Loading...
PC Minutes CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 18, 2017 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, John Tietz, Maryam Yusuf, Nancy Madsen, and Mark Randall MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad, and Steve Weick STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; MacKenzie Walters, Planner; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: Mike Hoagberg 17550 Hemlock Avenue, Lakeville th Joy Gorra 1680 West 78 Street Dale Hetland 542 Mission Hill Drive Duane Moon 536 Mission Hill Drive th Carol Dunsmore 730 West 96 Street Char and Bill Schubert 9610 Meadowlark Lane Karla Thomson 8524 Mayfield Court th Teri Byrne 700 West 96 Street Gary Halona - Maryanne 670 Creekwood Street th Dr. Carissa Haverly 750 West 96 Street Doug Tucker 585 Mission Hills Way West PUBLIC HEARING: MISSION HILLS SENIOR HOUSING PUD AMENDMENT FOR CHILD DAY CARE, SITE PLAN REVIEW AND SUBDIVISION. Al-Jaff: Good evening Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. The subject site th is located north of Highway 212, southeast of the intersection of Great Plains Boulevard and 86 Street. Just a brief background that we need to provide regarding the Mission Hills development. This will allow us to move forward with what is before you today. So back in 1994 the City approved a planned unit development that allowed 16 units of low density as well as medium density developments. There are townhomes that, thank you. There are townhomes, fourplexes located within the northwesterly portion and then the lower or the southerly portion of the site also has townhouses only it’s a combination of six and eightplexes. The western portion of the site is commercial. The underlying zoning or the designation within the planned unit development allowed for commercial uses that are catering to neighborhood related daily needs. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 18, 2017 One thing that we also need to point out is the total number of units, resident units that got built between the low density and the medium density districts were 212 and we’ll get back to this number later. Also in 2015, which is only 2 years ago, City staff received an application that we took through the process. We brought it before the Planning Commission as well as City Council and the request was for a four story apartment building designated for seniors only. It was a combination of the memory care as well as assisted and independent living. We also had 9 twinhomes. This request was approved by the Planning Commission as well as City Council. To accommodate this request the City approved a planned unit development amendment, a site plan as well as a replat of an outlot. None of those documents got recorded with the County and approvals have lapsed since then. This will bring us to the proposal that is before you today. So let’s start with the land use of the subject site. So the land use designation is mixed use. Within the mixed use category it is intended to accommodate either neighborhood commercial and/or high density residential development. Within the high density residential you can have up to 16 units per acre. The zoning of the site is planned unit development. It is, the planned unit development designates the site for commercial use but it also states that the commercial use has to be neighborhood related type of service. Amending the planned unit development to high density, to allow for high density residential within this area as well as accommodate a daycare which the applicant is proposing to be located inside the high density residential apartment building would be consistent with the land use of the subject site and staff is recommending approval of the planned unit development amendment. As far as the number of units that is being requested by the applicant. Earlier I went through the previous approvals from 1994 that included the low density as well as medium densities for this overall planned unit development. The site between the low density, medium densities could have accommodated 246 units. What actually was built 210 units so the remaining 36 units density can be transferred to the commercial portion which staff is recommending be amended to allow for high density residential. In addition to that this portion of the site has an area of 8.6 acres. Under the planned unit development and the zoning ordinance you’re allowed 16 units per acre. That adds up to 138 units. With the transfer of density we would be able to accommodate 174 units, residential units. The applicant is requesting a total number of 152 units between the apartment building as well as townhouses that are being requested on the site which is under the maximum number permitted within this development. Within this acreage. Some of the characteristics of the site, this 8.6 acres have been farmed for many years. It has been graded. It falls within 1,000 feet of Lake Susan. The area that you see shaded in pink must comply with all ordinances associated with the Shoreland Overlay District. That means any building within that area may not exceed 35 feet in height. They need to maintain a 50 percent open space. There are other regulations. The location of the apartment building is completely outside the Shoreland Overlay District and is in compliance with the DNR requirements. The townhouses are two story only and they are in compliance with the height requirements. The overall open space for this site is 52 percent. Again we are in keeping with all ordinance requirements for the zoning ordinance and regulations to meet City requirements as well as DNR requirements. The daycare is proposed to be located inside the apartment building. One of the programs that the applicant is familiar with and I will let the applicant address this part, is the importance of and the success of intergenerational programs where you have children and seniors working together. I also need to 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 18, 2017 point out that intergenerational programs is one of the goals of the senior commission here in the City of Chanhassen and we have, we often have seniors that will go to daycare centers or elementary schools and just read to children and it has been a very successful program. The daycare is proposed to accommodate 90 children. Have an area of 8,600 square feet. The areas that we have circled on this slide are intended to be play areas. The portion that is along the southeast corner is intended to be the intergenerational play area. The portion that is to the north is for the children only. When you, we’ve worked with the applicant for quite a while and they’ve really done a good job ensuring that we have sidewalks throughout the development. Some of those sidewalks do connect with the trails. Circulation is for pedestrian versus vehicular traffic is very well designed. The vehicular traffic into the site or access into the site is gained th off of 86 Street and at this point I would like to turn it over to Alyson to address the traffic study. Fauske: Thank you Sharmeen. Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission, when this proposal originally came through there was a traffic study completed for the site assuming maximum buildout of the site. Maximum density so looking at the highest and most intense use from a traffic perspective. They looked at multiple things. For example the intersection of 101 thth and 86 Street. The intersection of 86 Street and the proposed site access as well as internal circulation to the site. So working from 101 into the site the traffic study revealed that there were no decreases in level of service at that intersection. That it’s not warranting any signalization or such at that intersection. Carver County has provided some comments that they would like to continue to monitor that intersection, looking at traffic volumes and seeing if there’s any intersection improvements that might be needed in the future and the City is certainly willing to continue to cooperation with Carver County in their efforts for intersection improvements. Also as a result of that study looking at that intersection, one of the th recommendations was to modify the median on West 86 Street to provide for better channelization and then also to do some striping at the intersection so it’s clear for the traffic existing onto 101 which lane they should use. Another thing to note on the site is a stop th condition before vehicles enter onto West 86 Street. Again that was a recommendation from the traffic study as well as when they looked at internal site circulation was to have a one way operation in front of the apartment building to facilitate the traffic through there. Thank you for pointing that out Sharmeen. Included in the packet are a couple communications from the homeowners association. The latest one was dated April 13, 2017 and there were 3 things that th the HOA requested that we look at. First one being the median on West 86 Street which as I mentioned previously but there are some improvements recommended through there. In addition to the median improvements and when this proposal first came through with the council the th council ended up approving no parking on the north side of West 86 Street and that was to facilitate sight distances. The second comment within the HOA’s current letter was the speed limit within 101 to be reduced. 101 being a County road it’s their jurisdiction for that. 101 is, the use of 101, the classification and the design of 101 is for the current speed that’s been posted there. Any changes to that we would leave to Carver County. At this point I don’t anticipate that they would look at lowering the speed limit but just wanted to address that request that came through the HOA letter. And then the third one was taking a look at the car lights coming out of 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 18, 2017 th the site onto West 86 Street and doing some screening. Given the right-of-way in that area at this point staff is not making a recommendation to provide any screening but the homeowners association has certainly got some space and they do have a little bit of screening. They could certainly intensify that to help mitigate some of those headlights that would be coming from th vehicles that are existing the site onto West 86 Street. Summary of this traffic study is on page 17 and 18 and at the time of staff comments I would be more than happy to answer any questions that the commission has. Aller: Thank you. Al-Jaff: I just want to make a comment regarding the letter that Alyson was addressing. It arrived after the staff report went out and the homeowners association wanted to ensure that it was part of the record so we are including it. Aller: As always when we get these I typically will announce that we have received the correspondence. It is part of the record. It has been, have ample time at least tonight to read and review it and has been addressed by staff at this point and it will be included in the package that goes to City Council. Al-Jaff: Thank you. The design of the building is attractive. It has pronounced entrances. It utilizes durable exterior materials and it exhibits articulation. The materials are of high quality. It includes masonry, painted siding, exterior finish and insulation system of EIFS and the structure will have sloped shingle roofs. The twinhomes design compliments each other yet each unit has it’s own unique features such as shed or gabled roof. Tapered siding versus square columns. Standard garage doors versus doors with transom windows. Signage on the site. This is an area that is limited to one sign for this parcel. What the applicant has shown is a sign along th 86 Street as well as a second one along Highway 101. Great Plains Boulevard. The sign is in a V shape which is permitted under the ordinance as long as it does not, as long as this angle does not exceed 45 degrees. In this case the applicant is proposing 30 degrees and the sign will be carrying the name of the development. It may not exceed 24 square feet nor 5 feet in height. There are multiple parks within the area. Bandimere Park, Chanhassen Hills Park and Lake Susan Park. You will notice that this is one lot only. Currently the outlot is being requested to be replatted into a lot. We will have technically 9 buildings on a single lot. Under the planned unit development ordinance you may have multiple buildings on a single lot. All of the units that will be on the site will be rental units. The applicant did have a neighborhood meeting and that was after the staff report went out and I’m sure he will be able to address some of the comments that were, concerns that were raised at the meeting. Staff is recommending approval of the planned unit development amendment, site plan as well as the preliminary plat approval with conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and we’ll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Aller: Any questions based on staff’s presentation at this time? Commissioner Madsen. 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 18, 2017 Madsen: I have a question for Alyson with regard to the traffic study. Just a question about the trips. So for example at a daycare center when a parent would drop off a child and there’s one trip in and then they drive out. Is that just counted as one trip in or is that an in and out on the study or how is that accounted for? Fauske: It’s by trip ends so that would constitute as two. Madsen: It would count, okay. Okay thank you. Fauske: You’re welcomed. Aller: Any additional questions at this time? Hearing none if the applicant would like to come forward. They can state their name and address and representational capacity and tell us about your project. Mike Hoagberg: Hi, my name is Mike Hoagberg. I’m with Headwaters Development. I’m the President and we’re in Lakeville, Minnesota. First off I’d like to thank you for your time and consideration of this project. It’s good to finally be back in front of you guys. I know this has taken some time to come together but we really feel that we’ve incorporated a lot of the concerns, not only of the City and the community around it but different uses that we have been considering and really this plan is looking at one major modification from the first approval and that is the daycare center. As you may know we’re working with Ebenezer who is one of the largest senior operators here in the State of Minnesota but a little lesser know, they are one of the larger operations of intergenerational programs throughout their communities and in fact they are award winning nationally on the programs that they’ve implemented with both seniors and children and what they’ve found is that it’s a fantastic way to mix kind of that wisdom of the senior population and the energy of those children and that interaction is so beneficial for both the seniors and the children and in fact we call them grandfriends instead of grandparents and it’s a really neat thing to see. It is in some of the communities that we’re a part of as well as other communities that Ebenezer does operate so we’re really excited about this. We think it’s going to be great for this community and for this area. Furthermore we have heard the concerns from a couple of neighborhood meetings that we’ve had and from the letter from the HOA. We appreciate their support but we also appreciate their feedback and we are, we have looked at several different studies within this area and this corner and we are really considering different alternatives and I’ll echo what Alyson was saying is that, you know I really want to go on record here to say that this is important to us. This intersection is really important to us and we understand the concerns and we’re going to work with the City and the County to try to figure out what are the best solutions here and I think it might be a combination of some of the ideas that have been put forth and we’ll work hard to make sure we come up with a good solution. So that is it, if you have any questions of me. Aller: Any questions? 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 18, 2017 Tietz: Yeah Mike? Mike Hoagberg: Yes. Aller: Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: Well regarding some of those options that are being considered. Would they have any impact on how the site would be developed or is it just a matter of where the entry road and how you deal with the entry road? Mike Hoagberg: Yeah so we would have no, right now none of the proposals would affect the th actual site plan and development itself. It’s more about making sure the queuing on 86 is proper and potentially looking at all the options for traffic control out on 101 and that corner. That left turn is pretty difficult. Tietz: Yeah it’s kind of a blind corner. Mike Hoagberg: Yeah. Tietz: When you come around there. We take that turn off frequently off of 212 and you come up and traffic can move pretty rapidly along there and I think if you’re trying to take a left off of th 86 to get onto 101 it’s a challenge I think at times of day so yeah, anything that you all and the engineers and the County can do to make that a safer intersection would be I think greatly appreciated by everybody. Mike Hoagberg: That’s important to us and we will continue to work with them for sure. Tietz: Good, thanks. Aller: Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: I really like the intergenerational aspect of the facility and I’ve seen some of those in some of the senior facilities that I’ve visited and the ones that I’ve seen have had separate entrances for the daycare and the seniors and I’m wondering if it’s a shared entrance here and how that flow will work. Mike Hoagberg: No it’s a proposed separate entrance and so just outside, maybe you can’t really see it on this one but just outside of, on that far right side of the building there is a separate entrance for daycare with a separate lobby for them to come in and it’s a secured entrance as well so you don’t have children running out it’s secured in and the seniors is on the center part of the property there. Now we’ve also designed the flow of the building that will allow on the center part of the building allow children in a secure way to come through the building to work with the 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 18, 2017 seniors and the seniors can flow back through without having to go outside and so it’s a very specific design to promote that activity between the two. Madsen: Great, thank you. Mike Hoagberg: Yep. Aller: Based on those questions anything additional? Thank you sir. Mike Hoagberg: Thanks. Aller: At this time we’ll open up the public hearing portion of this item so any individual here present who would like to come forward and speak their mind either for or against the proposal can do so. Thank you sir. Please state your name and address for the record. Doug Tucker: Hi, Doug Tucker, 585 Mission Hills Way West. Aller: Welcome Mr. Tucker. Doug Tucker: Thank you. Thank you for your time tonight. First off I would just like to say that I think seniors would be a great addition to the neighborhood and would make excellent neighbors. I do have a concern with the overall height of the structure, especially on the eastern most portion of the land. If we can get just the diagram up there again that would be great. It appears that on the eastern side where I live in those row of townhomes, if you go back to that other one that would be great. There doesn’t appear to be much of a buffer between the eastern most part right there and the property line and that’s just a bit concerning to me. Being that it’s 4 stories it would be the largest building in the area and it’s already on an elevated parcel of land so that’s just a little bit concerning to me and I’d just ask the commission to take that into consideration with their plans. And that is all, thank you. Aller: Thank you sir. Any additional comments? Hearing no one come forward we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing on this item. Open it up for commissioner comments and questions. I’m going to ask the height of the building hasn’t changed or been modified since the last time it was before the commission? Aanenson: Yeah Sharmeen just indicated that it had been moved 65 feet back. We don’t have the full landscaping plans here but we can double check that before it goes to City Council and maybe give a little bit more detail on that. Aller: Great, thank you. Any additional questions, comments? Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: I do have a question on the parking area. In the packet it indicates a certain number of spaces for the independent living and a certain number of spaces for the assisted living and, but 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 18, 2017 those units don’t total up to the total units in the building so I’m just want to make sure we’re accounting for all of them. Al-Jaff: The total, there will be. There are certain units that for every 3 units you need 1 parking space. There are also the memory care which does not require any parking spaces so that’s why the numbers don’t add up. Madsen: The number of units. Al-Jaff: The number of units doesn’t add up but the math is accurate. Madsen: Okay so they’re all considered. Al-Jaff: Yes. Madsen: Okay thank you. Al-Jaff: My apologies, I did not make that clear in the report when I did the calculations. Madsen: Okay, thank you. Audience: It was my understanding there’s underground parking though too. Al-Jaff: There is. Aller: So the public hearing portion of the item was closed but for the record the comment was whether or not there existed parking, underground parking and that is in the plans as far as we’ve seen and it’s available to the individuals that are residents there. Alright well based on the. Tietz: Yeah I just want to comment. It looks like an excellent project. You’re to be commended I think for the inclusion of the youth and the children in a daycare facility. I think that’s, as I get older too I think it’s not a bad idea. My mother was in an Ebenezer structure in south Minneapolis for some time and I know that they’re an excellent provider. I think it’s going to be a great addition to the community and it’s nice to see the independent of the free standing units on the site too. I know this has been always part of your plan but I think the incorporation of that and I look forward to the development. It’s been an interesting parcel to watch for a few years and now it’s exciting to see that this is going to actually going to take place. Aller: I think an intergenerational facet is spot on for what is needed here in this community and we’re planning for lifetime here and it gives an opportunity for individuals to not only come in at the first home purchase or rental or just starting off their new life here in Chanhassen and move their way through to raising a family in single family housing and then have a location where they can not only reside but spend time with maybe grandchildren or friends or be exposed to 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 18, 2017 that and stay right here in the community so I applaud them for that as well as for the effort. Although it took a little time to get here the effort to have the community hearings and to listen to them, to obviously commit to work with the City on traffic problems that might arise in the future is commendable so I look forward to the project. And I would entertain a motion if there’s, I can’t make a motion. Madsen: I’ll make a motion. Aller: Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of a planned unit development amendment to the existing standards Mission Hills PUD, Site Plan approval for the construction of 136 unit multi-tenant senior housing apartment building, 8 twinhomes and a daycare center, and Preliminary Plat approval to replat 8.64 acres into Lot 1 Block 1, Mission rd Hills 3 Addition on property zoned Planned Unit Development and located at 8600 Great Plains Boulevard, Outlot E Mission Hills and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Randall: Second. Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion? Madsen moved, Randall seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approves the Planned Unit Development amendment in the attached ordinance for Mission Hills to allow High Density Use with a Childcare Center on the site and set standards for the structures as shown below with the following conditions, and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact: 1.The site must comply with the DNR Shoreland Rules. 2.The site shall comply with the following standards: Mission Hills Zoning Standards a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD neighborhood commercial/mixed density housing zone. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to be placed underground. Each structure proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. Except as modified by the Mission Hills standards below, the mixed density housing development shall comply with the requirements of the R-8, Mixed 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 18, 2017 Medium Density District. Except as modified by the Mission Hills standards below, the commercial development shall comply with the Neighborhood Business District, BN. 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 with a Child Daycare Center c. Setbacks In the PUD standards, the building setback for commercial is 50 feet from any public right-of- way. The 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 Density portion of the site. This buffer shall be in the form of a berm and landscaping. The following setbacks shall be observed: Commercial Residential Residential Commercial Street High Density Medium Density Parking Parking Building Setback* Building Setback Setback Setback* Highway 101 * 50’ 20’ * Highway 212 * 50’ 20’ * West 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; 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 18, 2017 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 152 Multi-Family rd Mission Hills 3 Units/Child Daycare 8.64 acres 17.5 50% Addition Center 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-inch aluminum siding and brick. 2.Arched transoms and soffit returns shall be used over the entries of the one-story units and horizontal transom windows over the 2 story windows. Introduce some variation among the buildings through the shape of windows, adding louvers, shifting entry ways, and adding dormers. 3.Colors used shall be earth tones such as soft gray, creamy white, pearl gray, shell white, etc.). 4.Each unit shall have a minimum of one overstory tree within its front yard. 5.All units shall have access onto an interior street and not 86th Street. rd 6.The apartment building located on Lot 1, 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 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 18, 2017 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. 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. 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 18, 2017 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 one-half foot candle at the property line. This does not apply to street lighting. The maximum height of a residential street light shall not exceed 15 feet. rd Light 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. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Madsen moved, Randall seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approves 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 March 17, 2017, including the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation, subject to the following conditions: Park and Trail Conditions 1.Full park fees in lieu of additional parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected as a condition of approval for Mission Hills Senior Living. The park fees will be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. Based upon the current residential park fee rates of $3,800 per apartment dwelling, $5,000 per twin home dwelling, and $500 per bed for continuing care units, the total park fees will be $478,000. 13