Loading...
PC 2015 01 06 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 6, 2015 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Steve Weick, Maryam Yusuf, and Lisa Hokkanen MEMBERS ABSENT: Kim Tennyson STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Drew Ingvalson, Planning Intern; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: Steve Hansen Minnetonka Mike Hoagberg 17550 Hemlock Ave, Lakeville 55044 Bernie Gaytko 521 Mission Hills Drive Karla Thomson 8524 Mayfield Court 9015 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD: REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITATION AND THE SHORELAND SETBACK LIMITATION TO CONSTRUCT A PATIO ONPROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 9015 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD. APPLICANT/OWNER: ROSEMARY KELLY, PLANNING CASE 2014-27. Ingvalson: For those that don’t know me, my name is Drew Ingvalson. I’m a planning intern at the City of Chanhassen. Thank you very much Chairman and Planning Commission members. So our first one is for a shoreland setback and hard surface coverage, a variance request. As you might remember this actually came before the Planning Commission on October 7, 2014 and was tabled to allow the applicant to work with staff. Since then additional information was provided that showed the original request hard cover was actually underestimated and also just did some other calculations with that. Since the previous meeting the applicant has also created an alternative plan that actually has reduced hard surface coverage and then also maintains existing shoreland setback. The location of this, like I said is 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard. It is on the northwest side of Lake Riley. Looking at the picture, image on the right we’ll specifically be looking at is in the rear yard of the property towards the lake. The request is, there’s two actually requests for this. Hard surface coverage variance to increase an approved 1 percent variance for hard surface coverage. This is an additional 4 percent. This will bring the total hard surface to 30 percent hard surface coverage and it will be 5 percent over what the 25 percent maximum allowed. Also the second part of the variance request is a shoreland setback variance to increase an approved 32 foot shoreland setback variance to 36 feet. This is an increase of 4 feet, allowing a 39 foot setback from the existing 43 foot. The existing variance on the property, like I stated before was passed in May, 2005 by the Planning Commission. This approved Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 6, 2015 variance was for a 5 foot front yard setback. A 1 percent hard surface coverage variance. One percent above the 25 percent and also a 32 foot shoreland setback variance. These variances were in place for the demolition of a house and then also then to construct a new home. These variances actually reduced the non-conformities with the property. The property had a larger hard cover percentage. It was at 26.4. It was then reduced to 26 percent and reduced the shoreland setback from 36 feet and instead it was moved farther back to 43 feet. So this is an image of the survey of the property prior to the variance in 2005. The setback was 37 feet and the hard surface coverage was 26. A little over 26 percent. And this is the existing property. It has a 43 foot setback from the ordinary high water level and has a hard surface coverage of 25.8. These are images of the subject site. The one on the left is an existing patio underneath the porch. It’s about 13 by 13 ½ feet and the image on the right is from the other side of the house. There are 3 exits from the rear of the property. One underneath the porch. One underneath the deck and then one to the far right. So here’s an image of the request that’s being made. The blue you see is the existing hard cover and red is the proposed expansion. There are 3 house exits. The hope of the property owner is to connect these 3 with accessible exits so they can accessed onto hard surface coverage. The red area shows expansion that is 551 square foot patio. This is a 4.2 percent hard surface expansion. Also as you can see at the bottom there is a 39 foot shoreland setback for this request. There have been previous variance applications within 500 feet of this property. One of them was withdrawn in 1985 and then there were 2 others that were passed. Both of these were to encroach into the shoreland setback and then also there was a fourth one that was for this subject property that I talked about previously. The hard surface variance, there’s also been a lot of these properties have shoreland setbacks and also hard surface coverage that exceeds the maximum allowed. Three properties actually have hard surface coverage that exceeds the 25 percent allowable. All three of those exceed the existing properties hard surface percentage with the largest being 29.3 percent. Four properties have setbacks that extend within the 75 foot setback. However none of them encroach closer than 43 feet, which is what the subject property currently has. And the lot for the subject property is actually under the, what would be allowable for a current property in the riparian lots. It is 12,900 square feet. The minimum required by the City is 20,000 square feet. There are 3 other properties within 500 feet that do not meet this minimum square footage requirement for riparian lots. So there’s some hard surface expansion issues. I know the one what originally that came forward before was that this is a water oriented structure. It is not considered a water oriented structure due to it’s size exceeding 250 square feet and if it was a water oriented structure we’d still include that area in the hard surface coverage and that’s what this is for is for a hard surface coverage expansion. Also additional hard surface coverage will add to the degradation of the lake and increase runoff volumes, rates and pollutant loads into Lake Riley. Expanded hard cover could also increase drainage issues for adjacent properties. So the alternative plan that was, came to between a conversation with staff and with the applicant is to create an expansion that is 354 square feet, which is a 2.7 percent patio expansion. The addition will require a 3.5 percent hard surface coverage variance from the 25 percent hard cover maximum. If you’re looking at here in blue is the existing hard cover and gray is the patio expansion. This patio expansion will not encroach any further into the shoreland setback. It will maintain that 43 feet. Another part of this alternative plan is that there is the opportunity to create some more usable space. Due to the grade it’s, there’s very limited opportunity for outdoor space on this property. What we’ve communicated between them is that you can create some more usable space that couldn’t be hard cover but there could be some earthwork done there with retaining walls that will be allowable 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 6, 2015 through permits but none that would require a variance but could create some more space that can be used outdoors. The recommended motion. The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the hard surface coverage and shoreland setback variance request and adopts the Findings of Fact. However if the Board of Appeals and Adjustments finds it is appropriate to approve a variance request for hard surface coverage it is recommended that they approve a 3.5 percent hard surface coverage variance to allow patio expansion but not allow any further encroachment into the shoreland setback per the alternative plan. And be subject to the following conditions. One, the applicant must apply for and receive the appropriate permit required from the City. This permit will include a revised survey that displays the location of the patio addition, a completed hard surface coverage calculation worksheet and any other plans required for the permit. And two, landscaping materials must be installed to absorb additional runoff on the property. Aller: Thank you. Any questions at this point in time with staff? Thank you Drew. It was a great report and yeah, thorough and I like the demarcation between our two options so thank you. At this point in time we’ll hear from the applicant. If you could come forward. State your names and addresses for the record, that’d be great. Thank you. Rosemary Kelly: Good evening. My name is Rosemary Kelly. I live at 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard in Chanhassen. Aller: Good to see you again Ms. Kelly. Rosemary Kelly: Yeah. It’s been a while and in the intervening time I want to thank the staff for having the opportunity to go over in more detail what was the expectation and requirements of the variance request which we did not have time to do initially. From my aspect we had worked together on the alternative plan which was more in keeping with our original plan to make our home truly wheelchair accessible, both kind of inside and out. Our current home is not, actually they didn’t never really finished the outdoor to make it accessible for a wheelchair and we’d like to complete that. The other consideration for the setback was not essential to this design and so we eliminated that completely. Finally we expanded only to the really the minimum amount and reduced some of the hard surface request bringing the total to 28.5. Allowing us to exit kind of through the garage onto a hard surface in the back yard. It doesn’t allow for independent wheelchair accessibility to the lake but it allows for independent accessibility to the outside and that was really the driving force in starting this project. I had no other considerations that came up. I think the contingence of working with the permits and the landscaping are all part of our consideration as well as homeowners and I had no conflict with that. Aller: Great, thank you. Any questions of the applicant at this point? Had you had any discussions with your neighbor? I know that there had been correspondence earlier on drainage issues and… Rosemary Kelly: Actually they got the swale construction completed. We actually, she and I actually talked right after this meeting in October and they finished it within about a week of that because we knew the ground was going to freeze. So that’s been completed and that was kind of 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 6, 2015 the true issue coming off of the drainage from the street. It wasn’t really from hard surface so much as drainage of the road construction and that had been in the works to be done prior. So that’s been completed. Aller: Great. Any additional questions based on? Thank you. Sir, did you have any comments? I know you came up together. Are you moral support or? Phillip Sosnowski: No additional comments. I’m just here to support the, to Rose and address any questions that the commission may have of us. Aller: Okay, thank you. Nothing right now? Okay. We’ll open the public hearing portion of the meeting. Anyone wishing to speak either for or against the application can do so at this time. No one coming forward I will close the public hearing portion and open it up for commissioner comments and discussion. Yusuf: It seems like they’ve reached a consensus. Aller: Well I’m not, I don’t know whether it’s a consensus. When I first looked at this I saw the package come back and when I was hearing this the first time, what I was hearing was that the numbers were wrong. Maybe that they would be more favorable and it came back less favorable. So I’m glad to see that they had that discussion. I think that the City is taking an appropriate posture on it to say we should deny that because it does or doesn’t meet the variance requirements and that’s what we should look at so that would be my initial comment to invite your discussion about the variance requirements and whether or not it meets them. Weick: Can you show the actual photos that you had earlier in the presentation of the, there was another one. Yeah. The only thing I’m, I mean I was especially interested in the letter that was included from Joan Ludwig at 9005. So the next door neighbor there so I was just seeing if, you know if the house slants that way. I know there’s runoff from the street that comes down between the houses is the way I understand it. I just didn’t know if the landscape was pitched such that it also runs you know into that yard as well. But it doesn’t. I mean everything looks like it’s pitched down to the lake. I don’t know that adding you know concrete, hard surface against the house there and I’m certainly not an engineer but it doesn’t look like it would add significant issues for the next door neighbor. What do you guys think? Hokkanen: I don’t know if it meets the requirements of a variance. The legal. Maybe you can explain, yeah. The legal requirements of a variance. Undestad: That’s kind of the issue I have too. I mean it’s nice we’re trying to move things back and all that but what’s been granted previously on here and I just don’t think it meets the requirements that we could say yes. My opinion. Aller: When I look at it one of the things that concerns me is that it was non-conforming in the first place and it wasn’t, my understanding it wasn’t their property at the time but the builder came in. Took away a lot of those non-conforming uses and issues but they still needed a variance. It’s still at the maximum for the neighborhood. If it was different than the 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 6, 2015 neighborhood I would be more inclined to look at that particular issue a little differently but I think that that does have an impact as well with the hard cover being what it was and that the variance, and it’s still at the maximum and the variances for the other properties were for new construction as well. So any, sir did you want to come up and address any of those issues? I mean that’s. Tom Goodrum: Yeah, thanks. Tom Goodrum. Aller: Thank you. Tom Goodrum: The Senior Planner for Westwood, although former planner for Carver County and Minnetonka. Helping Rose Kelly out on this request and just to address a couple of comments that you made. First of all, again we’re thanking staff. They’re supporting the request after we met with them with this alternative plan. One that we felt was reasonable for this site and with the property and with the neighboring properties. This is something that you had asked us to go back. Talk to staff. Work with staff. We did that. We came up with the plan supported by staff to come back so thanks for that opportunity. Again thanks to staff for working on this but to answer some of the questions that you brought up. Again the property line, between the property owners, that’s not part of this proposal. That’s a whole different issue and that’s going to be solved so now we’re just looking for what’s a reasonable use for this site. We’re not getting any closer than the lake than what is currently existing. Similar to the two lots next to us. They’re both 43 feet back as wise so we’re not doing any more impacts to the neighborhood that already exist. We reduced the hard surface down to 28.5 which is similar to what we have with neighboring properties. I think the one just next to us is 27 point something. The one next to that, he’s more than us at 29 percent hard cover so we’re still in that ballpark. We’re still meeting the, you know the character of that neighborhood. The purpose, the reason we’re doing this is because of the handicap accessibility. We do have that need for the family. The house was built for that need. Now that the family is reaching that age or have family members that have those needs, they’re now discovering some of the flaws with this property and that’s what the purpose of this variance is for is to correct a wrong that you had mentioned earlier that yes, it was built by a previous homeowner and these things that already existed but it was built for the purpose for handicap accessibility. Now that we have that need we’re finding out that there’s some flaws in that initial requests and now that was part of the initial request. Don’t know where the commission or council will go with it but we assumed that they would support it as they supported the other uses on here. The hard surface we’re requesting is for access. You have a garage coming off the back of the house. This way somebody in a wheelchair or in a scooter can pull into the garage. Don’t even have to maneuver within the house. I mean entering that patio is going through a bedroom plus a couple other rooms inside of that house. With the expansion we’re asking for, you’re pulling into the garage. You get out of the car. You go out the back of the garage and you’re in the back of the patio, you know envisioning the lake. Enjoying the lake. You’re not coming out of the garage. Maneuvering through the doors in the house. Maneuvering through bedrooms to get out to the patio. So the, again the purpose for this is to meet what was not met before. To work with staff. Come up with plans that are reasonable that staff can support which we achieved to be harmonious with the rest of the neighborhood. Variances have been approved by this commission as recently as the last time Rose was here with the Kurt Fretham project. There was a variances for hard 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 6, 2015 surface coverage for two lots. One at 28 and one was at 30 percent. There’s one in 2013 for a hard cover. I mean they all have their own issues, their own items and we believe this is similar in those cases. That these type of hard surface variances are not detrimental and this is a reasonable use for this property so with that again we appreciated the time to work with staff to come up with something that everybody could support. I sure hope that the Planning Commission understands where we’re coming from. Our request and that you can support us as well so thank you. Aller: Thank you. Weick: Can I ask a clarifying question? The property that’s underneath that deck, that’s not, that’s currently considered hard cover? Ingvalson: No. Weick: No. Ingvalson: Incorrect. It’s underneath a deck so decks are not considered hard surface coverage as long as water can penetrate through them. Weick: Through, okay. Ingvalson: So currently the only hard surface coverage there would be that step that’s right outside the door. Weick: Got it. Thank you. Undestad: Bob, can you pull up that picture again of what the reduction that they did from the existing? Yeah, that red. There you go. So on the right hand side of that picture, the sidewalk. The patio coming out of the garage back there. What, is that about 4 feet? Ingvalson: 5 feet. Undestad: 5 feet. And that transitions across the entire garage door back there? Ingvalson: Correct. Weick: I think that’s the minimum, right? For wheelchair access. Ingvalson: For any. Aller: The percentage of hard cover is based on the present, present square footage of the lot, correct? Undestad: The 12,900. 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 6, 2015 Aller: So we are dealing with apples to apples? It’s not something because of the reduced lot size, they’re doing anything different? Or receiving any different numbers. Generous: Correct. Undestad: And we talked about this once before too but how would they treat, when we talk about if we approve something, how are they going to control the excess runoff and we talked before and nobody can really monitor rain gardens and that sort of thing but if we’re asking them if we approve this and they create some landscaping to take care of that we’re kind of back to the how do we monitor there? How do we know? Generous: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. It’s basically with the initial design we’d be able to determine whether or not there would be benefit. And the idea actually came up with the original proposal where they showed that hedges at the end of the retaining wall and those are perfect opportunities to create a well if you will for water to use up some of the runoff that’s coming off of that hard surface. Undestad: So is that something that the City would do through the permit process and design into that plan? Generous: Exactly. Aller: Do you feel that the conditions in the alternate findings would allow for you to control that process? Generous: We do. Weick: I hate to get into this debate again and really open this up but for as long as the homeowner chooses to maintain them as rain gardens or whatever they are. Hokkanen: Shrubs or landscaping. Weick: Right. I mean there’s no jurisdiction of the City to control how long that landscaping is maintained, correct? Generous: That’s correct. We don’t take any securities or anything like that for that. We would, the assumption and as part of the design for the improvement they’re going to. Weick: Understood. Generous: Right. Weick: Understood but again as we’ve talked about before if someone else were to move into the house, if something were to change there wouldn’t be anything that would prohibit anybody from changing that landscaping, I don’t think is there? 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 6, 2015 Hokkanen: It does. Weick: So it does? I guess that’s my question. Aller: The condition would be there. Hokkanen: The condition does but enforcement is the issue. Weick: Okay. Aller: Yeah like most enforcements you rely on neighbors to basically say hey, there’s something going on next door. Hokkanen: Right. Aller: Any other feelings on it one way or another? Kind of wrestling with what you’re going to do? Yusuf: Not really wrestling. I appreciate that they’ve been able to work with staff to come up with an alternate plan. Seems like a nice agreement there. Provided that the conditions are met of course. Aller: Well I would entertain a motion at this time if somebody wants to make one. Yusuf: I will make one. The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves Planning Case number 2014-17, a 3 ½ percent hard surface coverage variance from the 25 percent requirement to allow a 354 square foot patio expansion on a property zoned Single Family Residential District. Aller: I have a motion, do I have. Yusuf: And oh I should just add the subject to the following conditions listed there. Aller: I have a motion which includes conditions. Do I have a second? Weick: Second. Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion? Yusuf moved, Weick seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves Planning Case #2014-17, a 3.5 percent hard surface coverage variance from the 25 percent requirement to allow a 354 square foot patio expansion on a property zoned Single Family Residential District and adopt the Findings of Fact and Decision for approval subject to the following conditions: 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 6, 2015 1. The applicant must apply for and receive the appropriate permit required from the City. This permit will include a revised survey that displays the location of the patio addition, a completed hard surface coverage calculation worksheet and any other plans required for the permit. 2. Landscape materials must be installed to absorb additional runoff on the property. Commissioners Yusuf and Weick voted in favor; Commissioners Aller, Undestad and Hokkanen voted nay. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3. Aller: So do we have a date for that? Aanenson: Yes we do. th Aller: January 26. Aanenson: Correct. Aller: So because of the denial by a less than a super majority this will be moved to the City Council to be heard on January 26, 2015. So anyone wishing to follow this item to it’s final conclusion should do so at that time. Thank you one and all. PUBLIC HEARING: MISSION HILLS SENIOR LIVING: REQUEST FOR PUD AMENDMENT, SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR A 134 UNIT SENIOR HOUSING STRUCTURE AND 9 TWIN HOMES (18 INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS) ON 8.64 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) LOCATED AT 8600 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD (OUTLOT 3, MISSION HILLS). APPLICANT: HEADWATERS DEVELOPMENT, PLANNING CASE 2015-01. Al-Jaff: Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. The application before you is for a planned unit development amendment, a subdivision and a site plan. The site is located at th 8600 Great Plains Boulevard, which is at the southeast corner of the intersection of 86 Street, Great Plains Boulevard and north of Highway 212. The area overall that is, majority of the area that surrounds the interchange of 212 and 101 is guided mixed use development. Within that type of land use you are permitted two different types of uses. The first one being neighborhood commercial. Basically meeting the daily needs of neighbors within the surrounding area and the second type of use is high density residential which is up to 16 units per acre. Basically apartments. The area where we are showing the subject site on this land use plan is the site that the applicant is proposing to build an apartment building that would be serving seniors as well as independent living townhouses. That is a permitted type of use. A few years back staff had meetings with property owners within that area and it was mainly people, or property owners that had vacant land. We just wanted to make suggestions. We studied the area quite a bit and we needed to let them know what the options are. When we were looking at this specific site we recommended that senior housing would be something that they should really consider. At that time, and while we were going through amending PUD’s and cleaning up different applications 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 6, 2015 within, different sites within the city, they chose to just hold off. Leave their options open as far as the type of use that would be permitted on, that would be designated to this site. Aanenson: Can I just add a couple things? Al-Jaff: Sure. Aanenson: I just want to talk a little bit about, so there have been two studies that we looked at on this property that Sharmeen was alluding to. One was we did one back when the park and ride went in because this area was in flux. Kind of there’s a lot of transition between I think the Springfield neighborhood. Looking at the park and ride and then back when, before Kraus- Anderson had their project there was another mixed project on there that had some high density and so that, we kind of focused on some of those properties around there that were still in transition to kind of give some clarity. Again that’s where the first recommendation came out on this, the subject site tonight to look at something other than the neighborhood commercial. Especially over time when we re-visited all the PUD’s because now that the Kraus-Anderson project came in, we had Kwik Trip and that, we figured this was probably a less desirable. At that time when we met with the Klingelhutz’s they chose not to, because this was given a neighborhood business commercial probably we probably, we felt it wouldn’t be as successful but at that time they didn’t want to change it so we’re moving in the direction that we always felt was really a better alignment for the land use so I just wanted to give that note of clarity on that. Al-Jaff: One of the things that we also need to point out, when this area that is referred to as the Mission Hills development. When this area was developed it was prior to the construction of Highway 212 and the realignment of Great Plains Boulevard so there were many unknowns at the time and we just needed to point that part out. So the site is zoned planned unit development and in a few minutes I will get into the details of the background of how we got to this stage. As I mentioned the applicant is requesting to build a high density residential development there. In order to achieve that we need to amend an existing planned unit development that governs the subject site and that should be very simple to do since the planned unit development will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the overall application will meet all the standards set forth in ordinance. Getting into the background. So back in 1994 the City Council looked at this site. There was an application for mixed use being commercial as well as residential so the area that’s highlighted in yellow is actually low density residential which is 1.2 to 4 units per acre. And then the area that is in beige is medium density residential which is between 4 and 8 units per acre. The portion that is shown in red and is guided commercial is actually neighborhood commercial. Again it was prior to the highways being realigned and built and it just seemed at the time that that was the proper type of use. As this development was completed and then the highways were realigned. The fence, noise wall was built and then we started looking at the traffic movements. The more and more we looked at it we realized this site really lends itself to residential rather than commercial type of use. When we went over the densities that were permitted on the site, and based on acreages the low density portion was permitted 34 units. Of those 34 units only 19 were built. Then the medium density was permitted 212 units. Of those only 194 were built. That leaves us with a density that could transfer somewhere else on the site as long as it is within the overall development. So, and what I should also add is those left over units can be transferred to the site that is shown as commercial here and will be 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 6, 2015 part of the high density overall calculation. So existing conditions basically the site has been graded. It is used as a farm. Actually it’s where most of the pumpkins in Chanhassen come from. It falls within the shoreland overlay district of Lake Susan and it basically bisects the site. So a portion of it is within the overlay district and the rest of it sits outside. The applicant is proposing 134 units. 134 units of apartments within the building that is proposed to be located along the southerly portion of the site. The northeasterly portion of the site would be occupied by 9 townhouses. They will calculate to a total number of 18 additional units. All the units are rental units. The townhouses will be independent living and the apartment building will be a mix of independent living, assisted as well as memory care. Access to the site will be gained off of th 86 Street. There will be no access to Highway 212 nor to Great Plains Boulevard. There is a curb cut there on Great Plains Boulevard but that will be closed off. Parking will be located to the center of the site. There will be landscaping that will be screening this parking and there will be some berms as well. So as I mentioned earlier the site is located within the shoreland overlay district. Looking at the site, and after talking to the DNR we were told that the building will, any portion of the building that is within the shoreland overlay district cannot exceed 35 feet in height and we worked with the applicant so as you can see the northeasterly corner of the, of the apartment building extends into that shoreland overlay district and the red line is that shoreland boundary. What the applicant did was they pivoted the building and it’s outside the shoreland overlay district zone so we are within compliance with the DNR regulations and we did receive a confirmation from the DNR. After they saw this they said they have no further comments. So the architecture of the building and the design is attractive. There are pronounced entrances utilizing durable exterior material and there is plenty of articulation shown on the building. The materials used are durable. They are a combination of masonry painted siding. There is some EIFS on the structure and any elevation that has, that can be viewed by the public has received equal attention. Actually all elevations have been very well designed. The twin homes, one of the things we talked about with the applicant is yes, they need to compliment the building but each, the main building but each unit should be a little different. Has some different qualities and you will notice that what they were proposing or what they are proposing is some differences in the type of garage door that serves those units. Some of the columns. The roof lines so there are some variations but still within the same color family. As far as signage on the site, the applicant is proposing two signs. One facing Great Plains Boulevard and the second one at the entrance into the site. We had a conversation with the applicant and we said you really can only have one in a residential district and they have chosen to keep the sign that faces Great Plains Boulevard. The sign will meet all ordinance requirements. 24 square feet. 5 feet high and it’s attractive and it will compliment the building. The architecture of the building. Sidewalks and trails are everywhere on the site and around it. Very good plan and there should be a pedestrian crossing should be incorporated along the southerly parking lot. Just to ensure that pedestrians always have the ability to get onto the trails and connect them with the Highway 101. The property is within a mile of two parks. The Chanhassen Hills Park as well as Bandimere Park. These two parks are more robust and they do have quite a few recreational facilities. Between those two they offer features such as fishing piers, boat landings, tennis courts, archery range, soccer fields, etc. The current site is an outlot and the city code requires all parcels, in order for them to be buildable, they have to be a lot. One of the things that we also need to point out is you’re going to see multiple buildings on this site. Under the planned unit development ordinance you may have multiple buildings on a single parcel. All of those buildings are rental under single ownership so again that is permitted under the planned unit development ordinance. 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 6, 2015 This subdivision is truly straight forward. Taking an outlot. Turning it into a lot and a block and at this point I would like to turn it over to Alyson Fauske to address a traffic study. Fauske: Thank you Sharmeen. Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission and residents in the audience. When the applicant came forward with this proposal there was a discussion with regards to traffic. As Kate and Sharmeen had mentioned with this area having been in flux as far as what it’s ultimate use was and given the proposal for the mixed use, we thought it would be a good time to take a look at what the impacts would be so included in the packet is an analysis done by SRF Consulting. They did take a look at what the trip generation would be for the site. Some of the internal circulation within the site, and then also some of the th impacts within the existing infrastructure as far as 86 Street and 101 to see if there would be any impacts to those improvements. To this improvement. So as shown on the screen here is essentially the result of the traffic study. They took a look at the trip generation proposed from the site, both with based on the proposals seen before you today and then also with, if the site were to be developed into an apartment, the highest density allowed within this zoning district just to provide a comparison and what the traffic engineers do is they establish what’s called a level of service and a level of service is with a grade A through F with A being excellent. Essentially no delay for traffic and then F being a severe delay for traffic within the area and the analysis that they concluded is that the level of services are within acceptable ranges with th acceptable delays. Another component to the analysis was to take a look at West 86 Street in particular and see what improvements would be ideal to allow for this proposal so shown on the th north side of the site, on West 86 Street near the intersection of Highway 101, there’s a note for some median changes to there to cut back some of the existing raised curb median in the middle of the street and then to have some turn lanes installed in order to better facilitate the turning movements through there. Also included in their analysis, it’s near the back of your report on page 16. They do have a discussion with regards to the existing sight distances for traffic turning th off of West 86 Street onto 101. They refer to the guidelines set forth through actually the federal guidelines with regards to sight distance and they’ve determined that the existing sight distances both to the north and the south are within the acceptable range according to the Institute of Highway and Traffic. We have had some residents, some of the current residents in the neighborhood express some concerns with some of the safety of turning onto 101 and we’ve contacted Carver County since 101 is now a county road to alert them to some of the safety concerns that the residents have. They did receive a copy of the application. We did not receive a comment from them nor have we had an opportunity to hear back from them with regards to addressing some of the safety concerns but we’ll certainly continue to work with them and try to connect them with the residents regarding any safety questions that come up with the proposed operations at that intersection. But as I had indicated the SRF analysis did indicate that the current intersection sight lines are adequate according to the guidelines. Another question that th had come up, I believe even prior to this proposal was with regards to parking on West 86 Street along the curve to the east of the site. There’s been some, it doesn’t show on this slide but th due to the curve, the horizontal curve on West 86 Street that there might be some, thank you Sharmeen. There might be some sight distance issues as it comes along the curve between the two medium density developments on each side so we have had some monitoring in that area to see if it would be warranted to limit or restrict the parking to one side and we’ll continue to work with that independent of this site proposal since it is a system, a question with regards to the efficiency of the system and independent of the project proposal. 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 6, 2015 Al-Jaff: So as mentioned earlier the applicant is requesting the site plan approval for the density of 152 units and that is 134 units in an apartment building as well as the 9 townhouses on the site. These uses are in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan which would also allow the City to amend the ordinance governing this site. Currently it is guided commercial and it would be re-guided or currently it is governed by the planned unit development to be developed as commercial and we would be amending the planned unit development to high density residential. There is one error in the staff report. One only. It is on page 24 of 33. I have indicated that the total number of multi-family units is 134 and that number should be 152. That same number is reflected in the ordinance that is attached to this staff report so that would need to be corrected as well. Staff is recommending approval of the planned unit development amendment, the site plan approval and the preliminary plat and we’ll be happy to answer any questions. Undestad: So the densities on this one, the 33 units that weren’t, were not used in the previous, they’re transferred to this site. Al-Jaff: That is correct. Aanenson: I’m not sure that was really clear in the presentation but that’s how you got to that number. We took the excess that wasn’t used to pull it over. Undestad: Okay and then that’s still at 152 units and then the alternate traffic study used an assumption of 175 units and they still were good. Al-Jaff: Correct. Undestad: Okay. Aller: Any other additional questions of staff at this point? Hearing none we’ll hear from the applicant or the developer. If you could please state your name and representation for the record that would be great. Mike Hoagberg: Hi, I’m Mike Hoagberg. I’m the managing member of the development group, Headwaters Development and we’re happy to be here tonight to discuss the proposed Mission Hills Senior Living Development. Aller: Welcome sir. Mike Hoagberg: You know we really think this is the prospects of building a new senior living development in Chanhassen is very exciting. This is a great opportunity for us and a great opportunity for the community. We’ve had several conversations with the staff members and residents throughout the city of Chanhassen and we’ve commissioned several market studies and it’s clear to us that there is demand for additional senior housing in the city of Chanhassen. Furthermore we’ve put forth considerable effort to make sure that we have incorporated all the comments and feedback that we’ve received from the staff, as well as neighbors from the surrounding community to incorporate those comments into the plans that you’re looking at 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 6, 2015 tonight. Our development team has put together what we believe is a strong team. We’re working with some of the most well respected firms in senior housing. Here with me tonight is my development partner Greg Zodas. We also have Susan Farr who is the Senior Vice President of Development for Ebenezer. Ebenezer will be our operating partner for this community going forward and as you may know Ebenezer is one of the largest senior housing operators in Minnesota and they’re also affiliated with the Fairview Health Systems and so we’re very excited that they’re joining us on this project. I also have Eric Reiners from SRa. His firm has done a lot of the architectural work and projects for senior housing development throughout the state of Minnesota and has been a partner with us from the beginning on this project and so we’re very excited about this opportunity and thanks again for the discussion this evening. And we’re here for any questions that you guys have. Aller: Questions? None, thank you. I’ll open the public hearing portion of the meeting now. Opportunity for anyone present to speak either for or against the item before us so if you would like to speak on behalf of the motion, the applicant or against it or just make a comment, please come forward and state your name and address for the record. Bernie Gaytko: Thank you. Good evening. I’m Bernie Gaytko and I live at 521 Mission Hills Drive, excuse me. I’m fighting the crud that’s going around town. I’ve been in that area for 20 years. We were one of the first families to move into the Mission Hills garden home area and so we’ve seen a lot of changes and most of the changes that we’ve seen have increased the traffic on Highway 101 significantly. When 212 came through, and of course having an interchange at 101, that filtered a lot of traffic northbound and obviously southbound too but mostly northbound th past our development, making it difficult for some people to make a turn out of 86 Street south onto 101. I understand now having seen the traffic study and having heard the Assistant City Engineer’s statement that Carver County is still looking at that particular intersection. I would say that I’m pleased that they’ve taken it seriously and that hopefully some recommendations will come down and be implemented that can satisfy the concerns of the elderly residents that live in our area so. That being said, and speaking now as an individual, as an individual homeowner as opposed to any member of any board of the directors of the association anymore, but as an individual I am well aware of the need for this type of a development in Chanhassen. I’m part of a ministry at St. Hubert’s and I do go out and visit the homebound on a weekly basis so I get a chance to get into many units like this and many units that aren’t like this, but I get a chance to get into them and talk to a lot of people and I have talked to the people in our development, those that I have run into since we had our meeting and they seem to be almost to a person in favor of the development and the only concern that I have heard is that of excess traffic and the concern especially of turning left to go south on 101 so if that can be addressed and apparently is going to be one way or the other, if that is being addressed then I would give my own personal okay to the development. I think it’s a prudent use of the space and it’s well needed in our area so thank you. Aller: Thank you sir. Thank you for coming out on such a wicked night. Aanenson: I just wanted to add something on the market study, or the marketing or the need for this in the community. We didn’t talk about this but Maxfield Research did do a Carver County wide, looking at housing. Senior housing into the next 10-20 years for the really 2040 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 6, 2015 Comprehensive Plan update, which we’ll be sharing with you as we go forward with that. We’ve had a lot of inquiries on senior housing. While everyone would like to put senior housing in Chanhassen, you know our goal is to have diversified housing and not to be responsible for the entire senior housing for the entire county. Having said that, we’ve always felt this was a good site so we’ve always tried to you know, it’s got good access and close to other services so as far as a site that we highly recommended from the beginning and as we stated before we had recommended this probably going back 5, 7 years so again we do believe there is a need and that’s been demonstrated in the Maxfield study that there is need for senior housing so we didn’t talk about that in the staff report but I just wanted to make you aware of that. Aller: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come forward? Ma’am, go ahead and speak into the microphone so it can be part of the record. Karla Thomsen: Certainly. Aller: And if you could state your name and address that would be great. Karla Thomsen: I’m Karla Thomsen. I’m at 8524 Mission Hills Drive. Aller: Welcome. th Karla Thomsen: Okay, and my concern is are they going to be widening 86 Street to make additional parking along there if they so decide? Are they going to take out that middle section with bushes and we have a center island with bushes and whatever. Are they just going to remove that and widen the road because the way it sounded like you were going to try to make parking on one side or the other so I didn’t know if you were widening the road. Aller: Okay, I’ll have that addressed in a second. Are there any other concerns or comments that you would like to make? Karla Thomsen: No. No. Bernie said it all for us. Aller: Okay. Thank you for coming out. Karla Thomsen: Thank you. Aller: And I’ll turn to the engineer and ask her to respond to the traffic situation so that she can re-state. I think what I heard was that we’re investigating that issue and it’s kind of in process. A work in process and that regardless of what happens here, that the City’s going to continue to make that a priority issue for them to take a look at the parking and the sight line independent of whatever happens here so that’s my understanding. Is that correct? Fauske: That’s correct Chairman Aller. The other component that I believe that Ms. Thomsen th had was with regards to whether or not 86 Street would need to be widen based on the turn lanes. The graphic that’s shown on the screen right now is within the constraints of the existing widths of the street and so it would just be a matter of putting some striping on the street in order 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 6, 2015 to guide the traffic within those turn lanes so it would be within the constraints. The existing raised median in there would be cut back so there would be some impact as far as the green space within there but that’s simply to provide enough space for those turn lanes that they’re th proposing on 86 Street. Aller: So we would be allowing for additional movement without actually widening the road. Fauske: Correct. It would be just distinguishing a dedicated lane for turning movements as opposed to folks, and it happens intuitively folks will pull a little further towards the center if they’re making a left turn onto 101. In this instance it provides a dedicated turn lane for that movement. Aller: Which I think is a lot safer isn’t it? Fauske: Correct. It’s providing an actual lane for that and then also allowing a space for the northbound 101 traffic to make a free turn onto 101 without being blocked by another vehicle. Aller: Okay, thank you. Anyone else wishing to come forward during the public hearing portion to speak either for or against this item? Seeing no one come forward I’ll close the public hearing and I’ll open it up for discussion. Anyone? Hokkanen: Well I think it’s a nice project and I think it’s a need in the city. I think it’s something that we, I think it’s a good location. I think traffic’s been addressed and a concern always with these new, bigger developments going in and it sounds like the staff has made sure of that. The only question, and I don’t think we have anything, control over this but the twin homes or the townhomes seem to look almost identical to each other. You guys are laughing at me. Aanenson: That issue has been raised by the planning staff, yes. Aller: When you go into the dentist office and you get those little matching things in the Highlight magazines, that’s what I was thinking. Hokkanen: Okay. Aller: Find the difference. Hokkanen: I did. They’re just windows on the garage and a couple of things but they were not unique enough in my opinion and I’d like to see a little more diversity in the elevations just to make it a little bit more appealing as you drive in. I think that would be beneficial to everybody is just my opinion. That’s it. Aller: Thank you. Anyone else? Weick: I think we’re lucky as a community to have residents that have lived here for so long and have such a vested interest in what happens to the city and the area around them so I thank 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 6, 2015 people for coming forward. I think we’re also equally lucky to have such a team to bring this senior living project to Chanhassen. I think we’re very lucky on both counts. That’s my opinion. Aller: Okay. Undestad: Can I ask Alyson? Aller: Absolutely. Undestad: One more question. Aller: Commissioner Undestad. Undestad: At the intersection out there, at what point does the County look at traffic as far as street, you know stop lights things like that? Fauske: That’s an excellent question. If I may address the question. When you look at any kind of traffic control device, be it a stop sign or a traffic signal there’s certain warrants that have to be met. Warrants and without having the detailed list at hand, it has to do with traffic volumes on both the mainline road and the crossroad. Total, it can go by total daily volumes. It can go by peak volumes. They take into account pedestrian crossing. It has to be a very strong pedestrian movement for that be a consideration and warrants and accident information is also included so there hasn’t been any indication that any of the signal warrants would be met at that intersection and based on the analysis it doesn’t appear that the proposed development would trigger any kind of intersection. Signalized intersection at that location. Undestad: Okay. Aller: Am I correct in remembering in the report there was no indication there’s been an accident for 5 to 7 years or maybe even longer at that intersection? Fauske: Correct. I believe that was included in the analysis and I don’t recall there being an accident information in there. Aller: Well I think that it’s great that this community, Chanhassen is a growing community but it’s also an aging community and I think that in the recent years we’ve taken a stronger look at that and actually are acting upon that so I’m happy to see this type of project come to Chanhassen. With that I’ll request a motion. Hokkanen: It’s a long one. Give me the long ones. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve a Planned Unit Development Amendment to the existing standards (Mission Hills PUD), Site Plan approval for the construction of 134 unit multi-tenant senior housing apartment building and 9 twinhomes, and the Preliminary Plat approval to replat rd 8.64 acres into Lot 1, Block 1, Mission Hills 3 Addition on property zoned Planned Unit 17 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 6, 2015 Development and located at 8600 Great Plains Boulevard (Outlot E, Mission Hills), and the adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Yusuf: Second. Aller: I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Hokkanen moved, Yusuf seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development amendment in the attached ordinance for Mission Hills to allow High Density Use on the site and set standards for the structures as shown below with the following conditions and including the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. 1.The site must comply with the DNR Shoreland Rules. 2.The site shall comply with the following standards: Mission Hills Zoning Standards a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD mixed density housing zone. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to be placed underground. Each structure proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. Except as modified by the Mission Hills standards below, the mixed density housing development shall comply with the requirements of the R-8, Mixed Medium Density District. Except as modified by the Mission Hills standards below for rd Lot 1, Block 1, Mission Hills 3 Addition shall comply with the R-12, High Density District. b. Permitted Uses The permitted uses within the development shall include the following:  Single Family Residential  Medium Density Residential  High Density Residential c. Setbacks In the PUD standards, the building setback for commercial is 50 feet from any public right-of- way. The High Density parking setback shall be 35 feet from any public right-of-way and/ or interior property line. There shall be a buffer separating the residential portion from the High 18 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 6, 2015 Density portion of the site. This buffer shall be in the form of a berm and landscaping. The following setbacks shall be observed: Residential Residential Commercial Street High Density Medium Density Parking Parking Building Setback* Building Setback Setback Setback* Highway 101 * 50’ 20’ * Highway 212 * 50’ 20’ * West 86 th Street * 30’ 20’ * 0’(from commercial) 0’ (from commercial) Interior Lot Lines 0’ 0’ 50’(from residential) 35’ (from residential) * Setbacks shall be established pursuant to section 20-505 of the Chanhassen City Code. d. Development Standards Tabulation Box Minimum Lot Size multi-family units: Mission Hills: As approved on October 24, 1994 in the Plat of Mission Hills; Mission Hills th Villas, A Condominium, Common Interest Community No. 8, 9 Supplemental filed April 10, th 1996; Mission Hills Villas, A Condominium, Common Interest Community No. 8, 10 Supplemental filed April 10, 1996; Mission Hills Villas, A Condominium, Common Interest th Community No. 8, 11 Supplemental filed May 7, 1996; and Mission Hills Villas, A th Condominium, Common Interest Community No. 8, 12 Supplemental filed May 20, 1996; nd Mission Hills 2 Addition: Area: 2,100 square feet Width: 46 feet Depth: 47 feet rd Mission Hills 3 Addition: Area: 376,358.4 square feet Width: 480 feet Depth: 620 feet Net Lot Hard Surface BLOCK USE Density Area Coverage Mission Hills 3 rd 152 Multi-Family 8.64 acres 17.5 50% Addition Units 138 Multi-Family Block 1, Mission Hills 18 acres 7.66 37% Units Block 4, Mission Hills 56 Multi-Family Units 8.92 acres 6.28 43.2% RESIDENTIAL 1.Building exterior material shall be a combination of prepainted 5" aluminum siding and brick. 19 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 6, 2015 2.Arched transoms and soffit returns shall be used over the entries of the one story units and horizontal transom windows over the 2 story windows. Introduce some variation among the buildings through the shape of windows, adding louvers, shifting entry ways, and adding dormers. 3.Colors used shall be earth tones such as soft gray, creamy white, pearl gray, shell white, etc.). 4.Each unit shall have a minimum of 1 overstory tree within its front yard. 5.All units shall have access onto an interior street and not 86th Street. rd 6.The apartment building located on Lot1, Block 1, Mission Hills 3 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 2½ 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. 20 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 6, 2015 f. Signage One monument sign along Great Plains Boulevard shall be permitted for Lot 1, Block 1, Mission rd Hills 3 Addition. 1. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. 2.Wall signs are permitted on no more than two street frontages. The total of each wall mounted sign display areas shall not exceed 24 square feet. 3.All signs require a separate permit. 4.The signage will have consistency throughout the development and shall tie the building materials to be consistent with the signs. Signs shall be an architectural feature, they shall not be solely mounted on a pole of a foundation. 5.Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. rd 6.No illuminated signs within Lot 1, Block 1, Mission Hills 3 Additionmay 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 ½ 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 rd fixtures within Lot 1, Block 1, Mission Hills 3 Additionshall not exceed 25 feet. 2.Glare, whether direct or reflected, as differentiated from general illumination shall not be visible beyond the limits of the site from which it originates. 3.Lights shall be on a photoelectric cell to turn them on and off automatically as activated by yearly conditions. 21 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 6, 2015 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Hokkanen moved, Yusuf seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the preliminary plat to replat Outlot E, Mission Hills into Lot 1, Block 1, rd Mission Hills 3 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 rd collected as a condition of approval for Lot 1, Block 1, Mission Hills 3 Addition. The park fees will be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. Based upon the current residential park fee rates of $3,800 per apartment dwelling and $5,000 per twin home dwelling, the total park fees will be $599,200. Engineering Conditions: 1.The estimated Surface Water Utility fees are $108,669.80. These shall be due with the final plat. 2.The applicant must prepare an operations and maintenance manual that provides for the protection and preservation of the stormwater best management practices (BMPs) to provide for the designed water quality benefit in perpetuity. 3.The city must be granted the right to enter the subject property to inspect the stormwater BMPs in perpetuity. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Hokkanen moved, Yusuf seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the site plan consisting of a 134-unit senior housing apartment and nine twin homes, Planning Case 2015-01 as shown in plans dated received December 22, 2014, and including the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation, subject to the following conditions: Environmental Resource Conditions: 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. 22 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 6, 2015 Building Official Conditions: 1.The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. A “Code Record” is required (Code Record schematic plans may be same scale as architectural). For “Code Record” information go to MN Dept. of Labor and Industry website: http://www.dli.mn.gov/CCLD/PlanConstruction.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. 23 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 6, 2015 Engineering Conditions: 1.The estimated Surface Water Utility fees are $108,669.80. These shall be due with the final plat. 2.The applicant must prepare an operations and maintenance manual that provides for the protection and preservation of the stormwater best management practices (BMPs) to provide for the designed water quality benefit in perpetuity. 3.The city must be granted the right to enter the subject property to inspect the stormwater BMPs in perpetuity. 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. 8.The plans must show a standard lot benching detail. 9.The grading plan must show proposed elevations at the center of the proposed driveway at the curb line. The maximum allowed driveway grade is 10%. 10.Proposed grades must not exceed a 3:1 slope. 11.The following materials are prohibited for retaining wall construction: smooth face, poured- in-place concrete (stamped or patterned is acceptable), masonry, railroad ties and timber. 12.Walls taller than six feet shall not be constructed with boulder rock. 13.Any wall taller than four feet must be designed by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Minnesota. 14.If a wall is taller than six feet, a fence or other barrier would be required to provide separation from any drive or walkway within 10 feet. 15.The top and bottom wall elevation must be labeled on the northern retaining wall. 16.The plans must show names for these streets. 17.The streets must be paved with a 7-ton design typical section. 18.The developer shall work with Carver County to remove the curb cut along CSAH 101. 24 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 6, 2015 19.The developer shall incorporate the recommendations from the traffic study into their plan set. 20.The parking lot aisles must be a minimum of 26 feet wide. 21.The engineer shall add the city’s standard plates for concrete sidewalk and bituminous trail to the plan set. 22.The trails and sidewalks shall be offset from the private streets to incorporate a 5-foot wide boulevard. 23.Pedestrian ramps shall meet ADA requirements. th 24.The pedestrian ramps at West 86 Street shall be moved closer to the intersection. 25.The pedestrian ramps near the westernmost twin home shall be aligned with each other. 26.A pedestrian crossing shall be incorporated to line up with the southwest walkway that connects with the CSAH 101 trail. 27.All water main and sanitary sewer main constructed in this project shall be privately owned and maintained and must meet the city’s requirements for public utilities. 28.C900 must be used for watermain due to soil conditions typically found in the City. 29.The developer’s engineer shall work with the fire marshal to determine the locations of all fire hydrants. 30.This parcel has already paid the city for one water and sanitary service hook-up. All additional units must pay a water and sanitary service partial hook-up fee at the time of final plat. The remaining hook-up fees would be paid with the building permit. 31.The developer shall work with the Building Department to determine the city SAC and WAC fees for the main building. 32.Rates cannot increase over existing conditions at any point where surface water discharges the site. 33.The applicant must provide calculations demonstrating the existing storm sewer under West th 86 Street, and downstream, has adequate capacity. 34.The outlet from Filtration Basin #1 shall be directed to the 36-inch, reinforced concrete pipe drainage to the southeast and obtain permission from MnDOT to direct the drainage to the MnDOT pond. 35.All work within the MnDOT right-of-way must be approved by MnDOT. 36.The site grading must be such that drainage in the southeast property corner is directed towards Filtration Basin #1 and not to the east into the private properties in Mission Hills. 25 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 6, 2015 37.A full SWPPP meeting all the requirements of the NPDES permit must be provided to the city for review and approval prior to recording the final plat. 38.The applicant shall evaluate the practicality of implementing, to the “maximum extent practicable,” volume-reducing practices including re-use. 39.All swales directing surface flows towards surface water features, including but not limited to storm sewer infrastructure, and off the subject property shall be stabilized within 48 hours of cessation of grading activities. 40.The plan shall include a discussion of dewatering that, at a minimum, addresses which party(ies) are responsible for development of a dewatering plan if one is needed and that the city must be notified no less than 24 hours in advance of undertaking dewatering activities. 41.Erosion control blanket shall be extended to the top of the slopes draining towards the southern property boundary. 42.The design of the stormwater BMPs shall follow the guidelines of the MN Stormwater Manual unless the City Engineer agrees to a deviation for those guidelines. 43.The plan shall clearly indicate how storm water will be routed into Filtration Basin #4 for treatment. 44.Pretreatment shall be provided for all filtration basins. 45.A planting plan for the filtration features will be required before recording the final plat. 46.It is the applicant’s responsibility to assure that permits are received from all other agencies with jurisdiction over the project. Planning Conditions: 1.The applicant shall work with staff to improve the screening of the southwesterly portion of the site through the use of berming and landscaping. 2.All rooftop and ground equipment must be screened from views. 3.The site is permitted one monument sign facing Great Plains Boulevard. Sign illumination and design shall comply with ordinance. 4.Three additional visitor parking spaces shall be added. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Aller: For those of you at home that wish to follow this item, this item will go to the City Council on January 26, 2015. Also if you want to take a look at the reports and studies that we’ve been talking about, they are on the website. 26 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 6, 2015 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Hokkanen noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 18, 2014 as presented. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Aanenson: Thank you Chair, members of the Planning Commission. The Medical Arts Building signage was approved as was 7/41 Crossing. That was for the drive thru. And then also the metes and bounds subdivision. You didn’t see that but a metes and bounds subdivision was approved on Forest Avenue. I know there was a couple meetings where they originally looked at two lots but really to make it work ended up with just one new lot. Then to just give you some other updates of what’s going on in town just at the end of the year. I think at the last minute here we did close on the Noodles property which is by Target so that will be ready to, as soon as we get towards spring and then also Vista at Bentz Farm was also recorded so both of those are ready to roll out this spring. And then to give you an update just on some construction activity in town. So the steel was delivered out at Village Shoppes where Davanni’s and Hurricanes is going so if you’ve been by there, over at Villages, that’s under construction. As you can see the Great Plains Center they’re working on, the cold weather is kind of hurting a little bit on the exterior but they are working on the interior tenant finishes there for Smashburger and for Potbelly. Dakota Retail, the gas tanks were removed and that’s going to probably stay at a stand still until we get a little bit warmer weather when they have to do the soil remediation and then finish up on that. And Powers Point, our big industrial building off of Powers Boulevard there. They do have the bid in place and are finishing up for federal packaging the interior on that one and their move in date for that is March so that one’s coming too, as is Big is almost done too so a couple of those buildings are underway. There are some other tenant finishes on some other buildings in town. If I may Chair just kind of talk about what’s coming up at our next few meetings. We are working on some bigger projects. Engineering and planning have been meeting with developers. We’ve got a couple other industrial sites that are probably going to be th coming in, but having said that our meeting on January 20 we do have one. A variance that’s coming in but we also want to talk about at that meeting kind of the process that we’re going to go through to update for this Comprehensive Plan update. Just try to lay out for you how we’re going to go through that because we’re going to have a lot of people in the room and so we’ll have kind of a pre-meeting on that. How we’re going to go through it and make sure that we’re giving you the information in a way that makes sense for you as we go through those. We have quite a few people are, I would say the majority are in support of the changes. We’re going to have one or two that are not as interested in some of the changes so we’ll kind of work through those and kind of lay that out for you and then get your feedback on that. And then, so that thrd would be kind of a pre-meeting on January 20 for the February 3 and that’s the only item we have on because we do anticipate a number of property owners there on that one. And then the th 17 we are expecting the lifestyle center concept PUD to come in. Again that’s kind of to flush out some of the issues on that. As that moves forward, give clear direction to the developing rd team and then send that onto the City Council. And then on March 3 we’re working on that learning center at Highway 5. I know Alyson Fauske has been working on some of the traffic stuff right now. I mean we want to get that in place. It’s a larger daycare, to make sure that that fits within the expectations we had of that neighborhood and how we’re managing that so we’re, so the next couple meetings we will be busy. And with that I just want to point out that we are advertising for planning commissioners so, because we are short one now with Dan and you can 27 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 6, 2015 see that sometimes when there’s people going, and I know Lisa’s planning some trips, which is great so, who I have up for 2015. You don’t have to say anything to me now but just shoot me an email or let me know what your plans are at your convenience. Maryam and Lisa are both up in 2015 so give that some thought. And that’s all I have Chairman, planning commissioners. Aller: So those individuals at home again that you’ve taken the interest to be watching us from home, even on a cold, frigid evening tonight and if you know someone or you yourself want to come in and apply for a position with one of the commissions. The Planning Commission that you’re watching. There are other commissioners available as well. The Senior Commission and Park and Rec Commission and they will have openings and availabilities as well so please feel free to come in and apply for those positions and partake in the city government here. With that I’ll entertain a motion. Undestad moved, Hokkanen seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director 28