Loading...
CAS-01_MISSION HILLS SENIOR LIVING - 8600 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD FILE 1 OF 2 REZ/SUB/SITE (2)i 0 1 s- o SRa,c_ TRANSMITTAL To: Sharmeen AI-Jaff of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 FROM: Eric A. Reiners, AIA PROJECT NAME: Mission Hills Senior Housing PROJECT NO: 14-040 DATE: 1/29/2014 The items below are transmitted CITY 21ItlFIDEDa�N Jk w 015 Ct1Ar; ,_._� 4200 W. Old Shakopee Rd. #220 Bloomington, MN 55437 (952) 996,9662 (952) 996.9663 - fax FOR YOUR INFORMATION VIA: MAILr FOR YOUR REVIEW MESSENGERO FOR YOUR APPROVAL ❑ PERSONAL DELIVERYO FOR YOUR USE �X PICK-UP�� FOR YOUR RECORDS UPS -NEXT DAYO AS REQUESTED El DESCRIPTION: QTY. DATE ITEM DESCRIPTION 1 1/29/2014 Transmittal 1 1/29/2014 CD with digital version of revised drawings 6 1/29/2014 Revised Architectural Drawings 6 1/29/2014 Revised Civil Drawings 6 1/29/2014 Revised HydroCAD reports 6 1/29/2014 11x17 color version of the revsied drawing package COMMENTS: CITy0FF CIVEHp BEN CC: Mike Hoagberg & Greg Zoidis - Headwaters Development Susan Farr & Jill Nokleby Kaiser - Ebenezer JAN 2 9 2015 Jeff Engelsma - Engelsma Construction SCANNED cMANHA&%NPLANNIN09FPT PROJECT NARRATIVE Mission Hills Senior Living Hwy 101 and 212, Chanhassen, Minnesota Project Team: Owner/Developer Headwaters Development 17550 Hemlock Avenue Lakeville, MN 55044 Contact: Michael Hoagberg, Managing Member Phone: 952-378-4386 Email: mhoagberP@CH-HoldinesLLC.com Facility Operator Ebenezer 2722 Park Ave. South Minneapolis, MN 55407 Contact: Susan Farr Phone: 612-874-3460 Structural Engineer BKBM Engineers 5930 Brooklyn Blvd. Minneapolis, MN 55429 Contact: Tina Wyffles Phone: 763-843-0420 General Contractor Engelsma Construction, Inc. 7119 31" Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55427 Contact: Jeff Engelsma Phone: 763-536-9200 cITyOFCHANHAS�EI RECFICEC, JAN 2 9 2015 C HANHP %EN PLANNING DEPT Design Lead / Architecture Sperides Reiners Architects, Inc. 4200 West Old Shakopee Road Bloomington, MN 55437 Contact: Eric A. Reiners, AIA Phone: 952-996-9662 email: ereiners@srarchitectsinc.com Civil Engineer BKBM Engineers 5930 Brooklyn Blvd. Minneapolis, MN 55429 Contact: Keith Matte, PE Phone: 763-843-0464 Surveyor Sunde Land Surveying 9001 East Bloomington Freeway Ste. 118 Bloomington, MN S5420 Contact: Lenny Carlson, PLS Phone: 952-881-2455 Traffic Engineer SRF Consulting Group, Inc. One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150 Minneapolis, MN 55447-4443 Contact: Jordan Schwarze, PE Phone: 763-452-4787 SCANNED PROJECT SITE DATA Parcel Basics The existing site is currently an undeveloped, 8.64 acre parcel identified as Mission Hills Outlot E. The property is bounded by Trunk Highway 101 to the west, Trunk Highway 212 to the south, 86`h Street West on the north, and Mission Hills Outlot B with previously developed townhomes to the east. Project Land Use Data The project site falls under the Chanhassen Mixed -Use guiding (Commercial/Residential), and the Mission Hills PUD Neighborhood Commercial zoning. Highway 101/212/Lyman Boulevard Neighborhood Land Use Study completed and published by the City of Chanhassen Planning Staff on October 28, 2008, specifically identified this project parcel as a desirable candidate for senior housing. The property does not fall within any shore land, highway, or other special overlay districts. Under the permitted residential land use for the parcel, residential density calculations as provided by Planning Staff, is comprised of 16 allowable residential units per acre across the 7.72 net site acres (123.5 units), plus 33 total residential units of un-used unit density from the original Mission Hills PUD development. The result is a total allowable zoned site density of 156 residential units. Mission Hills PUD does not specifically govern parking, hardcover, setbacks or building heights and these components of the proposed development will be guided by the city's underlying district guidelines. City ordinance requires 1 parking space for each independent living unit, one parking space for every three assisted living units, plus parking for visitors and staff. Refer to the matrix below for a parking summary illustrating required and provided parking. Parking Required Provided Independent Living Unit 1 per townhouse unit = 18 18 1 per apartment unit = 66 66 Assisted Living Unit 1 for every 3 assisted unit = 23 23 Staff (maximum shift) 1 per employee = 24 24 Guests & Visitors 38 TOTAL PARKING 131+Visitors 169 The site will have a total of 55 surface parking spaces for staff and visitors. This is comprised of 44 spaces directly in front of the main building, and 11 spaces for town home guests. The main building will also have 96 underground parking spaces, and the town home villas will have 18 individual garage stalls bringing the site total to 169 parking spaces. In addition, the driveways leading to each of the town homes has been planned with a minimum length of twenty feet to accommodate additional parking directly in front of each unit if required. Since most of our residents are not expected to drive, we expect many of our employees will park under the main building which will leave surface spaces for visiting friends and relatives. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT DATA Program The site will be developed and finished to accommodate a 134-unit, senior housing structure whose primary focus will be to provide independent living, assisted living and memory care apartments to senior citizens together with a full continuum of care allowing the residents to comfortably age in place, while supported by the full range of additional services provided by Ebenezer, the facility operator. Additionally, the site will contain nine (9) twin homes, adding eighteen more independent living units to the development. These single story twin homes will be located on the north end of the site and closest to the site entrance and West Be Street. Total planned residential units on site will be 152. The site will also include a series of amenities for the residents as well. These amenities include patios, gardens, and walking paths. The walking paths will also connect to the central site circulation as well as the public sidewalk along west Be Street that was developed as a part of the original Mission Hills development P.U.D. site The existing site is currently undeveloped, roughly graded for agricultural use, and contains only volunteer vegetation with the exception of its boundarywith the town home property to the east, which is densely planted. Many of the mature volunteer trees along the east and north boundaries of the site will be preserved as a part of the final development plan. Under this development plan, however, the site will be re -graded to accommodate the planned building and necessary infrastructure and construction. Impervious surface coverage for this site was not redefined in the original P.U.D. and thus, the city ordinance for this development type will govern, limiting hardcover to 50% and requiring a minimum of 50% green space. As illustrated in the summary matrix below and the summary tables on the Civil Engineering sheets in the submittal set, the green space requirement is met. Developed property area: 376,546 SF 8.644 Acres Building footprints: 81,255 SF 1.865 Acres Total impervious surface area: 175,111 SF 4.02 Acres 46.50% of Site Total green surface area: 201,435 SF 4.62 Acres 53.50% of Site Engineering and Utilities Project civil engineers, BKBM Engineers, together with city engineering staff have worked closely in preliminary stages to accommodate and properly configure the building development, site coverage and storm water management, as well as the requisite utility connections. Storm water management plan, including collection, treatment, infiltration, rate control and discharge are fully explained and detailed within the submittal drawings. Buildina Design The main building will be a combination three and four-story wood frame structure over a concrete and precast basement — a structural configuration and height implemented elsewhere in Chanhassen at developments such as SummerWood of Chanhassen located just north of this proposed development site. The basement level will house utility, storage and inside parking functions for the structure. The ground floor will welcome residents and visitors through the main entrance with a covered drop-off, house most of the buildings public spaces including commercial kitchen and dining rooms, and connection to the rest of the development amenities. Ground floor will also encompass the primary health care functions, guest suite, a closed 14-suite memory care wing, and twenty-three (23) of the 120 independent and assisted living apartment units will be on the first level. Levels two and three will contain another seventy-five (75) resident apartments varying in size from 514 SF studios to 1,224 SF, two -bedroom, two -bath residences. Selected residences are provided with balconies and other unit amenities. Each floor also contains spaces for health care attendants, and common area functions such as laundry (to supplement washer/ dryers available in most units). Level four will house the final twenty-two (22) residential units. Once again, a cross-section of larger units are provided with balconies to take advantage of wonderful views over the surrounding areas. The fourth level also provides additional resident common areas such as a 20-seat theater, as well as a library that overlooks the entire site, and out toward Lake Susan to the northwest. Exterior building materials will be masonry and painted siding, and the structure will have sloped shingle roofs. Gutters and downspouts will discharge on grade and into catch basins that will flow through storm water treatment areas — on grade and/or below grade — prior to exiting the site. Once again, storm water management plan, including collection, treatment, infiltration, rate control and discharge are fully explained and detailed within the submittal civil drawings. The twin home villas will capture some of the details from the main building creating an aesthetic synthesis of building components across the site, and each individual independent twin home will contain approximately 1,186 finished square feet, plus the single inside garage stall. Miscellaneous Building Components Mechanical screening as required by city ordinance is very limited as most of the mechanical systems are contained within the structure. Limited screening, where required, will be achieved by roof screens designed to coordinate with the building architecture. Site trash enclosure is not illustrated in the development plan and will not be used. Interior trash rooms are utilized in the facility plan, dumpsters will be rolled out on collection days, and back inside to trash rooms following pick up. Site deliveries, move-in/move-out, and building service including trash collection are all achieved on the southwest corner of the building and site at the building's lower level. This service entry point and its access drive are the most remote from neighboring residents and away from all neighborhood traffic and views. Neighborhood Meeting An open neighborhood meeting was held the evening of November 24, 2014 to introduce the project to area residents, summarize the development parameters, review preliminary designs and project images, and answer questions. The development team also wanted to be able to address any concerns the neighboring residents had within the content of the final submittal to the City of Chanhassen. r The meeting lasted 90 minutes and was well attended by approximately 30 area residents, 17 of whom signed in and left contact information. During the meeting, following the project introduction, the development team answered a variety of questions regarding facility design and operational details, development offerings, proposed development schedule, and rental rates. Feedback by meeting attendees was overwhelmingly positive. One reoccurring concern was voiced by a number of meeting attendees, but not about the Mission Hills Senior Living development. Rather, neighbors are unhappy with the traffic levels and lack of traffic control or a crosswalk at the intersection of West W" Street and Highway 101. There was also repeated concern regarding the configuration and construction of the existing median in the middle of West 80" Street as it meets Highway 101. The development team relayed the fact to those in attendance, that a traffic study had been completed in conjunction with the planning of Mission Hills Senior Living and that ultimately, the disposition of the intersection of West 86t' Street and Highway 101 would be guided by the recommendations contained in the traffic analysis, together with mandates prepared by city and county engineers. Traffic Study A traffic study was completed by SRF Consulting Group, Inc. The main objectives of this study were to review existing operations within the study area, evaluate the traffic impacts to the adjacent roadway network, and recommend any necessary improvements to accommodate the proposed development. Furthermore, this study also provided a comparison between the traffic impacts associated with the proposed development, and those associated with the maximum potential traffic demand under the proposed zoning, which is assumed to be market rate apartments. Results of the year 2017 build intersection capacity analysis indicate that all study intersections are expected to continue operating at an acceptable range or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. In addition, no significant side -street delays or queuing issues were observed in the traffic simulation at the study intersections. Given the minimal anticipated impact caused by the proposed development on study area traffic operations, roadway improvements are not required under year 2017 build conditions from a traffic operations perspective. An alternative land use scenario was also reviewed to understand the impacts of the highest intensity use allowed under the proposed zoning, which was assumed to be market rate apartments. Approximately 175 apartment units were assumed, which would be expected to generate approximately 89 a.m. peak hour, 109 p.m. peak hour, and 1,164 daily trips. Even under this scenario, results of the year 2017 build intersection capacity analysis indicate that all study intersections are expected to continue operating within an acceptable range or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours under the alternate development scenario. In addition, once again under this heightened use scenario, no significant side -street delays or queuing issues were observed in the traffic simulation at the study intersections. Given the minimal anticipated impact caused by the alternate development on study area traffic operations, roadway improvements would not be required under year 2017 build conditions from a traffic operations perspective. FACILITY OPERATIONS Ebenezer- Proposed Operator The proposed operator of our senior housing community is Ebenezer which is an affiliate of the Fairview Health System. This affiliation with Fairview provides substantial programmatic support and care options for community residents. We expect rapid change in senior care over the next 5 — 10 years as senior housing continues to evolve from a focus on simply housing and hospitality to a more integrated delivery of medical and social care. We believe Ebenezer will be our best option to provide high quality care alternatives for our residents. Ebenezer currently operates our 115-unit senior housing community in Saint Louis Park (Towerlight on Wooddale) and is the proposed operator for the 137-unit senior housing community we are building in Eagan which recently received final city approvals. Ebenezer is the second largest provider of senior living in Minnesota, and had $72.7 million of total operating revenue in 2013. Ebenezer operates 60 communities and manages more than 5,000 units throughout its portfolio in Minnesota. The portfolio includes Independent Living Communities, Assisted Living Communities, Memory Care Communities, Skilled Nursing Facilities, Transitional Care Centers, Adult Day Programs, and Child Care Programs. For more than 90 years, Ebenezer has helped older adults make their lives more independent, healthful, meaningful and secure by creating opportunities for residents to live vibrantly, and participate in the daily fabric of life. Public Benefits of Senior Housina The proposed senior community will benefit the public by providing senior housing for the area so that seniors who have spent their lives in Chanhassen and the surrounding communities remain in the area. Many local seniors will be attracted by the health benefits of a senior housing community as an attractive alternative to the isolation of living alone and the burden of maintaining a home. The proposed facility will help to meet the current housing needs of seniors in the immediate area (several neighbors are on senior housing waiting lists), while also helping to meet the anticipated needs of unmet demand in the near future as projected by a recent independent market study. Senior Living is a great community partner— not only creating a place where people come to volunteer, but also housing people who are interested in contributing back to their surrounding community. Senior Housing residents participate in local churches, volunteer opportunities, and engage in the greater community. Senior Housing, and specifically the programs and activities promoted by Ebenezer, also support local economic development since seniors typically prefer to shop in their familiar community. In addition, Ebenezer brings stable, high quality jobs to the communities in which they operate. There is also no better neighbor than a senior citizen. They are light on the land, streets and park systems, yet senior communities create significant tax base without burdening infrastructure and school systems. Ebenezer prefers larger senior housing communities like the proposed Mission Hills Senior Living since operational efficiencies are gained through larger senior housing developments when compared to smaller ones. Some of the operating benefits of a larger building are listed below: A larger facility can afford to offer a broader range of healthcare services, options, and amenities to Chanhassen seniors while limiting disruptive moves from one facility to another for additional care. ii. Creating a larger pool of care staff helps to support stable services for our residents. More hours of care and therefore staffing can be offered to provide more consistent employment, rather than a lot of part-time positions that are more difficult to fill with qualified care givers. This is expected to be increasingly important if the current shortage of qualified nurses continues, as we expect, as our population ages. iii. A larger building allows for more competitive wages and benefits at all levels of staff which typically translates to better care for our residents. iv. A larger facility offers more apartment options, which reduces the chance that families have to split up (i.e. one spouse needs Memory Care and the other can live in an Independent Unit, all under one roof) Additionally, this type of project also provides the public benefit of encouraging a turnover of single family housing in the area. When seniors move into these communities, neighborhoods typically experience younger families moving into the formerly senior owned housing stock which helps to revitalize these neighborhoods. Finally, in addition to construction jobs, Mission Hills Senior Living is expected to employ many people on site as care is provided to our residents 24 hours a day. The building is projected to employ over 50 individuals (FTEs) in a combination of full and part time positions. 0 0 0 MISSION HILLS SENIOR LIVING HWY 101 AND 86TH STREET WEST FFc=II,ED jE'\ CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA JAN 29 2015 C H MMF SSEk PIPMNING DFr'i PROJECT TEAM OWNER: HEADWATERS DEVELOPMENT 17550 HEMLOCK AVETBE LAKEALLE, FN 550" CONTACT: MIKE HDACOERS PHONE: (952)376-4386 EMAIL: MHOAGBER.'e3CH-HOLDw-6LLC.CCT1 CONTRACTOR: ENGELSMA CONSTRNCTION, MC _ 7119 31ST AVENUE NORTH MHEAPOLIS, M4 55427 CONTACT: JEW Drua-AMA PHONE: (163)536-9200 .ARCHITECT: SPERIDE5 RMNMS ARCHITECTS, NC. _ 4200 UF6T OLD SHAKOPEE ROAD SUITE 220 BLOOMNGTON M15543T CONTACT: PHONE: (952)956-9662 FAX: (952) 9%-%63 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: BK5M EWaINEERS 59429 5ROOKLTN BLVD. MMEAPOLIS, M15542% CONTACT: TNA WTFFLES PNONE:(763)843-0420 CIvIL EN6NEER: BKEM ENGINEERS 59429 5ROOKLYN BLVD. - - MMIEAPOLIS, MN 55429, CONTACT: MITH MATTE. PE. PHONE: (763)843-0464 SURVEYOR: SUNDE LAND SURVEYING SW Mt 5LOOMNGTON F1 SUITE •110 5LOOMNGTOK N74 55420 CONTACT: LENNT C6j2LSCT1 PHONE:(952 WI-2455 TRAFFIC ENGNEER: 51a: CONSULTANT GROUP, INC ONE CAMSON PARI=T NORTH SUITE $150 MRIIEAPOLIS, I-N 55447 CONTACT: JOR DAN SCVYOARZE, PE PHONE: (763) 452-4T87 LOCATION MAP KEY MAP i O t d rp4w dftw< Pmtl xaa.nw. err SHEET INDEX m.r , WA &r elF.Er ARCHITECMAL: YI IIIE ftR(&lE flN1 CEfN5 3 Afblleert sral of WT a.) WGILa£ftat W'LaL1ttM GEtMLSdM . RWEp1E A eanw.>Fn aanro arm ao Plaaw oercLs d.0 IX198'-R BIILGK 6fV4iWM d.l IXfFFI'Ft pLLCN' EIEYAtpW d.l bG1E L£�FILRFT MY£5 dd.3 NNgE ID 511E G£l4rti w WFD A W1A GF9GI LPlgB d d d d d d � a Z_ zocEi '09 J boy Lij cn Q O J T Z � Z W O �w (5n O Iwa wlr uz ous o®mr: u A0.0 SCANNEC r� U TRUNK Hx;wAYNO. m uMISSION HILLS 6ENIOR LIYMG SITE PLAN i ass (RETAINING WALL DETAIL � w. re mills FLAGPOLE BASE SECTION 3 .�„ ,.• . (BOLLARD DETAIL Y K.Yl:.P • 1'� STF&ET NAMES= GENERAL SITE PLAN NOTES: urE uo.n.e x..n.rol`'�.vvsnr vcu�wm��`iw ravusmuow.e ro.awvxx cs �l®.rc�.awiola n.se.. y xipD�exr' orp6cX 4 IIWKT �.IW G�.Bro MCdWA NMO.) o.e.� elw `erezr e BITE PLAN KEYED NOTES: Os.we.r+naos.Mmeewas...nw �wn �wou•rm vmeew ..�.rmene�mu wui ©1e��a w � uwrcM�`uaee� ®a m ��wn`raa+c w°�`..owro.�v `mup°un. �mro o �.. Omae `cm '�'nm""' .°.'ama vaaeauw.. p wau, .o rmw un ww.es-a w n INTERNATIONAL SYMBOL OF ACCESSIBILITY J .f.YI:I N'•I'4 6a.waun u rye LM HANDICAP PARKIW3 SIGNAGE U �o Z z�ai a -� Novi � 0.zz U Z w�/•� N W o J N Z Z O N �x .91E MMI . SITE RM DETAILS O AM E /MONUMENT SIGN SECTIONS U �c.ue. �.•. rs• (1 ENLAFd3ED MONUMENT SIGN PLAN `J euus: yr - re y To MONUMENT SIGN ELEVATIONS MONUMENT SIGN DETAILS PATIO GARDEN FENCE DETAILS A1.2 �MEMORI' CAf� PAilO FENCE COLUMNS MEMORY CAS PA710 FENCE AND CALUMN ELEVATIONS 40 TRUNK HUHWAYNO. 212 EMISSION HILLS SENIOR LIVMG SITE PLAN wom PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS' ��simorwxazm..°"aw'w.`udM: maroe.•a.`I°K"`�le.� �wme'. Wrf+n wl@N.YYuro'etm,�iar'Wncucr r 1¢MM1.R1v rIMtd411Qm e,W�xN�dem oS6oYx®®. M1MISn i,M:4 alP tbedbLLl.M41W dM w°�Ii4°�w'mmmbir".x�bm�aa""e.ol"w"s "smm we.ab'�m LYLL 41M.Nal. W1P®lext [Y4a MIRfIHYu MpWr.[Wx MPW PPW,x� SPMYIL®@ivdRR• PLANTING NOTES: ra..ew xM nos cassn•oraesnuw.sr IApWR bPTYiIY"AMbDM'®�M�M1iT®TK voia+Wm4 Mlva�oxe.bE�WPIw�"Ibu Arun wx�as�w K..renws°'a uiswm"N0s' �rnbil A.°En4. ` •mod "ro,m •. 4 M+e m s .e+.um s ra. Msnw xaus ' o'"ia's`. w�rr""r.nwvu'd�w�""mnwm+na.'R n°s `iw xW. xP s'v,rm xmx w as�.ren•xx. ew,m.•a+.xu. W.a •r.®.xsl®w.xPocP®w.us s. mxuu se, um..wwswMcwrm.oavu w�Y more® a ®4 jrr Ka.®asAssl4mwvWMawrxo® mxmMxy. b. IM.114 MM m! W C.IMIi W.4PlbYeYb¢bbKeet LANDSCAPE PLAN GENERAL NOTE5: 4Plemre Melwl«.. "� xts enlw xa a�a.wu Ir bwb r•.rs.lc raxa d 4Q.cKe ' eWPMoxebdwl. M.wuzriolc+®wo P.m u.e,llolmw slw♦wsemeo. s. ' ieu"♦"oiw.'n ".m a*m"".:ex`mn<'we ®muuv.c'"s°+rnr�mo°4�P 6.4x M.OM1utll.Tvl 1. 4 Y"LL TM1�urvM48�BmMPM M6x'J,: P•tlID x." bliw m0]C OEB'd Y! W.rvA16 x/oxrlB� V.xmGwR 41ePWRIF ePedf[W wxlWxR P4119L. M*M1FO T [dmKx.R W"L I,anRadmT'IW60fRR KOG2P♦�IM¢ wTY..cvYnwam' Y6.mOWd- P41KP1R I .a�nMn �Ibexneremueoniew saa:xww,E d`�'a az� Wm�v,�.mbdros.oambw n. sroioe vax ,We+u.ubluzlsmer u..4mla a. �w loam d uoy.e,u. I [xOMi.IBM.4W®MeRRAR NedMY! AmYT[ tMGN"iR•MM. WPM1xAMe1MR6KR.n. I.. MRwnICRxiW°mMIP411BLNN®IAlOd1d4d4 VGCfMO Pl,. rfWBru W4. RB.NNWRv4.AQIdIR410 Pli[wHRl4GOra Mx141eYRdIq.Y2M.LLPt4ppOx®- IRRIGATION NOTE5= I IKK1RldMY.lo, W"l s Ir•Pwtme�PNW.i'a d.Pe MIip6"T6F UMu ff Rv96�'E CWB+FA',+ o[4f0G6 ✓M bx6•ExTM.4 xw Yu �.x..,wv�d�,xiy,.r ',K,�.�.oa.,bam°"me...♦Ad♦...o.i•wos,.�ueu.�.Wwre.r...u. wma rrlxlmbaaA. ernaxF �* PMw=". coo. I PLANT SCFEDULE DECIDUOUS TREES e Ilebe oMMxM I4XI4 BI46 :w w 161. row. ... mo d. swW ele. CONIFERR US TEES Iixxi. IbMY rx.s wr e.�rx.... .rusrMsa w r rerxx.•. ORNAMENTAL TREES aP m, s.. a Iw ww mldx•. .r • u IYGI w L,x. M.v IF 4 lYcl w r DECIDUOUS BNR$9 e m . bM O O •Y. . P 4. o EVERGREEN SNRES a m e d.vxe �bld.e T. w VM T YbN h:.dNWx rM R O MM P POREMIALSrM e wle..e e laa ru.r. rr.•rw 4 Ica ror r..n w GRIMM COVER mm er eyes eyes mese.xsw seen awes w.e.xwbe dRexmP REHARKB 1. 40.A.0 4EY A lE IA.,� f Wdi!p'v.M YaY1 R e.m®wt�I.IOMu2f IPeIbO L xr}ImZ�yc�GMe1MQK.ePxtls'KK.w.4 YRw.l4 )2Feb.IWIi HV4 I4RlKOm1� RRwd Y8. x ).eWISY4tIRMII4 A'A!'OWPed"M"E�• 'oc A 6fib l4TY!®IMOI.IL®uRPK ,w ewm exec —dye I SEED HIXRIRE9 RAN GARDEN PLANTING PROFILE ♦ wmixori s.�soxm xsr emlewr tib.ea .ecunm nee.obi I XMF M.il6NH1 v.1F♦rwWBm , wMrlea ax.s cssmsw.e xsa rcbomr RLRE f1.8tdER 6]N.?I M.1Si Y-BrtKxMC CL.mWY RNEV ICBLY JWIINY AK.IrtIIHItl 06LN lm. IlmbM♦r.U•.ML eYmO iP[i'IFPttiEt4' ♦My.vI1W1W'1FCV.rA4' c x� NO -HOW PRAIRIE GRASSES SEED PROFILE IYAlilii) . wY! Y6®n I.fbi I.4P ]lii L.W IJR I.>ti .ee• em�r.® YM emI YD.LVo � YTVfVN .ao rywc a.�-e.®sbs�finee xo.l...m.+..l mxm xxr .b.mx rTM wen.m� I- bl.xmrM. w...brdid®rss.m. nx. • LANDSCAPE PLAN • INSTALIATION DUALS • PLANT SCHEDULE A1.3 • SHRUB Pl YO1M4)°°BMTi �IOM RVr YIl WAF IIO[+Po M1YnM R u waxwmvae�w 'a weM wem uxw. .eP1L£ee R�uw®(.oioe LA J6f CONIFEROUS TREE M we w..un.o nsrx..wm were wisn®M wvoM w.m mu au nm ro � rarrm .n. M ow faar M IpE 1q{ M1NIhp Rei 6 <L ItNi w! MD A �YV rR5 M uOTI Q M Mbf 61LL lE`B CR�rLpaEfwNE RbrCwlYt r+ne raee'.umm� se nm erau RbLe. we l!e ere �roert�� � em�.w�ae w'�On,tivn "stew+ ""PPLP1wo.�e w <Ri.e ��vr MwF1M M ro�rRrm eao wwe cs uwe <<�.m`�"'+vmse• as ur DECIDUOUS TREE na err'�°wem RrRvso h eM�w..n.scaesma NY.t{M FMq.��MY�YSNfe M1LO� M ItTE Atli i0 �ehV A M GN.S AWmfAGL£rI#JOf aE FATO iWIJFYA'E PATb YILLA aaysv n TYPICAL TOUNHOME VILLA LANDSCAPE PLAN i rxe: ur. rw �a C �d RTIeRM M= bM6W M1.® nHOTK6r ew®wwo..wn.® uwvr¢im awraoe �rw CP'.W N<h YN 6Ys81 6NRV win w%we'ur. u�aera0eec'mui� n ENLAR3ED SECTION OF TYPICAL RAM GARDEN LAYOUT AND CONSTRUCTION \ ARCED LANDSCAPE PLAN AT MEMORY CARE GARDEN AND DMMG ROOM FOPL'TAL GARDENS Q O O Q O SENIOR WING BUILDING NORTHWEST ELEVATION) - FRONT CANOPY AND ENTRANCE DPG e�aew wr.am ^ O O O O O %4E,, O O O O O O O O 0 0 O 0 0 •flQdiNl )ftCW LYL MP fli'd swan r S�.rN 4�3 1 f�} 1 ( v lsr. OhYFd JNv �Lttc NPhRFtl KaP SENIOR LIVING BUILDING SOUTHWEST ELEVATION - PARKING GARAGE AND SERVICE ENTRANCES O O O 0 0 0 O J 0 0 0 0 6tPv] tILL t 6tGAE! iµ1 SENIOR LIVING BUILDING NORTHEAST ELEVATION v Z zOU '09 � azo Z w � cn z Z� O • MAN BUILDING D(TEROR ELEVATIONS A2.0 i 0 ®----- ___® o 0 le4E b"..T.. 'EYP� f�'H twG b*-6' SENIOR WING BUILDING SOUTHEAST ELEVATION 0 © 0o o.,Q oo 0 .1�11 l ^. 4� IF, ,Fl ... jr�ca.e -+ecw-J emw-ir—/ Y-sa ace w LraG G'Y en'9LV'G.'AR\: 'S"..4*:iG 19.C' DI-E 3D V w ar 3D VIEW FROM FROM THE AIR BEHIND A TWINHOME VILLA RESIDENCE O O O (D O O O Q O +xrai.vi•m•rr I •nice wucnrvr uww,a ow a wuwr �.wrea aw..¢ •,.m we ur � s� ,,,,,,W ur o-r m u°i•mm c � maw:c„®_®. r m.ra_ ^-i � um•.r _ -- SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION 00 �. pT 1ryW^ ,'YCaFi VLtTN'Y u+RllM / e.r 444444 I NHIL 0 > eoe Z o F� 5: O U Z w � cn No J Z Z o� O L • MAN BUILDNG EXTERIOR ELEVATION • TW"-K)W VLA ELEVATIONS A2.1 3D SITE AERIAL OVERVIEW 7111 MAIN BUILDING AERIAL VIEW FROM SOUTHEAST CORNER MAIN BUILDING ENTRY VESTIBULE AND DRIVE UNDER CANOPY 1= iI I 11.1<a J aeNae Z Z SOU 4, p 00 Jo cv �xZ V Z LLJ w o N J Z !wZ � O Zw Un o w co �m a� lomrik f.do gnrr�m wZ o®ID V. u A2.2 NIISSIO\ IIII.I S- -: SENIOR LIN IS<, � _ _ . � • -. �� - - _ __ (iR VIEW OF SFFE FROM THE MAIN ENTRY DRIVE VIEW OF SITE HIGHWAY 101 JUST PAST SOUND WALL VIEW OF MAIN MONUMENT SIGN ALO^:G H'.-Li,.AY 10l I_q9 • 3D SITE DEVELOPMFM VIEWS VIEW Of SITE FROM THE CORNER OF 86TH STREET WEST AND HIGHWAY 101 A2.3 • kow TWINHOME DESIGN OPTION #1 v. I� 1 _ 1 - , TWINHOME DESIGN OPTION #2 TWINHOME DESIGN OPTION #3 { TWINHOME DESIGN OPTION LOCATIONS TWMHOME DESIGN OPTION #4 444444 a r 00 0 Z �aF � zw] J �a OVEi Z Z Lu Ln Z � Z � E Zz O (Cn o G zA2.4 IlfM0N2 LB,VHO YEA 6 nw AOE.S .��., T-1 06AICMl AMC N Rl11AlI1Na� NE.tS R IIOT NID,ED MfA NFA INS YYI E1GV11FD. F MFA N1O6 OPIGIfO. b14M 54 RM Im,IMX TLII AOOI A RI/L STIR RAAAN YE NOI IFINTEO N WNII M Ws Y,o AE xoTm N: usn sa 11 TNT A MITV.IE AT 1 YYM MA 6 ,-Na nA xaN ex r, rmminw Wst w Nl uws NTVE INu /L®TAW£ NAttYATLW mr N,u� a Nom n � Nmsmm aoaw.cu olaEsx No saran ro nE an Yo Ixoml rw RzcW mvE rWu� TAxm 4W O O AO w RFTRININC. W/�I, NO1F5: nKo¢Nt �.. �v_..0 Wu,�t BBri.�isnwr xog a K� smrn. mWN�[miNNu.WN.rNIw ® Nsm,a, WM WAY NOTE miNR7•iw uo iNw Witte u mN,s.sC.� Ways Naa N[ sN Is mw. ue.2 e[ aR E'!� u w¢nucsw av_vp i_me.WEY TE ®I„i Aff rwu,ww roxa na.¢w arte'Nc mutt mmms.•Swai T -ATTA.....Y-., _... :ins �.:.-7..��'..a....m.� yam. ll..,..,....a ... :_.e.._._� W% ry"I'MA / rvV. I/L AT NO. 10—IT (��ING DRAINAGE. AND ER05�N�P�DRAININGE. AND EROSION l 3 1 LD 9ENCNING DETAIL (ROUGH GRADING) I L m�cY®�d1R�/O6 4uY, mGmv e�'.5�i m f�v�u H e,W 0N�'.n,,.xo® NSW W x TAT . 4 100r Z Z O z a u, o N o `2 w Z J p Z = M 7- 0 J a (N Vc) QUV p V PpKllp 151p PNYN Y. VBL, CI�IDN.. LW. DRAINAGE, AND EROS' CONTROL PLAN C100 0 ! J 1 W; JECATOR VALVE Y Qz WR W Er sm MMW 0 �smz cm cm wa wmmn ® a El o p. ram, r�ww.. m.: vW.ia .r.de El off' ��,::�naP.PawoAKA..� go ww u ©n m. o PPPuwP 10 ® � oAPcw wo A.c sr..r: ®mi�m mnmra Nsrewnwnpa mw p .Pr�,P.�oo�..�e.amu luo.c im .m.. w.P u.rw�u,w P.wmm.. �yca ® m1F°O1w.'vo n 1O+o-'�nb�mbr a v.u°' �i°'�io"�®•. ®m nwmP��� �eaWr.. mPP.ro� P.oi n <v w o a' W Smi P STM P sa R .a ].491 M4 imp P Snsi N saP M .-m o sw P rt R.v . am s.s wr P[ 9eP P e-sa. fm� R Stw p �ta1°v' bs P u �Y PV.4W[ Snei P° Sai P° Srw n� a-nn ♦ 6�Y w...aR ss P] A.P P sml Pa Kw - p?V..mR am p. sw n. . n. Pv IAR �Y M. ta4 ms Pe eml Pv 4'0x e_SH a 6�Y p.i� nn Ppu PP.w RE mP mA m :a. w UTILITY PLAN C20 i �a—W— 0 777LW HUMAY/VO. 212 J w� r..ffi V errum ous PAVEMENT Fill �1,0:11ull P.Mc io�fc wnw.u6 fp0¢.�IYO� amu,oa Pn M lwF. Y1� � l I I m wrtz i.wv RP RM NEW QQQ FF t1 a gagatt � aaaaaa Z J 0 LLI Q J Q J p Z _ 8 Z_ m � Z Z o� �v ow.RW: wn.� PAVING AND GEOMETRIC PLAN •fg A 1=1 • • • 0 u�• iii. vr1.•Y �aau m.wraw� 5ECTION x.M�'s.a�-•'�mnwwve Sys Ad mIf SiQiJ $ENFR CAiCY BA9N � z' x r BECTUIcxuB B+aAEwlc tt+napr 'a'� 3101 L � � ( rmGt ]T quSFftx CAiCX BA9N f.ANF➢ END 4CIION Bx1�FLVF WMi�plr —� „oa S S±ee. My ® irrlcAe .AIfB BEBY12 I .. .^.:tin. .s TPI[.L LAtE VxIT. � nn Box Ir,sruinw: mIf SfA1DNm YNOML U66AMIN AYIiAVY X'AE(YJ3VEC� �RRf.�L am RC J B ATM 'P� M1FPjVaM� YY(k �f WAiF1iYN1/S1Ga14+ER F� do55nF.e orrmsc fOMI,OA z]a imeuntm F� AT fETNE ovmsc u..noa swo J�S4" W NEW! 5 au..o. Falf N9M1AlW1 � aErAIE b� 4�4 % Manx •v ovti 0.�qs F RS IYY15rR11CTM ® ENTLW[E oxxl yc m. men SED1u;'.TuRP IPut MUDELICC[3 1. � 4-7 U101 BA9 ® $1Q1i ,BM © � e. •a5 au1 sm I 0 Z J 0 W ~O J O M J Z z = m� z Z 0 ItlKi<W. 151N EMJIIJI M omens CML DETAILS SHEET J/� • E • SECTION VIEW 6' (ss sa w �I 6' w� PLAN VIEW Ywl WIPE BEDDING FOR PVC aru... n,n.a.ra y'v wno¢ swm w.rrw Axnm,r.. u,w ua au.[nD wu v.rosc O..wtr u,w.mam .. wrs[ au[ W oa nmi wi em rs P � n i 1MlGL WIB !Np CUiIER '� BOmsE wndl 5361 � g 3L16a .�•+• ® aC.TSI B441 .IX 9En AYVE1eK LpMlRpt '�� ]1W vwe]BLOW QML EM MEMMEM FTE :ENDS ie� .-:. 1 ..0 1 •ED kIG.c :f• ' 1 , n 5 ,.6 1 { p? P e { _®® i6 5i' l e 'g2 � ay"�q1'• ; I � 5� L q+1 `e r a 6 6. i r {1 11 gg • 44 I,wa diat6L'•'b�5 1 i I # I t5! • ( t ilk{ill t ` all (91 U% CURB RAMP (2-5) 40 c y �y q it Wall ke 4xS 1{ F{ wl s C7 Z J Q' 0 LLJ J W O J 8Z Z Z a 0 0 ro[R% tstz Wnr,vm. vE�i acomr CML DETAILS SHEET C40 E1 EXISTING AREA 1 E2 EXISTING AREA 2 Subcat Reach Aon Link ol?(OFCHANHAS.i&i RECEIVED JAN 2 U ZU i, CoMw ISEi i PLANNING DE? i E3 EXISTING AREA 3 Routing Diagram for 15139 Existing 2015-01.09 Trial Prepared by {enter your company name here), Printed 1/28/2015 Hydro CAD® 10,00-13 sin 01655 ©2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC QANNcu 15139 Existing 2015-01-09 Trial Prepared by {enter your company name here) Printed 1/28/2015 HvdrOCAD®10.00-13 s/n 01655 © 2014 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paae 2 Area Listing (all nodes) Area CN Description (acres) (subcatchment-numbers) 8.644 89 Row crops, straight row, Good, HSG D (E1, E2, E3) 8.644 89 TOTAL AREA G 15139 Existing 2015-01-09 Trial Prepared by {enter your company name here) Printed 1/28/2015 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 01655 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paae 3 Soil Listing (all nodes) Area Soil Subcatchment (acres) Group Numbers 0.000 HSG A 0.000 HSG B 0.000 HSG C 8.644 HSG D E1, E2, E3 0.000 Other 8.644 TOTAL AREA 15139 Existing 2015-01-09 Trial Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 1/28/2015 HVdroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 01655 ©2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4 Ground Covers (all nodes) HSG-A HSG-B HSG-C HSG-D Other Total Ground Subcatchment (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Cover Numbers 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.644 0.000 8.644 Row crops, straight row, Good E1, E2, E3 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.644 0.000 8.644 TOTAL AREA 0 41 15139 Existing 2015-01-09 Trial ChanhassenMissionHills 24-hrS1 2-yr Rainfall=2.87" Prepared by (enter your company name here) Printed 1/28/2015 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 01655 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 5 Summary for Subcatchment E1: EXISTING AREA 1 Runoff = 7.10 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.506 af, Depth= 1.78" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Chanhassen Mission Hills 24-hr S1 2-yr Rainfall=2.87" Area (ac) CN Description 3.404 89 Row crops straight row, Good HSG D 3.404 89 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description 13.7 Runoff = Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment E2: EXISTING AREA 2 8.84 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.561 af, Depth= 1.78" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ChanhassenMission Hills 24-hr S1 2-yr Rainfall=2.87" Area (ac) CN Description 3.777 89 Row crops, straight row, Good HSG D 3.777 89 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (fUft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.6 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment E3: EXISTING AREA 3 Runoff = 3.21 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.217 af, Depth= 1.78" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Chan hassenMissionHills 24-hr S1 2-yr Rainfall=2.87 Area (ac) CN Description 1.463 89 Row crops, straight row, Good, HSG D 1.463 89 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 12.3 Direct Entry, • 0 15139 Existing 2015-01-09 Trial ChanhassenMissionHills 24-hrS1 10-yr Rainfall=4.26" Prepared by {enter your company name here? Printed 1/28/2015 HydroCAD@ 10.00-13 s/n 01655 @ 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 6 Summary for Subcatchment E1: EXISTING AREA 1 Runoff = 12.52 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.870 af, Depth= 3.07" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Chan hassenMissionHills 24-hr S1 10-yr Rainfall=4.26" Area (ac) CN Description 3.404 89 Row crops straight row, Good, HSG D 3.404 89 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description 13.7 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment E2: EXISTING AREA 2 Runoff = 15.56 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.966 af, Depth= 3.07" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ChanhassenMissionHills 24-hr Si 10-yr Rainfall=4.26" Area (ac) CN 3.777 89 Row crops, straight row, Good, HSG D 3.777 89 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) _ (feet) (f /ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.6 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment E3: EXISTING AREA 3 Runoff = 5.66 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.374 af, Depth= 3.07" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ChanhassenMissionHills 24-hr S1 10-yr Rainfall=4.26" Area (ac) CN Description 1.463 89 Row crops, straight row, Good, HSG D 1.463 89 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (f /sec) (cfs) 12.3 Direct Entry, 15139 Existing 2015-01-09 Trial Chanhassen MissionHills 24-hr S1 100-yr Rainfall=7.38" Prepared by {enter your company name here) Printed 1/28/2015 HydroCAD010.00-13 s/n 01655 02014 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paae 7 Summary for Subcatchment E1: EXISTING AREA 1 Runoff = 23.06 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 1.725 af, Depth= 6.08" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Chan hassenMissionHills 24-hr S1 100-yr Rainfall=7.38" Area (ac) CN Description 3.404 89 Row crops, straight row, Good HSG D 3.404 89 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (f /ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 13.7 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment E2: EXISTING AREA 2 Runoff = 28.45 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1.914 af, Depth= 6.08" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Chanhassen MissionHills 24-hr S1 100-yr Rainfall=7.38" Area (ac) CN Description 3.777 89 Row crops, straight row, Good, HSG D 3.777 89 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.6 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment E3: EXISTING AREA 3 Runoff = 10.38 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.741 af, Depth= 6.08" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Chan hassenMissionHills 24-hr S1 100-yr Rainfall=7.38" Area (ac) CN Description 1.463 89 Row crops, straight row, Good HSG D 1.463 89 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 12.3 Direct Entry, E1 EXISTING AREA 1 E3 EXISTING AREA 3 E2 EXISTING AREA 2 Su4 Reach on Link 15139 Existing 2015-01-09 Trial your company name here} s/n 01655 © 2014 HvdroCAD Solutions LLC Area Listing (all nodes) Area CN Description acres) (subcatchment-numbers) 8.644 89 Row crops, straight row, Good, HSG D (E1, E2, E3) 8.644 89 TOTAL AREA Printed 1/2812015 15139 Existing 2015-01-09 Trial Prepared by (enter your company name here) Printed 1/28/2015 HydroCADO 10.00-13 s/n 01655 0 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3 Soil Listing (all nodes) Area Soil Subcatchment (acres) Group Numbers 0.000 HSG A 0.000 HSG B 0.000 HSG C 8.644 HSG D E1, E2, E3 0.000 Other 8.644 TOTAL AREA 1 • • 15139 Existing 2015-01-09 Trial Prepared by {enter your company name here) Printed 1/28/2015 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 01655 © 2014 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4 Ground Covers (all nodes) HSG-A HSG-B HSG-C HSG-D Other Total Ground Subcatchment (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Cover Numbers 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.644 0.000 8.644 Row crops, straight row, Good E1, E2, E3 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.644 0.000 8.644 TOTAL AREA 15139 Existing 2015-01-09 Trial ChanhassenMissionHills 24-hrS1 2-yr Rainfall=2.87" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 1/28/2015 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 01655 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 5 Summary for Subcatchment E1: EXISTING AREA 1 Runoff = 7.10 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.506 af, Depth= 1.78" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ChanhassenMissionHills 24-hr S1 2-yr Rainfall=2.87" Area (ac) CN Description 3.404 89 Row crops, straight row, Good, HSG D 3.404 89 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description 13.7 Runoff = Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment E2: EXISTING AREA 2 8.84 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.561 af, Depth= 1.78" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ChanhassenMissionHills 24-hr S1 2-yr Rainfall=2.87" Area (ac) CN Description 3.777 89 Row crops, straight row, Good, HSG D 3.777 89 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.6 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment E3: EXISTING AREA 3 Runoff = 3.21 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.217 af, Depth= 1.78" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ChanhassenMissionHills 24-hr S1 2-yr Rainfall=2.87" _ Area (ac) CN Description _ _1.463 89 Row crops straight row, Good HSG D 1.463 89 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 12.3 Direct Entry, 15139 Existing 2015-01-09 Trial ChanhassenMissionHills 24-hrS1 10-yr Rainfall=4.26" Prepared by {enter your company name here) Printed 1/28/2015 HydroCAD010 00-13 s/n 01655 @ 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 6 Summary for Subcatchment E1: EXISTING AREA 1 Runoff = 12.52 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.870 af, Depth= 3.07" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ChanhassenMissionHills 24-hr S1 10-yr Rainfall=4.26" Area (ac) CN Description 3.404 89 Row crops straight row, Good HSG D 3.404 89 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Description 13.7 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment E2: EXISTING AREA 2 Runoff = 15.56 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.966 af, Depth= 3.07" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Chan hassenMissionHills 24-hr S1 10-yr Rainfall=4.26" Area (ac) CN Description 3.777 89 Row crops straight row, Good HSG D 3,777 89 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description 10.6 Runoff = Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment E3: EXISTING AREA 3 5.66 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.374 af, Depth= 3.07" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Chan hassenMissionHills 24-hr S1 10-yr Rainfall=4.26" Area (ac) CN Description 1.463 89 Row crops straight row, Good HSG D 1.463 89 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 12.3 Direct Entry, 15139 Existing 2015-01-09 Trial ChanhassenMissionHills 24-hrS1 100-yr Rainfall=7.38" Prepared by {enter your company name here) Printed 1/28/2015 HydroCADO 10.00-13 s/n 01655 © 2014 HVdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 7 Summary for Subcatchment E1: EXISTING AREA 1 Runoff = 23.06 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 1.725 af, Depth= 6.08" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ChanhassenMissionHills 24-hr S1 100-yr Rainfall=7.38" Area (ac) CN Description 3.404 89 Row crops straight row, Good, HSG D 3.404 89 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 13.7 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment E2: EXISTING AREA 2 Runoff = 28.45 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1.914 af, Depth= 6.08" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Chan hassenMissionHills 24-hr S1 100-yr Rainfall=7.38" Area (ac) CN Description 3.777 89 Row crops, straight row, Good, HSG D 3.777 89 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.6 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment E3: EXISTING AREA 3 Runoff = 10.38 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.741 af, Depth= 6.08" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Chanhassen Mission Hills 24-hr S1 100-yr Rainfall=7.38" Area (ac) CN Description 1.463 89 Row crops straight row, Good HSG D 1.463 89 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 12.3 Direct Entry, A2P Filtration asWk O PROPOSED AREA 6 Filtration Basin #4 PROPOSED AREA 5 O OPOSED AREA 2 3P Filtration Basin #1 e G PROPOSED AREA 7 \ 6P /traltion Basin #3 O 9---,A,p PROPOSED AREA 3 PROPOSEDAREA1 S4 Reach Aon Link Filtration Basin #2 0 15139 Proposed 2015-01-23 Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 1/28/2015 HydroCAD010.00-13 s/n 01655 ©2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2 Area Listing (all nodes) Area CN Description (acres) (subcatchment-numbers) 4.800 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D (PROPOSED AREA 1, PROPOSED AREA 2, PROPOSED AREA 3, PROPOSED AREA 4, PROPOSED AREA 5, PROPOSED AREA 6, PROPOSED AREA 7) 3.842 98 Roofs, HSG D (PROPOSED AREA 1, PROPOSED AREA 2, PROPOSED AREA 3, PROPOSED AREA 4, PROPOSED AREA 5, PROPOSED AREA 6, PROPOSED AREA 7) 8.642 88 TOTAL AREA 0 15139 Proposed 2015-01-23 Prepared by {enter your company name here) Printed 1/28/2015 HydroCADO 10.00-13 s/n 01655 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paae 3 Soil Listing (all nodes) Area Soil Subcatchment (acres) Group Numbers 0.000 HSG A 0.000 HSG B 0.000 HSG C 8.642 HSG D PROPOSED AREA 1, PROPOSED AREA 2, PROPOSED AREA 3, PROPOSED AREA 4, PROPOSED AREA 5, PROPOSED AREA 6, PROPOSED AREA 7 0.000 Other 8.642 TOTAL AREA 15139 Proposed 2015-01-23 Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 1 /28/2015 HydroCAD®10 00-13 s/n 01655 ©2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paae 5 Ground Covers (all nodes) (continued) HSG-A HSG-B HSG-C HSG-D Other Total Ground Subcatchment (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Cover Numbers 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.642 0.000 8.642 TOTAL AREA 15139 Proposed 201100-yearsnowmelt chanhassen 100-yearsnowmelt Rainfall=7.20° AMC=4 Prepared by {enter your company name here) Printed 1/28/2015 HydroCADO 10.00-13 s/n 01655 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 18 Summary for Subcatchment PROPOSED AREA 1: PROPOSED AREA 1 Runoff = 0.36 cfs @ 120.00 hrs, Volume= 0.431 af, Depth= 6.96" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.01-280.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs 100-year snowmelt chanhassen 100-year snowmelt Rainfall=7.20", AMC=4 Area (ac) CN Adi Description 0.711 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 0.033 98 Roofs, HSG D 0.744 81 98 Weighted Average, AMC Adjusted 0.711 80 98 95.60% Pervious Area, AMC Adjusted 0.033 98 98 4.40% Impervious Area, AMC Adjusted Summary for Subcatchment PROPOSED AREA 2: PROPOSED AREA 2 Runoff = 1.65 cfs @ 120.00 hrs, Volume= 1.979 af, Depth= 6.96" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.01-280.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs 100-year snowmelt chanhassen 100-year snowmelt Rainfall=7.20", AMC=4 Area (ac) CN Ado Description 1.440 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 1.971 98 Roofs, HSG D 3.411 90 98 Weighted Average, AMC Adjusted 1.440 80 98 42.21 % Pervious Area, AMC Adjusted 1.971 98 98 57.79% Impervious Area, AMC Adjusted Summary for Subcatchment PROPOSED AREA 3: PROPOSED AREA 3 Runoff = 0.48 cfs @ 120.00 hrs, Volume= 0.574 af, Depth= 6.96" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.01-280.00 hrs, dt= 0:01 hrs 100-year snowmelt chanhassen 100-year snowmelt Rainfall=7.20", AMC=4 Area_(ac) CN Ado Description 0.551 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 0.438 98 Roofs, HSG D 0.989 88 98 Weighted Average, AMC Adjusted 0.551 80 98 55.73% Pervious Area, AMC Adjusted 0.438 98 98 44.27% Impervious Area, AMC Adjusted Summary for Subcatchment PROPOSED AREA 4: PROPOSED AREA 4 Runoff = 0.40 cfs @ 120.00 hrs, Volume= 0.484 af, Depth= 6.96" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.01-280.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs 100-year snowmelt chanhassen 100-year snowmelt Rainfall=7.20", AMC=4 15139 Proposed 201100-year snowmelt chanhassen 100-year snowmelt Rainfall=7.20" AMC=4 Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 1/28/2015 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 01655 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 19 Area (ac) CN Adl Description 0.690 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 0.144 98 Roofs, HSG D 0.834 83 98 Weighted Average, AMC Adjusted 0.690 80 98 82.71 % Pervious Area, AMC Adjusted 0.144 98 98 17.29% Impervious Area, AMC Adjusted Summary for Subcatchment PROPOSED AREA 5: PROPOSED AREA 5 Runoff = 0.26 cfs @ 120.00 hrs, Volume= 0.312 af, Depth= 6.96" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.01-280.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs 100-year snowmelt chanhassen 100-year snowmelt Rainfall=7.20", AMC=4 Area (ac) CN Adj Description 0.234 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 0.304 98 Roofs, HSG D 0.538 90 98 Weighted Average, AMC Adjusted 0.234 80 98 43.49% Pervious Area, AMC Adjusted 0.304 98 98 56.51 % Impervious Area, AMC Adjusted Summary for Subcatchment PROPOSED AREA 6: PROPOSED AREA 6 Runoff = 0.92 cfs @ 120.00 hrs, Volume= 1.104 af, Depth= 6.96" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.01-280.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs 100-year snowmelt chanhassen 100-year snowmelt Rainfall=7.20", AMC=4 43,721 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 39,189 98 Roofs HSG D 82,911 89 98 Weighted Average, AMC Adjusted 43,721 80 98 52.73% Pervious Area, AMC Adjusted 39,189 98 98 47.27% Impervious Area, AMC Adjusted Summary for Subcatchment PROPOSED AREA 7: PROPOSED AREA 7 Runoff = 0.11 cfs @ 120.00 hrs, Volume= 0.129 af, Depth= 6.96" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.01-280.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs 100-year snowmelt chanhassen 100-year snowmelt Rainfall=7.20", AMC=4 Area (ac) CN Ada Description 0.171 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 0.052 98 Roofs, HSG D 0.223 84 98 Weighted Average, AMC Adjusted 0.171 80 98 76.54% Pervious Area, AMC Adjusted 0.052 98 98 23.46% Impervious Area, AMC Adjusted 0 15139 Proposed 201 100-year snowmelt chanhassen 100-year snowmelt Rainfall=7.20" AMC=4 Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 1/28/2015 Summary for Pond 1P: Filtration Basin #4 Inflow Area = 0.538 ac, 56.51 % Impervious, Inflow Depth = 6.96" for 100-year snowmelt event Inflow = 0.26 cfs @ 120.00 hrs, Volume= 0.312 of Outflow = 0.26 cfs @ 120.03 hrs, Volume= 0.312 af, Atten= 1%, Lag= 1.7 min Primary = 0.26 cfs @ 120.03 hrs, Volume= 0.312 of Routing by Dyn-Star-Ind method, Time Span= 0.01-280.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 4 Peak Elev= 912.56' @ 120.03 hrs Surf.Area= 777 sf Storage= 363 cf Plug -Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 91.6 min ( 7,513.2 - 7,421.6 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 912.00' 2,887 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 912.00 520 0 0 913.00 979 750 750 914.00 1,580 1,280 2,029 914.50 1,851 858 2,887 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 907.25' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 82.0' CMP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 907.25' / 906.92' S= 0.0040'f Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete pipe, straight & clean, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #2 Device 1 912.50' 19.1" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #3 Device 1 912.00' 1.000 inlhr Exfiltration over Surface area Primary OutFlow Max--0.26 cfs @ 120.03 hrs HW=912.56' TW=907.90' (Dynamic Tailwater) t =Culvert (Passes 0.26 cfs of 6.73 cfs potential flow) 2=Orifice/Grate (Weir Controls 0.24 cfs @ 0.80 fps) 3=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.02 cfs) Summary for Pond 2P: Filtration Basin #5 Inflow Area = 2.441 ac, 49.30% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 9.34" for 100-year snowmelt event Inflow = 1.28 cfs @ 120.00 hrs, Volume= 1.900 of Outflow = 1.25 cfs @ 120.11 hrs, Volume= 1.900 af, Atten= 2%, Lag= 6.5 min Primary = 1.09 cfs @ 120.11 hrs, Volume= 0.336 of Secondary = 0.16 cfs @ 120.11 hrs, Volume= 1.564 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.01-280.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 4 Peak Elev= 907.90' @ 120.11 hrs Surf.Area= 7,059 sf Storage= 7,331 cf Plug -Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 196.4 min ( 7,655.1 - 7,458.7 ) 15139 Proposed 201100-year snowmelt chanhassen 100-year snowmelt Rainfall=7.20" AMC=4 Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 1/28/2015 HydroCADO 10.00-13 s/n 01655 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paae 21 Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 906.70' 11,855 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store _(feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 906.70 4,962 0 0 907.00 5,699 1,599 1,599 908.00 7,212 6,456 8,055 908.50 7,989 3,800 11,855 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 907.80' 15.0' long x 5.0' breadth Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.88 #2 Secondary 906.70' 1.000 inlhr Exfiltration over Surface area Primary OutFlow Max=1.09 cfs @ 120.11 hrs HW=907.90' (Free Discharge) t1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir(Weir Controls 1.09 cfs @ 0.73 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.16 cfs @ 120.11 hrs HW=907.90' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.16 cfs) Summary for Pond 3P: Filtration Basin #1 Inflow Area = 3.411 ac, 57.79% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 6.96" for 100-year snowmelt event Inflow = 1.65 cfs @ 120.00 hrs, Volume= 1.979 of Outflow = 1.60 cfs @ 120.11 hrs, Volume= 1.979 af, Atten= 3%, Lag= 6.7 min Primary = 1.60 cfs @ 120.11 hrs, Volume= 1.979 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.01-280.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 4 Peak Elev= 906.78' @ 120.11 hrs Surf.Area= 6,251 sf Storage= 11,842 cf Plug -Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 451.1 min ( 7,872.7 - 7,421.6 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 904.50' 24,014 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 904.50 3,886 0 0 905.00 4,680 2,142 2,142 906.00 5,528 5,104 7,246 907.00 6,454 5,991 13,237 908.00 7,423 6,939 20,175 908.50 7,933 3,839 24,014 • 15139 Proposed 201100-yearsnowmeltchanhassen 100-yearsnowmeft Rainfall=7.20", AMC=4 Prepared by {enter your company name here) Printed 1/28/2015 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 895.25' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 50.0' CMP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 895.25' / 895.00' S= 0.0050'P Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete pipe, straight & clean, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #2 Device 1 906.65' 36.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #3 Device 1 904.50' 1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Primary OutFlow Max=1.60 cfs @ 120.11 hrs HW=906.78' (Free Discharge) L1=Culvert (Passes 1.60 cfs of 11.81 cfs potential flow) 2=Orifice/Grate (Weir Controls 1.45 cfs @ 1.18 fps) 1 3=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.14 cfs) Summary for Pond 5P: Filtration Basin #2 Inflow Area = 0.989 ac, 44.27% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 6.96" for 100-year snowmelt event Inflow = 0.48 cfs @ 120.00 hrs, Volume= 0.574 of Outflow = 0.09 cfs @ 124.70 hrs, Volume= 0.574 af, Atten= 81 %, Lag= 281.7 min Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.01 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of Secondary = 0.09 cfs @ 124.70 hrs, Volume= 0.574 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.01-280.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 4 Peak Elev= 918.89' @ 124.70 hrs Surf.Area= 4,001 sf Storage= 4,589 cf Plug -Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 245.7 min ( 7,667.4 - 7,421.6 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 917.50' 9,169 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 917.50 2,368 0 0 918.00 3,207 1,394 1,394 919.00 4,103 3,655 5,049 919.90 5,054 4,121 9,169 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 919.50' 10.0' long x 5.0' breadth Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.88 #2 Secondary 917.50' 1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Primary OutFlow, Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.01 hrs HW=917.50' (Free Discharge) L1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir( Controls 0.00 cfs) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.09 cfs @ 124.70 hrs HW=918.89' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.09 cfs) 15139 Proposed 201100-yearsnowmeltchanhassen 100-yearsnowmeltRainfall=7.20" AMC=4 Prepared by (enter your company name here) Printed 1/28/2015 HydroCADO 10.00-13 s/n 01655 @ 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 23 Summary for Pond 6P: Filtration Basin #3 Inflow Area = 0.834 ac, 17.29% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 6.96" for 100-year snowmelt event Inflow = 0.40 cfs @ 120.00 hrs, Volume= 0.484 of Outflow = 0.11 cfs @ 123.06 hrs, Volume= 0.484 af, Atten= 72%, Lag= 183.4 min Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.01 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of Secondary = 0.11 cfs @ 123.06 hrs, Volume= 0.484 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.01-280.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 4 Peak Elev= 912.12' @ 123.06 hrs Surf.Area= 4,920 sf Storage= 2,710 cf Plug -Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 86.5 min ( 7,508.2 - 7,421.6 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 911.50' 14,155 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below (RecaIc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 911.50 3,742 0 0 912.00 4,777 2,130 2,130 913.00 5,968 5,373 7,502 914.00 7,338 6,653 14,155 Device Routina Invert Outlet Devices #1 Secondary 911.50' 1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2 Primary 913.50' 7.0' long x 10.0' breadth Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 Coef. (English) 2.49 2.56 2.70 2.69 2.68 2.69 2.67 2.64 Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.01 hrs HW=911.50' (Free Discharge) t2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir( Controls 0.00 cfs) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.11 cfs @ 123.06 hrs HW=912.12' TW=907.84' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.11 cfs) 0 0 A2P PROPOSED AREA 6 \, vAan-eeornur Filtration Basin #4 PROPOSED AREA O OPOSED AREA 2 3P Filtration Basin #1 E) PROPOSED AREA \ 6P /tration Basin #3 9 PROPOSED AREA 4 9---,A,p PROPOSED AREA 3 PROPOSED AREA Subcat Reach A Link Filtration Basin #2 i • 15139 Proposed 2015-01-23 Prepared by (enter your company name here) Printed 1/28/2015 HydroCAD® 10.00-13 s/n 01655 ©2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pane 2 Area Listing (all nodes) Area CN Description (acres) (subcatchment-numbers) 4.800 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D (PROPOSED AREA 1, PROPOSED AREA 2, PROPOSED AREA 3, PROPOSED AREA 4, PROPOSED AREA 5, PROPOSED AREA 6, PROPOSED AREA 7) 3.842 98 Roofs, HSG D (PROPOSED AREA 1, PROPOSED AREA 2, PROPOSED AREA 3, PROPOSED AREA 4, PROPOSED AREA 5, PROPOSED AREA 6, PROPOSED AREA 7) 8.642 88 TOTAL AREA • 15139 Proposed 2015-01-23 Prepared by (enter your company name here) Printed 1/28/2015 Soil Listing (all nodes) Area Soil Subcatchment (acres) Group Numbers 0.000 HSG A 0.000 HSG B 0.000 HSG C 8.642 HSG D PROPOSED AREA 1, PROPOSED AREA 2, PROPOSED AREA 3, PROPOSED AREA 4, PROPOSED AREA 5, PROPOSED AREA 6, PROPOSED AREA 7 0.000 Other 8.642 TOTAL AREA n �J 15139 Proposed 2015-01-23 Prepared by {enter your company name here) Printed 1/28/2015 HydrOCAD®10.00-13 s/n 01655 ©2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4 Ground Covers (all nodes) HSG-A (acres) HSG-B (acres) HSG-C (acres) HSG-D (acres) Other (acres) Total (acres) 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.800 0.000 4.800 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.842 0.000 3.842 Ground Subcatchment Cover Numbers >75% Grass cover, Good PROPO SED AREA 1, PROPO SED AREA 2, PROPO SED AREA 3, PROPO SED AREA 4, PROPO SED AREA 5, PROPO SED AREA 6, PROPO SED AREA 7 Roofs PROPO SED AREA 1, PROPO SED AREA 2, PROPO SED AREA 3, PROPO SED AREA 4, PROPO SED AREA 0 15139 Proposed 2015-01-23 Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 1/28/2015 HvdroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 01655 ©2014 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pane 5 Ground Covers (all nodes) (continued) HSG-A HSG-B HSG-C HSG-D Other Total Ground Subcatchment (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Cover Numbers 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.642 0.000 8.642 TOTAL AREA 15139 Proposed 2015-01-23 Prepared by {enter your company name ChanhassenMissionHills 24-hr S1 2-yr Rainfall=2.87" I Printed 1/28/2015 Summary for Subcatchment PROPOSED AREA 1: PROPOSED AREA 1 Runoff = 1.86 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.076 af, Depth= 1.22" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ChanhassenMissionHills 24-hr S1 2-yr Rainfall=2.87" Area (ac) CN Description 0.711 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 0.033 98 Roofs. HSG D 0.744 81 Weighted Average 0.711 80 95.60% Pervious Area 0.033 98 4.40% Impervious Area Summary for Subcatchment PROPOSED AREA 2: PROPOSED AREA 2 Runoff = 12.35 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.572 af, Depth= 2.01" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ChanhassenMissionHills 24-hr S1 2-yr Rainfall=2.87" Area (ac) CN Description 1.440 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 1.971 98 Roofs, HSG D 3.411 90 Weighted Average 1.440 80 42.21 % Pervious Area 1.971 98 57.79% Impervious Area Summary for Subcatchment PROPOSED AREA 3: PROPOSED AREA 3 Runoff = 3.28 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.149 af, Depth= 1.81" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Chan hassenMissionHills 24-hr S1 2-yr Rainfall=2.87" Area (ac) CN _Description 0.551 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 0.438 98 Roofs, HSG D 0.989 88 Weighted Average 0.551 80 55.73% Pervious Area 0.438 98 44.27% Impervious Area Summary for Subcatchment PROPOSED AREA 4: PROPOSED AREA 4 Runoff = 2.34 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.098 af, Depth= 1.41" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Chan hassenMissionHills 24-hr S1 2-yr Rainfall=2.87" 15139 Proposed 2015-01-23 ChanhassenMissionHills 24-hrS1 2-yr Rainfall=2.87" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 1/28/2015 HydroCAD810.00-13 s/n 01655 02014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 7 Area (ac) CN Description 0.690 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 0.144 98 Roofs, HSG D 0.834 83 Weighted Average 0.690 80 82.71 % Pervious Area 0.144 98 17.29% Impervious Area Summary for Subcatchment PROPOSED AREA 5: PROPOSED AREA 5 Runoff = 1.93 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.089 af, Depth= 1.99" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ChanhassenMissionHills 24-hr S1 2-yr Rainfall=2.87" Area (ac) CN Description 0.234 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 0.304 98 Roofs, HSG D 0.538 90 Weighted Average 0.234 80 43.49% Pervious Area 0.304 98 56.51 % Impervious Area Summary for Subcatchment PROPOSED AREA 6: PROPOSED AREA 6 Runoff = 6.45 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.294 af, Depth= 1.86" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ChanhassenMissionHills 24-hr S1 2-yr Rainfall=2.87" Area (sf) CN Description 43,721 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 39,189 98 Roofs HSG D 82,911 89 Weighted Average 43,721 80 52.73% Pervious Area 39,189 98 47.27% Impervious Area Summary for Subcatchment PROPOSED AREA 7: PROPOSED AREA 7 Runoff = 0.66 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.028 af, Depth= 1.50" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Chan hassenMissionHills 24-hr S1 2-yr Rainfall=2.87" Area (ac) CN Description 0.171 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 0.052 98 Roofs HSG D 0.223 84 Weighted Average 0.171 80 76.54% Pervious Area 0.052 98 23.46% Impervious Area 15139 Proposed 2015-01-23 Chanhassen Mission Hills 24-hrS12-yr Rainfall=2.87" Prepared by {enter your company name here) Printed 1/28/2015 HydroCADO 10.00-13 s/n 01655 @ 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pace 8 Summary for Pond 1P: Filtration Basin #4 Inflow Area = 0.538 ac, 56.51 % Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.99" for 2-yr event Inflow = 1.93 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.089 of Outflow = 1.89 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.089 af, Atten= 2%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 1.89 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.089 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 4 Peak Elev= 912.74' @ 11.99 hrs Surf.Area= 857 sf Storage= 506 cf Plug -Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 79.0 min ( 852.4 - 773.4 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 912.00' 2,887 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 912.00 520 0 0 913.00 979 750 750 914.00 1,580 1,280 2,029 914.50 1,851 858 2,887 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 907.25' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 82.0' CMP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 907.25' / 906.92' S= 0.0040'P Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete pipe, straight & clean, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #2 Device 1 912.50' 19.1" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #3 Device 1 912.00' 1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Primary OutFlow Max=1.87 cfs @ 11.99 hrs HW=912.73' TW=907.54' (Dynamic Tailwater) LT=Culvert (Passes 1.87 cfs of 6.85 cfs potential flow) 2=Orifice/Grate (Weir Controls 1.85 cfs @ 1.58 fps) 3=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.02 cfs) Summary for Pond 2P: Filtration Basin #5 Inflow Area = 2.441 ac, Inflow = 8.43 cfs @ Outflow = 1.58 cfs @ Primary = 1.42 cfs @ Secondary = 0.16 cfs @ 49.30% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.37" 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.482 of 12.40 hrs, Volume= 0.482 af, 12.40 hrs, Volume= 0.123 of 12.40 hrs, Volume= 0.359 of for 2-yr event Atten= 81 %, Lag= 24.4 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 4 Peak Elev= 907.92, @ 12.40 hrs Surf.Area= 7,088 sf Storage= 7,468 cf Plug -Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 343.9 min ( 1,176.7 - 832.7 ) 15139 Proposed 2015-01-23 ChanhassenMissionHills 24-hrS1 2-yr Rainfall=2.87" Prepared by (enter your company name here} Printed 1/28/2015 HydroCAD@ 10 00-13 s/n 01655 02014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 9 Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 906.70' 11,855 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 906.70 4,962 0 0 907.00 5,699 1,599 1,599 908.00 7,212 6,456 8,055 908.50 7,989 3,800 11,855 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 907.80' 15.0' long x 5.0' breadth Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.88 #2 Secondary 906.70' 1.000 inlhr Exfiltration over Surface area Primary OutFlow Max=1.42 cfs @ 12.40 hrs HW=907.92' (Free Discharge) L1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir(Weir Controls 1.42 cfs @ 0.80 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.16 cfs @ 12.40 hrs HW=907.92' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.16 cfs) Summary for Pond 3P: Filtration Basin #1 Inflow Area = 3.411 ac, 57.79% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.01" for 2-yr event Inflow = 12.35 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.572 of Outflow = 2.18 cfs @ 12.39 hrs, Volume= 0.572 af, Atten= 82%, Lag= 23.9 min Primary = 2.18 cfs @ 12.39 hrs, Volume= 0.572 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 4 Peak Elev= 906.81' @ 12.39 hrs Surf.Area= 6,281 sf Storage= 12,048 cf Plug -Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 609.6 min ( 1,382.1 - 772.5 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 904.50' 24,014 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 904.50 3,886 0 0 905.00 4,680 2,142 2,142 906.00 5,528 5,104 7,246 907.00 6,454 5,991 13,237 908.00 7,423 6,939 20,175 908.50 7,933 3,839 24,014 15139 Proposed 2015-01-23 ChanhassenMissionHills 24-hrS1 2-yr Rainfall=2.87" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 1/28/2015 HydroCAD@ 10.00-13 s/n 01655 @ 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 10 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 895.25' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 50.0' CMP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 inlet/ Outlet Invert= 895.25' / 895.00' S= 0.0050 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete pipe, straight & clean, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #2 Device 1 906.65' 36.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #3 Device 1 904.50' 1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Primary OutFlow Max=2.18 cfs @ 12.39 hrs HW=906.81' (Free Discharge) ttCulvert (Passes 2.18 cfs of 11.83 cfs potential flow) 2=Orifice/Grate (Weir Controls 2.03 cfs @ 1.32 fps) 3=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.15 cfs) Summary for Pond 5P: Filtration Basin #2 Inflow Area = 0.989 ac, 44.27% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.81" for 2-yr event Inflow = 3.28 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.149 of Outflow = 0.09 cfs @ 14.01 hrs, Volume= 0.149 af, Atten= 97%, Lag= 121.2 min Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.01 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of Secondary = 0.09 cfs @ 14.01 hrs, Volume= 0.149 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 4 Peak Elev= 918.62' @ 14.01 hrs Surf.Area= 3,760 sf Storage= 3,544 cf Plug -Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 401.8 min ( 1,183.9 - 782.1 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 917.50' 9,169 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below(Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 917.50 2,368 0 0 918.00 3,207 1,394 1,394 919.00 4,103 3,655 5,049 919.90 5,054 4,121 9,169 Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 919.50' 10.0' long x 5.0' breadth Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.88 #2 Secondary 917.50' 1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.01 hrs HW=917.50' (Free Discharge) t1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir( Controls 0.00 cfs) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.09 cfs @ 14.01 hrs HW=918.62' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.09 cfs) 15139 Proposed 2015-01-23 ChanhassenMissionHills 24-hrS1 2-yr Rainfall=2.87" Prepared by (enter your company name here) Printed 1/28/2015 Summary for Pond 6P: Filtration Basin #3 Inflow Area = 0.834 ac, 17.29% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.41" for 2-yr event Inflow = 2.34 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.098 of Outflow = 0.11 cfs @ 13.00 hrs, Volume= 0.098 af, Aften= 95%, Lag= 61.0 min Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.01 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of Secondary = 0.11 cfs @ 13.00 hrs, Volume= 0.098 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 4 Peak Elev= 911.97' @ 13.00 hrs Surf.Area= 4,705 sf Storage= 1,966 cf Plug -Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 164.5 min ( 973.8 - 809.3 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 911.50' 14,155 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store _(feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 911.50 3,742 0 0 912.00 4,777 2,130 2,130 913.00 5,968 5,373 7,502 914.00 7,338 6,653 14,155 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Secondary 911.50' 1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2 Primary 913.50' 7.0' long x 10.0' breadth Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 Coef. (English) 2.49 2.56 2.70 2.69 2.68 2.69 2.67 2.64 Primary OutFlow, Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.01 hrs HW=911.50' (Free Discharge) t2=13road-Crested Rectangular Weir( Controls 0.00 cfs) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.11 cfs @ 13.00 hrs HW=911.97' TW=907.85' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.11 cfs) 15139 Proposed 2015-01-23 ChanhassenMissionHills 24-hr S1 10-yr Rainfall=4.26" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 1/28/2015 HydroGAD®10.00-13 s/n 01655 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 12 Summary for Subcatchment PROPOSED AREA 1: PROPOSED AREA 1 Runoff = 3.67 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.145 af, Depth= 2.34" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Chan hassenMissionHills 24-hr S1 10-yr Rainfall=4.26" Area (ac) CN Description 0.711 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 0.033 98 Roofs, HSG D 0.744 81 Weighted Average 0.711 80 95.60% Pervious Area 0.033 98 4.40% Impervious Area Summary for Subcatchment PROPOSED AREA 2: PROPOSED AREA 2 Runoff = 20.55 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.932 af, Depth= 3.28" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ChanhassenMissionHills 24-hr S1 10-yr Rainfall=4.26" Area (ac) CN Description 1.440 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 1.971 98 Roofs, HSG D 3.411 90 Weighted Average 1.440 80 42.21 % Pervious Area 1.971 98 57.79% Impervious Area Summary for Subcatchment PROPOSED AREA 3: PROPOSED AREA 3 Runoff = 5.65 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.251 af, Depth= 3.04" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Chan hassenMissionHills 24-hr S1 10-yr Rainfall=4.26" Area (ac) CN Description 0.551 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 0.438 98 Roofs. HSG D 0.989 88 Weighted Average 0.551 80 55.73% Pervious Area 0.438 98 44.27% Impervious Area Summary for Subcatchment PROPOSED AREA 4: PROPOSED AREA 4 Runoff = 4.24 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.178 af, Depth= 2.56" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Chan hassenMissionHills 24-hr S1 10-yr Rainfall=4.26" 15139 Proposed 2015-01-23 Chanhassen MissionHills 24-hrS1 10-yr Rainfall=4.26" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 1/28/2015 HydroCAD@ 10.00-13 s/n 01655 02014 HVdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 13 Area (ac) CN Description 0.690 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 0.144 98 Roofs, HSG D 0.834 83 Weighted Average 0.690 80 82.71 % Pervious Area 0.144 98 17.29% Impervious Area Summary for Subcatchment PROPOSED AREA 5: PROPOSED AREA 5 Runoff = 3.23 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.146 af, Depth= 3.26" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Chan hassenMissionHills 24-hr S1 10-yr Rainfall=4.26" Area (ac) CN Description 0.234 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 0.304 98 Roofs HSG D 0.538 90 Weighted Average 0.234 80 43.49% Pervious Area 0.304 98 56.51 % Impervious Area Summary for Subcatchment PROPOSED AREA 6: PROPOSED AREA 6 Runoff = 11.00 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.491 af, Depth= 3.09" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ChanhassenM ission Hills 24-hr S 1 10-yr Rainfall=4.26" Area (sf) CN Description 43,721 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 39,189 98 Roofs, HSG D 82,911 89 Weighted Average 43,721 80 52.73% Pervious Area 39,189 98 47.27% Impervious Area Summary for Subcatchment PROPOSED AREA 7: PROPOSED AREA 7 Runoff = 1.17 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.050 af, Depth= 2.67" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ChanhassenMissionHills 24-hr S1 10-yr Rainfall=4.26" Area (ac) CN Description 0.171 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 0.052 98 Roofs. HSG D 0.223 84 Weighted Average 0.171 80 76.54% Pervious Area 0.052 98 23.46% Impervious Area 15139 Proposed 2015-01-23 ChanhassenMissionHills 24-hrS1 10-yr Rainfall=4.26" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 1/28/2015 HydroCADS 10.00-13 s/n 01655 ©2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 14 Summary for Pond 1P: Filtration Basin #4 Inflow Area = 0.538 ac, Inflow = 3.23 cfs @ Outflow = 3.19 cfs @ Primary = 3.19 cfs @ 56.51% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.26" 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.146 of 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.146 af, 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.146 of for 10-yr event Atten= 1 %, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 4 Peak Elev= 912.83' @ 11.99 hrs Surf.Area= 903 sf Storage= 594 cf Plug -Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 55.4 min ( 820.3 - 764.9 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 912.00' 2,887 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 912.00 520 0 0 913.00 979 750 750 914.00 1,580 1,280 2,029 914.50 1,851 858 2,887 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 907.25' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 82.0' CMP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 907.25' / 906.92' S= 0.0040'f Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete pipe, straight & clean, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #2 Device 1 912.50' 19.1" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #3 Device 1 912.00' 1.000 inlhr Exfiltration over Surface area Primary OutFlow Max=3.16 cfs @ 11.99 hrs HW=912.83' TW=908.12' (Dynamic Tailwater) L1=Culvert (Passes 3.16 cfs of 6.78 cfs potential flow) L2=Orifice/Grate (Weir Controls 3.14 cfs @ 1.89 fps) 3=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.02 cfs) Summary for Pond 2P: Filtration Basin #5 Inflow Area = 2.441 ac, Inflow = 14.29 cfs @ Outflow = 8.19 cfs @ Primary = 8.02 cfs @ Secondary = 0.17 cfs @ 49.30% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.00" 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.815 of 12.01 hrs, Volume= 0.815 af, 12.01 hrs, Volume= 0.382 of 12.01 hrs, Volume= 0.433 of for 10-yr event Atten= 43%, Lag= 1.1 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 4 Peak Elev= 908.16' @ 12.01 hrs Surf.Area= 7,462 sf Storage= 9,233 cf Plug -Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 257.8 min ( 1,119.9 - 862.2 ) 0 0 15139 Proposed 2015-01-23 ChanhassenMissionHills 24-hrS1 10-yr Rainfall=4.26" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 1/28/2015 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 01655 @ 2014 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pane 15 Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 906.70' 11,855 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store _(feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 906.70 4,962 0 0 907.00 5,699 1,599 1,599 908.00 7,212 6,456 8,055 908.50 7,989 3,800 11,855 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 907.80' 15.0' long x 5.0' breadth Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.88 #2 Secondary 906.70' 1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Primary OutFlow, Max=8.00 cfs @ 12.01 hrs HW=908.16' (Free Discharge) t1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir(Weir Controls 8.00 cfs @ 1.48 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.17 cfs @ 12.01 hrs HW=908.16' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.17 cfs) Summary for Pond 3P: Filtration Basin #1 Inflow Area = 3.411 ac, 57.79% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.28" for 10-yr event Inflow = 20.55 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.932 of Outflow = 12.04 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 0.932 af, Atten= 41 %, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 12.04 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 0.932 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 4 Peak Elev= 907.21' @ 12.00 hrs Surf.Area= 6,658 sf Storage= 14,619 cf Plug -Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 406.6 min ( 1,170.7 - 764.1 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 904.50' 24,014 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store _ (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 904.50 3,886 0 0 905.00 4,680 2,142 2,142 906.00 5,528 5,104 7,246 907.00 6,454 5,991 13,237 908.00 7,423 6,939 20,175 908.50 7,933 3,839 24,014 15139 Proposed 2015-01-23 ChanhassenMissionHills 24-hrS1 10-yr Rainfall=4.26" Prepared by (enter your company name here} Printed 1/28/2015 HydroCAD@ 10.00-13 s/n 01655 @ 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 16 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 895.25' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 50.0' CMP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 895.25' / 895.00' S= 0.0050 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete pipe, straight & clean, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #2 Device 1 906.65' 36.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #3 Device 1 904.50' 1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Primary OutFlow Max=12.04 cfs @ 12.00 hrs HW=907.21' (Free Discharge) t1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 12.04 cfs @ 15.33 fps) t2=Orifice/Grate (Passes < 12.86 cfs potential flow) 3=Exfiltration (Passes < 0.15 cfs potential flow) Summary for Pond 5P: Filtration Basin #2 Inflow Area = 0.989 ac, 44.27% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.04" for 10-yr event Inflow = 5.65 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.251 of Outflow = 0.10 cfs @ 14.80 hrs, Volume= 0.251 af, Atten= 98%, Lag= 168.9 min Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.01 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of Secondary = 0.10 cfs @ 14.80 hrs, Volume= 0.251 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 4 Peak Elev= 919.41' @ 14.80 hrs Surf.Area= 4,535 sf Storage= 6,816 cf Plug -Flow detention time=(not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 667.4 min ( 1,440.2 - 772.8 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 917.50' 9,169 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 917.50 2,368 0 0 918.00 3,207 1,394 1,394 919.00 4,103 3,655 5,049 919.90 5,054 4,121 9,169 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 919.50' 10.0' long x 5.0' breadth Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.88 #2 Secondary 917.50' 1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.01 hrs HW=917.50' (Free Discharge) t1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir( Controls 0.00 cfs) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.10 cfs @ 14.80 hrs HW=919.41' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.10 cfs) 15139 Proposed 2015-01-23 ChanhassenMissionHills 24-hrS1 10-yr Rainfall=4.26" Prepared by (enter your company name here) Printed 1/28/2015 HydroCAD@ 10.00-13 s/n 01655 @ 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 17 Summary for Pond 6P: Filtration Basin #3 Inflow Area = 0.834 ac, 17.29% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.56" for 10-yr event Inflow = 4.24 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.178 of Outflow = 0.12 cfs @ 13.70 hrs, Volume= 0.178 af, Atten= 97%, Lag= 102.5 min Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.01 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of Secondary = 0.12 cfs @ 13.70 hrs, Volume= 0.178 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 4 Peak Elev= 912.44' @ 13.70 hrs Surf.Area= 5,298 sf Storage= 4,333 cf Plug -Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 353.3 min ( 1,148.2 - 795.0 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 911.50' 14,155 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 911.50 3,742 0 0 912.00 4,777 2,130 2,130 913.00 5,968 5,373 7,502 914.00 7,338 6,653 14,155 Invert Outlet Devices #1 Secondary 911.50' 1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2 Primary 913.50' 7.0' long x 10.0' breadth Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 Coef. (English) 2.49 2.56 2.70 2.69 2.68 2.69 2.67 2.64 Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.01 hrs HW=911.50' (Free Discharge) L2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir( Controls 0.00 cfs) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.12 cfs @ 13.70 hrs HW=912.44' TW=907.85' (Dynamic Tailwater) L1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.12 cfs) 15139 Proposed 2015-01-23 ChanhassenMissionHills 24-hrS1 100-yr Rainfall=7.38" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 1/28/2015 HydroCAD@ 10.00-13 s/n 01655 ©2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paae 18 Summary for Subcatchment PROPOSED AREA 1: PROPOSED AREA 1 Runoff = 7.06 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.319 af, Depth= 5.14" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ChanhassenMissionHills 24-hr S1 100-yr Rainfall=7.38" Area (ac) CN Description 0.711 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D - 0.033 98 Roofs, HSG D 0.744 81 Weighted Average 0.711 80 95.60% Pervious Area 0.033 98 4.40% Impervious Area Summary for Subcatchment PROPOSED AREA 2: PROPOSED AREA 2 Runoff = 35.98 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 1.779 af, Depth= 6.26" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Chan hassenMissionHills 24-hr S1 100-yr Rainfall=7.38" Area (ac) CN Description 1.440 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 1.971 98 Roofs. HSG D 3.411 90 Weighted Average 1.440 80 42.21 % Pervious Area 1.971 98 57.79% Impervious Area Summary for Subcatchment PROPOSED AREA 3: PROPOSED AREA 3 Runoff = 10.17 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.492 af, Depth= 5.97" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ChanhassenMissionHills 24-hr S1 100-yr Rainfall=7.38" Area (ac) CN Description 0.551 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 0.438 98 Roofs. HSG D 0.989 88 Weighted Average 0.551 80 55.73% Pervious Area 0.438 98 44.27% Impervious Area Summary for Subcatchment PROPOSED AREA 4: PROPOSED AREA 4 Runoff = 8.13 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.376 af, Depth= 5.41" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ChanhassenMissionH ills 24-hr S1 100-yr Rainfall=7.38" 15139 Proposed 2015-01-23 ChanhassenMissionHills 24-hrS1 100-yr Rainfall=7.38" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 1/2812015 HydroCAD@ 10.00-13 s/n 01655 @ 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 19 Area (ac) CN Description 0.690 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 0.144 98 Roofs, HSG D 0.834 83 Weighted Average 0.690 80 82.71 % Pervious Area 0.144 98 17.29% Impervious Area Summary for Subcatchment PROPOSED AREA 5: PROPOSED AREA 5 Runoff = 5.66 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.279 af, Depth= 6.23" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ChanhassenMission Hills 24-hr S1 100-yr Rainfall=7.38" Area (ac) CN Descriotion 0.234 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D _ 0.304 98 Roofs HSG D 0.538 90 Weighted Average 0.234 80 43.49% Pervious Area 0.304 98 56.51% Impervious Area Summary for Subcatchment PROPOSED AREA 6: PROPOSED AREA 6 Runoff = 19.68 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.957 af, Depth= 6.04" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ChanhassenMissionHills 24-hr S1 100-yr Rainfall=7.38" Area (sf) CN Description 43,721 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 39,189 98 Roofs, HSG D 82,911 89 Weighted Average 43,721 80 52.73% Pervious Area 39,189 98 47.27% Impervious Area Summary for Subcatchment PROPOSED AREA 7: PROPOSED AREA 7 Runoff = 2.20 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.103 af, Depth= 5.54" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ChanhassenMissionHills 24-hr S1 100-yr Rainfall=7.38" _ Area (ac) CN Description 0.171 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 0.052 98 Roofs. HSG D 0.223 84 Weighted Average 0.171 80 76.54% Pervious Area 0.052 98 23.46% Impervious Area 0 a ,. 15139 Proposed 2015-01-23 ChanhassenMissionHills 24-hrS1 100-yr Rainfall=7.38" Prepared by (enter your company name here) Printed 1/28/2015 HydroCAD810.00-13 s/n 01655 02014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 20 Summary for Pond 1 P: Filtration Basin #4 Inflow Area = 0.538 ac, Inflow = 5.66 cfs @ Outflow = 5.65 cfs @ Primary = 5.65 cfs @ 56.51% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 6.23" 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.279 of 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.279 at, 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.279 of for 100-yr event Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs 14 Peak Elev= 912.99' @ 11.99 hrs Surf.Area= 975 sf Storage= 741 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 35.1 min calculated for 0.279 of (100% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 35.2 min ( 791.5 - 756.3 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 912.00' 2,887 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 912.00 520 0 0 913.00 979 750 750 914.00 1,580 1,280 2,029 914.50 1,851 858 2,887 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 907.25' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 82.0' CMP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert-- 907.25' / 906.92' S= 0.0040'P Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete pipe, straight & clean, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #2 Device 1 912.50' 19.1" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #3 Device 1 912.00' 1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Primary OutFlow Max=5.60 cfs @ 11.99 hrs HW=912.99' TW=908.46' (Dynamic Tailwater) L1=Culvert (Passes 5.60 cfs of 6.64 cfs potential flow) t2=Orifice/Grate (Weir Controls 5.58 cfs @ 2.29 fps) 3=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.02 cfs) Summary for Pond 2P: Filtration Basin #5 Inflow Area = 2.441 ac, Inflow = 25.43 cfs @ Outflow = 22.47 cfs @ Primary = 22.28 cfs @ Secondary= 0.18 cfs @ 49.30% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 7.93" 11.99 hrs, Volume= 1.612 of 12.00 hrs, Volume= 1.613 at, 12.00 hrs, Volume= 1.000 of 12.00 hrs, Volume= 0.613 of for 100-yrevent Atten= 12%, Lag= 0.3 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 4 Peak Elev= 908.47' @ 12.00 hrs Surf.Area= 7,947 sf Storage= 11,637 cf Plug -Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 197.5 min ( 1,134.7 - 937.2 ) . . . 15139 Proposed 2015-01-23 ChanhassenMissionHills 24-hrS1 100-yr Rainfall=7.38" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 1/28/2015 IydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 01655 @ 2014 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 21 Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 906.70' 11,855 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 906.70 4,962 0 0 907.00 5,699 1,599 1,599 908.00 7,212 6,456 8,055 908.50 7,989 3,800 11,855 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 907.80' 15.0' long x 5.0' breadth Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.88 #2 Secondary 906,70' 1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Primary OutFlow Max=22.13 cfs @ 12.00 hrs HW=908.47' (Free Discharge) t1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir(Weir Controls 22.13 cfs @ 2.20 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.18 cfs @ 12.00 hrs HW=908.47' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.18 cfs) Summary for Pond 3P: Filtration Basin #1 Inflow Area = 3.411 ac, 57.79% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 6.26" for 100-yr event Inflow = 35.98 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 1.779 of Outflow = 12.68 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 1.779 af, Atten= 65%, Lag= 6.7 min Primary = 12.68 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 1.779 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 4 Peak Elev= 908.43' @ 12.10 hrs Surf.Area= 7,862 sf Storage= 23,465 cf Plug -Flow detention time=(not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 235.4 min ( 991.0 - 755.6 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 904.50' 24,014 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 904.50 3,886 0 0 905.00 4,680 2,142 2,142 906.00 5,528 5,104 7,246 907.00 6,454 5,991 13,237 908.00 7,423 6,939 20,175 908.50 7,933 3,839 24,014 0 .. 15139 Proposed 2015-01-23 ChanhassenMissionHills 24-hrS1 100-yr Rainfall=7.38" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 1/28/2015 HVdroCAD@ 10.00-13 s/n 01655 @ 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 22 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 895.25' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 50.0' CMP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 895.25' / 895.00' S= 0.00507 Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete pipe, straight & clean, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #2 Device 1 906.65' 36.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #3 Device 1 904.50' 1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Primary OutFlow Max=12.68 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=908.43' (Free Discharge) t =Culvert (Barrel Controls 12.68 cfs @ 16.15 fps) 2=Orifice/Grate (Passes < 45.41 cfs potential flow) 3=Exfiltration (Passes < 0.18 cfs potential flow) Summary for Pond 5P: Filtration Basin #2 Inflow Area = 0.989 ac, 44.27% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.97" for 100-yr event Inflow = 10.17 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.492 of Outflow = 3.99 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.492 af, Atten= 61 %, Lag= 6.4 min Primary = 3.88 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.189 of Secondary = 0.11 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.304 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 4 Peak Elev= 919.80' @ 12.10 hrs Surf.Area= 4,943 sf Storage= 8,646 cf Plug -Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time=448.0 min ( 1,211.3 - 763.4 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 917.50' 9,169 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 917.50 2,368 0 0 918.00 3,207 1,394 1,394 919.00 4,103 3,655 5,049 919.90 5,054 4,121 9,169 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 919.50' 10.0' long x 5.0' breadth Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.88 #2 Secondary 917.50' 1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Primary OutFlow Max=3.86 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=919.79' (Free Discharge) t1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir(Weir Controls 3.86 cfs @ 1.31 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.11 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=919.79' (Free Discharge) t2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.11 cfs) 15139 Proposed 2015-01-23 ChanhassenMissionHills 24-hr S1 100-yr Rainfall=7.38" Prepared by {enter your company name here) Printed 1/28/2015 HydroCAD@ 10.00-13 s/n 01655 02014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 23 Summary for Pond 6P: Filtration Basin #3 Inflow Area = 0.834 ac, 17.29% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.41" for 100-yr event Inflow = 8.13 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.376 of Outflow = 0.15 cfs @ 15.00 hrs, Volume= 0.376 af, Aften= 98%, Lag= 180.6 min Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.01 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of Secondary = 0.15 cfs @ 15.00 hrs, Volume= 0.376 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.01-80.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 4 Peak Elev= 913.48' @ 15.00 hrs Surf.Area= 6,619 sf Storage= 10,494 cf Plug -Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 711.5 min ( 1,492.7 - 781.2 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 911.50' 14,155 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store _ (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 911.50 3,742 0 0 912.00 4,777 2,130 2,130 913.00 5,968 5,373 7,502 914.00 7,338 6,653 14,155 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Secondary 911.50' 1.000 inlhr Exfiltration over Surface area #2 Primary 913.50' 7.0' long x 10.0' breadth Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 Coef. (English) 2.49 2.56 2.70 2.69 2.68 2.69 2.67 2.64 Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.01 hrs HW=911.50' (Free Discharge) L2=13road-Crested Rectangular Weir( Controls 0.00 cfs) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.15 cfs @ 15.00 hrs HW=913.48' TW=907.86' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.15 cfs) AI-Jaff, Sharmeen From: Michael Hoagberg [mhoagberg@headwatersdevelopment.biz] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 11:05 AM To: AI-Jaff, Sharmeen Cc: 'Greg Zoidis' Subject: Request for City Council Meeting Reschedule Attachments: Chanhassen City Schedule.xlsx; City Council Meeting Reschedule Request_ Mission Hills.pdf Sharmeen, Please find attached our official request to reschedule our meeting to w discuss the Mission Hills Senior Living proposed development with the City Council to February 23, 2015. As a condition of this request, we waive the 60-day deadline requirement. I also attached a summary of fees that we calculated based on the 2015 Development Fee Schedule and multiple discussions with your staff. As we discussed, the Purchase Agreement for this site is considered confidential information between Headwaters Development and the Klingelhutz family. I will request a waiver of confidentiality from the Klingelhutz family. In the meantime, for your information, the document was executed September 20, 2014, and has a purchase price of $2,562,500 for the 8.67 acre site. We are available anytime to discuss the attached information. Please let me know if you have any questions or need anything else from us. I will be out of the Country from Jan 17 —Jan 31, email will be the best way to contact me. While I am gone, my partner Greg Zoidis will be available, and he can be reached at (763) 591-5135 or azoidis@prnct.com. Regards, Michael Hoagberg Managing Director Headwaters Development P: 952.378.4386 C:612.723.3330 E: mhoaeber¢@headwatersdevelopment.biz r HEADWATERS DEVELOPMENT January 15, 2015 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re. Rescheduling the Headwaters Development meeting with City Council to review the proposed Mission Hills Senior Living Planned Unit Development Amendment and Site Plan Approval Headwaters Development kindly requests the City to reschedule our meeting with City Council, which was originally scheduled for January 26, 2015. The next meeting time that the applicant proposes for the review is February 23, 2015. The applicant waives the 60-day deadline for the Mission Hills Senior Living proposed development application. Please confirm in writing or email that the proposed change is acceptable to the City. Sincerely, 1W Michael J. Hoagberg President Headwaters Development, LLC MHoagbergAheadwatersdevelopment.biz CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IIAN 1 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 3rd Addition. 3. Site Plan Review for the construction of a 134-unit Senior Housing Facility and 9 Twin Homes — Mission Hills Senior Living. On January 6, 2015, 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 2015-01). 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. SCANNED 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. 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. 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 #2015-01, dated January 6, 2015, prepared by Sharmeen AI-Jaff, et al, is incorporated herein. 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 6' day of January, 2015. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION iS-O� Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 6, 2015 The applicant must apply for and receive the appropriate permit required from the City. This permit will include a revised survey that displays the location of the patio addition, a completed hard surface coverage calculation worksheet and any other plans required for the permit. 2. Landscape materials must be installed to absorb additional runoff on the property. Commissioners Yusuf and Weick voted in favor; Commissioners Aller, Undestad and Hokkanen voted nay. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3. Aller: So do we have a date for that? Aanenson: Yes we do. Aller: January 261. Aanenson: Correct. Aller: So because of the denial by a less than a super majority this will be moved to the City Council to be heard on January 26, 2015. So anyone wishing to follow this item to it's final conclusion should do so at that time. Thank you one and all. PUBLIC HEARING: MISSION HILLS SENIOR LIVING: REOUEST FOR PUD AMENDMENT. SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR A 134 UNIT SENIOR HOUSING STRUCTURE AND 9 TWIN HOMES (18 INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS) ON 8.64 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) LOCATED AT 8600 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD (OUTLOT 3, MISSION HILLS). APPLICANT: HEADWATERS DEVELOPMENT, PLANNING CASE 2015-01. AI -Jaffa Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. The application before you is for a planned unit development amendment, a subdivision and a site plan. The site is located at 8600 Great Plains Boulevard, which is at the southeast corner of the intersection of 86' Street, Great Plains Boulevard and north of Highway 212. The area overall that is, majority of the area that surrounds the interchange o£212 and 101 is guided mixed use development. Within that type of land use you are permitted two different types of uses. The first one being neighborhood commercial. Basically meeting the daily needs of neighbors within the surrounding area and the second type of use is high density residential which is up to 16 units per acre. Basically apartments. The area where we are showing the subject site on this land use plan is the site that the applicant is proposing to build an apartment building that would be serving seniors as well as independent living townhouses. That is a permitted type of use. A few years back staff had meetings with property owners within that area and it was mainly people, or property owners that had vacant land. We just wanted to make suggestions. We studied the area quite a bit and we needed to let them know what the options are. When we were looking at this specific site we recommended that senior housing would be something that they should really consider. At that time, and while we were going through amending PUD's and cleaning up different applications SCANNED Chanhassen Planning Commission —January 6, 2015 within, different sites within the city, they chose to just hold off. Leave their options open as far as the type of use that would be permitted on, that would be designated to this site. Aanenson: Can I just add a couple things? A]-Jaff: Sure. Aanenson: I just want to talk a little bit about, so there have been two studies that we looked at on this property that Sharmeen was alluding to. One was we did one back when the park and ride went in because this area was in flux. Kind of there's a lot of transition between I think the Springfield neighborhood. Looking at the park and ride and then back when, before Kraus - Anderson had their project there was another mixed project on there that had some high density and so that, we kind of focused on some of those properties around there that were still in transition to kind of give some clarity. Again that's where the first recommendation came out on this, the subject site tonight to look at something other than the neighborhood commercial. Especially over time when we re -visited all the PUD's because now that the Kraus -Anderson project came in, we had Kwik Trip and that, we figured this was probably a less desirable. At that time when we met with the Klingelhutz's they chose not to, because this was given a neighborhood business commercial probably we probably, we felt it wouldn't be as successful but at that time they didn't want to change it so we're moving in the direction that we always felt was really a better alignment for the land use so I just wanted to give that note of clarity on that. Al-Jaff: One of the things that we also need to point out, when this area that is referred to as the Mission Hills development. When this area was developed it was prior to the construction of Highway 212 and the realignment of Great Plains Boulevard so there were many unknowns at the time and we just needed to point that part out. So the site is zoned planned unit development and in a few minutes I will get into the details of the background of how we got to this stage. As I mentioned the applicant is requesting to build a high density residential development there. In order to achieve that we need to amend an existing planned unit development that governs the subject site and that should be very simple to do since the planned unit development will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the overall application will meet all the standards set forth in ordinance. Getting into the background. So back in 1994 the City Council looked at this site. There was an application for mixed use being commercial as well as residential so the area that's highlighted in yellow is actually low density residential which is 1.2 to 4 units per acre. And then the area that is in beige is medium density residential which is between 4 and 8 units per acre. The portion that is shown in red and is guided commercial is actually neighborhood commercial. Again it was prior to the highways being realigned and built and it just seemed at the time that that was the proper type of use. As this development was completed and then the highways were realigned. The fence, noise wall was built and then we started looking at the traffic movements. The more and more we looked at it we realized this site really lends itself to residential rather than commercial type of use. When we went over the densities that were permitted on the site, and based on acreages the low density portion was permitted 34 units. Of those 34 units only 19 were built. Then the medium density was permitted 212 units. Of those only 194 were built. That leaves us with a density that could transfer somewhere else on the site as long as it is within the overall development. So, and what I should also add is those left over units can be transferred to the site that is shown as commercial here and will be Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 6, 2015 part of the high density overall calculation. So existing conditions basically the site has been graded. It is used as a farm. Actually it's where most of the pumpkins in Chanhassen come from. It falls within the shoreland overlay district of Lake Susan and it basically bisects the site. So a portion of it is within the overlay district and the rest of it sits outside. The applicant is proposing 134 units. 134 units of apartments within the building that is proposed to be located along the southerly portion of the site. The northeasterly portion of the site would be occupied by 9 townhouses. They will calculate to a total number of 18 additional units. All the units are rental units. The townhouses will be independent living and the apartment building will be a mix of independent living, assisted as well as memory care. Access to the site will be gained off of 86a' Street. There will be no access to Highway 212 nor to Great Plains Boulevard. There is a curb cut there on Great Plains Boulevard but that will be closed off. Parking will be located to the center of the site. There will be landscaping that will be screening this parking and there will be some berms as well. So as I mentioned earlier the site is located within the shoreland overlay district. Looking at the site, and after talking to the DNR we were told that the building will, any portion of the building that is within the shoreland overlay district cannot exceed 35 feet in height and we worked with the applicant so as you can see the northeasterly comer of the, of the apartment building extends into that shoreland overlay district and the red line is that shoreland boundary. What the applicant did was they pivoted the building and it's outside the shoreland overlay district zone so we are within compliance with the DNR regulations and we did receive a confirmation from the DNR. After they saw this they said they have no further comments. So the architecture of the building and the design is attractive. There are pronounced entrances utilizing durable exterior material and there is plenty of articulation shown on the building. The materials used are durable. They are a combination of masonry painted siding. There is some EIFS on the structure and any elevation that has, that can be viewed by the public has received equal attention. Actually all elevations have been very well designed. The twin homes, one of the things we talked about with the applicant is yes, they need to compliment the building but each, the main building but each unit should be a little different. Has some different qualities and you will notice that what they were proposing or what they are proposing is some differences in the type of garage door that serves those units. Some of the columns. The roof lines so there are some variations but still within the same color family. As far as signage on the site, the applicant is proposing two signs. One facing Great Plains Boulevard and the second one at the entrance into the site. We had a conversation with the applicant and we said you really can only have one in a residential district and they have chosen to keep the sign that faces Great Plains Boulevard. The sign will meet all ordinance requirements. 24 square feet. 5 feet high and it's attractive and it will compliment the building. The architecture of the building. Sidewalks and trails are everywhere on the site and around it. Very good plan and there should be a pedestrian crossing should be incorporated along the southerly parking lot. Just to ensure that pedestrians always have the ability to get onto the trails and connect them with the Highway 101. The property is within a mile of two parks. The Chanhassen Hills Park as well as Bandimere Park. These two parks are more robust and they do have quite a few recreational facilities. Between those two they offer features such as fishing piers, boat landings, tennis courts, archery range, soccer fields, etc. The current site is an outlot and the city code requires all parcels, in order for them to be buildable, they have to be a lot. One of the things that we also need to point out is you're going to see multiple buildings on this site. Under the planned unit development ordinance you may have multiple buildings on a single parcel. All of those buildings are rental under single ownership so again that is permitted under the planned unit development ordinance. 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission —January 6, 2015 This subdivision is truly straight forward. Taking an outlot. Turning it into a lot and a block and at this point I would like to turn it over to Alyson Fauske to address a traffic study. Fauske: Thank you Sharmeen. Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission and residents in the audience. When the applicant came forward with this proposal there was a discussion with regards to traffic. As Kate and Sharmeen had mentioned with this area having been in flux as far as what it's ultimate use was and given the proposal for the mixed use, we thought it would be a good time to take a look at what the impacts would be so included in the packet is an analysis done by SRF Consulting. They did take a look at what the trip generation would be for the site. Some of the internal circulation within the site, and then also some of the impacts within the existing infrastructure as far as 861s Street and 101 to see if there would be any impacts to those improvements. To this improvement. So as shown on the screen here is essentially the result of the traffic study. They took a look at the trip generation proposed from the site, both with based on the proposals seen before you today and then also with, if the site were to be developed into an apartment, the highest density allowed within this zoning district just to provide a comparison and what the traffic engineers do is they establish what's called a level of service and a level of service is with a grade A through F with A being excellent. Essentially no delay for traffic and then F being a severe delay for traffic within the area and the analysis that they concluded is that the level of services are within acceptable ranges with acceptable delays. Another component to the analysis was to take a look at West 80b Street in particular and see what improvements would be ideal to allow for this proposal so shown on the north side of the site, on West 86a' Street near the intersection of Highway 101, there's a note for some median changes to there to cut back some of the existing raised curb median in the middle of the street and then to have some turn lanes installed in order to better facilitate the turning movements through there. Also included in their analysis, it's near the back of your report on page 16. They do have a discussion with regards to the existing sight distances for traffic turning off of West 80h Street onto 101. They refer to the guidelines set forth through actually the federal guidelines with regards to sight distance and they've determined that the existing sight distances both to the north and the south are within the acceptable range according to the Institute of Highway and Traffic. We have had some residents, some of the current residents in the neighborhood express some concerns with some of the safety of turning onto 101 and we've contacted Carver County since 101 is now a county road to alert them to some of the safety concerns that the residents have. They did receive a copy of the application. We did not receive a comment from them nor have we had an opportunity to hear back from them with regards to addressing some of the safety concerns but we'll certainly continue to work with them and try to connect them with the residents regarding any safety questions that come up with the proposed operations at that intersection. But as I had indicated the SRF analysis did indicate that the current intersection sight lines are adequate according to the guidelines. Another question that had come up, I believe even prior to this proposal was with regards to parking on West 86's Street along the curve to the east of the site. There's been some, it doesn't show on this slide but due to the curve, the horizontal curve on West 8e Street that there might be some, thank you Shanneen. There might be some sight distance issues as it comes along the curve between the two medium density developments on each side so we have had some monitoring in that area to see if it would be warranted to limit or restrict the parking to one side and we'll continue to work with that independent of this site proposal since it is a system, a question with regards to the efficiency of the system and independent of the project proposal. 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 6. 2015 AI-Jaff: So as mentioned earlier the applicant is requesting the site plan approval for the density of 152 units and that is 134 units in an apartment building as well as the 9 townhouses on the site. These uses are in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan which would also allow the City to amend the ordinance governing this site. Currently it is guided commercial and it would be re -guided or currently it is governed by the planned unit development to be developed as commercial and we would be amending the planned unit development to high density residential. There is one error in the staff report. One only. It is on page 24 of 33. I have indicated that the total number of multi -family units is 134 and that number should be 152. That same number is reflected in the ordinance that is attached to this staff report so that would need to be corrected as well. Staff is recommending approval of the planned unit development amendment, the site plan approval and the preliminary plat and we'll be happy to answer any questions. Undestad: So the densities on this one, the 33 units that weren't, were not used in the previous, they're transferred to this site. Al-Jaff: That is correct. Aanenson: I'm not sure that was really clear in the presentation but that's how you got to that number. We took the excess that wasn't used to pull it over. Undestad: Okay and then that's still at 152 units and then the alternate traffic study used an assumption of 175 units and they still were good. Al-Jaff: Correct. Undestad: Okay. Aller: Any other additional questions of staff at this point? Hearing none we'll hear from the applicant or the developer. If you could please state your name and representation for the record that would be great. Mike Hoagberg: Hi, I'm Mike Hoagberg. I'm the managing member of the development group, Headwaters Development and we're happy to be here tonight to discuss the proposed Mission Hills Senior Living Development. Aller: Welcome sir. Mike Hoagberg: You know we really think this is the prospects of building a new senior living development in Chanhassen is very exciting. This is a great opportunity for us and a great opportunity for the community. We've had several conversations with the staff members and residents throughout the city of Chanhassen and we've commissioned several market studies and it's clear to us that there is demand for additional senior housing in the city of Chanhassen. Furthermore we've put forth considerable effort to make sure that we have incorporated all the comments and feedback that we've received from the staff, as well as neighbors from the surrounding community to incorporate those comments into the plans that you're looking at 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 6, 2015 tonight. Our development team has put together what we believe is a strong team. We're working with some of the most well respected firms in senior housing. Here with me tonight is my development partner Greg Zodas. We also have Susan Farr who is the Senior Vice President of Development for Ebenezer. Ebenezer will be our operating partner for this community going forward and as you may know Ebenezer is one of the largest senior housing operators in Minnesota and they're also affiliated with the Fairview Health Systems and so we're very excited that they're joining us on this project. I also have Eric Reiners from SRa. His firm has done a lot of the architectural work and projects for senior housing development throughout the state of Minnesota and has been a partner with us from the beginning on this project and so we're very excited about this opportunity and thanks again for the discussion this evening. And we're here for any questions that you guys have. Aller: Questions? None, thank you. I'll open the public hearing portion of the meeting now. Opportunity for anyone present to speak either for or against the item before us so if you would like to speak on behalf of the motion, the applicant or against it or just make a comment, please come forward and state your name and address for the record. Bernie Gaytko: Thank you. Good evening. I'm Bernie Gaytko and I live at 521 Mission Hills Drive, excuse me. I'm fighting the crud that's going around town. I've been in that area for 20 years. We were one of the fast families to move into the Mission Hills garden home area and so we've seen a lot of changes and most of the changes that we've seen have increased the traffic on Highway 101 significantly. When 212 came through, and of course having an interchange at 101, that filtered a lot of traffic northbound and obviously southbound too but mostly northbound past our development, making it difficult for some people to make a turn out of 86' Street south onto 101. I understand now having seen the traffic study and having heard the Assistant City Engineer's statement that Carver County is still looking at that particular intersection. I would say that I'm pleased that they've taken it seriously and that hopefully some recommendations will come down and be implemented that can satisfy the concerns of the elderly residents that live in our area so. That being said, and speaking now as an individual, as an individual homeowner as opposed to any member of any board of the directors of the association anymore, but as an individual I am well aware of the need for this type of a development in Chanhassen. I'm part of a ministry at St. Hubert's and I do go out and visit the homebound on a weekly basis so I get a chance to get into many units like this and many units that aren't like this, but I get a chance to get into them and talk to a lot of people and I have talked to the people in our development, those that I have run into since we had our meeting and they seem to be almost to a person in favor of the development and the only concern that I have heard is that of excess traffic and the concern especially of turning left to go south on 101 so if that can be addressed and apparently is going to be one way or the other, if that is being addressed then I would give my own personal okay to the development. I think it's a prudent use of the space and it's well needed in our area so thank you. Aller: Thank you sir. Thank you for coming out on such a wicked night. Aanenson: I just wanted to add something on the market study, or the marketing or the need for this in the community. We didn't talk about this but Maxfield Research did do a Carver County wide, looking at housing. Senior housing into the next 10-20 years for the really 2040 14 :A Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 6, 2015 Comprehensive Plan update, which we'll be sharing with you as we go forward with that. We've had a lot of inquiries on senior housing. While everyone would like to put senior housing in Chanhassen, you know our goal is to have diversified housing and not to be responsible for the entire senior housing for the entire county. Having said that, we've always felt this was a good site so we've always tried to you know, it's got good access and close to other services so as far as a site that we highly recommended from the beginning and as we stated before we had recommended this probably going back 5, 7 years so again we do believe there is a need and that's been demonstrated in the Maxfield study that there is need for senior housing so we didn't talk about that in the staff report but I just wanted to make you aware of that. Aller: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come forward? Ma'am, go ahead and speak into the microphone so it can be part of the record. Karla Thomsen: Certainly. Aller: And if you could state your name and address that would be great. Karla Thomsen: I'm Karla Thomsen. I'm at 8524 Mission Hills Drive. Aller: Welcome. Karla Thomsen: Okay, and my concern is are they going to be widening 86' Street to make additional parking along there if they so decide? Are they going to take out that middle section with bushes and we have a center island with bushes and whatever. Are they just going to remove that and widen the road because the way it sounded like you were going to try to make parking on one side or the other so I didn't know if you were widening the road. Aller: Okay, I'll have that addressed in a second. Are there any other concerns or comments that you would like to make? Karla Thomsen: No. No. Bernie said it all for us. Aller: Okay. Thank you for coming out. Karla Thomsen: Thank you. Aller: And I'll turn to the engineer and ask her to respond to the traffic situation so that she can re -state. I think what I heard was that we're investigating that issue and it's kind of in process. A work in process and that regardless of what happens here, that the City's going to continue to make that a priority issue for them to take a look at the parking and the sight line independent of whatever happens here so that's my understanding. Is that correct? Fauske: That's correct Chairman Aller. The other component that I believe that Ms. Thomsen had was with regards to whether or not 86' Street would need to be widen based on the turn lanes. The graphic that's shown on the screen right now is within the constraints of the existing widths of the street and so it would just be a matter of putting some striping on the street in order 15 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 6, 2015 to guide the traffic within those turn lanes so it would be within the constraints. The existing raised median in there would be cut back so there would be some impact as far as the green space within there but that's simply to provide enough space for those turn lanes that they're proposing on 86' Street. Aller: So we would be allowing for additional movement without actually widening the road. Fauske: Correct. It would be just distinguishing a dedicated lane for turning movements as opposed to folks, and it happens intuitively folks will pull a little further towards the center if they're making a left turn onto 101. In this instance it provides a dedicated turn lane for that movement. Aller: Which I think is a lot safer isn't it? Fauske: Correct. It's providing an actual lane for that and then also allowing a space for the northbound 101 traffic to make a free turn onto 101 without being blocked by another vehicle. Aller: Okay, thank you. Anyone else wishing to come forward during the public hearing portion to speak either for or against this item? Seeing no one come forward I'll close the public hearing and I'll open it up for discussion. Anyone? Hokkanen: Well I think it's a nice project and I think it's a need in the city. I think it's something that we, I think it's a good location. I think traffic's been addressed and a concern always with these new, bigger developments going in and it sounds like the staff has made sure of that. The only question, and I don't think we have anything, control over this but the twin homes or the townhomes seem to look almost identical to each other. You guys are laughing at me. Aanenson: That issue has been raised by the planning staff, yes. Aller: When you go into the dentist office and you get those little matching things in the Highlight magazines, that's what I was thinking. Hokkanen: Okay. Aller: Find the difference. Hokkanen: I did. They're just windows on the garage and a couple of things but they were not unique enough in my opinion and I'd like to see a little more diversity in the elevations just to make it a little bit more appealing as you drive in. I think that would be beneficial to everybody is just my opinion. That's it. Aller: Thank you. Anyone else? Weick: I think we're lucky as a community to have residents that have lived here for so long and have such a vested interest in what happens to the city and the area around them so I thank 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 6, 2015 people for coming forward. I think we're also equally lucky to have such a team to bring this senior living project to Chanhassen. I think we're very lucky on both counts. That's my opinion. Aller: Okay. Undestad: Can I ask Alyson? Aller: Absolutely. Undestad: One more question. Aller: Commissioner Undestad. Undestad: At the intersection out there, at what point does the County look at traffic as far as street, you know stop lights things like that? Fauske: That's an excellent question. If I may address the question. When you look at any kind of traffic control device, be it a stop sign or a traffic signal there's certain warrants that have to be met. Warrants and without having the detailed list at hand, it has to do with traffic volumes on both the mainline road and the crossroad. Total, it can go by total daily volumes. It can go by peak volumes. They take into account pedestrian crossing. It has to be a very strong pedestrian movement for that be a consideration and warrants and accident information is also included so there hasn't been any indication that any of the signal warrants would be met at that intersection and based on the analysis it doesn't appear that the proposed development would trigger any kind of intersection. Signalized intersection at that location. Undestad: Okay. Aller: Am I correct in remembering in the report there was no indication there's been an accident for 5 to 7 years or maybe even longer at that intersection? Fauske: Correct. I believe that was included in the analysis and I don't recall there being an accident information in there. Aller: Well I think that it's great that this community, Chanhassen is a growing community but it's also an aging community and I think that in the recent years we've taken a stronger look at that and actually are acting upon that so I'm happy to see this type of project come to Chanhassen. With that I'll request a motion. Hokkanen: It's a long one. Give me the long ones. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve a Planned Unit Development Amendment to the existing standards (Mission Hills PUD), Site Plan approval for the construction of 134 unit multi -tenant senior housing apartment building and 9 twinhomes, and the Preliminary Plat approval to replat 8.64 acres into Lot 1, Block 1, Mission Hills and Addition on property zoned Planned Unit 17 Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 6, 2015 Development and located at 8600 Great Plains Boulevard (Outlot E, Mission Hills), and the adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Yusuf. Second. Aller: I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Hokkanen moved, Yusuf seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development amendment in the attached ordinance for Mission Hills to allow High Density Use on the site and set standards for the structures as shown below with the following conditions and including the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. 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 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 Medium Density District. Except as modified by the Mission Hills standards below for Lot 1, Block 1, Mission Hills Yd Addition shall comply with the R-12, High Density District. b. Permitted Uses The permitted uses within the development shall include the following: • Single Family Residential • Medium Density Residential • High Density Residential C. Setbacks In the PUD standards, the building setback for commercial is 50 feet from any public right-of- way. The 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 High In i Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 6, 2015 Density portion of the site. This buffer shall be in the form of a berm and landscaping. The following setbacks shall be observed: Street High Density Building Setback* Residential Medium Density Building Setback Residential Parking Setback Commercial Parking Setback* Highway 101 * 50' 20' Highway 212 * 50' 20' West 86 h Street * 30' 20' Interior Lot Lines O'(from commercial) 50'(from residential) 0' 0' 0' (from commercial) 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, 9' Supplemental filed April 10, 1996; Mission Hills Villas, A Condominium, Common Interest Community No. 8, l0a' Supplemental filed April 10, 1996; Mission Hills Villas, A Condominium, Common Interest Community No. 8, 1 lb Supplemental filed May 7, 1996; and Mission Hills Villas, A Condominium, Common Interest Community No. 8, 12`s Supplemental filed May 20, 1996; Mission Hills 2' Addition: Mission Hills and Addition: Area: 2,100 square feet Width: 46 feet Depth: 47 feet Area: 376,358.4 square feet Width: 480 feet Depth: 620 feet Net Lot Hard Surface BLOCK USE Area Density Coverage Mission Hills 3' 152 Multi -Family Addition Units 8.64 acres 17.5 50% Block 1, Mission Hills 138 MUIrti-Family 18 acres 7.66 37% ts Block 4, Mission Hills 56 Multi -Family Units 8.92 acres 6.28 43.2% RESIDENTIAL Building exterior material shall be a combination of prepainted 5" aluminum siding and brick. 19 Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 6, 2015 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 1 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 Lott, Block 1, Mission Hills 3'a 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 insulation system (E.I.F.S.) and the structures will have sloped shingle roofs. All elevations 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 2'/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. 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. W 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 6, 2015 f. Signage One monument sign along Great Plains Boulevard shall be permitted for Lot 1, Block 1, Mission Hills 3'd Addition. 1. 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 Lot 1, Block 1, Mission Hills 3'd Addition 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. 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''/2 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 Lot 1, Block 1, Mission Hills and 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. 21 Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 6, 2015 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Hokkanen moved, Yusuf seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the preliminary plat to replat Outlot E, Mission Hills into Lot 1, Block 1, Mission Hills 311 Addition, as shown in plans dated received December 22, 2014, including the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation, subject to the following conditions: Park and Trail Conditions Full park fees in lieu of additional parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected as a condition of approval for Lot 1, Block 1, Mission Hills 3'd Addition. 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 and $5,000 per twin home dwelling, the total park fees will be $599,200. Engineering Conditions: 1. The estimated Surface Water Utility fees are $108,669.80. These shall be due with the final plat. 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 city must be granted the right to enter the subject property to inspect the stormwater BMPs in perpetuity. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Hokkanen moved, Yusuf seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the site plan consisting of a 134-unit senior housing apartment and nine twin homes, Planning Case 2015-01 as shown in plans dated received December 22, 2014, and including the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation, subject to the following conditions: Environmental Resource Conditions: The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan for approval. The revised plan shall meet minimum requirements for vehicular use area landscaping and bufferyards. 2. The applicant shall provide one overstory tree for each residential unit. 3. The applicant shall increase landscaping in the southwest comer of the property to block view of the garage doors and wall areas. 22 Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 6, 2015 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 website: http://www.dli.mn.gov/CCLD/PlanConstruction.ast). 2. Buildings must be protected with automatic fire suppression systems. 3. An accessible route must be provided to buildings, parking facilities, public transportation stops and all common use facilities. 4. Parking areas, including parking garages, must be provided with accessible parking spaces dispersed among the various 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. Additional fire hydrants will be required. Contact Fire Marshal for details. 2. A three-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. 3. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs and yellow painted curbing will be required. Contact Fire Marshal for specifics. 4. A Post Indicator Valve (PIV) will be required. 5. 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. Proposed street names must be submitted to Chanhassen Fire Marshal and Chanhassen Building Official for review and approval. 6. Fire hydrants shall be installed and made serviceable prior to combustible construction. 7. Fire apparatus access roads capable of supporting the weight of fire apparatus shall be made serviceable prior to combustible construction. 8. 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. 23 Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 6, 2015 En 'nig eering Conditions: The estimated Surface Water Utility fees are $108,669.80. These shall be due with the final plat. 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 city must be granted the right to enter the subject property to inspect the stormwater BMPs in perpetuity. 4. The grading plan must be revised to show the first floor elevations of adjacent structures within 100 feet of the property boundary. 5. Proposed elevations must be shown at the comers of each proposed structure. 6. Plans must show the location and elevations of the Emergency Over -Flows (EOFs) on the project. Structures proposed near an EOF must be a minimum of one foot above the EOF elevation. The plans must show the style of home for the twin homes. 8. The plans must show a standard lot benching detail. 9. The grading plan must show proposed elevations at the center of the proposed driveway at the curb line. The maximum allowed driveway grade is 10%. 10. Proposed grades must not exceed a 3:1 slope. 11. 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. 12. Walls taller than six feet shall not be constructed with boulder rock. 13. Any wall taller than four feet must be designed by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Minnesota. 14. 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. 15. The top and bottom wall elevation must be labeled on the northern retaining wall. 16. The plans must show names for these streets. 17. The streets must be paved with a 7-ton design typical section. 18. The developer shall work with Carver County to remove the curb cut along CSAH 101. i'I • a Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 6, 2015 19. The developer shall incorporate the recommendations from the traffic study into their plan set. 20. The parking lot aisles must be a minimum of 26 feet wide. 21. The engineer shall add the city's standard plates for concrete sidewalk and bituminous trail to the plan set. 22. The trails and sidewalks shall be offset from the private streets to incorporate a 5-foot wide boulevard. 23. Pedestrian ramps shall meet ADA requirements. 24. The pedestrian ramps at West 86' Street shall be moved closer to the intersection. 25. The pedestrian ramps near the westernmost twin home shall be aligned with each other. 26. A pedestrian crossing shall be incorporated to line up with the southwest walkway that connects with the CSAH 101 trail. 27. 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. 28. C900 must be used for watermain due to soil conditions typically found in the City. 29. The developer's engineer shall work with the fire marshal to determine the locations of all fire hydrants. 30. This parcel has already paid the city for one water and sanitary service hook-up. All additional units 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. 31. The developer shall work with the Building Department to determine the city SAC and WAC fees for the main building. 32. Rates cannot increase over existing conditions at any point where surface water discharges the site. 33. The applicant must provide calculations demonstrating the existing storm sewer under West 86' Street, and downstream, has adequate capacity. 34. The outlet from Filtration Basin #1 shall be directed to the 36-inch, reinforced concrete pipe drainage to the southeast and obtain permission from MnDOT to direct the drainage to the MnDOT pond. 35. All work within the MnDOT right-of-way must be approved by MnDOT. 36. The site grading must be such that drainage in the southeast property comer is directed towards Filtration Basin #1 and not to the east into the private properties in Mission Hills. 25 Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 6, 2015 37. A full SWPPP meeting all the requirements of the NPDES permit must be provided to the city for review and approval prior to recording the final plat. 38. The applicant shall evaluate the practicality of implementing, to the "maximum extent practicable," volume -reducing practices including re -use. 39. All swales directing surface flows towards surface water features, including but not limited to storm sewer infrastructure, and off the subject property shall be stabilized within 48 hours of cessation of grading activities. 40. The plan shall include a discussion of dewatering that, at a minimum, addresses which party(ies) are responsible for development of a dewatering plan if one is needed and that the city must be notified no less than 24 hours in advance of undertaking dewatering activities. 41. Erosion control blanket shall be extended to the top of the slopes draining towards the southern property boundary. 42. 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. 43. The plan shall clearly indicate how storm water will be routed into Filtration Basin #4 for treatment. 44. Pretreatment shall be provided for all filtration basins. 45. A planting plan for the filtration features will be required before recording the final plat. 46. It is the applicant's responsibility to assure that permits are received from all other agencies with jurisdiction over the project. Planninc 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. Three additional visitor parking spaces shall be added. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Aller: For those of you at home that wish to follow this item, this item will go to the City Council on January 26, 2015. Also if you want to take a look at the reports and studies that we've been talking about, they are on the website. PC DO: 1/6/2015 CC DATE: 1/26/2015 CITY OF CHANHASSEN REVIEW DEADLINE: 2/3/2015 CASE #: 2015-01 BY: Al-Jaff, et al. PROPOSED MOTION: "The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve 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 P Addition, 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 and Recommendation." 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 and nine twin homes. 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. LOCATION: 8600 Great Plains Boulevard (Outlot E, Mission Hills) North of Highway 212, east of Great Plains Boulevard 6� and southwest of 80h Street APPLICANT: Michael Hoagberg Klingelhutz Farms, LLC 17550 Hemlock Avenue 545 Lake Drive #205 Lakeville, MN 55044 Chanhassen, MN 55317 P: 952.378.4386 Neil Klingelhutz C: 612.723.3330 C: 612-685-5580 E: mhoaQberg_na,ch-holdingsllc.com klingelhutz3@Msn.com 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 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. SCANNED Planning Commission Mission Hills Senior Living — Planning Case 2015-01 January 6, 2015 Page 2 of 33 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 and nine twin homes. The requests include a Planned Unit Development Amendment to existing standards, a site plan for an apartment building and 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 80s 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 80s Street. Planning Commission Mission Hills Senior Living — Planning Case 2015-01 January 6, 2015 Page 3 of 33 The following is a summary of the requests: 1. Planned Unit Development Amendment: The fast request is to amend the ordinance regulating the use on the site from Commercial to Residential. 2. Subdivision/Preliminary and Final 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, 134-unit senior housing apartment building and nine 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 46.5%. 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 86m Street. There will not be direct access to Highways 212 or 101 (Great Plains Boulevard). 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 Planning Commission Mission Hills Senior Living — Planning Case 2015-01 January 6, 2015 Page 4 of 33 BACKGROUND The Land Use Plan designates areas around the TH 10l/TH 212 interchange as mixed use. This category has been established to accommodate either commercial or high - density residential developments. The high - density category, which includes units with a maximum net density of 16.0 units per acre, accommodates apartments and higher density condominium units, but would also permit the development of townhome-type units. The Mission Hills development was approved prior to the realignment of CSAH 101 (Great Plains Boulevard) and the construction of TH 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 PUD (493-4). The uses within the PUD allowed for Low Density Residential at the northeasterly portion, Medium Density along the center of the site and Neighborhood Commercial along the southwesterly portion; • Final plat of Mission Hills for 16 single-family lots and 75 medium -density lots to accommodate a total of 210 units and an outlot for future commercial development; and • Site Plan #94-5 for the construction of 194 townhouses. Planning Commission Mission Hills Senior Living — Planning Case 2015-01 January 6, 2015 Page 5 of 33 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 134-unit apartment building and nine twin homes. Total Acres Density # of Units Permitted # of Units Built Low Density 8.5 4 units per acre 34 19 Medium Density 26.5 8 units per acre 212 194 Total 246 213 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. A PUD is required to be developed to a higher quality than other projects. 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 46.5%. The site plan request is for the construction of a four-story senior housing apartment building and nine 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. 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 86m 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. Planning Commission Mission Hills Senior Living — Planning Case 2015-01 January 6, 2015 Page 6 of 33 The minimum setback in the PUD district is 50 feet from the residential district. The apartment building maintains a minimum of 65 feet at the closest point to the westerly property line and increases to 120 feet. There is a 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. The design of the building is attractive and is proposed to be constructed of high -quality materials which include masonry, painted siding, and exterior finish and insulation system (E.I.F.S.) and the structures will have sloped shingle roofs. All elevations that can be viewed by the public have received equal attention. The building has pronounced entrances, utilizes durable exterior materials, and exhibits articulation. �1 ry 6 2 eaw%eagr tBtBl[ Ho oFE lwe'CMCH • Planning Commission Mission Hills Senior Living — Planning Case 2015-01 January 6, 2015 Page 7 of 33 The nine twin homes will be located along the northeasterly portion of the site. The design and colors used on the buildings will complement the apartment building and remain within the same color family, however; each unit will have some unique features. Utilizing the basic building footprint, the applicant modified the exterior components and colors to create four unique yet compatible design options for the twin homes. The location of each design type is placed within the layout of nine buildings to create a maximum separation between each design option. ae sd ��FF r. ca�aic+awnrrr:�.: Design Option #1 Features color scheme #1 with a shed roof design over the front bay window, tapered siding column at front walk and standard garage door. Design Option #2 Features color scheme #2 with a gable roof design over the front bay window, square four post column at front walk and garage door with transom windows. Design Option #3 Features color scheme #1 with a gable roof design over the front bay window, square four post column at front walk and standard garage door. Design Option #4 Features color scheme #2 with a shed roof design over the front bay window, tapered siding column at front walk and garage door with transom windows. 000* r" Planning Commission Mission Hills Senior Living — Planning Case 2015-01 January 6, 2015 Page 8 of 33 The total number of units proposed on the site is 134 units housed in the apartment building and 18 units in 9 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 26.92 215 194 21 High Density subject Site 8.34 133 0 133 Total 35.26 348 194 154 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. 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. NON ENT MCNILECT�L 24 SO Signs are proposed along the west facing Great Plains Boulevard and northeast corner of the site facing West 86 h Street. The sign facing Great Plains Boulevard is in a "V" shape. 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. Staff is recommending the removal of the sign along West 86s' Street. 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. Planning Commission Mission Hills Senior Living — Planning Case 2015-01 January 6, 2015 Page 9 of 33 PARKING The ordinance requires one parking space per twin home unit for a total of 18 spaces. The applicant is providing 18 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. Twenty-three 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 35 spaces. Three additional guest parking spaces must be added to meet ordinance requirements. ARCHITECTURAL COMPLIANCE Size, 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. Heieht 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 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. Planning Commission Mission Hills Senior Living — Planning Case 2015-01 January 6, 2015 Page 10 of 33 Facade Transparency All facades viewed by the public contain more than 50 percent windows and/or doors. One area that can be viewed by the public does not meet ordinance requirement. This area is located along the southeast corner. This can be easily remedied through the use of additional landscaping. 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. Planning Commission Mission Hills Senior Living — Planning Case 2015-01 January 6, 2015 Page 11 of 33 (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 with the exception of the number of visitor parking spaces required. Staff will work with the applicant to bring the plans into compliance. 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 bemung. (5) Street lighting. (6) Screening of parking, especially in apartment and condominium developments. () 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. 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. Planning Commission Mission Hills Senior Living — Planning Case 2015-01 January 6, 2015 Page 12 of 33 B1uffProtection 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. 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: DRAINAGE Currently the site has three drainage areas. The majority of the site either drains north to West 8e Street or south to the right-of-way for MN TH 212. Approximately 16% of the site drains to the east to Mission Hills with much of this watershed making it to a stormwater pond located at the intersection of Mission Hills Way and West 860' Street. Under the proposed condition, the site is divided into seven drainage areas that will leave the site at four distinct locations. A majority of the site, 7.62 acres, will be treated and discharged to the storm sewer either at the intersection of Great Plains Boulevard and West 86' Street or to the storm sewer system in the southwest comer of the site that goes under Great Plains Boulevard and discharges onto 8601 Great Plains Boulevard. While the cumulative discharge rate decreases for the site, the rates are increased for all events at West 80^ Street and Great Plains Boulevard in the northwest corner of the site. These rates cannot increase over existing conditions. This becomes more important when considering that the connection will be into a 12-inch concrete pipe which is likely to have inadequate capacity to handle this discharge. The drainage plan must be revised such that rates are not increased over existing conditions at any discharge point from the property. Downstream capacity must be evaluated using the rational method to show that adequate capacity exists. If there is inadequate capacity, the applicant must demonstrate how this will be corrected. It may be possible to divert some of the flow to the existing stormwater pond on the adjoining property to the east. This may require expansion of the pond. The discharge to the southwest (out of Filtration Basin #1) is proposed to go into the 30-inch concrete pipe going under Great Plains Boulevard. This pipe discharges into an area outside of the city's storm sewer system and into a land -locked area. There is a 36-inch concrete pipe in the southwest comer that discharges to the ponding for TH 212. The TH 212 ponds should be evaluated for capacity and the outlet for Filtration Basin #1 must be directed there. The discharge in the southeast comer will not route to the west in the MnDOT right-of-way as it currently does. Instead, this water will go east into the yards of the Mission Hills development. The plan must be revised to either direct the water west to the aforementioned 36-inch concrete Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2015-01 January 6, 2015 Page 13 of 33 pipe or must otherwise be directed to not result in potential downstream flooding issues. This will require grading within MnDOT right-of-way or revision of the site plan. Any discharge to or work within MnDOT right-of-way will require their approval. The grading plan must be revised to show the first floor elevations of adjacent structures within 100 feet of the property boundary. Proposed elevations must be shown at the corners of each proposed structure. Plans must show the location and elevations of the Emergency Over -Flows (EOFs) on the project. Structures proposed near an EOF must be a minimum of one foot above the EOF elevation. The plans must show the style of home for the twin homes. The plans must show a standard lot benching detail. The grading plan must show proposed elevations at the center of the proposed driveway at the curb line. The maximum allowed driveway grade is 10%. Proposed grades must not exceed a 3:1 slope. 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. The City has a 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 SWPPP will be required with the final plat and prior to any earth -disturbing activities. The NPDES construction permit must be granted to the applicant prior to any earth -disturbing activities. Changes to be made to Sheet C 100 include: • Stabilizing all swales/channels directing flows to surface water features or off the subject property within 48 hours of cessation of grading activities. • Include a note about who is responsible for preparing a dewatering plan if required and that the City is to be notified at least 24 hours in advance of any dewatering activities. • Erosion control blanket shall be extended to the top of the slopes draining towards the southern property boundary. r Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2015-01 January 6, 2015 Page 14 of 33 • Proposed stockpile locations must be labeled. RETAINING WALLS The developer is proposing two retaining walls along the south of the proposed main building and one retaining wall near the north property line. 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 six feet shall not be constructed with boulder rock. Any wall taller than four feet must be designed by a professional engineer licensed in the state of Minnesota. The southeastern wall is approximately 150 feet long, with a maximum height of 5.5 feet. It runs parallel to the walkway around the southeastern side of the main building. If this wall is taller than 6 feet at any point, a fence or other barrier would be required to provide separation from the walkway. The southwestern wall is approximately 330 feet long, with a maximum height of 15.75 feet. It wraps around the trash enclosure area and the walkway on the southwest side of the proposed main building. This wall must include a fence or other barrier to provide separation from the nearby road and walkways. The northern retaining wall is approximately 170 feet long with a maximum height of two feet. The plans shall label the top and bottom elevations of this wall. This wall wraps around the northernmost 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 results of the study show that the intersections of CSAH 101 and Lake Susan Drive, CSAH 101 and West 86s' Street, and West 86 h Street and Mission Hills Drive would have a negligible change in Level of Service and all the studied intersections would 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 West 860' Street. The two letters staff received are included in this report. From these letters and a discussion with their Vice -President, the HOA's main concern is not an increase in delay from traffic, but with the safety of the left turn from West 86a' Street onto CSAH 101 intersection design as it exists today. CSAH 101 is a county road, for that reason Carver County has jurisdiction over any changes to the intersection of CSAH 101 and West 86s' Street. City staff has contacted the county to notify them of the resident concern in the area. From MnDOT crash data, there has not been a reported accident at the intersection of CSAH 101 & West 860' Street within the past five years; therefore, it may not be a high priority for a county safety improvement project. Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2015-01 January 6, 2015 Page 15 of 33 Staff also received notice that residents were concerned about the visibility on West 8& Street curves when cars are parked on that street. The developer's traffic engineer indicated that the proposed development is not expected to generate additional parking on West 86's Street due to the three onsite parking lots. Staff will follow up to determine if there are adequate sight lines, or if a no parking designation for West 86a' Street is warranted. STREETS The proposed plan consists of two private streets to provide access to the nine twin homes and the main building and parking lots. The plans must show names for these streets. The streets must be paved with a 7-ton design typical section. The developer shall work with Carver County to remove the curb cut along CSAH 101, as it may cause driver confusion if left in place. The developer shall incorporate the recommendations from the traffic study into their plan set: • Special consideration should be made to limit any sight distance impacts from future structures, landscaping and signing. • When designing internal traffic controls, incorporate improvements based on guidelines established in the MUTCD. In particular, it is important to identify traffic controls at intersections between internal roadways/driveways to minimize vehicular conflicts and driver confusion. • Implement stop control at the site access to West 86'^ Street to reduce the potential for driver confusion. • Review truck turning movements to ensure that large vehicles have adequate accommodations to negotiate internal roadways. • Implement one-way operations at the access points to the parking lots and pick-up/drop-off zone of the main senior living facility. • Modify the raised median at the West 86s' Street/Mission Hills Drive intersection and stripe West 86d' Street to help delineate the travel/turn lanes. PARKING & WALKWAYS The site plan includes two parking lots for the main building and a small parking lot for the twin homes. The parking lot aisles must be a minimum of 26 feet wide. On the two main parking lots, staff recommends reduction of the parking lot stall length to the minimum required length of 18 feet. Reducing the length will decrease the hard surface coverage for this property and increase the quality of stormwater management. The plans include sidewalks and trails throughout the property. The engineer shall add the City's standard plates for concrete sidewalk and bituminous trail to the plan set. Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2015-01 January 6, 2015 Page 16 of 33 The trails and sidewalks shall be offset from the private streets to incorporate a 5-foot wide boulevard, and the pedestrian ramps shall meet ADA requirements. The pedestrian ramps at West 86' Street shall be moved closer to the intersection. The pedestrian ramps near the western -most twin home shall be aligned with each other. A pedestrian crossing shall be incorporated to line up with the southwest walkway that connects with the CSAH 101 trail (see figure). Pedestrian Crossing 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 plans call for 8-inch Ductile Iron Pipe (DIP) water main and 8-inch SDR 35 sanitary sewer main to connect to the services stubbed out in the city's pervious utility projects on West 86's Street. C900 must be used for watermain due to soil conditions typically found in the city. The developer's engineer shall work with the fire marshal to determine the locations of all fire hydrants. 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 West 86a' Street. Currently, no assessments are owed by this property. This parcel has already paid the city for one water and sanitary service hook-up. All additional units 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. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Article VII, Chapter 19 of City Code describes the required stormwater 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 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). Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2015-01 January 6, 2015 Page 17 of 33 Further, the site will fall under the jurisdiction of the Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District and be subject to their stormwater management rule. This nde requires the abstraction of 1.1 inch of runoff from all new impervious surfaces and removal of 90% TSS and 60% TP. This is the same removal as indicated in Chapter 19 of City Code. The applicant is proposing to use filtration as opposed to infiltration. The applicant has concluded, based upon the geotechnical report, that infiltration is infeasible as 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. Stormwater re -use for irrigation purposes would be a method preferred by city staff for reducing runoff volume. Given that as much as 4.56 acres could be irrigated upon final build out, stormwater reuse could also result in a significant reduction in potable water use. The applicant must evaluate the feasibility of other volume - reducing practices and provide to the city and watershed district for review. The applicant did provide a summary of the outputs from the P8 model they ran to determine water quality benefits of the proposed practices. The overall annual reductions for the proposed features are 98% removal for TSS and 94% removal for TP. This meets the requirements for water quality treatment. In reviewing the plan, it is unclear how stormwater will reach Filtration Basin A. The plans must clearly demonstrate how water will enter the basin. Further, all basins must have pretreatment of water prior to entering the feature. The proposed best management practices 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 manual to the city for review and comment. The applicant must provide access to city personnel to inspect the practices and to require maintenance in the event it is not being adequately performed. This will be included as part of the development contract. 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 staffs 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. Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2015-01 January 6, 2015 Page 18 of 33 Stormwater Utility Connection Charges Section 4-30 of code sets out the fees associated with surface water management. A water quality and water quantity fee are collected. These fees are 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. This fee will is calculate as shown in the table below. Per acre rate Acres Totals Water Quality $6,240.00 8.65 $53,976.00 Water Quantity $9,140.00 8.65 $79,061.00 Credit $6,240 0.5 7.81 24,367.20 Total due at final plat $108 669.80 LANDSCAPING Minimum requirements for landscaping include 7508 square feet of landscaped area around the parking lot, two landscape islands or peninsulas, three trees for the parking lot, 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 7508 sq. ft. >7508 sq. ft. area Overall trees required for 30 trees 14 trees vehicular use area Landscape islands or 2 islands/peninsulas 2 islands/peninsulas as/ azki ninsuln lot Applicant does not meet minimum requirements for trees and landscaping in the parking lot/vehicular use area. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to meet minimum requirements. Required plantings Proposed plantings 5 Overstory trees 0 Overstory trees Bufferyard B —north prop. line, 280' 8 Understory trees 5 Understory trees 14 Shrubs 16 shrubs 5 Overstory trees 4 Overstory trees Bufferyard B — south prop. line, 540' 10 Understory trees 3 Understory trees 20 Shrubs 0 Shrubs 6 Overstory trees 6 Overstory trees Bufferyard A — east prop. Line, 630' 6 Understory trees 6 Understory trees 12 Shrubs 20 Shrubs 20 Overstory trees 12 Overstory trees Bufferyard B — west prop. Line, 1000' 30 Understory trees 19 Understory trees 50 Shrubs 30 Shrubs Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2015-01 January 6, 2015 Page 19 of 33 The applicant does not meet minimum requirements for bufferyard plantings. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to meet minimum requirements. The applicant needs to provide one overstory tree for each residential unit as required by city code. Due to limited growing spaces, a combination of one overstory and one understory would be appropriate in the front yards. Site views to the underground garage doors are not sufficiently blocked by landscaping along CSAH 101 (Great Plains Boulevard). The applicant shall provide increased plantings of a mix of species in the southwest corner of the property to block views of the doors and wall spaces. PARKS This property is located within the one-half mile neighborhood park service area for Chanhassen Hills Park. Residents of the Mission Hills Senior Living community will have convenient access to this publicly -maintained recreation facility. Chanhassen Hills Park is eight acres in size and features a playground, basketball court, picnic shelter, ball field, benches and walking trails. Off-street parking is also available on Chanhassen Hills Drive South. Bandimere Community Park and Lake Susan Community Park are both located within the one -mile community park service area of the new Mission Hills Senior Living housing. These two parks are more robust in their recreation facility offering including features such as a fishing pier, boat landing, tennis courts, archery range, soccer fields and extensive walking trails. No additional parkland acquisition is being recommended as a condition of this subdivision. TRAILS .. S¢bpt' Sit, AMC P vM� •y pwl� 3 0 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. Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2015-01 January 6, 2015 Page 20 of 33 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 as Mixed Use Development. This category allows commercial uses meeting the daily needs of a neighborhood or high density residential. 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 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. 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. Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2015-01 January 6, 2015 Page 21 of 33 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 approval to replat 8.64 acres into one lot — Mission Hills Yd Addition. Lot 1 is proposed to house an apartment building and nine twin homes. The ordinance states, "All lots shall abut for their full required minimum frontage on a public street as required by the zoning ordinance; or be accessed by a private street; or a flag lot which shall have a minimum of thirty feet of frontage on a public street." The lot has street frontage. Access to the lot is gained from a curb cut off of West 86'^ Street. 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. Findine: The subdivision meets the intent of the city code subject to the conditions of the staff report and the PUD. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city s comprehensive plan; Findine: 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; Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2015-01 January 6, 2015 Page 22 of 33 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. COMPLIANCE TABLE Lot Ordinance Requirements Subject Site Lot Coverage 50% 46.5%* 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' 25' North Front yard 0' 30' East Rear yard 50' 65' Parking Requirements Ordinance Requirements Subject Site Stalls 169 166 West Front yard setback 35' 35' South Front yard setback 35' 80' North Front yard setback 1 35' 90' East Rear yard setback 1 50' 120' Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2015-01 January 6, 2015 Page 23 of 33 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the following three motions: 1. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT "The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development amendment in the attached ordinance for Mission Hills to allow High Density Use on the site and set standards for the structures as shown below (amendments are shown in bold and highlighted in yellow), with the following conditions and including the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. 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 eeffwaeFeiaYmixcd 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 Medium Density District. Except as modified by the Mission Hills standards below -,he Lot 1, Block 1, Mission Hills 3ro Addition shall comply with the R-12, High Density District. b. Permitted Uses these as :ef...ed herein. The t"e of uses to be pfeyide.l e.. tbis Auslot shall be lew intensity neighbeFheed oriented r-etaH and sen,iee establishments to meet daily needs ef r-esidef4s. uses may inelude small to Enedium sized r-estaufam (fie dwive e effise, day eafe, ne:a.Me.-heed seale eemmefeial, eefweftienee slefe ehufeheser- vale..similar "e and ..vale . The permitted uses within the development shall include the following: • Single Family Residential • Medium Density Residential • High Density Residential Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2015-01 January 6, 2015 Page 24 of 33 C. Setbacks In the PUD standards, the building setback for commercial is 50 feet from any public right-of- way. The eemme-Feick 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 eemmemial High Density portion of the site. This buffer shall be in the form of a berm and landscaping. The following setbacks shall be observed: Street CAMMeFAW High Density Building Setback* Residential Medium Density Building Setback Residential Parking Setback Commercial Parking Setback* Highway 101 * 50' 20' Highway 212 * 50' 20' West 868' Street * 30' 20' Interior Lot Lines O'(from commercial) 50' from residential 0' 0' 0' (from commercial) 35' from residential * Setbacks shall be established pursuant to section 20-505 of the Chanhassen City Code. d. Development Standards Tabulation Bog 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, 9d' Supplemental filed April 10, 1996; Mission Hills Villas, A Condominium, Common Interest Community No. 8, 1 Os' Supplemental filed April 10, 1996; Mission Hills Villas, A Condominium, Common Interest Community No. 8, 11" Supplemental filed May 7, 1996; and Mission Hills Villas, A Condominium, Common Interest Community No. 8, 12d' 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 BLOCK USE Net Lot Density Hard Surface Area Coverage outlet CenuFiereiel '.'', , 2-aams Mission Hills 3rd 134 Multi -Family Addition Units 8.64 acres 17.5 50% 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% 0 Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2015-01 January 6, 2015 Page 25 of 33 RESIDENTIAL 1. Building exterior material shall be a combination of prepainted 5" 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 1 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 Lotl, Block 1, Mission Hills 3rd Addition shall: a. Have pronounced entrance. b. Insure that all foundation walls are screened by landscaping or retaining walls. Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2015-01 January 6, 2015 Page 26 of 33 c. Have materials which include masonry, painted siding, and exterior finish and insulation system (E.I.F.S.) and the structures will have sloped shingle roofs. All elevations 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 2%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. 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 One monument sign along Great Plains Boulevard shall be permitted for Lot 1, Block 1, Mission Hills 3rd Addition. shall be pemiitted for- the eadef and one fnenumen4 sign fi-qr- the 1. . 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. Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2015-01 January 6, 2015 Page 27 of 33 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 Lot 1, Block 1, Mission Hills 31 Addition theeutlefmay 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. 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'/2 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 theeetlet Lot 1, Block 1, Mission Hills 31 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. Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2015-01 January 6, 2015 Page 28 of 33 2. SUBDIVISION "The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the preliminary plat to replat Outlot E, Mission Hills into Lot 1, Block 1, Mission Hills V Addition, as shown in plans dated received December 22, 2014, 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 Lot 1, Block 1, Mission Hills Yd Addition. 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 and $5,000 per twin home dwelling, the total park fees will be $599,200. Engineering Conditions: 1. The estimated Surface Water Utility fees are $108,669.80. These shall be due with the final plat. 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 city must be granted the right to enter the subject property to inspect the stormwater BMPs in perpetuity. 3. SITE PLAN APPROVAL "The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the site plan consisting of a 134-unit senior housing apartment and nine twin homes, Planning Case 2015-01 as shown in plans dated received December 22, 2014, 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 requirements for vehicular use area landscaping and bufferyards. 2. The applicant shall provide one overstory tree for each residential unit. 3. The applicant shall increase landscaping in the southwest comer of the property to block view of the garage doors and wall areas. Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2015-01 January 6, 2015 Page 29 of 33 Buildine Official Conditions: 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 website: httv://www.dli.mn.gov/CCLD/PlanConstruction.gW. 2. Buildings must be protected with automatic fire suppression systems. 3. An accessible route must be provided to buildings, parking facilities, public transportation stops and all common use facilities. 4. Parking areas, including parking garages, must be provided with accessible parking spaces dispersed among the various 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: Additional fire hydrants will be required. Contact Fire Marshal for details. 2. A three-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs and yellow painted curbing will be required. Contact Fire Marshal for specifics. 4. A Post Indicator Valve (PIV) will be required. 5. 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. Proposed street names must be submitted to Chanhassen Fire Marshal and Chanhassen Building Official for review and approval. 6. Fire hydrants shall be installed and made serviceable prior to combustible construction. 7. Fire apparatus access roads capable of supporting the weight of fire apparatus shall be made serviceable prior to combustible construction. 8. 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. Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2015-01 January 6, 2015 Page 30 of 33 Engineering Conditions: The estimated Surface Water Utility fees are $108,669.80. These shall be due with the final plat. 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 city must be granted the right to enter the subject property to inspect the stormwater BMPs in perpetuity. 4. The grading plan must be revised to show the first floor elevations of adjacent structures within 100 feet of the property boundary. 5. Proposed elevations must be shown at the corners of each proposed structure. 6. Plans must show the location and elevations of the Emergency Over -Flows (EOFs) on the project. Structures proposed near an EOF must be a minimum of one foot above the EOF elevation. 7. The plans must show the style of home for the twin homes. The plans must show a standard lot benching detail. 9. The grading plan must show proposed elevations at the center of the proposed driveway at the curb line. The maximum allowed driveway grade is 10%. 10. Proposed grades must not exceed a 3:1 slope. 11. 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. 12. Walls taller than six feet shall not be constructed with boulder rock. 13. Any wall taller than four feet must be designed by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Minnesota. 14. 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. 15. The top and bottom wall elevation must be labeled on the northern retaining wall. 16. The plans must show names for these streets. 17. The streets must be paved with a 7-ton design typical section. 18. The developer shall work with Carver County to remove the curb cut along CSAH 101. Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2015-01 January 6, 2015 Page 31 of 33 19. The developer shall incorporate the recommendations from the traffic study into their plan set. 20. The parking lot aisles must be a minimum of 26 feet wide. 21. The engineer shall add the city's standard plates for concrete sidewalk and bituminous trail to the plan set. 22. The trails and sidewalks shall be offset from the private streets to incorporate a 5-foot wide boulevard. 23. Pedestrian ramps shall meet ADA requirements. 24. The pedestrian ramps at West 86' Street shall be moved closer to the intersection. 25. The pedestrian ramps near the westernmost twin home shall be aligned with each other. 26. A pedestrian crossing shall be incorporated to line up with the southwest walkway that connects with the CSAH 101 trail. 27. 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. 28. C900 must be used for watermain due to soil conditions typically found in the City. 29. The developer's engineer shall work with the fire marshal to determine the locations of all fire hydrants. 30. This parcel has already paid the city for one water and sanitary service hook-up. All additional units 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. 31. The developer shall work with the Building Department to determine the city SAC and WAC fees for the main building. 32. Rates cannot increase over existing conditions at any point where surface water discharges the site. 33. The applicant must provide calculations demonstrating the existing storm sewer under West 86a' Street, and downstream, has adequate capacity. 34. The outlet from Filtration Basin #1 shall be directed to the 36-inch, reinforced concrete pipe drainage to the southeast and obtain permission from MnDOT to direct the drainage to the MnDOT pond. 35. All work within the MnDOT right-of-way must be approved by MnDOT. Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2015-01 January 6, 2015 Page 32 of 33 36. The site grading must be such that drainage in the southeast property corner is directed towards Filtration Basin #1 and not to the east into the private properties in Mission Hills. 37. A full SWPPP meeting all the requirements of the NPDES permit must be provided to the city for review and approval prior to recording the final plat. 38. The applicant shall evaluate the practicality of implementing, to the "maximum extent practicable," volume -reducing practices including re -use. 39. All swales directing surface flows towards surface water features, including but not limited to storm sewer infrastructure, and off the subject property shall be stabilized within 48 hours of cessation of grading activities. 40. The plan shall include a discussion of dewatering that, at a minimum, addresses which party(ies) are responsible for development of a dewatering plan if one is needed and that the city must be notified no less than 24 hours in advance of undertaking dewatering activities. 41. Erosion control blanket shall be extended to the top of the slopes draining towards the southern property boundary. 42. 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. 43. The plan shall clearly indicate how storm water will be routed into Filtration Basin #4 for treatment. 44. Pretreatment shall be provided for all filtration basins. 45. A planting plan for the filtration features will be required before recording the final plat. 46. 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. Three additional visitor parking spaces shall be added. Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2015-01 January 6, 2015 Page 33 of 33 ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Application and Project Narrative. 3. Reduced Copy Preliminary Plat. 4. Reduced Copy of Civil Plans 5. Reduced Copy of Architectural Plans. 6. Traffic Study dated November 21, 2014. 7. Letter from MnDOT dated December 23, 2014. 8. Mission Hills PUD Ordinance. 9. Letter from Karla Thomsen, President of Mission Hills Garden Homeowners' Association dated October 28, 2014. 10. Letter from David Nickolay, Vice President of Mission Hills Garden Homeowners' Association dated December 5, 2014. 11. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing. g:\plan\2015 planning cases\2015-01 mission hills senior living\staff reportAm r� u PROJECT NARRATIVE Mission Hills Senior Living Hwy 101 and 212, Chanhassen, Minnesota Project Team: Owner/Developer Headwaters Development 17550 Hemlock Avenue Lakeville, MN S5044 Contact: Michael Hoagberg, Managing Member Phone: 952-378-4386 Email: mhoagberg@CH-HoldingsLLC.com Facility Operator Ebenezer 2722 Park Ave. South Minneapolis, MN 55407 Contact: Susan Farr Phone: 612-874-3460 Structural Engineer BKBM Engineers 5930 Brooklyn Blvd. Minneapolis, MN S5429 Contact: Tina Wyffles Phone: 763-843-0420 General Contractor Engelsma Construction, Inc. 7119 31" Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55427 Contact: Jeff Engelsma Phone: 763-536-9200 Design Lead / Architecture Sperides Reiners Architects, Inc. 4200 West Old Shakopee Road Bloomington, MN 55437 Contact: Eric A. Reiners, AIA Phone: 952-996-9662 email: ereiners@srarchitectsinc.com Civil Engineer BKBM Engineers 5930 Brooklyn Blvd. Minneapolis, MN 55429 Contact: Keith Matte, PE Phone: 763-843-0464 Surveyor Sunde Land Surveying 9001 East Bloomington Freeway Ste. 118 Bloomington, MN S5420 Contact: Lenny Carlson, PLS Phone: 952-881-2455 Traffic Engineer SRF Consulting Group, Inc. One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150 Minneapolis, MN 55447-4443 Contact: Jordan Schwarze, PE Phone: 763-452-4787 PROJECT SITE DATA Parcel Basics The existing site is currently an undeveloped, 8.64 acre parcel identified as Mission Hills Outlot E. The property is bounded by Trunk Highway 101 to the west, Trunk Highway 212 to the south, 86" Street West on the north, and Mission Hills Outlot B with previously developed townhomes to the east. Project Land Use Data The project site falls under the Chanhassen Mixed -Use guiding (Commercial/Residential), and the Mission Hills PUD Neighborhood Commercial zoning. Highway 101/212/Lyman Boulevard Neighborhood Land Use Study completed and published by the City of Chanhassen Planning Staff on October 28, 2008, specifically identified this project parcel as a desirable candidate for senior housing. The property does not fall within any shore land, highway, or other special overlay districts. Under the permitted residential land use for the parcel, residential density calculations as provided by Planning Staff, is comprised of 16 allowable residential units per acre across the 7.72 net site acres (123.5 units), plus 33 total residential units of un-used unit density from the original Mission Hills PUD development. The result is a total allowable zoned site density of 156 residential units. Mission Hills PUD does not specifically govern parking, hardcover, setbacks or building heights and these components of the proposed development will be guided by the city's underlying district guidelines. City ordinance requires 1 parking space for each independent living unit, one parking space for every three assisted living units, plus parking for visitors and staff. Refer to the matrix below for a parking summary illustrating required and provided parking. Parking Required Provided Independent Living Unit 1 per townhouse unit = 18 18 1 per apartment unit = 66 66 Assisted Living Unit 1 for every 3 assisted unit = 23 23 Staff (maximum shift) 1 per employee = 24 24 Guests & Visitors 35 TOTAL PARKING 131 + Visitors 166 The site will have a total of 52 surface parking spaces for staff and visitors. This is comprised of 42 spaces directly in front of the main building, and 10 spaces for town home guests. The main building will also have 96 underground parking spaces, and the town home villas will have 18 individual garage stalls bringing the site total to 166 parking spaces. In addition, the driveways leading to each of the town homes has been planned with a minimum length of twenty feet to accommodate additional parking directly in front of each unit if required. Since most of our residents are not expected to drive, we expect many of our employees will park under the main building which will leave surface spaces for visiting friends and relatives. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT DATA Program The site will be developed and finished to accommodate a 134-unit, senior housing structure whose primary focus will be to provide independent living, assisted living and memory care apartments to senior citizens together with a full continuum of care allowing the residents to comfortably age in place, while supported by the full range of additional services provided by Ebenezer, the facility operator. Additionally, the site will contain nine (9) twin homes, adding eighteen more independent living units to the development. These single story twin homes will be located on the north end of the site and closest to the site entrance and West 861" Street. Total planned residential units on site will be 152. The site will also include a series of amenities for the residents as well. These amenities include patios, gardens, and walking paths. The walking paths will also connect to the central site circulation as well as the public sidewalk along west 86'" Street that was developed as a part of the original Mission Hills development P.U.D. Site The existing site is currently undeveloped, roughly graded for agricultural use, and contains only volunteer vegetation with the exception of its boundary with the town home property to the east, which is densely planted. Many of the mature volunteer trees along the east and north boundaries of the site will be preserved as a part of the final development plan. Under this development plan, however, the site will be re -graded to accommodate the planned building and necessary infrastructure and construction. Impervious surface coverage for this site was not redefined in the original P.U.D. and thus, the city ordinance for this development type will govern, limiting hardcover to 50% and requiring a minimum of 50% green space. As illustrated in the summary matrix below and the summary tables on the Civil Engineering sheets in the submittal set, the green space requirement is met. Developed property area: 376,546 SF 8.644 Acres Building footprints: 81,255 SF 1.865 Acres Total impervious surface area: 175,111 SF 4.02 Acres 46.50% of Site Total green surface area: 201,435 SF 4.62 Acres 53.50% of Site Engineering and Utilities Project civil engineers, BKBM Engineers, together with city engineering staff have worked closely in preliminary stages to accommodate and properly configure the building development, site coverage and storm water management, as well as the requisite utility connections. Storm water management plan, including collection, treatment, infiltration, rate control and discharge are fully explained and detailed within the submittal drawings. Building Design The main building will be a combination three and four-story wood frame structure over a concrete and precast basement — a structural configuration and height implemented elsewhere in Chanhassen at developments such as SummerWood of Chanhassen located just north of this proposed development site. The basement level will house utility, storage and inside parking functions for the structure. The ground floor will welcome residents and visitors through the main entrance with a covered drop-off, house most of the building's public spaces including commercial kitchen and dining rooms, and connection to the rest of the development amenities. Ground floor will also encompass the primary health care functions, guest suite, a closed 14-suite memory care wing, and twenty-three (23) of the 120 independent and assisted living apartment units will be on the first level. Levels two and three will contain another seventy-five (75) resident apartments varying in size from 514 SF studios to 1,224 SF, two -bedroom, two -bath residences. Selected residences are provided with balconies and other unit amenities. Each floor also contains spaces for health care attendants, and common area functions such as laundry (to supplement washer/ dryers available in most units). Level four will house the final twenty-two (22) residential units. Once again, a cross-section of larger units are provided with balconies to take advantage of wonderful views over the surrounding areas. The fourth level also provides additional resident common areas such as a 20-seat theater, as well as a library that overlooks the entire site, and out toward Lake Susan to the northwest. Exterior building materials will be masonry, painted siding, and E.I.F.S. [exterior finish and insulation system] and the structure will have sloped shingle roofs. Gutters and downspouts will discharge on grade and into catch basins that will flow through storm water treatment areas — on grade and/or below grade — prior to exiting the site. Once again, storm water management plan, including collection, treatment, infiltration, rate control and discharge are fully explained and detailed within the submittal drawings. The twin home villas will capture some of the details from the main building creating an aesthetic synthesis of building components across the site, and each individual independent twin home will contain approximately 1,186 finished square feet, plus the single inside garage stall. Miscellaneous Building components Mechanical screening as required by city ordinance is very limited as most of the mechanical systems are contained within the structure. Limited screening, where required, will be achieved by roof screens designed to coordinate with the building architecture. Site trash enclosure is not illustrated in the development plan and will not be used. Interior trash rooms are utilized in the facility plan, dumpsters will be rolled out on collection days, and back inside to trash rooms following pick up. Site deliveries, move-in/move-out, and building service including trash collection are all achieved on the southwest corner of the building and site at the building's lower level. This service entry point and its access drive are the most remote from neighboring residents and away from all neighborhood traffic and views. Neighborhood Meeting An open neighborhood meeting was held the evening of November 24, 2014 to introduce the project to area residents, summarize the development parameters, review preliminary designs and project images, and answer questions. The development team also wanted to be able to address any concerns the neighboring residents had within the content of the final submittal to the City of Chanhassen. The meeting lasted 90 minutes and was well attended by approximately 30 area residents, 17 of whom signed in and left contact information. During the meeting, following the project introduction, the development team answered a variety of questions regarding facility design and operational details, development offerings, proposed development schedule, and rental rates. Feedback by meeting attendees was overwhelmingly positive. One reoccurring concern was voiced by a number of meeting attendees, but not about the Mission Hills Senior Living development. Rather, neighbors are unhappy with the traffic levels and lack of traffic control or a crosswalk at the intersection of West 86`h Street and Highway 101. There was also repeated concern regarding the configuration and construction of the existing median in the middle of West 86'h Street as it meets Highway 101. The development team relayed the fact to those in attendance, that a traffic study had been completed in conjunction with the planning of Mission Hills Senior Living and that ultimately, the disposition of the intersection of West 861h Street and Highway 101 would be guided by the recommendations contained in the traffic analysis, together with mandates prepared by city and county engineers. Traffic Study A traffic study was completed by SRF Consulting Group, Inc. The main objectives of this study were to review existing operations within the study area, evaluate the traffic impacts to the adjacent roadway network, and recommend any necessary improvements to accommodate the proposed development. Furthermore, this study also provided a comparison between the traffic impacts associated with the proposed development, and those associated with the maximum potential traffic demand under the proposed zoning, which is assumed to be market rate apartments. Results of the year 2017 build intersection capacity analysis indicate that all study intersections are expected to continue operating at an acceptable range or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. In addition, no significant side -street delays or queuing issues were observed in the traffic simulation at the study intersections. Given the minimal anticipated impact caused by the proposed development on study area traffic operations, roadway improvements are not required under year 2017 build conditions from a traffic operations perspective. An alternative land use scenario was also reviewed to understand the impacts of the highest intensity use allowed under the proposed zoning, which was assumed to be market rate apartments. Approximately 175 apartment units were assumed, which would be expected to generate approximately 89 a.m. peak hour, 109 p.m. peak hour, and 1,164 daily trips. Even under this scenario, results of the year 2017 build intersection capacity analysis indicate that all study intersections are expected to continue operating within an acceptable range or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours under the alternate development scenario. In addition, once again under this heightened use scenario, no significant side -street delays or queuing issues were observed in the traffic simulation at the study intersections. Given the minimal anticipated impact caused by the alternate development on study area traffic operations, roadway improvements would not be required under year 2017 build conditions from a traffic operations perspective. FACILITY OPERATIONS Ebenezer- Proposed Operator The proposed operator of our senior housing community is Ebenezer which is an affiliate of the Fairview Health System. This affiliation with Fairview provides substantial programmatic support and care options for community residents. We expect rapid change in senior care over the next 5 — 10 years as senior housing continues to evolve from a focus on simply housing and hospitality to a more integrated delivery of medical and social care. We believe Ebenezer will be our best option to provide high quality care alternatives for our residents. Ebenezer currently operates our 115-unit senior housing community in Saint Louis Park (Towerlight on Wooddale) and is the proposed operator for the 137-unit senior housing community we are building in Eagan which recently received final city approvals. Ebenezer is the second largest provider of senior living in Minnesota, and had $72.7 million of total operating revenue in 2013. Ebenezer operates 60 communities and manages more than 5,000 units throughout its portfolio in Minnesota. The portfolio includes Independent Living Communities, Assisted Living Communities, Memory Care Communities, Skilled Nursing Facilities, Transitional Care Centers, Adult Day Programs, and Child Care Programs. For more than 90 years, Ebenezer has helped older adults make their lives more independent, healthful, meaningful and secure by creating opportunities for residents to live vibrantly, and participate in the daily fabric of life. Public Benefits of Senior Housin¢ The proposed senior community will benefit the public by providing senior housing for the area so that seniors who have spent their lives in Chanhassen and the surrounding communities remain in the area. Many local seniors will be attracted by the health benefits of a senior housing community as an attractive alternative to the isolation of living alone and the burden of maintaining a home. The proposed facility will help to meet the current housing needs of seniors in the immediate area (several neighbors are on senior housing waiting lists), while also helping to meet the anticipated needs of unmet demand in the near future as projected by a recent independent market study. Senior Living is a great community partner — not only creating a place where people come to volunteer, but also housing people who are interested in contributing back to their surrounding community. Senior Housing residents participate in local churches, volunteer opportunities, and engage in the greater community. Senior Housing, and specifically the programs and activities promoted by Ebenezer, also support local economic development since seniors typically prefer to shop in their familiar community. In addition, Ebenezer brings stable, high quality jobs to the communities in which they operate. There is also no better neighbor than a senior citizen. They are light on the land, streets and park systems, yet senior communities create significant tax base without burdening infrastructure and school systems. Ebenezer prefers larger senior housing communities like the proposed Mission Hills Senior Living since operational efficiencies are gained through larger senior housing developments when compared to smaller ones. Some of the operating benefits of a larger building are listed below: i. A larger facility can afford to offer a broader range of healthcare services, options, and amenities to Chanhassen seniors while limiting disruptive moves from one facility to another for additional care. ii. Creating a larger pool of care staff helps to support stable services for our residents. More hours of care and therefore staffing can be offered to provide more consistent employment, rather than a lot of part-time positions that are more difficult to fill with qualified care givers. This is expected to be increasingly important if the current shortage of qualified nurses continues, as we expect, as our population ages. iii. A larger building allows for more competitive wages and benefits at all levels of staff which typically translates to better care for our residents. iv. A larger facility offers more apartment options, which reduces the chance that families have to split up (i.e. one spouse needs Memory Care and the other can live in an Independent Unit, all under one roof) Additionally, this type of project also provides the public benefit of encouraging a turnover of single family housing in the area. When seniors move into these communities, neighborhoods typically experience younger families moving into the formerly senior owned housing stock which helps to revitalize these neighborhoods. Finally, in addition to construction jobs, Mission Hills Senior Living is expected to employ many people on site as care is provided to our residents 24 hours a day. The building is projected to employ over 50 individuals (FTEs) in a combination of full and part time positions. --- ` - _ - _ l� I fig ���.�ti �� ��►'e�r� 7W. AFO WA YAp OW :e2 , :ras w.aaY+rssrssa--- - xr:aesr W 3WO �. C100 7R4.W blOLMAYNO X2 -G9tlp,81kc�¢-sauswe— s� :Sg -- UTIMY PLAN C200 J Q 1 i �rn �' N ,. '®-PQ�nc er�cEomve�eur� T .. A � � mwcwrrc onrrt cxwume t _ Tlni 'Fi ii ems' ,n 0 as z� 6 PAVING AND GEOMETRIC PAN C300 JL zz ZZ %% 4T *JL *JL F - = n Js tee.. •=ter . .el e'er •r.. ���� -�W PLAN VFW �� LCWNSPON MR Wa. SPIMM PM ANO V INL 3Ru.e.is s..v��Vt i[tlR '61P. •6 - _. 9VI N3 , OMF 4LNS zf BPAItlGIL�Ed�_ 6f A b�V LI ' S i I .qqg� l I IIII FyA,,p�� �li�f;:41 p Y'u A I' ar® ID�3� LLl�:e 1�11 ICi� i p444�4 CIVIL DETNIS SHEET ,141 �i.4Ll:Fi EIV:R?s, S: oo0m ®m VICINITY MAP 11000, L = smwwre+,war sau.N. IINXd.'lM"yY IW91S oomoeeaa® 0000eaee® o0©melee® o©ooeeee® 0000seea® oomoo®mm� ®eeao®®om ®eaamo©o� ®oeeeeoo® ®oeeaeee® �eeeo®oo� mssl.m¢i p .M MISSION HILLS SENIOR LIVING HWY 101 AND 86TH STREET WEST CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA PROJECT TEAM O R �MM DE LOH'ENT Itfla HfROOC Aro ItKCNLLG m 9fN� CCNiKi: nR IYWlE4 BLIL: MIbIllF3Y KJ1-ICIDWALLC.CQ1 ENa CLNBTRILTION. MG n1%lf 316T veT a� Innx nlRavaa, m fsut Cp1rALT:.Df -W. nun: nN3 s3` ERCIIIIEGi: d4ERIDE6lENERe NYJVI1ELie, RIC. um YFJr 0.D gLKppH IfCAD AYITFYN eIMnMLµ m fN31 co+ucr: nwc rMi.rfN (tlLMi-ON3 erI11L111RK DYf[!R: eKerl BYdeERB Nns x-cwm eLw. nfrEvaa.mxf]f. mxT.tcr: uu YrRLn n(ut: nu$ w-eae WL DdMM faw eReaKL.K xw. nPltM1^la. m 1f1if rartncr: I�nu rum, rfi. rfWJC: fTN)Ia-e1H eUlr M &TIDE L 811RvEY�Ja ! MT pLaGMNarW rIQYNr om nle eLo MMmNtle COMALY: LQNT GditfW NKTE� AN W-lNf IP c D6181 . SIF COH&lLTOM GMW, tIL WP LPAD_N PIA.tWr IgON WILE .aO rvIINEA9JLa, m f%{t CQ1TOLr- .'CRJ6V PGWCRg R mP1E- (iNl tl$-�1ft LOCATION MAP `�`� — R A'�u KEY MAP INDEX «RfRn• u 3:RPe:vRna�w u rreMi�ewwr�emnw m�3 w:eartruwro" amwa.anmr CCS co I 15 to . rmFvttr A0.0 /1 MTAMING LL L DETAIL - 3 RAGPOLE GAGE SECTION azN&R L 8 M PLAN NOTE6 Aa 61TE P A EYED NOTES. ®wr m�wmm�orrorirorovw omr mtimu�rsamcwrwr ®+rorcro�o�v ® = w ®sw a 5 INMWATIONAL 6YM6OL O A E"IDILITY aaaaaa §II II 00 `a m W Vf O $ In o V) Ty G S V •SfIE p.W •SITE VIMI6FLVI5 MISSION NILL6 6 1N LIVING BITE PLAY /1DOLL�W% DETAIL b NN�pIOAP PAWING 6K.NAGE All ng Zjr8& N MILLS B 1W LIVING 51M PL4N O// PLMTM SFECIFCATC : • �•S+®wr rissvvr..�� _�rw•=rw.ora.w�^ear i I-16LTId NOTrB� _ srs.�'s®s a �1e10�0®aS��II'm r,Iroiomo®rz^�mm sr ,ono®��m or-,omo®r�mm r_i©raoo�r,cs�s�l© r�r•�omo®r_���*-.^gym or,omo®®mm oI©000ral�®a or ,oar,o®�mca^, Iv o-,o raor�car.®Ica-,� o©m000r�a®a or,tamo®e��r-e+� oraomc�®�r__�m� 000mcirl'®QJT I! o©m000�rs© or,omorffilC�r`��I� omomci®rx�rs� or,omo®cam—���� e�©oe�or�rz�.••�-�r� or,o m�®rs+�r- =sari 000mo®c_c�s� .i•eR9i6M1rINN1�iYC�I� MN NIOII .L.NiPG FM,. p iH �aaaaa ��IIIII zgE J � w J 4� OG •VfOSCIPE PLW .IH¢ILAIK}I OfTNS A1.3 a I 2 ENLARGED WCTId 6 TYPICAL RAIN GAFQPEN LAYOUT AND CCNmTIl1CTlG 3 ENLAIY#D LANDlGAPE PLAN AT MEFGRY CAIE GPImEN AND ONM li'JQ'1 FORIAL GARDENS Z t O C i > C a J o �i 6 W N 4� O < (n O •[W1ING4ggE5 •WNGVSQJ PILGIM •FIYAGD)%ANIIW YSI RH6 WI i 0 0 0 0 0 p�n.,m WY WIY I W IY YY •Y M IIIWY� YY Yf ii IYW�: T. a.J •• YI YY :E_...I�rYi WY Wi YY YY Y'-,�� YY YY Yu P�JI Y'l % PII ,n•:. y fi% c ..I..;,, 'I'lYarPAW SENIOR - .N FRONT CANON AND ENTRANa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ogwww— _ 6 I s Yi iY .Y • a' n.,"4•.Y••1� �. r� t rr ik�.. .,I r..• I f7 SENIOR • ENTRANCES SENIOR LONG BUILDING NORTHEAST EU NATION 30 VIEW FROM THE CURB IN FRONT OF A TWINHOME VILLA RESIDENCE I i¢.I -III ..YI I SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION ON ��_ ! .MVJ BJIIMY FIEVARW .1W4lWf WIA FIEVATCl3 m V MAJN BUILDING ABALVEW FROM50UItIFASf00*8 N N BUILDING ENTRY VESTIBULE AND DRIVE UNDER CANOPY 5' _ . MIHHIOh HILLS rY hiw OF SI II fFOM 11 J WIN I N I RY OWVL LLx.wr�l ■I � __ .zarif 11 i' I r 'xm 7 404. a VIEW OF SITE HIGHWAY 101 JUST CAST SOUND WN VIEW OF SITE FROM THE CORNER OF 86TH STREET WEST AND HIGHWAY 101 a VIEW OF MAN MONUMENT SIGN ALONG HIGHWAY 101 C� y I1 G4GG4a 00 c [ Co 1i FCWWi S ZLAT� 3 • M 5TE oEs NmflK &W, Iwi,�cmF Imsior. �W cN � z l V➢ . I li TWINHOM DESIGNONTION W3 TWIN40NE DESIGN OPTION LOCATIONS ® gi R J IWINHOME DESIGN OPT ON k4 • 0 & CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE CITY S ZONING ORDINANCE, BY AMENDING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: Section 1. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code, the City's zoning ordinance, is hereby amended by amending the Mission Hills Planned Unit Development Design Standards in its entirety as follows: Mission Hills Zoning Standards a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD neighborheed eemmereiaYmixed 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 Medium Density District. Except as modified by the Mission Hills standards below -,the - Lot 1, Block 1, Mission Hills 3`" Addition shall comply with the R-12, High Density District. b. Permitted Uses The peffnit4ed uses within the neighbefhood eewner-eial zone sheuld be limited to appr-epria these as defined her-ein. The Pfpe of uses te be pr-eAded en this eufle! shall be low iwensi4y neighberheed oriented retail and sen,iee establishments to Fneet daily needs Rf RaSidUnts �ish uses may inelude small to fnedium sized r-estamffant (Fie d—iii0p, thn, A.Aindw.qs), effiee, day , The permitted uses within the development shall include the following: Single Family Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential C. Setbacks In the PUD standards, the building setback for commercial is 50 feet from any public right-of- way. The eermnereiel 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 eammereial High Density portion of the site. This buffer shall be in the form of a berm and landscaping. The following setbacks shall be observed: Street GewAaereial High Density Building Setback* Residential Medium Density Building Setback Residential Parking Setback Commercial Parking Setback* Highway 101 * 50' 20' Hi wa 212 * 50' 20' West 86 Street * 30' 20' Interior Lot Lines O'(from commercial) 50' from residential 0' 0' 0' (from commercial) 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, 9d' Supplemental filed April 10, 1996; Mission Hills Villas, A Condominium, Common Interest Community No. 8, 1e Supplemental filed April 10, 1996; Mission Hills Villas, A Condominium, Common Interest Community No. 8, 1 la' Supplemental filed May 7, 1996; and Mission Hills Villas, A Condominium, Common Interest Community No. 8, 12d' Supplemental filed May 20, 1996; Mission Hills 2"d Addition: Area: 2,100 square feet Width: 46 feet Depth: 47 feet Mission Hills 3Id Addition: Area: 376,358.4 square feet Width: 480 feet Depth: 620 feet BLOCK USE Net Lot Density Hard Surface Area Coverage outlet- Eemmefeial '", 2-aem Mission Hills 3 134 Multi -Family Addition Units 8.64 acres 17.5 50% Block 1, Mission Hills 138 Multi -Family 18 acres 7.66 37% Block 4, Mission Hills 1 56 Multi -Family Units 1 8.92 acres 1 6.28 1 43.2% 2 0 .. .. .. .- -. .. .. ... RESIDENTIAL Building exterior material shall be a combination of prepainted 5" 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 1 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 Lotl, Block 1, Mission Hills 3rd 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 insulation system (E.I.F.S.) and the structures will have sloped shingle roofs. All elevations 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 2%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. 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 One monument sign along Great Plains Boulevard shall be permitted for Lot 1, Block 1, Mission Hills Yd Addition. 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. 4 • C 5. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. 6. No illuminated signs within Lot 1, Block 1, Mission Hills Yd Addition the-&H 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. g. Lighting All light fixtures shall be shielded high pressure sodium or LED fixtures. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than ''/: 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 autlet Lot 1, Block 1, Mission Hills Yd 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. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26d' day of January, 2015, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota Todd Gerhardt, City Manager (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on Denny Laufenberger, Mayor