The URL can be used to link to this page

PC Staff Report 01-06-2015PROPOSED 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 3rd 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 and southwest of 86th Street APPLICANT: Michael Hoagberg Klmgelhutz Farms, LLC 17550 Hemlock Avenue 545 Lake Drive #205 Lakeville, MN 55044 Chanhassen, MN 55317 P 952 378 4386 Neil Klmgelhutz C 612 723.3330 C. 612- 685 -5580 E• mhoagbergka ch- holdmgsllc com klmgelhutz3@msn corn 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 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 86th Street. The site is zoned Planned Unit Development -Mixed Use. Sewer and water are available to the site. Access to the parcel will be gained off of 86th Street 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 first 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 86th 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 101 /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. all l A 10i 94W VIA ice, -- -�_:�' .� _�•' � i�� [� �� .j 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 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 .: fi �•.. � j J � r h Al 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 861h 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 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 .: fi �•.. � j J � r h Al 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 861h 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. f OR }i, Wilk kip +� Ai!a3� M� 4 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. TS^ -01EDESt3h MON :l 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 rM\H Y+f DE3355N ORON i3 Design Option #3 Features color scheme 41 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. 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 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. MONUMENTARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS - 24 50 FT -- 10W - MONUMENT ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS Signs are proposed along the west facing Great Plains Boulevard and northeast corner of the site facing West 86th 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 86th 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 Area # of Units Permitted # of Units Built Total Remaining Medium Density 26.92 215 194 21 High Density (subject Site) 834 133 0 133 Total 3526 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. MONUMENTARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS - 24 50 FT -- 10W - MONUMENT ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS Signs are proposed along the west facing Great Plains Boulevard and northeast corner of the site facing West 86th 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 86th 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. Height and Roof Design The building ranges in height between 14 and 51 feet The number of stories ranges between one and four stories The setback of the building exceeds the height of the building which will allow 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, 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 bermmg (5) Street lighting (6) Screening of parking, especially in apartment and condominium developments (7) Variations /differentiations in units including, but not limited to, color, material, articulation etc Staff is recommending approval of the request with conditions. The site design is compatible with the surrounding developments It is functional and harmonious with the approved development for this area Staff regards the project as a reasonable use of the land The overall design is sensitive to the City's image Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending approval of the site plan with conditions outlined in the staff report. 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 Bluff Protection There are no bluffs on the property Shoreland Management A significant portion of the subject property lies within the shoreland district for Lake Susan The development will need to meet the PUD requirements for the DNR shoreland rules. Floodplain Overlay This property does not lie within a floodplam 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 86th 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 86th 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 86th Street or to the storm sewer system in the southwest corner 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 86th 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 corner 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 corner 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 C 100. 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 C100 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 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 -m -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 86th Street, and West 86th 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 86th 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 86th 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 86th 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 86th 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 8611, 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 86th 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 86th 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 86th 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 86th Street /Mission Hills Drive intersection and stripe West 86th 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 86th 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 r r rr, 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 86th Street C900 must be used for watermam 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 86th 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 rule 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 geotechmcal 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 #4 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 staff's experience that filter socks around drain the are prone to failure. The Minnesota Stormwater Manual recommends bedding the underdram 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 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. Per acre rate Acres Totals Water Quality $6,24000 865 $53,97600 Water Quantity $9,14000 865 $79,06100 Credit ($6,240)05 781 ($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. 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 Proposed Vehicular use landscape 7508 sq. ft. >7508 sq ft area 8 Understory trees 5 Understory trees Overall trees required for 30 trees 14 trees vehicular use area 5 Overstory trees 4 Overstory trees Landscape islands or 2 islands /peninsulas 2 islands /peninsulas peninsulas /parking lot 20 Shrubs 0 Shrubs 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. lme, 280' 8 Understory trees 5 Understory trees 14 Shrubs 16 shrubs 5 Overstory trees 4 Overstory trees Bufferyard B — south prop lme, 540' 10 Understory trees 3 Understory trees 20 Shrubs 0 Shrubs 6 Overstory trees 6 Overstory trees Bufferyard A — east prop. Lme, 630' 6 Understory trees 6 Understory trees 12 Shrubs 20 Shrubs 20 Overstory trees 12 Overstory trees Bufferyard B —west prop Lme, 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 amix 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 k� Yf , S''It 1!1 n �Q r° h L. r� : t safM Sl y/ ° site � r - 'i +!N on _ t.Y1fAN BLVD.. c. Ohl. �et1Y� riYR4H`�R 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 twm 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 86d' 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 Finding: 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, Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable plans. 3 The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development, 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 Of 110' South Front yard 0' 25' North Front yard Of 30' East Rear yard 50' 65' Requirements Ordinance Requirements Subject Site -Parking Stalls 169 166 West Front yard setback 35' 35' South Front yard setback 35' 80' North Front yard setback 35' 90' East Rear yard setback 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 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-,4he eemmer-eial development. shall eemply with the Neighber-heed Business Distfiet, BN. Lot 1, Block 1, Mission Hills Yd Addition shall comply with the R -12, High Density District. b. Permitted Uses The pefmiaed uses eemmer-eial and ser-vtee uses eensistent with the neighber-heed The uses shall be 4ifnited to these as defined herein --The +15,pe ef uses te be pfevided on this outlet shall be lew intensity neighbefhead enented retail and ser-viee estabiishments te meet daily needs ef residents Sueh uses may inelude small te medium sized restaurant (tie drive thfu windows", elee > day eafe, The permitted uses within the development shall include the following: Single Family Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Mission Hills Semor 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 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 psi High Density portion of the site This buffer shall be in the form of a berm and landscaping The following setbacks shall be observed * 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, 91h Supplemental filed April 10, 1996, Mission Hills Villas, A Condominium, Common Interest Community No 8, 10th Supplemental filed April 10, 1996, Mission Hills Villas, A Condominium, Common Interest Community No 8, 1 lth Supplemental filed May 7, 1996, and Mission Hills Villas, A Condominium, Common Interest Community No 8, 12th Supplemental filed May 20, 1996, Mission Hills 2nd Addition- Area- 2,100 square feet Width 46 feet Depth 47 feet Mission Hills Yd Addition: Area: 376,358.4 square feet Width: 480 feet Depth: 620 feet BLOCK Commer-e 1 Residential Residential Commercial Street High Density Medium Density Parking Parking Building Setback* Building Setback Setback Setback* Highway 101 * 50' 20' 50% Highway 212 * 50' 20' West 86th Street * 30' 20' 37% Interior Lot Lines O'(from commercial) 0' 0' 0' (from commercial) Block 4, Mission Hills 50'(from residential) 8.92 acres 6.28 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, 91h Supplemental filed April 10, 1996, Mission Hills Villas, A Condominium, Common Interest Community No 8, 10th Supplemental filed April 10, 1996, Mission Hills Villas, A Condominium, Common Interest Community No 8, 1 lth Supplemental filed May 7, 1996, and Mission Hills Villas, A Condominium, Common Interest Community No 8, 12th Supplemental filed May 20, 1996, Mission Hills 2nd Addition- Area- 2,100 square feet Width 46 feet Depth 47 feet Mission Hills Yd Addition: Area: 376,358.4 square feet Width: 480 feet Depth: 620 feet BLOCK USE Net Lot Density Hard Surface Area Coverage Mission Hills 3rd 134 Multi- Family 8.64 acres 17.5 50% Addition Units Block 1, Mission Hills 138 Multi - Family 18 acres 7.66 37% Units Block 4, Mission Hills 56 Multi- Family Units 8.92 acres 6.28 432% Mission Hills Senior Living Planning Case 2015 -01 January 6, 2015 Page 25 of 33 a•� 4. Generete may bewpeured iaplaee, tilt up or-pr-e east, and shall be finished in stone, teritu of ee>ated- 8 All -buildings ei+-the n 4l t shall have a 11 G <t t�a lwf Z lie 9. All ffleehaftieal equipment shall be ser-eemed with material eempatible to the butidiag- 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 Yd 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 pefmit4ed for- the outlet and ene ffienuffient sign fe 1 All businesses built within the outlet shall shafe one menufaent sign Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. 2 Wall signs are permitted on no more than two street frontages The total of each wall mounted sign display areas shall not exceed 24 square feet. 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 Yd Addition me- eutlermay 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 the outlet Lot 1, Block 1, Mission Hills 3rd Addition shall not exceed 25 feet 2 Glare, whether direct or reflected, as differentiated from general illumination shall not be visible beyond the limits of the site from which it originates. 3 Lights shall be on a photoelectric cell to turn them on and off automatically as activated by yearly conditions 4. The eutlet light poles shall be eeften, shee box light standards 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 3rd 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 3rd 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 En ing 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 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 corner 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 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 d1i mn gov /COLD /PlanConstruction asp 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. 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 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 86th 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 watermam 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 86th 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 bermmg 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 I. 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 report doe � t CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION llol = 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 e) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity f) Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. 5. The Subdivision Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider seven possible adverse affects of the proposed subdivision The seven (7) affects and our findings regarding them are a) The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance b) The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; c) The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development, d) The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter, e) The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage, f) The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. g) The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists- 1 Lack of adequate storm water drainage 2 Lack of adequate roads 3 Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems 4. Lack of adequate off -site public improvements or support systems 6 In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the following- a) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted b) Consistency with this division c) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing areas 2 d) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development. e) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following- 1. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community 2 The amount and location of open space and landscaping. 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 Al -Jaff, et al, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development Amendment to the Mission Hills PUD, Preliminary Plat for Mission Hills 3rd Addition, and Site Plan for Mission Hills Senior Living ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 6t' day of January, 2015 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY. Its Chairman COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RECEIVED, Planning Division — 7700 Market Boulevard C 0 5 2U i4 CITY OF CHMNSEN Mailing Address — P O Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 553 Phone (952)227-1300/Fax (952) 227 -1110 (-ft!HF I�, PJAhik!INr *rF rr, APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Date Filed 4A -5 —1 q- 60 -Day Review Deadline -A =22>") � Planner Z5Z- Case* QSn %s - 01 ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment .... $600 ❑ Minor MUSA line for failing on -site sewers $100 ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Single- Family Residence $325 ❑ All Others $425 ❑ Interim Use Permit ❑ In conjunction with Single - Family Residence $325 ❑ All Others $425 ❑ Rezoning ❑ Planned Unit Development (PUD) ..$750 Minor Amendment to existing PUD $100 ❑ All Others ... .... $500 ,❑/Sign Plan Review ... $150 L� Site Plan Review ❑ Administrative ... $100 ❑ Commercial /Industrial Districts* ... $500 Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of building area `Include number of existing employees and number of new employees &rResidential Districts ......... $500 Plus $5 per dwelling unit m 67 r ADpITIONAL REQUIRED FEES: LVJ' Notification Sign $200 (City to install and remove) [Property Owners' List within 500' .... $3 per aaaress?. (City to generate - fee determined at pre - application meeting) ❑ Escrow for Recording Documents $50 per document (CUP /SPRNACNAR/WAP /Metes & Bounds Subdivision) Subdivision $300 ❑ Create 3 lots or less ❑ Create over 3 lots Metes & Bounds ❑ Consolidate Lots ❑ L t Line Adjustment $300 $600 + $15 per lot $300 + $50 per lot .$150 $150 VA0 Final Plat* *Requires addition a $ Escrow will be require $250 for attorney costs her applications through the development contract ❑ Vacation of Easements /Right -of -way $300 (Additional recording fees may apply) ❑ Variance .. $200 ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit ❑ Single - Family Residence .... $150 ❑ All Others ... $275 ❑ Zoning Appeal $100 ❑ Zoning Ordinance Amendment $500 NOTE, When multiple applications are processed concurrently, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application (Refer to the appropriate Application Checklist for required submittal information that must accompany this application) TOTAL FEES $ ° ®� Received from Date Received Check Number. Section Required Information Project Name. kL" SIE�AIVP_ LAV(t l 7� Property Address or Location Parcel # Q Legal Description M16S1®K1 ul Total Acreage Wetlands Present? ❑ Yes WINO Present Zoning %Il�� { (t ® Requested Zoning Qom. t � Present Land Use Designation CWRl1 Requested Land Use Designation Existing Use of Property c J LN L__ Description of Proposal Icaz-- Jl•kr !E i Ito F}pLk�At_i&, Check box if separate narrative is attached I— _. Section 3: Property Owner'and Applicant information APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, 1, as applicant, represent to have obtained authorization from the property owner to file this application I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only to the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period If this application has not been signed by the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file the application This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application, I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to ppr�oceee with the study I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct Name- �� mot... /�� L� 6 /I 6 t7 Contact Address: 7 11r Phone. City /State /Zip L. 4 GG �'F(/%/G4 i r1/ ,,S'-..s-b y 1 Cell, G 1,2 7-;? 3 Ttl_6 PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this afp-lication, I, as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do, authorize the filing of this application I understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those conditions, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal periods I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc, with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. 1 certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct Name 1<.10 ell h,,x z �:k Yin 5 t (- C Address- S A le, { i Vim. a'Qj, City /State /Zip: _ C h0. n haSSer\ 1V10 liS•31 _7 Email __K_1 r'\gcl k'A-z 3 MS Y) . C Om Signature- Contact, Xe "l 0(111ellh vlti- Phone: Cell Fax: Rya- W (4 S_ 0) 3 a Date• _ 1' 4 /1Z t/ This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions Before filing this application, refer to the appropriate Application Checklist and confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and applicable procedural requirements. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable) Name - +mil t ��-. Contact- Address Phone• — - -j��O- gWoz- City /State /Zip. &L=mir 5 Cell: lv I Email:_ Fax, Section 4: Notification Information Who should receive copies of staff reports? *Other Contact Information. ❑ Property Owner Via ❑ ma €I E] Mailed Paper Copy Name El Applicant Via. [H' €mail [:]Mailed Paper Copy Address. ❑ Engineer Via, WErnall ❑ Mailed Paper Copy City /State /Zip• ❑ Other* Via ❑ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy Email, SGAI, IFiE 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 mhoajzberg@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 55429 Contact- Tina Wyffles Phone- 763- 843 -0420 General Contractor Engelsma Construction, Inc 7119 31St 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 55420 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, 86th 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 Independent Living Unit Assisted Living Unit Staff (maximum shift) Guests & Visitors TOTAL PARKING Required Provided 1 per townhouse unit = 18 18 1 per apartment unit = 66 66 1 for every 3 assisted unit = 23 23 1 per employee = 24 24 35 131 + 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 86'h 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`h Street that was developed as a part of the original Mission Hills development P.0 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 1865 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 dust 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 86th Street and Highway 101 There was also repeated concern regarding the configuration and construction of the existing median in the middle of West 86th 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 86th 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 Housing 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 fobs 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 fobs, 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 — . a e° --1 a��, zzl, lk pESCPoPnON OF PROPERTY swyEYm swv,) c� ! /// f su r -� •,.. / � �� •A• \ ` I /,e• / /'X/ // onw e a w dd a .ra..., ew. w.,P lo.�...1> en d., eww d��.�.a .� /•:4�1 j m. llt . m »e�...`°..,5." °IZ •. «n<, «w,P P.,, «.,, a.l�P �l d-.., q / \ •I � ��\ /o! 'f%b �,/ -'l' /'� }✓ /�,.,'.`r' j I!"' m eur aearroiNC wcaRU�nw �+ �, d � e, /!{'-' I ~ • I� TI. ad ., �...,, K...> nb d ..�,. a o...e. >o .P». a oen.,.�, K> �>� :c Iwdl II{ � ^o \y;� ��" I �. � ` >�-= "+'i /�__,.� vim✓/ ,%'7 lie.l �I�II,.. 1 I l f \ %.� • \ � �' � � ,,, •1�`;�y% /•-r " 1 1 a F/� j o t) ww,P..� /d a,�.,.�,. m.a du., eAaN. >. w ad n �a m....,.,� A I _ \ I I I 2 U^ '� 4 jl , � \�1�� \ / \\ � �. ' �a �— \ ��.�/,S � .� t' III I.,. TITLE CouwTUCNT �� I p p w� � � � � / 1 �'ewy •'J' "`t"?l � :f � )i` ,.wol d . � mow. n °�'�.,...,,y'1°o"=,�...�. w'"`. w �z..:�er°1p"e ,.mid.. ►Q � � 1 j �r % \^F; � _� -a`�`\ i 7�/�= /� _ '"��`_,1� \\ ,`tie -'' \ i 1 1 #.w F- I ;a �'i \` _ ��i +E .-.. �\ —\ \•\ .ri'��— GENERAL NOTES _ ;, — _ _ ,� � � � � - -_ —_ / .�y� �� — \ �,,, � \ `�; J'yy � Ell I � I ") z>"°�"w.o ,'�: �.'"".,.,"�'.Ra � • w- ww.a 1. a m o....e. w • — -- \ — .. UTILITY NOTES Ir o*o[, wm c(OFNp o �..ta BFNCl1 NARKS (RYl .Po�P.IS Na N�PPO l r1 i.) i�d�� a d M x�aml m u. wd WM d x�y,.o° 101 Id .pml av1. xo O �j gr= PP >PP dP�. a Pal M ASS/ON HALS &W ADDITION s - — -------- a X� 1A3 INK HCHWA Y NO 312 GMQING, 12E61UAGE. AND EROSION CONTML PLAN Q ` W;qW RASH DETAIL M --T N7 N SCALE r - 40' RETAINING WALKWAY NOTE� wmrx- M7, W ZT- Z. = 1! coo H � s 8 1 Hill Old aaaaaa Q Z 0 K 1< U) Z 0 d GRADING, DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN cloo o wvjkv v 7RUNK HIGHWA Y NO. 312 %F. L V3 WNR&G.Er STRUCTURE M m .n cz 4U W 0 W w 1- 4a ... t;6 Ul =7.— Z— MR ...... EI Jill i m u 9 Pam =SMMMM - gi 9 ME (D z o Z 0 V) UTILITY PLAN C200 TRUNK HCHWA Y NO. 312 GWG AND GEOMETRIC PLAN �7 XX M A 'All RMIMINOI I r6-'\ MW-PRJIY BITUMINOUS PAVEMM PAVEMENT- 11T7 nR SIAS WMS PATH RIP RAP MLW WYFPggNlNG FOR DRAINAGE SWALE ii Cal fill ! ', I app WHO 11IJ (D 0 7 LLI <1 z Q PAVING AND GEOMETRIC PLAN C300 El CIS ED m AF 2 0 am ea 4.1 11T7 nR SIAS WMS PATH RIP RAP MLW WYFPggNlNG FOR DRAINAGE SWALE ii Cal fill ! ', I app WHO 11IJ (D 0 7 LLI <1 z Q PAVING AND GEOMETRIC PLAN C300 i IRMIR. UVORVI-WIk"I -11 @ &;VJ&R\nCE (9 \ &qp % MANHOLE- LN Mir CROSSING i. wi AM - MINIMUM t l iiiiii EA/ RDa mTp- I., MGM FREIRM", M; M y Ii, 111, 99 (D Z LY 0 z LU Raz Z n Ed AML DETAILS SHEET C400 SECTION MEW 6" PLAN \PEW DRAIN WrrH SPLASH RAD AND CASnNG 1 1*51a, 1�0141 —mrxxx um w OZ- I- Fr 1,111 M @ RV TILE FOR LOW POINT CATCH BASINS @- @T&WIN MANHOLE W/SUMP 11. M. lrqv,22�� WtpqRj SIDFWALK Wj;MN CURB RAMP qO j, t CURB RAMP C5-51 (@ Qr--EN- M. 16, MTIF awo =. - - F - - M.; y I if Fi If aaaaaa eia (D z 5; 0 Z LU .9 Z Z: Z M 0 (r.) U) AML DETAILS SHEET C401 WPJPNG CONOMONS VICINITY MA PROJECTYr LOCATION STORMWATER RUNOFF SUMMARY N I w My 0 T-W onAFR No =.w .T T. .MT XAM. § !11 t� 101 I � OK fill I 9 1 MIN! .!H NEED 4=4 .4 m (D Z 0 ON z <1 LLJ -7 ON cd y POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN C500 MISSION HILLS SENIOR LIVING HWY 101 AND 86TH STREET WEST CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA PROJECT TEAM OUNER HEADWATERS DEVELOFMENT 17550 HEMLOCK AVENUE LAKEVILLE, MN 55044 CT CONTA' MIKE HOAGBERG ONE PH (352)378 -4386 EMAIL, MHOAWER32CH- HOLDUJGSLLC.COM CONTRACTOR ENGELSMA CONSTRUCTION, INC 7113 3i ST AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55427 CONTACT JEFF ENGELSMA PHONE (763) 536 -9200 ARCHITECT SPERIDES REINER5 ARCHITECTS, INC 4200 WEST OLD SHAKOPEE ROAD 51117E 220 BLOOMINGTON, MN 65431 CONTACT PHONE (952) 996 -9662 FAX: ( %2)996 9663 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER BK15M ENGINEERS 59429 BROOKLYN BLVD MINNEAPOLI6, MN 55429, CONTACT TINA UITFFLE5 PHONE: (763) 843 -0420 CIVIL ENGINEER. BKBM ENGINEERS 59429 BROOKLYN BLVD MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55429, CONTACT' KEITH MATTE, PE. PHONE (763) 843 -0464 SURVEYOR SUNDE LAND SURVEYING 9001 EAST BLOGMW.aTCN FREEWAY SUITE 3118 SLOOMNGTOR MN 55420 CONTACT' LENNY CARLSON PHONE (952 881 -2455 TRAFFIC ENGINEER . IFF CONSULTANT GROUP INC ONE CARLSON PARKWAY NORTH SUITE 0150 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55447 CONTACT JORDAN SCHWARZE, PE PHONE: (763)452 -4767 LOCATION MAP KEY MAP ld� r� m G .�cT wUE '©7 ,ell e.....a.o. va,xw or, C D co Na Ill SHEET INDEX wa eM fus2+' au enc Aatmetwc sae aro avow aw wxu irr cioe wavy uoo oena�e um aerare ARCHITECTURAL a.i are nsrtare rta+ceran.s ua eewmrt eiav aauu a.. iumecnte�Nexau *wi asrane.ia.wreaecu.[ a.s sasUa-en ryyvrwuoErs aro n.aurw osruia m.e sxttTUae minan¢svanae �.i oaEnaieewUaw ntvanau .x » arre oeeia+exr cures �.` w ats aeticrtenr r+eaEs �erac e.ata neer+amon CCS 5 0 3Y SgdF 4 44444 0 Z FF J p (n � azo _0 aU Z W N �O J 1 w Z F=— Z 0 C� i V 4 ZZ G < TITLE SHEET A0.Q-, e +ham - G - G . Q _ C D co Na Ill SHEET INDEX wa eM fus2+' au enc Aatmetwc sae aro avow aw wxu irr cioe wavy uoo oena�e um aerare ARCHITECTURAL a.i are nsrtare rta+ceran.s ua eewmrt eiav aauu a.. iumecnte�Nexau *wi asrane.ia.wreaecu.[ a.s sasUa-en ryyvrwuoErs aro n.aurw osruia m.e sxttTUae minan¢svanae �.i oaEnaieewUaw ntvanau .x » arre oeeia+exr cures �.` w ats aeticrtenr r+eaEs �erac e.ata neer+amon CCS 5 0 3Y SgdF 4 44444 0 Z FF J p (n � azo _0 aU Z W N �O J 1 w Z F=— Z 0 C� i V 4 ZZ G < TITLE SHEET A0.Q-, e +ham \J i m J� 2 RETAINING WALL DETAIL GENERAL SITE PLAN NOTES awn onsxeiaw, ro usoTMre an +�ISe� au.i.mw.oM�uw rwmaxuiau.o.c°w. .i°..r�urcem iw'e`.r�.weH. cieae:�ncie. ' ATlc*[uieietlOR.0 °O 0iWW4J[e N.N.O., S1TE PLAN KEYED NOTES pa an .•wnnawvu.>r.mcwnsno,es•oalmos aax pe mn.l..ww+ce.r�. yl lll,;llll it f I l lll,, �,'y ` //j / •, °CO - � a\ � \� "}' \ \L! %l� /jll�l 0 I . �. ,x, - -- /,, L iy �, . , � �_ '' • -- 1 ._ ! 11/1 , / � ...�� 1 ! ply /y %i /�/ � doll i/ m� o ✓ I _ "'.,111/;1 i ` -- ® / /I II , //' s� ®i /' // 11'li Mill m. I r yi %'F�r' ` ✓� ®Q ! 11/11 ..� FLAGPOLE BASE SECTION 5 INTEMIATIONAL SYMBOL OF ACCESSIBILITY } IM y '�1111!!I!�i'��- : -= -,\ °• l i \Y, ^- - II�'y yy a�.,.,1 ^'"+.. R.LL�, ' � � � 1 !!,1 � / /I'll Ip ��/ /�' . _ - -- . r a1 /, �I l •, Ijypllll� ill �_ - -\ �' ,/ 4•�.J 1 i \J_ y / € f 11111 i % _ _ ___ • -1 .,. e..� }1d11 _ _ " •�ouran. 4 TAUAK AYNO. 312 l ~' �w 1 MISSION HILLS SENIOR LIVING SITE PLAN BOLLARD DETAIL 6 HANDICAP PARKING SIGNAGE NOFM /1 MISSION HILLS SENIOR LIVING SITE PLAN PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS � uRUmu MlO:uve°cp"°iR nlmra.m.ia...oxnw .Mnr.R. w.�mxAOwlMwrx.RR �! �RRmoaR...xoMxw. rxa! s Il`xwewxR.�Lmr.N Irw� ,I�m�i6..Mt41 4 s1O..�mu emwa..cwaxas*m..ra..nsMi x�naino,xx�„Rx..w.uxmxo.ex..n ximu. n.Mamwml.xMnanrm LY f�x0'l RRMnmMRMlMTl Ap MMxx MxwMlMo MLwRIxRM W PKxMMMMiRxRL RbMLY MA YML�YMI x{ A x0 6xMx. Mx ♦ RQ•xl Rxwm.WVYR�xwxa N11ni'niT�M�1xcR. wRIn RS40i� xMIR M M ML xltx m o..n xMM Ml RxAS qx! si, .. Rol nxRe onwxmMaM.lxe,oan.xRRx.o�x.ex�. RM *xw x.ne!l.a.x. x.. xxou. M,rn. x MMm.. nR��RxxRR...a.lRR .. xIMImRN WlLRWmOtYRIxR Mtn.e MxMlxW]Y! �PrA�MxFxnM MMWMLSnxlplOmltlY.anu' C• LANDSCAPE PLAN GENERAL NOTES !. Ux= erne ax�l01.en w'"'n.aM. M�waM n�cxx+oxrewlv.i.o�a..�,ma > �eax.+xR,mxsw- rwunrxs.wrouowxn� +rec! ■.xMxMO �.iMii1Ymist <��ro �m vMl� MD�Aw�xm �p.Il�� .AOMnNNIDRxMMC1w MnxproxxM RED •+nrn mea..xMUnxRmMOMewrr rowo xxxwwn xae; xwcM rmaxni a wr.nrw wmw.MiMwa.uaYxnuo nnxwawnx.�v �'°a�r �:4 � �nalo.v MOMAx.1�al !!• im .nros+m rtw n. xlaunRCawn® umrra.ro.eeMw !'' wlniaxnR�au`�ale+n x� ww x. sum�R .nMiaMlu.RneroMxnxM�Y�a„�uMx 1�M.IK�NFtnp�TynY YxQaM1.Ml. x. Mmm.na..w�onMruwRCauis.auuro.a.. nxausx�aR�i lawuwa�xwiu.iiw�.x!`oMxo. fIWIGATION NOTES- 0['a70m0 ®[�T"' +gym "Tz D[70 ®0 ®E M_ �. m ©[•70�p ®r- ^err ®m o ©m000� ®v enr�omo ®cs�¢.�� oo�000r� ®a o[°aomo ®QS�� - - --- -- -- ---- -ass -: � • »xn a «c. 6EED MIXIUIQB RAM OARDlN PLANTNO PRORLE xMl eMiR1 nAR Mo xtA! �xxM xCMCW.x,9p. TOR.xeua44M W15—mlik- NO-f'= PRAIRIE 6RA88E8 8EW PRCPILE elaunx uoex I� y4p„py4 � ppy�� x � ilk 9 1114 ix dddddd z 2: > gw azo to U Z LLB N t J J_ O� in O • LANDSCAPE PLAN • INSTAIlATIgJ DETAAS • PLANT SCWDULE Al 3 • r wCP'i. pia•. uwr.+wmux 2 ENLARGED SECTION OF TYPICAL RAIN GARDEN LAYOUT AND CONSTRUCTION \ 0� 0� 3 ENLARGED LANDSCAPE PLAN AT MEMORY CARE GARDEN AND DINING ROOM FORMAL GARDENS p Cali 4� pgl�o ma x 3z! t xv:_. 81 444444 a. 0 Z 1Z . i a� J O 0 azc U Z L1J (� Q J J r Z ta m 0 �F3 I N p PLANTV4 PROFILES • RAIN GhPAPN DIAGRAM • ENARGED PIAM MG BE) PANS • H d • r wCP'i. pia•. uwr.+wmux 2 ENLARGED SECTION OF TYPICAL RAIN GARDEN LAYOUT AND CONSTRUCTION \ 0� 0� 3 ENLARGED LANDSCAPE PLAN AT MEMORY CARE GARDEN AND DINING ROOM FORMAL GARDENS p Cali 4� pgl�o ma x 3z! t xv:_. 81 444444 a. 0 Z 1Z . i a� J O 0 azc U Z L1J (� Q J J r Z ta m 0 �F3 I N p PLANTV4 PROFILES • RAIN GhPAPN DIAGRAM • ENARGED PIAM MG BE) PANS • H SENIOR LIVING BUILDING NORTHWEST ELEVATION - FRONT CANOPY AND ENTRANCE SENIOR LMNG BUILDING SOUTHWEST ELEVATION PARKING GARAGE AND SERVICE ENTRANCES SENIOR LMNG BUILDING NORTHEAST ELEVATION alit n 444444 z Z �oG � yywp J �o� � azo O z 17 Lu V) w J NO m� (n o . MW BUILDING EQEWOR ELEVATIONS A2 0 ORYlG BiOft1N'I�WNt �MG � DNRG I¢�ON PA �PIdDC�p19 9Sµ � —S- SENIOR LIVING BUILDING SOUTHEAST ELEVATION ! 3D VIEW FROM THE CURB IN FROM OF A TWINHOME VILLA RESIDENCE 3D VIEW FROM FROM THE AIR BEHIND A TWINHOME VILLA RESIDENCE FRONT ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION CCU y� g pp B� i�� 444444 0 Z �wcE Cie a o� Wzz p W N �F Z as Z Z w 0 oQOr_ � S V . WJN BOLDING D(TEWOR ELEVATION . TWINHOME VILLA ELEVATIONS A2.1 is 0 NO MAN BUILDING AERIAL VIEW FROM SOUTHEAST CORNER MIN MAN BUILDING AERIAL VIEW FROM THE EAST LOOKING TOWARD HWY 101 MAIN BUILDING ENTRY VESTIBULE AND DRIVE UNDER CANOPY f-, (D 7— LX azo 0 Lij Qq -7 0 • U:) 3D SITE DEVELOPMENT FAIRM i d FA 7 3D SITE AERIAL OVERVIEW is 0 NO MAN BUILDING AERIAL VIEW FROM SOUTHEAST CORNER MIN MAN BUILDING AERIAL VIEW FROM THE EAST LOOKING TOWARD HWY 101 MAIN BUILDING ENTRY VESTIBULE AND DRIVE UNDER CANOPY f-, (D 7— LX azo 0 Lij Qq -7 0 • U:) 3D SITE DEVELOPMENT FAIRM i d K Ailo- r VIEW OF SITE FROM THE MAIN ENTRY DRIVE VIEW OF SITE HIGHWAY 101 JUST PAST SOUND WALL VIEW OF MAIN MONUMENT SIGN ALONG HIGHWAY 101 VIEW OF SITE FROM THE CORNER OF 86TH STREET WEST AND HIGHWAY 101 F AM I �y 4g F 41 j b 4gg�X M 3 s aaaaaa z r c Z zoo a � adz O Z N w cn J NO ZZ ro O Z w Cn o • 3D STE DEVELOPMENT MEWS A2.3 TW NHOME DESIGN OPTION #1 a �_. TWINHOME DESIGN OPTION #2 T_ ,I I to V. TWINHOME DESIGN OPTION LOCATIONS I� cop, � 66 �I aaaaaa a a J QF � wxa O Z N w _ =z z Z �z O TWINHOME VILLA DESIGN OPTIONS TWINHOME DESIGN OPTION #3 TWINHOME DESIGN OPTION #4 1 1 A2.4 �11 EVGINCCRS P L A N N E R S D f} L; ti f R S Memorandum Consulting Group, inc. SRF No 0148676 To: Michael Hoagberg Chanhassen Senior Living Developer LLC From: Matt Pacyna, PE, Senior Associate Jordan Schwarze, PE, Senior Engineer Date: November 21, 2014 Subject: Chanhassen Senior Facility Traffic Study Introduction SRF has completed a traffic study for the proposed senior living facility development located near the TH 212 /County Highway 101 interchange in the City of Chanhassen (see Figure 1 Project Location). The main objectives of this study are 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 will provide 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 The following information provides the assumptions, analysis and study recommendations offered for consideration Existing Conditions The existing conditions were reviewed to establish a baseline in order to identify any future impacts associated with the proposed development The evaluation of existing conditions includes peak period intersection turning movement counts, field observations and an intersection capacity analysis. Data Collection Peak period turning movement counts were collected by SRF during the week of October 27, 2014 at the following study intersections. • County Highway 101 and Lake Susan Drive /TH 212 Westbound Ramps • County Highway 101 and 86th Street Note that the 86th Streetl Mission Hills Drive intersection volumes were denved from County Highway 101 l 86th Street intersection turning movement counts and surrounding land use mp generation estimates Historical and year 2013 annual average daily traffic (AADT) volumes within the study area were provided by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) ONE CARLSON PARKWAY, SUITE 150 1 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55447 1 763 475 0010 1 WWW SUCONSULTING COM W i, I Project Location Consulting Group Inc Chanhassen Senior Facility Traffic Study Figure 1 0148676 Chanhassen, MN November 2014 Michael Hoagberg November 21, 2014 Chanhassen Senior Living Developer LLC Page 3 In addition to the intersection turning movement counts, observations were completed to identify roadway characteristics within the study area (i e roadway geometry, posted speed limits, and traffic controls). Currently, County Highway 101 is a four -lane divided roadway with a posted speed limit of 45 miles per hour (mph). 86th Street is a two -lane roadway with no posted speed limit and parking allowed only along its north side. The study intersections are side- street stop controlled, except the County Highway 101 /Lake Susan Drive intersection which is signalized. It should be noted that County Highway 101 is functionally classified as a minor arterial, while other study roadways are classified as local streets. Existing geometrics, traffic controls, and volumes within the study area are shown in Figure 2. Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis An existing intersection capacity analysis was completed to establish a baseline condition to which future traffic operations could be compared. The study intersections were analyzed using Synchro/ SimTraffic software (V8 0). Capacity analysis results identify a Level of Service (LOS) which indicates how well an intersection is operating Intersections are ranked from LOS A through LOS F. The LOS results are based on average delay per vehicle, which correspond to the delay threshold values shown in Table 1. LOS A indicates the best traffic operation, while LOS F indicates an intersection where demand exceeds capacity Overall intersection LOS A though LOS D is generally considered acceptable in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Table 1, Level of Service Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections LOS Designation Signalized Intersection Average Delay /Vehicle (seconds) Unsignalized Intersection Average Delay /Vehicle (seconds) A S 10 <_ 10 B > 10 -20 > 10 -15 C >20 -35 >15 -25 D >35 -55 >25 -35 E > 55 - 80 > 35 - 50 F > 80 > 50 For side- street stop controlled intersections, special emphasis is given to providing an estimate for the level of service of the side - street approach Traffic operations at an unsignahzed intersection with side - street stop control can be described in two ways First, consideration is given to the overall intersection level of service This takes into account the total number of vehicles entering the intersection and the capability of the intersection to support these volumes Second, it is important to consider the delay on the minor approach Since the mainline does not have to stop, the majority of delay is attributed to the side- street approaches It is typical of intersections with higher mainline traffic volumes to experience high levels of delay (i e poor levels of service) on the side- street approaches, but an acceptable overall intersection level of service during peak hour conditions t Ui 9 c U �� 6a In� 2B ro /-A L Project Location LEGEND XX - A.M. Peak Hour Volumes (XX) - P M Peak Hour Volumes x,xxx - Estimated Year 2014 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes - Side - Street Stop Control - Traffic Signal Control �� 6a In� 2B ro /-A L Project Location V 101 86th St /�,e /�/ � dal .►'> 7) \. O a t' (O/ } 212 Existing Conditions Figure 2 ['onsuldng Group, Inc Chanhassen Senior Facility Traffic Study 0148676 Chanhassen, MN November 2014 5J M .- N N 034 180(137) b0 �— 8 (52) 114(271) - Lake Susan or (43) 49 TH 212 WB Ramps (7) 5 (39) 38 N M OD N t0 V 101 86th St /�,e /�/ � dal .►'> 7) \. O a t' (O/ } 212 Existing Conditions Figure 2 ['onsuldng Group, Inc Chanhassen Senior Facility Traffic Study 0148676 Chanhassen, MN November 2014 Michael Hoagberg November 21, 2014 Chanhassen Semor Living Developer LLC Page 5 Results of the existing intersection capacity analysis shown in Table 2 indicate that all study intersections currently operate at an acceptable overall LOS B 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 field or traffic simulation at the study intersections. It should be noted that all results shown represent the SimTraffic analysis due to the proximity of the County Highway 101 /Lake Susan Drive intersection traffic signal and its impacts on operations at the County Highway 101 /86th Street intersection Table 2. Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis Intersection A.M. Peak Hour I P.M. Peak Hour LDS Delay LOS Delay County Highway 101 /1-ake Susan Drive B 12 sec. B 17 sec. County Highway 101/86th Street(') A/B 13 sec A/A 9 sec 86th Street/Mission Hills Drive") A/A 3 sec A/A 2 sec (1) Indicates an unsignalized intersection with side- street stop control, where the overall LOS is shown followed by the worst approach LOS The delay shown represents the worst side- street approach delay Year 2017 No Build Conditions To help determine impacts associated with the proposed development, traffic forecasts were first developed for year 2017 no build conditions (i.e. one year after anticipated completion) The no build condition takes into account general area background growth and traffic generated by adjacent developments, if any. The evaluation of year 2017 no build conditions includes details on the adjacent development, traffic forecasts and an intersection capacity analysis Adjacent Development Based on discussions with City staff, the Preserve at Rice Lake development is expected to be complete prior to the proposed development. The Preserve at Rice Lake is located north of TH 212, near the eastern terminus of 86th Street (see Figure 3• Adjacent Development) This adjacent development will consist of 16 single - family homes and is currently under construction Motorists traveling to /from the Preserve at Rice Lake would primarily be expected to utilize 86th Street, though Mission Hills Lane could also be utilized to access County Highway 101 northbound Adjacent development taps were estimated using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, Ninth Edstron These trips were distributed throughout the area based on the directional distribution shown in Figure 4, which was developed based on existing travel patterns within the area and engineering judgment. Results of the trip generation estimates shown in Table 3 indicate that the adjacent development is expected to generate 12 a m peak hour, 16 p m peak hour, and 152 daily trips. WI Adjacent Development s Group, Inc Chanhassen Senior Facility Traffic Study Figure 3 �'onsultin 0148676 Chanhassen, MN November 2014 ;41§ Directional Distribution Figure 4 Consultin Group, s P Chanhassen Senior Facility Traffic Study Chanhassen, MN 0148676 November 2014 Michael Hoagberg Chanhassen Senior Living Developer LLC Table 3. Trip Generation Estimates - Adjacent Development November 21, 2014 Page 8 A.M. Trips P M Trips Daily Land Use Type (iTE Code) Size Trips In Out in Out p Single - Family Detached Housing (210) 16 Dwelling Units J 3 1 9 1 10 1 6 152 Year 2017 No Build Traffic Forecasts To determine the general area background growth rate, historical AADT volumes and the forecasts presented in the Qq of Chanhassen 2030 (:oVrehensivePlan were c nsidered._Based_on_ the - information available, an annual growth rate of one percent was applied to the existing peak hour and daily traffic volumes This background growth rate accounts for motorists that are expected to travel through the study area The resultant year 2017 no build conditions, including general area background growth and traffic generated by the adjacent development, are shown in Figure 5. Year 2017 No Build Intersection Capacity Analysis To determine how the adjacent roadway network will accommodate year 2017 no build traffic forecasts, an intersection capacity analysis was completed using Synchro /SimTraffic software. Results of the year 2017 no build intersection capacity analysis shown in Table 4 indicate that all study intersections are expected to continue operating at an acceptable overall LOS B 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. Table 4 Year 2017 No Build Intersection Capacity Analysis Intersection AM Peak Flour P.M. Peak Hour LOS Delay LOS Delay County Highway 101 /1-ake Susan Drive B 12 sec B 17 sec County Highway 101/86th Street(') A/B 13 sec A/B 11 sec 86th Street /Mission Hills Drivef �) A/A 3 sec A/A 3 sec (1) Indicates an unsignalized intersection with side - street stop control, where the overall LOS is shown followed by the worst approach LOS The delay shown represents the worst side - street approach delay Proposed Development The proposed development is located along the east side of County Highway 101, north of TH 212 and south of 86th Street The current development proposal shown in Figure 6 consists of senior housing including 18 independent living townhomes and a 134 -unit facility offering memory care, assisted and independent living The proposed development is expected to be constructed by the end of the year 2016 Access to the development is proposed along the south side of 86th Street across from Mission Hills Drive Further discussion regarding site access is documented later in this study Year 2017 No Build Conditions Figure 5 Consulting Group, Inc Chanhassen Senior Facility Traffic Study 0148676 Chanhassen, MN November 2014 Lj ®,4 � Site Plan Consulting `up, Inc Chanhassen Senior Facility Traffic Study Figure 6 0146676 Chanhassen, MN November 2014 Michael Hoagberg Chanhassen Senior Living Developer LLC Year 2017 Build Conditions November 21, 2014 Page 11 To help determine impacts associated with the proposed development, traffic forecasts were next developed for year 2017 build conditions (i e one year after anticipated completion) The build condition takes into account general area background growth and traffic generated by the adjacent and proposed developments. The evaluation of year 2017 build conditions includes details on the traffic forecasts and an intersection capacity analysis Year 2017 Build Traffic Forecasts To account for traffic impacts associated with the proposed development, trip generation estimates for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours and a daily basis were developed. These estimates, shown in Table 5, were developed using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, Ninth Edition It should be noted that several land use assumptions were used to identify specific development types and sizes for trip generation purposes based on discussions with project staff. These assumptions are intended to provide a realistic development scenario that could occur. Table 5. Trip Generation Estimates - Proposed Development Land Use Type (!TE Code) Size A.M. Trips P.M. Trips Daily Trips In Out In Out Residential Townhouse (230) 18 Dwelling Units 1 7 6 3 105 Senior Adult Housing- Attached (252) 67 Dwelling Units 5 9 9 8 230 Congregate Care Facility (253) 67 Dwelling Units 2 2 6 5 135 Total Trips 8 18 1 21 16 470 Results of the trip generation estimates indicate the proposed development is expected to generate approximately 26 a m peak hour, 37 p m. peak hour, and 470 daily trips The trips generated were distributed throughout the area based on the directional distribution shown previously in Figure 4. The resultant year 2017 build conditions, including general area background growth and traffic generated by the adjacent and proposed developments, are shown in Figure 7 Year 2017 Build Intersection Capacity Analysis To determine how the adjacent roadway network will accommodate year 2017 build traffic forecasts, an intersection capacity analysis was completed using Synchro /SimTraffic software. Results of the year 2017 build intersection capacity analysis shown in Table 6 indicate that all study intersections are expected to continue operating at an acceptable overall LOS B 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. .,11 Year 2017 Build Conditions Figure 7 Consulting Croup, Inc Chanhassen Senior Facility Traffic Study 0148676 Chanhassen, MN November 2014 Michael Hoagberg Chanhassen Senior Living Developer LLC Table 6 Year 2017 Build Intersection Capacity Analysis Intersection A.M. Peak Hour LOS I Delay November 21, 2014 Page 13 P.M. Peak Hour LOS I Delay County Highway 101 /1-ake Susan Drive B 12 sec. B 18 sec. County Highway 101/86th Street) A/B 13 sec A/B 11 sec 86th Street /Mission Hills Drivef11 A/A 5 sec A/A 4 sec (1) Indicates an unsignalized intersection with side - street stop control, where the overall LOS is shown followed by the worst approach LOS The delay shown represents the worst side - street approach delay Year 2017 Build Conditions - Alternate Development While the proposed senior living facility development is not expected to significantly impact traffic operations within the study area, it should be noted that the proposed zoning of the study property would allow for a more intense land use Based on discussions with City staff, the highest intensity land use under the proposed zoning is assumed to be market rate apartments. Therefore, to better understand the impacts under an alternate development scenario, traffic forecasts and an intersection capacity analysis were once again completed Year 2017 Build Traffic Forecasts - Alternate Development To account for traffic impacts associated with the alternate development, trip generation estimates for the a m and p m peak hours and a daily basis were developed These estimates shown in Table 7 were developed using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, Ninth Edition It should be noted that a density of approximately 20 dwelling units per acre was assumed based on an inventory of nearby apartment complexes, which equates to approximately a 175 -unit apartment complex. Table 7. Trip Generation Estimates - Alternate Development Land Use Type (1TE Code) Size A M Trips P M Trips I Trips Daily In Out In Out Apartment (220) 1 175 Dwelling Units 1 18 1 71 1 71 1 38 1 1,164 Results of the trip generation estimates indicate the alternate development would be expected to generate approximately 89 a.m. peak hour, 109 p.m. peak hour, and 1,164 daily trips. The trips generated were distributed throughout the area based on the directional distribution shown previously in Figure 4. The resultant year 2017 build conditions, including general area background growth and traffic generated by the adjacent and alternate developments, are shown in Figure 8. Year 2017 Build Conditions - Alternate Development Figure 8 Consulting Group, Chanhassen Senior Facility Traffic Stud Inc t'/ Y 0148676 Chanhassen, MN November 2014 Michael Hoagberg November 21, 2014 Chanhassen Senior Living Developer LLC Page 15 Year 2017 Build Intersection Capacity Analysis -Alternate Development To determine how the adjacent roadway network will accommodate year 2017 build traffic forecasts under the alternate development scenario, an intersection capacity analysis was completed using Synchro /SimTraffic software Results of the year 2017 build intersection capacity analysis shown in Table 8 indicate that all study intersections are expected to continue operating at an acceptable overall LOS B 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 alternate development on study area traffic operations, roadway improvements would not be required under year 2017 build conditions from a traffic operations perspective Table 8. Year 2017 Build Intersection Capacity Analysis - Alternate Development Intersection A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour LOS Delay LOS Delay County Highway 101 /Lake Susan Drive B 13 sec B 18 sec County Highway 101/86th Street') A/C 18 sec A/B 14 sec. 86th Street /Mission Hills Drivel11 A/A 8 sec A/A 5 sec (1) Indicates an unsignalized intersection with side - street stop control where the overall LOS is shown followed by the worst approach LOS The delay shown represents the worst side- street approach delay Site Plan /Access Review A review of the proposed site plan was completed to identify any issues and recommend potential improvements with regard to parking, access spacing, sight distance, traffic control, and circulation Parking As noted previously, on- street parking is allowed along the north side of 86th Street. Neighborhood concerns were expressed regarding parked cars causing sight obstructions in the vicinity of horizontal curves along 86th Street However, since all of the parking demand associated with the senior living facility is expected to be accommodated on site, the proposed development is not expected to impact on- street parking Access Spacing The proposed development access is expected to replace an existing field access along the south side of 86th Street across from Mission Hills Drive Since the 86th Street /Mission Hills Drive intersection already exists as a full- access intersection, the proposed development access does not represent a significant change in access spacing and is in a logical location It should be noted that an existing curb cut along County Highway 101 is not expected to be utilized /changed as part of the proposed development. Michael Hoagberg Chanhassen Senior Living Developer LLC Sight Distance November 21, 2014 Page 16 Based on field observations, horizontal curves exist along County Highway 101 to the north and south of the 86th Street intersection Additionally, a vertical crest exists in the terrain of the study property which limits the sight distance to the south for motorists along 86th Street. Therefore, a review of the existing sight distance was completed The required sight distance from a minor street, as indicated in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highvays and Streets by AASHT0, is 500 feet for a 45 mph mainline roadway. Based on the field observations at 86th Street, there is approximately 620 feet of sight distance to the south and more than 1,000 feet of sight distance to the north along County Highway 101. Therefore, the sight distance available at the County Highway 101/86th Street intersection is sufficient to clearly identify approaching vehicles However, special consideration should be made to limit any sight distance impacts from future structures, landscaping and signing Traffic Control /Traffic Circulation Internal traffic controls were not identified However, the following should be considered when designing internal traffic controls• • Incorporate traffic controls, signing and striping based on guidelines established in the Manual on Uniform Trafc Control Devices (MUTCD) o In particular, it is important to .identify traffic controls at intersections between internal roadways /driveways to minimize vehicular conflicts and driver confusion Based on this guidance, stop control should be implemented at the site access to 86th Street to reduce the potential for driver confusion. A review of the proposed site circulation was also completed The movement of general passenger vehicles within the proposed development is not expected to be an issue However, truck turning movements should be reviewed to ensure that large vehicles (e g delivery/garbage /recycling trucks) have adequate accommodations to negotiate internal roadways Furthermore, it is recommended that one -way operations be implemented at the access points to the parking lots of the main senior living facility. One -way operations should then be continued into the facility pick -up /drop -off zone to provide an orderly flow of traffic Finally, it should be noted that the raised median along 86th Street west of Mission Hills Drive will likely need to be modified to accommodate large velucles exiting the proposed development. It is recommended that the raised median be modified near the 86th Street /Mission Hills Drive intersection to allow for these types of maneuvers The modification should include striping to help delineate the travel /turn lanes. An illustration of recommended improvements is presented in Figure 9 W69 1 Recommended Improvements Consulting Group, Inc Chanhassen Senior Facility Traffic Study Figure 9 0148676 Chanhassen, MN November 2014 Michael Hoagberg Chanhassen Senior Living Developer LLC Summary and Conclusions November 21, 2014 Rage 18 The following study conclusions and recommendations are offered for your consideration• • Results of the existing intersection capacity analysis indicate that all study intersections currently operate at an acceptable overall LOS B or better during the am and p.m peak hours In addition, no significant side- street delays or queuing issues were observed in the field or traffic simulation at the study intersections • To help determine impacts associated with the proposed development, traffic forecasts were first - developed for -year 2017-no build conditions (i e one year after anticipateed comp le on ). The no build condition takes into account general area background growth and traffic generated by the adjacent Preserve at Rice Lake development • An annual growth rate of one percent was applied to the existing peak hour and daily traffic volumes to account for general background growth • The Preserve at Rice Lake development is expected to generate 12 a.m. peak hour, 16 p.m. peak hour, and 152 daily trips • Results of the year 2017 no build intersection capacity analysis indicate that all study intersections are expected to continue operating at an acceptable overall LOS B 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. • The proposed development is located along the east side of County Highway 101, north of TH 212 and south of 86th Street and is expected to be constructed by the end of the year 2016 • The current development proposal consists of senior housing including 18 independent living townhomes and a 134 -unit facility offering memory care, assisted and independent living • Access to the development is proposed along the south side of 86th Street across from Mission Hills Drive. • The proposed development is expected to generate approximately 26 a.m. peak hour, 37 p.m. peak hour, and 470 daily trips • Results of the year 2017 build intersection capacity analysis indicate that all study intersections are expected to continue operating at an acceptable overall LOS B 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. o 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 Michael Hoagberg Chanhassen Senior Living Developer LLC November 21, 2014 Page 19 • 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 o 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 • Results of the year 2017 build intersection capacity analysis indicate that all study intersections are expected to continue operating at an acceptable overall LOS B or better during the a m and p m peak hours under the alternate development scenario. In addition, no significant side - street delays or queuing issues were observed in the traffic simulation at the study intersections o 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 • Parking, access spacing, sight distance, traffic control, and circulation were reviewed in the Site Plan /Access Review section. Key recommendations and considerations include the following • 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 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. In particular, it is important to identify traffic controls at intersections between internal roadways /driveways to minimize vehicular conflicts and driver confusion. • Implement stop control at the site access to 86th 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 86th Street /Mission Hills Drive intersection and stripe 86th Street to help delineate the travel /turn lanes H\ Project \8676\TS\ Report\ 8676ChanhasenSeniorFaa litvTraffirStad 141121door Da�`NNEsoT4y° Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan District Waters Edge Building °fp 1500 County Road B2 West Roseville, MN 55113 December 23, 2014 Sharmeen Al -Jaff, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 952- 227 -1131 sallaffkci chanhassen mn us SUBJECT. Mission Hills Senior Living MnDOT Review #P14 -069 NE quadrant of Mn101 and Hwy 212 Chanhassen, Carver County Control Section 1009 Dear Sharmeen Al -Jaff Thank you for the opportunity to review the site plan and plat for the proposed Mission Hills Senior Living proposed development in compliance with Minnesota Statute 505 03, subdivision 2, Plats Before any further development, please address the following issues Water Resources: A drainage permit will be required for any development that discharges stormwater to the MnDOT Right of Way /drainage system The permit applicant shall demonstrate that offsite runoff coming to MnDOT drainage system and /or right -of -way will not increase as a result of the proposed project. This is quantified as a "no increase in discharge" criteria for the 2 -year, 10 -year and 100 -year storm events Please submit documents below for review and approval• 1. Pre and post grading plans and hydraulic calculations to show that proposed flows to MnDOT right -of -way are the same or less than existing conditions 2. Drainage area maps with flow arrows and labeling that corresponds with the submitted calculations 3 HydroCAD output or equivalent at the 2, 10, and 100 year Atlas 14 storm events is acceptable for submittal Please direct any questions regarding water resources to Hailu Shekur (651- 234 -7521 or hailu.shekur(2state mn us) of MnDOT Metro District's Water Resources Section. �c G Traffic Some of the labeling of the highways is incorrect, 101 is shown as Trunk Highway 101 (it should beCSAH 101), and Trunk Highway 212 is shown as Trunk Highway 312. MNDOT also recommends removing the CSAH 101 curb cut to physically eliminate the access and to minimize pedestrians crossing 101 at a midblock location within a curve. For questions regarding these comments please contact David Sheen, Metro District Traffic 651 234 7824, David Sheen@state mn us Permits As mentioned previously, a MNDOT drainage permit is required. Any other work impacting MNDOT right of way will require a permit Permit forms are available from MnDOT's utility website at www dot state mn us/tecsgp/utili include one 11 x 17 plan set and one full size plan set with each permit application Please direct any questions regarding permit requirements to Buck Craig (651 -234 -7911 or buck.craig@state.mn.us) of MnDOT's Metro Permits Section. Review Submittal Options: MnDOT's goal is to complete the review of plans within 30 days. Submittals sent in electronically can usually be turned around faster There are four submittal options Please submit either. 1 One (1) electronic pdf version of the plans MNDOT can accept the plans via e -mail at metrodevreviews.dot&state.mn.us provided that each separate e -mail is under 20 megabytes 2. Three (3) sets of full size plans. Although submittmg seven sets of full size plans will expedite the review process Plans can be sent to• MNDOT — Metro District Planning Section Development Reviews Coordinator 1500 West County Road B -2 Roseville, MN 55113 3. One (1) compact disc. 4. Plans can also be submitted to MnDOT's External FTP Site. Please send files to. ftp-//ftp2 dot state mn us /pub / incoming /MetroWatersEdge/Planning Internet Explorer doesn't work using ftp so please use an FTP Client or your Windows Explorer (My Computer). Also, please send a note to metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us indicating that the plans have been submitted on the FTP site If you have any questions concerning this review, please contact me at (651) 234 -7784 Sincerely, Karen Scheffing Principal Planner Copy sent via E -Mail: Nancy Jacobson, Design Hailu Shekur, Water Resources David Sheen, Traffic Clare Lackey, Traffic Engineering Doug Nelson, Right -of -Way Buck Craig, Permits Diane Langenbach, Area Engineer Russell Owen, Metropolitan Council 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 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-,gie- Lot 1, Block 1, Mission Hills 3rd Addition shall comply with the R -12, High Density District. b. Permitted Uses The permitted uses wit-bin the neighber-head een:Hnereializene sheuld be limited te appropriate eewmffieretal and sefvteeidses eensisteftt with the neighbor-heed. The uses shall be lifnited te these as defined herein The Vfpe ef uses to be pr-evided en t4is eWet shall be lew iateasit�, neighber-heed ertented retail and sen,tee estabhshmefi4s to meet daily needs ef r-estdefi4s. Sueh , 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 eeniffiefeial 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 eemmer-eial 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 High Density Building Setback* Residential Medium Density Building Setback Residential Parking Setback Commercial Parking Setback* Highway 101 * 50' 20' Coverage Highway 212 * 50' 20' West 86th 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, 9th Supplemental filed April 10, 1996, Mission Hills Villas, A Condominium, Common Interest Community No 8, 10th Supplemental filed April 10, 1996, Mission Hills Villas, A Condominium, Common Interest Community No 8, 11th Supplemental filed May 7, 1996; and Mission Hills Villas, A Condominium, Common Interest Community No. 8, 12th Supplemental filed May 20, 1996; Mission Hills 2nd 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 7— 2 ass Mission Hills 3r 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 1 8.92 acres 628 43 2% 2 east, and shall be finished in stone, textufed er eeated -. 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. 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 Y °a for- the etA lvl and ene fnefiufneR4 sign f *h 1 All b ° es built within the „tiet shall share sign. Monument signage one 14~ L � 1111111 LI 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 0 5 Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights 6 No illuminated signs within Lot 1, Block 1, Mission Hills 3rd Addition the -eutle --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 %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 the eutlet Lot 1, Block 1, Mission Hills 3rd Addition shall not exceed 25 feet 2. Glare, whether direct or reflected, as differentiated from general illumination shall not be visible beyond the limits of the site from which it originates Lights shall be on a photoelectric cell to turn them on and off automatically as activated by yearly conditions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of January, 2015, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Denny Laufenberger, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on 5 October 28, 2014 Kathryn Aanenson, Chanhassen Development Director Lyndon Robjent, Carver County Engineer Dear Kathryn & Lyndon: This letter is to request that the Mission Hills Garden Homeowners' Association would like to start discussions with the city and county about traffic control as the result of future development of property located on the southeast corner Highway 101 and West 86th Street in Chanhassen. Currently, the property is for sale, Barr Engineering has done soil borings during the past two weeks, and a surveying company is surveying /staking the property As you are aware, a new housing development is currently being built on West 86th street and Tigua Lane. The combination of new traffic from this development plus the traffic generated by future development of the property on the SE corner of 101 and W 86th Street will compound the current traffic issues to access 101 from W 86th The Mission Hills Homeowners' Association represents 56 homes on the West Side of W 86th Street. A majority of our residents are retired and considered senior citizens of our community. We are concerned for the safety of our association members as they access the 101 & 86th intersection. The current median on West 86th & 101 will need to be redesigned to accommodate the access from future development of the SE corner property currently for sale The existing driveway off of W86 th to this property was not designed to handle large amounts of traffic. It was designed for a farmer field access. The control of traffic at 101 and W 861h to allow residents using 86th to access 101 is our biggest concern. We would like to see a controlled signal intersection but are open to other traffic control systems to manage traffic at this location. Please consider this letter our request to be participants in the planning and design meetings for the future intersection of Highway 101 and W 86th Street. Respectfully Submitted, Karla Thomsen, President Mission Hills Garden Homeowners' Association Our Board Member Dave Nickolay is the board representative assigned to work with the City and County He can be reached through the following. Mail. 552 Mission Hills Dr Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone. 952 - 974 -5285 Email: acmadave @gmail.com December 5, 2014 Sharmeen AI -Jaff, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen Dear Sharmeen: CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED OEC 0 8 2014 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT This letter is in follow -up to our telephone call yesterday and the letter you received dated October 28, 2014 concerning the proposed senior housing development on the southeast corner of Highway 101 and West 86th Street. As we discussed, the Mission Hills Garden Homeowners' Association would like to be involved in the planning discussions concerning the redesign of the West 86th median where it intersects with Mission Hills Drive, leading to Highway 101. We also request that we be involved in the planning of the changes to the intersection of Highway 101 and West 86th Street resulting from the increased traffic from all area development. Our biggest concern involves the control of traffic at 101 and 86th, making a left hand turn or going south on 101 is a problem today, and will grow with the two housing projects being connected to 86th in 2015 As we also discussed, future development on the west side of 101 on the remaining open land should be taken into consideration at this time. Also the city trail that crosses 101 at 86th will also need to be addressed As an association we request the City give serious consideration to working with all government agencies involved to construct a roundabout on 101 where it intersects with 86th. If the roundabout is not feasible, we are open to other traffic control systems to improve the current problem of left hand turns /south bound 101 traffic coming out of 86th Street. Sharmeen, please consider this letter to be our second request to be participants in the planning and re- design meetings for the future intersection of Highway 101 and W 86th Street. Respectfully submitted David F Nickolay, Vice President Mission Hills Garden Homeowners' Association CITE' OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on December 24, 2014, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Notice of Public Hearing for Mission Hills Senior Living — Planning Case 2015 -01 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A ", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records 9 en J ord(leputy Clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 'C rvJ e r , 2014 "fPr, KIM T. MEUWISSEN Notary Public- Minnesota MYCommiselon F)rires Jan 31,2015 Notary P blic Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, January 6, 2015 at 7 00 p m This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda Location City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd Request for PUD Amendment, Subdivision and Site Plan Review with Variances for a 134 -unit senior housing structure Proposal: and 9 twin homes (18 Independent living units) on 8 64 acres of property zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) MISSION HILLS SENIOR LIVING Applicant: Headwaters Development Property Outlot E, Mission Hills (8600 Great Plains Boulevard) Location: A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to Inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain Input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps What Happens 1 Staff will give an overview of the proposed project at the Meeting: 2 The applicant will present plans on the project. 3 Comments are received from the public 4 Public hearing Is closed and the Commission discusses the project If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www ci Chanhassen mn us/2015 -01 If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmeen AI -Jaff by email at sallaff(oci Chanhassen mn us or by phone at 952 - Questions & 227 -1134 If you choose to submit written comments, It is Comments. helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting Staff will provide copies to the Commission The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting City Review Procedure • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments Site Plan Reviews Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations Rezonings Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council The City Council may reverse affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial /industrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519 99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting • A neighborhood spokesperson /representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s) • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, January 6, 2015 at 7 00 p m This hearing may not start until later in the evening depending on the order of the agenda Location City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd Request for PUD Amendment, Subdivision and Site Plan Review with Variances for a 134 -unit senior housing structure Proposal: and 9 twin homes (18 Independent living units) on 8 64 acres of property zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) MISSION HILLS SENIOR LIVING Applicant: Headwaters Development Property Outlot E, Mission Hills (8600 Great Plains Boulevard) Location: A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain Input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps What Happens 1 Staff will give an overview of the proposed project at the Meeting- 2 The applicant will present plans on the project 3 Comments are received from the public 4 Public hearing Is closed and the Commission discusses the project If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www ci Chanhassen mn us/2015 -01 If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmeen AI -Jaff by email at sallaff(a)-ci Chanhassen mn us or by phone at 952 - Questions & 227-1134 If you choose to submit written comments, It is Comments helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting Staff will provide copies to the Commission The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments Site Plan Reviews Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations Rezonings Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as apart of the hearing process The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council The City Council may reverse affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial /industrial • Minnesota State Statute 519 99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting • A neighborhood spokesperson /representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s) • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council if you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. ANDREW B SANVICK ANDREW J BRONCZYK ANNE M SAMUELSON 582 MISSION HILLS WAY W 311 WINKLER CT 583 MISSION HILLS WAY W CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7702 COLOGNE, MN 55322 -4510 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7702 ANNE M SUDDENDORF APPLE TREE ESTATES LLC ARDIS M OLUFSON 525 MARSHLAND TRL 545 LAKE DR APT 205 565 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7711 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9323 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 BARBARA J WELLUMSON BERNARD M & JOANN C GAYTKO BEVERLY E CHRISTENSEN 577 MISSION HILLS DR 521 MISSION HILLS DR 517 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7715 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7715 BEVERLY HAFFNER BONNIE JEAN THURK BRAD H & CAROL M WILLMSEN 509 MISSION HILLS DR 537 MISSION HILLS DR 8510 WATERS EDGE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7715 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9749 BRETT WEIGEL BRIAN & LOUANN KLINGELHUTZ BRIAN A & LOU ANN D KLINGELHUT 576 BLACKBIRD CT 9731 MEADOWLARK LN 8860 KLEIN DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7703 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -8626 WACONIA, MN 55387 -4566 BURTON BRANDRUD CAROL K GELDERT CAROL L ERICKSON 584 MISSION HILLS DR 557 MISSION HILLS DR 549 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 CAROL R VENEZIA CARVER COUNTY CHANHASSEN GATEWAY PLACE 586 MISSION HILLS WAY W 602 4TH ST E LLC CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7702 CHASKA, MN 55318 -2102 PO BOX 10 ALBANY, MN 56307 -0010 CHRIS & ALANNA LIEBHART CONNIE M MOEHL COREY ALLEN MILLER 3051 VENEZIA TER 8540 MAYFIELD CT 589 MISSION HILLS WAY W CHINO HILLS, CA 91709 -6610 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7719 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7702 DALE E HETLAND DAVID B & ALLISON C ORFIELD DAVID F NICKOLAY 524 MISSION HILLS DR 587 MISSION HILLS WAY W 552 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7715 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7702 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 DEBRA J MCGARRY DENNIS R & DIANE E SIEFKER REV DIANE M DEPOE 569 MISSION HILLS DR 588 MISSION HILLS DR 548 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 DONNA LEVASSEUR DREW D CARLSON DUANE D & DONNA M MOORE 599 MISSION HILLS WAY W 531 MISSIONS HILLS WAY W 536 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7702 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7701 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 EDWARD MILLER ERIC J BORM ERIC W & MEGAN E TEALE 579 MISSION HILLS WAY W 6972 PIMA LN 550 MISSION HILLS WAY W CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7702 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9230 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7701 ERWIN C & CLARA MAE SIDER FREDERICK Q KAMPS GARY R SCHULTZ 553 MISSION HILLS DR 8410 WATERS EDGE DR 8507 WATERS EDGE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -8698 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9749 GEORGE W & LESLIE GILMAN GORDON G WAINWRIGHT GRACE REGALADO 7470 ATHERTON WAY 595 MISSION HILLS WAY W 525 MISSION HILLS DR EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55346 -4410 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7702 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7715 GREGORY A & DANA J OHNSORG GREGORY A MARTELL GREGORY SELLS 8500 WATERS EDGE DR 568 BLACKBIRD CT 3808 DOTTY ST CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9749 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7703 CARMICHAEL, CA 95608 -2715 HARTIN FAMILY TRUST HEATHER J HEYER HEATHER L TRIMBLE 540 MISSION HILLS DR 3526 GRIMES AVE N 597 MISSION HILLS WAY W CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55422 -2838 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7702 HEATHER M RUDNICKI HEATHER S VALITON HEIDI L BUCKENTINE 561 MARSHLAND TRL 547 MISSION HILLS WAY W 558 MISSION HILLS WAY W CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7711 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7701 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7702 HOUCK INVESTMENTS LLC HOWARD M LONGPRE J A & JUDITH A HRUBY 776 APPLEWOOD CIR 561 MISSION HILLS DR 8544 MAYFIELD CT VICTORIA, MN 55386 -8254 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7719 JANE M VANDEN PLAS JANET E BROWN JARED A KRUEGER 567 MISSION HILLS WAY W 501 MISSION HILLS DR 596 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7702 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7715 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7717 JAY ANDREW ELLIOT JEFFREY RAYMOND SICHENEDER JENNIFER YOUNGS 639 SPRINGHILL RD 8508 WATERS EDGE DR 529 MARSHLAND TRL # 45 SAINT PAUL, MN 55127 -3598 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9749 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7711 JOCELYNE RYAN JOHN F & SHIRLEY M ROBINSON JOHN S & BARBARA A JACOBY 576 MISSION HILLS DR 8502 WATERS EDGE DR 8516 WATERS EDGE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317- CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9749 JONATHAN M SCHLUETER JULIE A STOLL JULIE L JORGENSON 564 BLACKBIRD CT 554 MISSION HILLS WAY W 570 MISSION HILLS WAY CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7703 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7702 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7702 KAREN J CWAYNA DOUGHERTY KARLA K THOMSON KATHY J MCKIM 533 MARSHLAND TRL 8524 MAYFIELD CT 533 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7711 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7719 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7715 KELLEY P BENTLEY KELLIE L WEILBRENNER KENNA PROPERTIES LLC 534 MISSION HILLS W 543 MISSION HILLS WAY W 1096 SYMPHONY LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7701 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7701 CHASKA, MN 55318 -4589 KENNETH J & GARNITA A WENCL KIM M FEIST KLINGELHUTZ FARMS LLC 8412 WATERS EDGE DR 565 MARSHLAND TRL 545 LAKE DR APT #205 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -8698 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7711 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9323 LAUREL J BOSECK LENORE J MOLSTAD LYNETTE LAABS 592 MISSION HILLS DR 589 MISSION HILLS DR 541 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 MANEESH BHAGAT MARIE L & JEAN E ANDERSON MARY MILLER 125 MAIN ST SE #130 539 MISSION HILLS WAY W 591 MISSION HILLS WAY W MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55414 -2161 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7701 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7702 MATTHEW L & KATHLEEN MATTHEW R KLEY MATTHEW S RUDDY JR ALBRECHT 3136 3RD AVE S 8520 MAYFIELD CT 6220 CASCADE PASS MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 -3221 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7719 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9476 MELISSA A MUIR MICHAEL S & STEPHANIE R DILLE MISSION HILLS GARDEN HOMES 22485 CANTREL WAY 291 TIMBER HILL RD 2681 LONG LAKE RD FARMINGTON, MN 55024 -4011 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9129 ROSEVILLE, MN 55113 -1128 NAJLAA OUALLEN NAM T NGUYEN NANCY J GOLLING 566 MISSION HILLS WAY W 551 MISSION HILLS WAY W 590 MISSION HILLS WAY W CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7702 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7701 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7702 NORMAN C JR & KIMBERLY GRANT PAMELA R MURRAY PATRICIA STRUCK 9021 LAKE RILEY BLVD 529 MISSION HILLS DR 563 MISSION HILLS WAY W CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -8650 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7715 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7702 PATRICK A HUTTNER PATRICK S & CONSTANCE PHYLLIS J RILEY 532 MISSION HILLS DR SULLIVAN 538 MISSION HILLS WAY W CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7715 8500 MAYFIELD CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7701 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7719 RENEE D WALSTROM RICHARD & EVELYN J KETTLER ROBERT C & SUSAN J ERICKSON 581 MISSION HILLS DR 8521 MAYFIELD CT 513 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7719 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7715 ROBERT J BAUER RODNEY A FERROZZO RYAN L MAAS 569 MARSHLAND TRL 560 BLACKBIRD CT 594 MISSION HILLS WAY CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7711 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7703 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7702 SAMANTHA BOLAND SEAN S WARK STATE OF MINNESOTA - DOT 530 MISSION HILLS WAY 549 MARSHLAND TRL 395 JOHN IRELAND BLVD 631 TRAN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7701 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7711 ST PAUL, MN 55155 -1801 STEPHANI K THYKESON STEPHEN W JONES JR SUSAN M DEAN 545 MARSHLAND TRL 553 MARSHLAND TRL 8525 MAYFIELD CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7711 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7711 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7719 THOMAS H BERGE TIMOTHY B LAMBERT TRUST OF DOROTHY S JAMES 545 MISSION HILLS DR 578 MISSION HILLS WAY W 8501 MAYFIELD CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7702 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7719 URBAN CAPITAL HOLDINGS LLC VALERIE LUEBKE VI QUANG 5421 TRACY LYNN TERR 562 MISSION HILLS WAY W 542 MISSION HILLS WAY W MINNETONKA, MN 55345 -4237 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7702 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7701 VICKIE L NOVAK VICTORIA L OLENDER VIOLA MARIE COLLINGHAM LIVING 516 MISSION HILLS DR 585 MISSION HILLS WAY 573 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7715 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7702 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 VIRGINIA A WELLUMSON WAYNE L BEAN WILLIAM D HEINRICH JR 585 MISSION HILLS DR 593 MISSION HILLS DR 598 MISSION HILLS WAY W CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7702 ZETTEL INVESTMENTS LLC 19580 VINE RIDGE RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9118