PC Minutes 01-06-2015Chanhassen 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