) shall be landscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material. 2. Outdoor storage is prohibited. Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2017-07 April 18,2017 Page 30 of 36 3. Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways. Wing wall may be required where deemed appropriate. 4. The Outlot shall be seeded and maintained in a weed free condition in all areas proposed for future development. f. Signage COMMERCIAL One monument sign along Great Plains Boulevard shall be permitted for Lot 1, Block 1, Mission Hills 3rd Addition. shall be permitted for the outlot and one monument sign for the residential section of the PUD. 1. All businesses built within the outlot shall share one monument sign. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. 2. Wall signs are permitted on no more than two street frontages. The total of each wall mounted sign display areas shall not exceed 24 square feet. 3. All signs require a separate permit. 4. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and shall tie the building materials to be consistent with the signs. Signs shall be an architectural feature, they shall not be solely mounted on a pole of a foundation. 5. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. 6. No illuminated signs within tot 1,Block 1, Mission Hills 3rd Addition the outlot may be viewed from the residential section of the PUD. 7. Only back-lit individual letter signs are permitted. 8. Individual letters may not exceed three feet in height. 9. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the sign. RESIDENTIAL One monument identification sign shall be permitted for the residential development. The sign may not exceed 24 square feet in area and 5 feet in height. Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2017-07 April 18, 2017 Page 31 of 36 g. Lighting 1. All light fixtures shall be shielded high-pressure sodium or LED fixtures. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than one-half foot candle at the property line. This does not apply to street lighting. The maximum height of a residential street light shall not exceed 15 feet. Light fixtures within the outlot Lot 1,Block 1,Mission Hills 3rd Addition shall not exceed 25 feet. 2. Glare,whether direct or reflected, as differentiated from general illumination shall not be visible beyond the limits of the site from which it originates. 3. Lights shall be on a photoelectric cell to turn them on and off automatically as activated by yearly conditions. 4. - .. . .. - . . . -- . .. •_ . 2. SUBDIVISION "The City Council approves the preliminary plat to replat Outlot E,Mission Hills into Lot 1, Block 1, Mission Hills 3rd Addition, as shown in plans dated received March 17, 2017,including the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation, subject to the following conditions: Park and Trail Conditions 1. Full park fees in lieu of additional parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected as a condition of approval for Mission Hills Senior Living. The park fees will be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. Based upon the current residential park fee rates of$3,800 per apartment dwelling, $5,000 per twin home dwelling,and$500 per bed for continuing care units,the total park fees will be$478,000. Unit Type No. of Units Amount Total Independent Apartments 100 $3,800/unit $380,000 Assisted/Memory Care 36 $500/bed $18,000 Apartments Rental Twin Homes 16 $5,000 each $80,000 Total $478,000 Engineering Conditions: 1. The estimated Surface Water Utility fees are$125,691.69. These shall be due with the final plat. Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2017-07 April 18, 2017 Page 32 of 36 2. The applicant must prepare an operations and maintenance manual that provides for the protection and preservation of the stormwater best management practices (BMPs) to provide for the designed water quality benefit in perpetuity. 3. The applicant must enter into a maintenance agreement with the city and record that agreement against the property. 4. The applicant must dedicate public drainage and utility easements over the BMPs. Planning Conditions: 1. Approval of the subdivision request is contingent upon approval of the PUD amendment, Limited Use Permit(LUP)resolution and Site Plan application." 3. SITE PLAN APPROVAL "The City Council approves the site plan consisting of a 136-unit senior housing apartment with a childcare center and eight twin homes, Planning Case 2017-07 as shown in plans dated received March 17,2017,and including the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation, subject to the following conditions: Environmental Resource Conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan for approval. The revised plan shall meet minimum bufferyard requirements. 2. Additional planting may be required along the southern half of the east property line. 3. Park grade trees are not acceptable quality and will not meet landscape standards for the City of Chanhassen. Item#12 of the General Notes shall be deleted. 4. The applicant shall consider locating landscaping along the rain garden near the corner of 86th St W and 101 to block headlight glare from turning vehicles. Building Official Conditions: 1. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. A"Code Record"is required(Code Record schematic plans may be same scale as architectural). For"Code Record"information go to MN Dept. of Labor and Industry: http://www.dli.mn.gov/CCLD/PlanConstruction.asp 2. Buildings must be protected with automatic fire suppression systems. As required by Minnesota State Building Code and/or Minnesota State Residential Code. 3. An accessible route must be provided to all buildings,parking facilities,public transportation stops and common use facilities. Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2017-07 April 18, 2017 Page 33 of 36 4. Parking areas,including parking garages,must be provided with accessible parking spaces dispersed among the various parking areas and building entrances. 5. Accessible dwelling units must be provided in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. 6. The building owner and/or their representatives should meet with the Inspections Division to discuss plan review and permit procedures(in particular,type of construction and allowable area issues must be addressed). Fire Marshal Conditions: 1. A three-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. 2. "No Parking Fire Lane"signs and yellow painted curbing will be required. Contact Fire Marshal for specifics. 3. Street names are required for the main road entering the project and the loop road serving the twin homes. Street signs shall be installed prior to building construction. The current street names proposed on the plan are Oriole Drive and Oriole Lane. The name Oriole has already been used within the City of Chanhassen and may not be reused within this development. Alternative proposed street names must be submitted to Chanhassen Fire Marshal and Chanhassen Building Official for review and approval. 4. Fire hydrants shall be installed and made serviceable prior to combustible construction. 5. Prior to combustible construction fire apparatus access roads capable of supporting the weight of fire apparatus shall be made serviceable. 6. In lieu of a fire lane to the back side of the building, additional fire protection features shall be provided, including but not limited to Class 1 standpipes installed per Fire Department requirements. 7. Provide to Chanhassen Fire Marshal radius turn dimensions for accessing the building. The concern is the center islands for getting fire apparatus to the front doors. Engineering Conditions: 1. The low area where filtration basins#1 and#2 discharge shall be modeled or the discharge pipes shall directly tie-in to the MnDOT drainage system. 2. Plans must show the location and elevations of the Emergency Over-Flows (EOFs) on the project, specifically for Filtration Basin#1, #2, #4 and#5. 3. Plans must show the style of home for the twin homes. Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2017-07 April 18, 2017 Page 34 of 36 4. The stand-alone SWPPP document shall be submitted to the city for review with the final plat documents and will be required prior to any earth disturbing activities. 5. An NPDES construction permit must be granted to the applicant prior to any earth disturbing activities. 6. Stockpile locations shall be shown on the plans. 7. The following materials are prohibited for retaining wall construction: smooth face, poured in place concrete (stamped or patterned is acceptable),masonry,railroad ties and timber. 8. Walls taller than six feet shall not be constructed with boulder rock. 9. Any wall taller than four feet must be designed by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Minnesota. 10. If a wall is taller than six feet, a fence or other barrier would be required to provide separation from any drive or walkway within 10 feet. 11. The developer's engineer must submit documentation that the street pavement meets a 7- ton design. 12. The developer shall incorporate the recommendations from the traffic study into their plan set. 13. The parking lot aisles must be a minimum of 26 feet wide and the parking spaces must be 18 feet long. 14. Pedestrian ramps shall meet ADA requirements. 15. The applicant shall obtain a LUP for the trail connection on MnDOT right-of-way. 16. All water main and sanitary sewer main constructed in this project shall be privately owned and maintained and must meet the city's requirements for public utilities. 17. The plan shall use 2017 Chanhassen standard detail plates,which are available on the city's website. 18. This parcel has paid the city for one(1) water and sanitary service hook-up. The additional twin home units (7)must pay a water and sanitary service partial hook-up fee at the time of final plat. The remaining hook-up fees would be paid with the building permit. 19. The hook-up fees for the main building are due with the building permit. 20. All work within the MnDOT right-of-way must be approved by MnDOT. Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2017-07 April 18,2017 Page 35 of 36 21. This site will need to be compliant with the City of Chanhassen's MS4 permit. 22. The applicant's engineer will continue to work with the Watershed District to update their permit and meet requirements. 23. City staff will evaluate the design based on the requirements above until the city receives confirmation from the Watershed District that this project will be evaluated under a different requirement. The annual reduction by the proposed BMPs (Best Management Practices) are 67%removal for TSS and 60%removal for TP. This does not meet the requirements for TSS, so the design must be revised. The current design removes only 20%of the required 1.1" of impervious run-off volume. The design must be revised to meet the 1.1"volume removal. 24. The applicant shall evaluate the practicality of implementing, to the"maximum extent practicable,"volume reducing practices including re-use. 25. The P8 model submitted shows an anticipated infiltration rate of 1.0"/hour, this is contrary to the MN Stormwater Manual's estimation for Type D soils: 0.06"/hour and shall be revised. 26. The construction plans shall include filtration basin cross sections and call out information about the iron filings. 27. The infiltrometer testing results for each basin shall be submitted to the city to verify the infiltration rate prior to release of the security for the filtration basins. 28. Pretreatment shall be provided for all filtration basins accepting water from driving and parking surfaces. 29. In areas where storm water is directed to the basin through a catch basin, a sump manhole, at least three feet in depth should be used, four feet is recommended. 30. The plans shall label the sump catchbasins. 31. The proposed BMPs will be privately owned. 32. Erosion control blanket shall include the swales in their entirety. 33. The design of the stormwater BMPs shall follow the guidelines of the MN Stormwater Manual unless the City Engineer agrees to a deviation for those guidelines. 34. A planting plan for the filtration features will be required before recording the final plat. 35. Staff strongly recommends using plantings rather than seed, as seed can take up to three growing seasons to establish. The city will not release security until the vegetation is established. Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2017-07 April 18,2017 Page 36 of 36 36. It is the applicant's responsibility to assure that permits are received from all other agencies with jurisdiction over the project. Planning Conditions: 1. The applicant shall work with staff to improve the screening of the southwesterly portion of the site through the use of berming and landscaping. 2. All rooftop and ground equipment must be screened from views. 3. The site is permitted one monument sign facing Great Plains Boulevard. Sign illumination and design shall comply with ordinance. 4. Approval of the Site Plan application is contingent upon approval of the PUD amendment, Limited Use Permit(LUP)resolution and Final Plat Approval." 4. LIMITED USE PERMIT RESOLUTION: "The City Council approves the Limited Use Permit(LUP)resolution with MnDOT for a trail connection that requires grading within Highway 101 right-of-way with the following conditions: 1. Approval of the Limited Use Permit(LUP) is contingent upon approval of the PUD amendment, Site Plan Permit and Final Plat Approval." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Application and Project Narrative. 3. Mission Hills PUD Ordinance. 4. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing. 5. Traffic Study dated July 14, 2016. 6. Letter from MnDOT dated April 6, 2017. 7. Letter from Carver County dated April 6, 2017. 8. Neighborhood Meeting Letter dated April 4, 2017. 9. Letter from Karla Thomsen dated October 28, 2014. 10. Letter from David Nickolay dated December 5, 2014. 11. Reduced plans dated received March 17, 2017. 12. Letter from Karla Thomsen dated April 13, 2017. 13. Email from MnDOT from Cameron Muhic regarding LUP 14. Resolution for a Limited Use Permit with MnDOT for a trail connection. G:\PLAN\2017 Planning Cases\17-07 Mission Hills Senior Living\Staff report 2017 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of Mission Hills Senior Living for the following: 1. Planned Unit Development Amendment to the existing standards—Mission Hills. 2. Preliminary Plat to replat 8.64 acres into one lot—Mission Hills 3'd Addition. 3. Site Plan Review for the construction of a 136-unit Senior Housing Facility with a Child Daycare Center and 8 Twin Homes—Mission Hills Senior Living. On April 18, 2017, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Mission Hills Senior Living for a Planned Unit Development Amendment, Preliminary Plat and Site Plan review(Planning Case 2017-07). The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed subdivision preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Planned Unit Development-Mixed Use, PUD-Mixed Use. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Mixed Use. 3. The legal description of the property is shown on the attached Exhibit A. 4. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6)possible adverse effects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) effects 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. 1 e) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. f) Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. 5. The Subdivision Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider seven possible adverse affects of the proposed subdivision. The seven(7) affects and our findings regarding them are: a) The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance. b) The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; c) 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; d) The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; e) The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; f) The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. g) The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: 1. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. 2. Lack of adequate roads. 3. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. 4. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. 6. In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the following: a) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted. b) Consistency with this division. c) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing areas. 2 d) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development. e) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: 1. 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. 2. The amount and location of open space and landscaping. 3. 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. 4. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. f) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers,preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. 7. The planning report#2017-07, dated April 18, 2017,prepared by Sharmeen Al-Jaff, et al, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development Amendment to the Mission Hills PUD, Preliminary Plat for Mission Hills 3`d Addition, and Site Plan for Mission Hills Senior Living. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 18th day of April, 2017. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY: Its Chairman 3 Al-Jaff, Sharmeen From: Muhic, P Cameron (DOT) <cameron.muhic@state.mn.us> Sent: Wednesday,April 26, 2017 11:14 AM To: Al-Jaff, Sharmeen Cc: Sherman, Tod (DOT); Corbett, Michael J (DOT); Scheffing, Karen (DOT); Phelps, Daniel (DOT);Jacobson, Nancy(DOT) Subject: Follow up to Review on S17-022 Mission Hills Senior Living Attachments: LUP_Sample_Resolution.docx Sharmeen Al-Jaff City of Chanhassen PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 SUBJECT: Mission Hills Senior Living MnDOT Review# S17-022 NE Quadrant of MN 101 (Great Plaines Blvd.) and US 212 Chanhassen, Carver County Dear Ms. Al-Jaff: This is in regards to the sidewalk connection requested in the site plan for the Mission Hills Senior Living development. You may remember that because the sidewalk/trail would be crossing into an area where MnDOT owns access control we were doing additional research into the requirements for the permits required. Dan Phelps, of MnDOT's Right-of-Way Department, says that he will need two Certified City Council resolutions similar to the Sample attached. He says he's worked with Todd Hoffman from the City of Chanhassen to get this in the past. Since the plans for the Application for Development have been reviewed by the functional units, we should not require a review of this LUP, so once we receive the two original certified city resolutions, he will be able assemble the documents for signatures. As a reminder-the following ADA requirements will apply to the sidewalk connection. ADA Statement: Curb ramps, sidewalks, trails,paths and transit stops or any other transportation facility must be compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA)requirements. Facilities on MnDOT right of way are required to meet MNDOT standards. Design requirements for MnDOT right of way can be found here http://www.dot.state.mn.us/ada/design.html. See also the U. S. Department of Justice web site: https://www.ada.gov/2010ADAstandards_index.htm Please contact Kristie Billiar, ADA Unit, at 651-366- 3174,if you have any questions regarding ADA thresholds or requirements. We also received an additional review in regards to this particular requirement. Nancy Jacobson of MnDOT's Metro Design department commented that she could not read the detail 3/C300, Bituminous path. Just to be clear the cross slope on all sidewalks/trails can be no greater than 2%. To ensure the construction of the path meets ADA requirements, she recommends that the construction plans cross slope does not exceed 1.5%. That way any minor variations in cross slope should remain within ADA requirements. 1 If you have any questions concerning this review, please contact me at (651) 234-7797. Sincerely, Cameron Muhic Senior Planner- Multimodal Planning MnDOT Metro District 651-234-7797 Cameron.Muhic@state.mn.us Copy sent via E-Mail: Nancy Jacobson, Design Dan Phelps, Right-of-Way 2 RESOLUTION NO CITY OF / row COUNTY LIMITED USE PERMIT WITH THE STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR A PEDESTRIAN TRAIL IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF TRUNK HIGHWAY AT WHEREAS , 1111.1M7 / the City of is a political subdivision, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota;and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of / has approved a plan to construct a pedestrian trail in the right-of way of Trunk Highway to promote the orderly and safe crossing of the highway; and, WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation requires a Limited Use Permit for the construction and utilization of said pedestrian trail. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of t,un. Boar hereby enters into a Limited Use Permit with the State of Minnesota,Department of Transportation for the following purposes: To construct, operate and maintain a pedestrian trail within the right- of- way of Trunk Highway_ (TH =_) of the State of Minnesota along . ounty/ The City of shall construct, operate and maintain said trail in accordance with the Limited Use Permit granted by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the [Officer title ]_ and the [Officer title ]_ are authorized to execute the Limited Use Permit and any amendments to the Permit. CERTIFICATION I certify that the above Resolution is an accurate copy of the Resolution adopted by the Board of Commissioners of County/ City Council of the City of at an authorized meeting held on the day of ,20 , as shown by the minutes of the meeting in my possession. Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of ,20_ (Signature) Notary Public (Type or Print Name) My Commission Expires (Title) NOTARY STAMP April 13, 2017 Sharmeen Al-Jaff Dear Ms. Al-Jaff: This letter is to request that the Mission Hills Garden Homeowners' Association, representing fifty-six homes on the west side of West 86th Street, submit the following recommendations to the Planning Commission concerning the proposed development at 8600 Great Plains Boulevard. We request that copies of this letter be provided to the Commission prior to or at the public hearing on April 18, 2017. First, we fully support this type of development on this property and see it as an asset to our area of Chanhassen. Many of our senior homeowners will probably utilize the services offered at this new development. Our concerns are as follows: -That the median on West 86th Street be removed and redesigned -That the speed limit on Highway 101 and 86th St. be reduced to 35 MPH -That the traffic flowing out of the proposed development at night does not cast car lights into our homes Please take these concerns into consideration as plans are reviewed and this project is approved. Respectfully Submitted, Karla Thomson, President Mission Hills Garden Homeowner's Association CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: May 8, 2017 RESOLUTION NO: 2017-XX MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING LIMITED-USE PERMIT WITH THE STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR NON-MOTORIZED RECREATIONAL TRAIL IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF TRUNK HIGHWAY 101 NORTH OF HIGHWAY 212 WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Chanhassen is the official governing body of the City of Chanhassen; and WHEREAS,the City of Chanhassen desires to construct a non-motorized recreational trail connection within MnDOT's Highway 101 right-of-way as a condition of the Mission Hills Senior Living Development; and WHEREAS, this non-motorized recreational trail will connect with an existing pedestrian sidewalk to promote the orderly and safe crossing of the highway; and WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota Department of Transportation requires a limited-use peiniit for all non-motorized recreational trails constructed within their right-of-way. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Council of the City of Chanhassen do authorize the approval of a limited-use permit for the construction, maintenance and operation of a non-motorized recreational trail within the right-of-way of Trunk Highway 101. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute the Limited Use Permit and any amendments to the Pen-nit. Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 8th day of May, 2017. ATTEST: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Denny Laufenburger, Mayor YES NO ABSENT