Loading...
CC MinutesChanhassen City Council – May 8, 2017 Councilman Campion: Second. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Campion. Any further discussion? Resolution #2017-31: Councilwoman Ryan moved, Councilman Campion seconded that the City Council adopts the attached resolution vacating a portion of the drainage and utility easement on 7500 Chanhassen Road as described on the attached Exhibit. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Laufenburger: Congratulations Tracey and Chris. Enjoy your new home. Chris Rust: Thank you very much. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor I just want to thank the Rust’s. It’s not a simple process when you live in existing home and you want to tear it down and build a new one so they were great to work with and appreciate your patience and working through the system. We don’t usually get that and thank you. Tracey Rust: Thank you. Chris Rust: Thank you. APPROVAL OF MISSION HILLS SENIOR HOUSING PUD AMENDMENT, SITE PLAN REVIEW AND PRELIMINARY PLAT; ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING LIMITED USE PERMIT. Mayor Laufenburger: I bet this is your’s Kate. Kate Aanenson: Yes it is. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright Ms. Aanenson, staff report please. Kate Aanenson: Yes, thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. This item did appear th before the Planning Commission on April 18 and there was unanimous approval of it so this is an application for Mission Hills Senior Living. A little bit different than what you saw before and I’ll go through the history here briefly. The site is located on 8600 Great Plains Boulevard. The background on this is that as part of the original Mission Hills which had a number of different densities or different uses on there, guiding. This was kind of an older district that we had. It was a mixed use so in that there was low density. Medium density and also commercial. The commercial piece was given, and they wanted to stay, have that piece stay there and that was actually put in place before 212 was built and once 212 got built that piece across the street where the Kwik Trip is and the Kraus-Anderson property actually made that site more advantageous for commercial use. Over time we had tried to work with the Klingelhutz family 11 Chanhassen City Council – May 8, 2017 looking at, MnDOT was reluctant to give a right turn in and some of those turn movements for commercial were problematic so we worked looking at some other alternative uses for this site and because there is additional density we felt that the senior housing project was a good project. So as that moved through the process there was, you can look at the density as how many units could be on the site based on the acreage so in that circumstances there could be up to 246 and a project was approved under the 210 actual number of units so that was the project that was approved so just strictly senior housing that was what we considered service enriched so you could go through the cycle there and also some townhouses that were also a part of that project. That project was approved a number of years ago and sat for a while. I just want again review the land use there so the subject property, you can see is the commercial piece which also does allow the residential and again that mixed use development is what the underlying land use is so it is consistent with the land use and also the zoning. So this project is a little complex in the fact that it does fall within the shoreland district so a part of the property to the north ended up with the townhouse project which, to keep the 50 percent open space within the shoreland district and also staying within the height regulations of the shoreland district which is the 35 feet. So the four story building ends up on the south side of the site. Mayor Laufenburger: Outside of the water? Kate Aanenson: Correct, outside of the watershed so this here is now the senior housing. The change here then is they actually put in a daycare on the site so the project changed slightly in th the fact that now a daycare is introduced to the site and they will still enter off of 86 Street and then come down. It will be one way traffic controlled here and for the daycare on this side of the building and so it’s intergenerational. At the Planning Commission the testimony there was very supportive of having intergenerational there. The senior housing and the daycare and feel really good about that. One of the buffer, the concerns was the buffering here so I think they worked hard to manage that separation there and the change in grade. So again we talked about access thth coming off of 86. This is one of the issues that was addressed before with the project. 86 Street and the restricted lane here. So with additional turn movements coming here out on West th 86 Street and a left turn at this intersection can be problematic at certain peak times. MnDOT and the County are aware of those issues and will be monitoring that if there needs to be any changes in place but as of right now the traffic study does show that it will work and I’ll let the City Engineer, if he wants to add a few comments there regarding traffic in itself. Paul Oehme: So thanks Ms. Aanenson, members of council. So yeah SRF did complete a traffic study in conjunction with the development. We did have meetings with MnDOT and Carver County. We looked at several options. A signal is not warranted at this location. It’s a T intersection and the traffic generated from the existing site and the new site just did not meet that warrant for a new signal. By putting in a signal without meeting warrants it can actually decrease the level of safety at the intersections over time as well too so we are, looked at several options. Adding some islands and some other features. Redoing the median on 101 but at this time the best option we think is just to monitor it and see how much traffic in the a.m. and the p.m. and we’ll make some changes down the road if necessary. 12 Chanhassen City Council – May 8, 2017 Kate Aanenson: So I was just going to add then too for the daycare itself will have 90 children and then approximately 8,600 square feet. So we want to make sure there’s connectivity so one of the things would be the continuation of the sidewalk and then also the, we needed a limited use permits from MnDOT for this trail connection through here so that’s one of your motions tonight to be included in that. And then to accommodate the daycare one of the twinhomes, the rental twinhomes was eliminated so that would be the significant changes in the project itself. Again the architecture is similar to what we had seen before. Highly enhanced. It matches what’s in the neighborhood. Real articulated so staff and the Planning Commission was very supportive of that. Material sample. Again showing the twinhomes. Again blending with the architecture of the senior project itself and the daycare. There will be a sign. This sign is located on 101 so the sign will be senior living. The daycare can also is permitted to have a sign so they could have one on their project also but the sign will, as you can see on the right here where that will be located. Parks, that was an issue that was brought up before. Is there adequate parks in the area? There is open space on the site as I mentioned earlier. There’s a sidewalk for connectivity in that area. There’s also, you can connect to the trail that was put in with a recent Knoblauch subdivision if you wanted to head to the east to get back around Rice Lake Marsh too. So I mentioned the limited use permit and that was in order to get the trail onto 101 so there’s the other part of the connectivity so that’s one of the motions included in your packet. So this is also a plat included in this. This is an outlot so we are platting this lot to allow for this project. So again there’s 4 motions for you. The resolution for the limited use permit, the preliminary plat, the site plan approval and the PUD. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright, thank you Ms. Aanenson. Any questions of staff from council? Councilwoman Ryan, questions? Councilwoman Ryan: Thank you. Can you explain the limited use permit for the trail please? Kate Aanenson: It’s MnDOT’s right-of-way and so the description there just limits how you can use that and if they need to get in there and address it. Paul Oehme: Right so we’ll have ownership of the trail within the right-of-way. They just allow for that use and they want to just make sure that we’re maintaining it so, down the road we might have to update the limited use of that document but it’s just basically for future maintenance to make sure that it’s in good condition. Councilwoman Ryan: So it’s basically saying that Chanhassen will maintain the trail, that’s what. Paul Oehme: Within the right-of-way. Councilwoman Ryan: Within the right-of-way. 13 Chanhassen City Council – May 8, 2017 Paul Oehme: Yeah so MnDOT doesn’t give limited use permits to developers to they have to work through the City for that. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay. Okay, thank you. Kate Aanenson: And to be clear it’s for trail purposes, yeah. Councilwoman Ryan: Right, okay. And then you mentioned something about the, a twin home being removed. Kate Aanenson: Yeah so there was originally with the project there was 9 so now they’re down to the 8 and that was to accommodate the parking. Additional parking required with the daycare and better circulation through the site. One way circulation for drop off. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay. And then in terms of the daycare is that, just out of curiosity, is that then independently owned or does that? Kate Aanenson: I’ll let the applicant answer that question if you wouldn’t mind. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay. Kate Aanenson: If they partner with somebody or. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay. We’ll get to that. And then I do, if I may ask another question. I am concerned about the traffic issue. I know it came up in the meeting when we discussed this before and I understand that it’s going to be monitored by Carver County and you know watch it. A couple concerns that I have is first in reading some of the information the Mission Hills Garden Homeowners Association said that they had sent two requests. I’m assuming you’ve met with them and discussed this. They’ve been involved in the conversation about it. And some of their suggestions were about doing something with the median or breaking it down or having a better, just some of the vantage point I guess or views with the speed coming north on 101. th People coming from the light. Picking up speed and then making that left turn lane off of 86 onto 101 is concerning. Paul Oehme: Right so one of the improvements that the developer would be making with this project is to eliminate a portion of the median that’s currently out there. th Todd Gerhardt: On 86. th Paul Oehme: On 86 Street to restripe it correct. Right so that’s an improvement that’s going to be made here. Just a little bit more visibility. Taking some of the vegetation out of the median and allowing for better sight distances. 14 Chanhassen City Council – May 8, 2017 Kate Aanenson: So I think it also allows for the free left and the free right so, and then there. th Councilwoman Ryan: So there’s no back up on 86? Kate Aanenson: Help reduce the back up, the stacking yeah. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay. And when Carver County says that they’re going to monitor the situation on 101, I mean is it just are we waiting for so many accidents until something’s done or just knowing that it’s a senior housing it’s a fast road on 101. I know it doesn’t constitute a full light, a signal but can you do flashing lights? Is there anything to just make people aware of that intersection? Paul Oehme: For this, it’s kind of a difficult intersection to make substantial improvements to for traffic flow. Like I had mentioned before we did look at a splitter island at this intersection and would basically would mean that reducing the center median. Having that as, if you’re going southbound on 101 kind of a stacking area here and little bit better safety location in the median here when people pull out and go southbound onto 101. We’re a little bit hesitant to take that to the next step and just because of some of the conflicts that potentially could happen at the intersection. We did look at like I said we looked at signals. We looked at other traffic safety devices as well. Nothing really, and additional striping too. Nothing really jumped out at us as a significant improvement from currently what’s out there today. There is left turn lanes on thth southbound 101 to get into, onto 86 Street and there are stacking lanes on 86 Street for left and right turn lanes so it is a wide intersection. Four lanes on Highway 101. I think that’s what causes most of the problems. You know to decrease the width of 101 is really problematic just because of the volumes of traffic that go through the intersection so you know it’s a tough, tough location to really make any significant improvements. You know we looked at roundabouts too there. There isn’t warrants for that. That’s not in the cards right now either so like I said Carver County’s going to be monitoring. The City will be monitoring as well. We’ll take traffic counts and work with Carver County on traffic counts on 101 too and ever so often we do traffic counts th on 86 Street as well too so we’ll hear from neighbors as well. We’ll monitor those and take that into consideration too so that’s kind of the process and the path that we are proposing to move forward with. Councilwoman Ryan: And when you did the traffic study and looked at this area what do they anticipate most of the turn movements being? Is the volume higher going, making a right or is it going left to get onto 212? Paul Oehme: Most of the turning movements are still that left hand movement going southbound on 101. Let me see if I can pull it up here. Yeah so it’s in the future they’re looking at 79 left turns onto 101 and then on northbound it’s about 64 trips during the peak hour. And that’s the a.m. and then the p.m.’s a little bit less than that but I guess there is a little bit more on the left hand turns but the right hand turns are pretty high as well. 15 Chanhassen City Council – May 8, 2017 Councilwoman Ryan: Okay I’ll hold for now, thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: Just related to that Mr. Oehme, when this development first began, when Mission Hills first developed as residential, this property was it originally zoned as commercial? Kate Aanenson: Yeah it was mixed use so commercial. We had a number of offices look at that and the peak demand at offices were significantly worst because you had more trips coming in at the same time. Mayor Laufenburger: That was my question. Kate Aanenson: Yep so, so staff felt like as far as a developable parcel this was really the best possible solution. Mayor Laufenburger: So what you’re saying in, what I’m hearing you say is that when this th entire development first began and the road construction, not only 86 Street but what’s the road just north of there? Where there’s a right turn only. Kate Aanenson: Marsh Glen. Mayor Laufenburger: Marsh Glen, is that what it is? So when this development was originally planned and approved the anticipated traffic from this property, though it was vacant at the time, the anticipated traffic was greater than what you’re calculating it will be with the senior living and the daycare, am I saying that correctly? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct, yes. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay so I’m with Councilmember Ryan on one thing and that is the monitoring. Can you give us an example Mr. Oehme of what would, what sort of actions or what sort of incidents would prompt the City and the County to take action of some sort beyond th what it is right now? Beyond removing some of the median on 86. Can you give us an example? Paul Oehme: Sure. So traffic flow is obviously one of them. We look at say the level of service for the intersection. That’s how the intersection performs. How much wait time you’re going to get. You’re going to look at, at an intersection on each of the legs so we look at that. We hear from property owners. Complaints. You know it’s backing up, way backing up into say the next intersection and I’ve got a lot of wait time. You know people are making unwise choices running through the intersection at times so we hear from the public on those type of things. Like I said Carver County does take traffic counts on 101 I think every 2 years so we’ll know, we’ll look at volumes of traffic on 101 to see if they’re increasing. How does that correlate to 16 Chanhassen City Council – May 8, 2017 th the traffic on 86 Street. Those type of things. So just a lot of different things that we’ll be looking at in the future. th Mayor Laufenburger: But specifically you identified 79 left turns in a peak off of 86 onto southbound 101. Is that what you said? Paul Oehme: Correct, yep 79. Mayor Laufenburger: And 64 north turns northbound. Paul Oehme: Correct. Mayor Laufenburger: And obviously people in the neighborhood if they detect that there are more cars that are stacking up to turn left they would probably go to that Marsh Glen exit to get their right turn. Paul Oehme: They have that option. Mayor Laufenburger: They have that option, okay. So alright. Todd Gerhardt: Paul are those movements within an hour or 2 hour range? Paul Oehme: So those movements are the peak hours so it’s typically from 8:00 to 9:00 during the day and then we also look at the p.m. peak hours as well so, and the traffic study too, the level of service at the intersection right now is a level B which is fairly good. We try to keep it about a C and with the new development the projections are to remain at a level B so we’re going to be looking at that and seeing if the projections in here are made in the future if the development were to move forward. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Councilmember Campion, did you have a question or comment? Councilman Campion: Yeah I just have one follow up question for Mr. Oehme. In a situation like this where there isn’t a good solution for the left hand turn it looks like to increase the safety much is it, would you consider making it right turn only? Paul Oehme: Yeah we looked at that too. A right-in/right-out or something like that. We’ve, it’s kind of a balancing act. If you make a right-in/right-out or reduce or a three-quarter access you’re limiting the mobility of that neighborhood and it’s, that’s not a, you know if it’s not warranted you know we don’t want to put hardships on the neighbors as well either so it’s kind of a balancing act in terms of safety and mobility so at this time we’re not, we wouldn’t propose that but again that’s something if, you know if the intersection were to degrade over time substantially that would be another tool that we would look at but at this time we’re not proposing that. 17 Chanhassen City Council – May 8, 2017 Councilman Campion: Yeah I mean just looking at elongating the left turns stacking I mean doesn’t seem with the amount of additional cars that are being added to the neighborhood, it’s hard to imagine that problem getting any better. Mayor Laufenburger: Did you have another? Councilman Campion: No that’s it. Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Oehme and Kate, are there any other residential developments planned back in this area? I know we had Mr. Knoblauch. Is there anything else that would add more? Kate Aanenson: No. Let me just go back to that kind of the overview of that, of this area. So if we go out to Mission Hills Lane, I think the challenge would be if everybody went up this way that would be the end on people on Tigua and the end of Knob, this development. Knob Hill? No. Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Knob, is that Mister? Kate Aanenson: Is Mr. Knoblauch’s but anyway you’re pushing that up to a low density which is this is a right out only on that intersection so that goes to what Mr. Oehme was speaking about. It presents some other challenges because all the townhouse projects here. The higher density here. Mayor Laufenburger: But there’s no further residential development to the east? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. That’s correct. It would be fully developed. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Alright. Anybody else questions? Councilwoman Ryan: I have one more. Mayor Laufenburger: Councilmember Ryan, go ahead. Councilwoman Ryan: When they redid the road on 101, or redid 101 and they changed it to a right only out of Mission Hills, was that for safety reasons? Paul Oehme: It wasn’t for safety as I recall. It’s more mobility. It’s just another access. Before th 86 Street was one long dead end. A big cul-de-sac so it doesn’t meet with our code. It was you know it was more for a safety perspective you want to have at least more than one access point for this size of a development so it was more of a mobility and safety consideration that that access was installed, or connected to 101. 18 Chanhassen City Council – May 8, 2017 Councilwoman Ryan: Because I mean before they put the median in they were able to make the left turn out of there before the road was redone, correct? Or was it never, were you never able to go left? Kate Aanenson: I don’t think it was there because Mission Hills subdivision, I’m not sure on that. Mayor Laufenburger: I’m not understanding your question Councilmember Ryan. Councilwoman Ryan: I thought at one point they were able to make a both left and right turn out of Mission Hills and then. th Mayor Laufenburger: Out of Mission Hills from 86? Todd Gerhardt: She’s right, it was a 2 lane highway 101. It didn’t have a median. Councilwoman Ryan: And so if you go, if you look up, if it’s north over Mission Hills before they redid 101 Mission Hills could come out and they could make either a left or a right turn. Mayor Laufenburger: But that’s when the road was occupying the corridor that is currently Waters Edge Drive, am I correct on that? Kate Aanenson: The old 101. Mayor Laufenburger: The divided two highway, or the divided highway of 101 supplanted Waters Edge Drive as 101. Todd Gerhardt: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. So it was two lane. Dangerous as can be. Todd Gerhardt: As you came out of Mission Hills Lane you could make a left or a right. After the reconstruction of 101 into a 4 lane it was decided that the full intersection would be th concentrated at 86 Street. So anybody wanting to make a left hand turn in the Mission Hills th development would have to go to 86 Street to do that. So before it was just a 2 lane highway. Councilwoman Ryan: I mean my point being that now we’re, even though a 2 lane highway might be unsafe I think crossing 2 lanes of traffic that are gaining speed into, you know to head south, to not have some sort of a safe lane for people to turn into is concerning to me especially noting that it’s senior housing and it just is concerning to me. th Mayor Laufenburger: Is there not a left turn lane in 101 south? Right at 86 Street. 19 Chanhassen City Council – May 8, 2017 Paul Oehme: There is a left turn lane. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah Kate showed it on the map. There’s a left and a right. Councilwoman Ryan: But a left safe like to turn onto 101. Paul Oehme: Right, yeah. So there’s the left turn there. Councilman Campion: You have to get on and get up to speed right away. Paul Oehme: Yeah so. Councilwoman Ryan: There’s no like receiving lane. Mayor Laufenburger: Acceleration lane. Councilwoman Ryan: Right. Paul Oehme: Right. Councilwoman Ryan: Some sort of a receiving lane next to the median to get across and then accelerate onto 101 because you know you’re trying to cut across traffic that’s headed north and you’re trying to head south. Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Oehme what, what traffic incidents have you, have been reported at that location? Paul Oehme: I know when the traffic study they looked at that. I don’t have that right in front of me right now but as I recall it wasn’t in the high severity crash intersection so in, that’s one of the items that we look at when evaluating intersections for warrants. For a signal so it didn’t rise to that threshold either. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Paul Oehme: To Mrs. Ryan’s point we did look at decreasing the size of the median at this location here and having an acceleration lane for southbound traffic. The problem is that at the intersection you have to put another median at this location for safety purposes and we were just a little concerned at this time about the traffic crossing at that location and some conflicts that potentially could happen there so you know we’re, staff is more than willing to look at that a little bit harder and see if we need to, if there’s another option out there that we can have an acceleration lane going southbound in a safe zone basically so you can pull out. You know 20 Chanhassen City Council – May 8, 2017 crossing the two northbound lanes and then having a safe area there to accelerate to the south so we can look at that option again. Todd Gerhardt: Paul isn’t the safety zone where your red dot is? There’s plenty of room for 1 to 2 cars right there before they make the left hand turn. Paul Oehme: There’s I would say maybe one car. The problem is that. Todd Gerhardt: Going to pass around Google Maps and you can take a look. Councilwoman Ryan: Dan has it on. Paul Oehme: But the problem is, yeah there’s no acceleration area. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah there’s plenty of room for 2 cars there because there are cars on the road. You know the other point is anybody that if you close that intersection off is one option. Then people are going to go down to the apartments and St. Hubert’s and make a U turn to go south. Councilwoman Ryan: Right. And I’m not suggesting closing it off. I think it’s important to have the access to make both the left and the right hand turn lane. I disagree that there is room there to get across and accelerate onto southbound 101. I mean I think it’s still tight. Todd Gerhardt: No I wouldn’t, I’m not saying accelerate. I’m saying waiting until the cars are through then go. Paul Oehme: You know we’ve observed that cars do, you know one car or so can stop right here and then wait for traffic on southbound 101 and then go after that but it’s not a very safe movement I would say because anybody that’s heading southbound and want to make that left there might be a conflict that they run into so it depends on where the car is so. So we’ll, staff is more than willing to look at that option again and see if we can come up with a better solution. Councilwoman Ryan: I would prefer that you did just to take a harder look at what the possibilities are for more of a safe zone or an acceleration lane. My concern is that waiting for 2 years to do another traffic study it’s, I think it’s easier to get something done while the project is underway versus waiting to see what happens and the what happens situation is not a good you know what if so. Paul Oehme: Okay. Councilwoman Ryan: I’d appreciate that. Thank you. 21 Chanhassen City Council – May 8, 2017 Mayor Laufenburger: Any other questions or comments? Kate can you just clarify for me in it’s simplest form, so this project came before the council previously and we gave it an approval, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Laufenburger: So the significant changes are number one, you’re adding the limited use trail. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Laufenburger: You’re taking away a twin home. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Laufenburger: And you’re adding a daycare. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Laufenburger: So those are the 3 primary things right? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Laufenburger: And the daycare you identified 8,600 square feet. Is that a repurposing of 8,600 square feet or is it an adding of an additional 8,600 square feet. Kate Aanenson: They still have the same number of units. I’ll let them speak to that a little bit more about who their vendor is and how that will be operated. They are here tonight. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright, that might be a good segue. I wonder if the applicant would like to speak at this time. And answer any questions we may have. Simply just identify yourself, your organization. Mike Hoagberg: Hi I’m Mike Hoagberg with Headwaters Development. We’re out of Lakeville, Minnesota. Thank you for your time tonight and there’s a lot of good questions and things that we’ve been struggling with a little bit on this development but what we think is a little more exciting is some of the things that we added to this. We think we enhanced the project over time. We understand that it’s taken a little while to get to this point but with working with our operator Ebenezer we’ve spent a lot of time thinking about is there a better enhanced use than just the senior component and what kept coming to the surface was this daycare component. Intergenerational is a big push. We’ve seen a lot of great success in previous Ebenezer projects and we think this location and in the city of Chanhassen is a fantastic opportunity. We look at taking that energy of those children and putting them with the seniors and the wisdom and 22 Chanhassen City Council – May 8, 2017 friendship that they can provide and making sure that that’s all very cohesive throughout the building is important and we’ve seen a lot of great success, not only from the seniors but also with the children and so we’re excited to add that component. As we mentioned we did lose one of the twin homes but we think that improved the circulation throughout the site and allows for the pick up and drop off to be more efficient. And to answer a couple specific questions that you had, we did repurpose part of the square footage so it is the same number of units but we felt that it’s important to have the actual daycare center in the main building and so on the, let’s see here, it’d be the east. The first floor on the east side of the building. The front there is where the 8,600 square feet is. There’s a separate entrance for the drop off and pick up. It’s a secured entrance for the children. And then inside the center of the building will be a secured walkway where the children can come in to meet with the seniors and their community and the seniors can come into the daycare center. It is owned by our same ownership group. Ebenezer will be operating both the senior care component as well as the child care. They have a lot of experience doing that. They have their own specific dedicated staff to children and licensing and operating. I think that addressed those questions. Mayor Laufenburger: It did. Mike Hoagberg: And then the traffic study. We’ve done a couple of them to look at the different uses that we proposed for the site and we’ve struggled with it too. We think that this is a fairly busy intersection. I’ve been out there on several occasions trying different times of the day and some of them are more difficult, especially when the light changes at night or early in the morning or during those peak hours. From a senior component, one it’s a little less usage. There’s certain residents in there that aren’t driving so that is reflected in the study but more importantly there’s a lot of the senior driving component is off peak hours. It’s not during the rush hours. We do have staff that will be coming in and out during those rush hours but it’s typically not necessarily the resident. We do want to make a commitment. We understand it’s a little difficult because it’s part of the County has the decision on the roads and not necessarily the City but we want to commit that we want to work with you guys to figure this out because we do think it’s a problem that needs a solution. I don’t know what that is yet. We’re talking about a lot of different options here and I agree. I think we should be more proactive on trying to figure out whether you know it’s a stop light or a roundabout or whatever might be the best solution. I think we can collectively work together to figure that out. Mayor Laufenburger: Good, alright. Would you just stand for questions. Any questions of the applicant? Thank you for answering that repurposing question. Thank you Michael. Mike Hoagberg: Alright thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: Look forward to having you in the community. Alright let’s bring it back. Kate can you just put up that resolution one more time? So just restate for us the four elements of this motion. 23 Chanhassen City Council – May 8, 2017 Kate Aanenson: One would be approving the PUD which specifies the twinhomes, the daycare, and the senior housing. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Kate Aanenson: A site plan approval so we showed you the architecture and the numbers of units. The preliminary plat. We’re taking an outlot and creating a lot with the extractions that go with that and then a resolution for the limited use for the trail on MnDOT’s property and then adoption of Findings of Fact. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. And you called this a site plan approval and a preliminary plat. Is there, will this come back to the council for a final plat or not? Kate Aanenson: I don’t believe so. Mayor Laufenburger: So once we approve this then we’re essentially giving, we’re giving permission for the developer to move forward exactly as they’ve identified? Kate Aanenson: Yes. I believe all the conditions are in for engineering that they need for the plat. Todd Gerhardt: Preliminary and final? Kate Aanenson: It’s only noticed for preliminary on here so it may have to come back for just the final. Todd Gerhardt: Yep. Kate Aanenson: Yep so it would come back for just for the final plat, yes. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Alright let’s bring it back to the council. Any further discussion? Discussion, comment or motion. Councilwoman Ryan: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Laufenburger: Councilmember Ryan, yep. Councilwoman Ryan: So with that, with this motion and the question in terms of traffic and looking at it, where does that leave us because in, you know and you’ve been hearing the conversation. When you talk about a daycare obviously that’s daily in and out by parents dropping their children off so, and thinking that they might then drop their children off and want to hop onto 212 to get into downtown so that’s that left turn lane. So where does approving this motion leave the looking into the traffic and doing something on 101? 24 Chanhassen City Council – May 8, 2017 Mayor Laufenburger: Kate are there, is traffic study part of the Findings of Fact? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Mr. Gerhardt did you want to give us any counsel on this? Todd Gerhardt: Mayor and council, if you want to make that as part of your motion to direct staff to look at alternative acceleration lanes on Market Boulevard to go south and you know bring that back as a feasibility study for your consideration we could do that. Mayor Laufenburger: But that direction is not, is that direction specifically needed to call this out? We’ve already heard Mr. Oehme say that he plans to work with the County to monitor activities there. Historically what has the council done historically in your experience here? Todd Gerhardt: Well historically the council’s probably done both and if you still have your Google Maps and you move up to Market Boulevard and Lake Drive there’s, which is I would say a busier intersection by Bookoo Bikes and Summerwood and there’s no acceleration lane going south. There is a small acceleration lane going north and. Mayor Laufenburger: Right turn out of Summerwood onto north 101? Todd Gerhardt: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: Is that what you’re referring to? Todd Gerhardt: Yes. There is an acceleration, small acceleration going north but as you come out of the Summerwood, Bookoo Bikes area you have a choice of two lanes. Well really the inside lane. There’s no acceleration lane. There’s a median and then the two thru lanes that go to the south. th Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Oehme let’s go back to 86 Street. Have you examined closely the sight lines? Are there any obstructions of sight lines such as any shrubbery or tall grasses in any direction? th Paul Oehme: The 86 Street? No the vegetation in the median is far enough back from the intersection where I don’t think there’s any sight lines on 101. th Mayor Laufenburger: You’re talking about the median on 86? th Paul Oehme: On 86 Street yeah, and then likewise on 101. Mayor Laufenburger: And isn’t there, there is a path on the east side of 101 all the way right? 25 Chanhassen City Council – May 8, 2017 Paul Oehme: Correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Or trail I guess you would call it. Paul Oehme: Trail, yeah. So there really isn’t any sight lines or vegetation issues at this intersection to obstruct visibility. Todd Gerhardt: Is there a left turn acceleration lane onto a four lane highway? Has that ever been designed? Paul Oehme: There’s a few that are out there. Todd Gerhardt: Are there? Paul Oehme: Yeah. Todd Gerhardt: I just haven’t seen too many. Usually you kind of stop in the middle and then you go when there’s an opening. Paul Oehme: Right. The problem is that it works better if there’s a larger median. When you have a smaller median it’s a little bit more difficult to have any vehicles there. Like on say Highway 7, I think that median’s a little wider so if there’s cars that are crossing say Highway 7 there’s more stacking at those type of facilities than there are… Todd Gerhardt: But those at controlled intersections. Paul Oehme: No there’s a couple out there that, I’m specifically thinking about one on Highway 7 in Excelsior there’s a median there that I think you can stack at least 2 cars there. Todd Gerhardt: Okay. Paul Oehme: This one’s a little bit narrower so it’s a little harder to stack cars in the median. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, Councilmember Ryan I would say that based on Mr. Gerhardt’s comments that this sometimes the staff or sometimes the staff is directed. Sometimes they’re not. For my perspective and I guess I would like to hear from other council members, I think they got the message that the concern. Mr. Hoagberg mentioned. You’ve mentioned it. It’s been reinforced by council and others that it needs to be watched. If there’s something specific that we would like them to come back with, a recommendation I don’t know if they’re equipped to do that until, well no I think they could be equipped to do that. Come back with a recommendation. If you’d like to make that a part of the language of the motion or does it have to be part of the motion or we can just direct staff? 26 Chanhassen City Council – May 8, 2017 Todd Gerhardt: Just direct us. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Alright so I would say you’re welcome to make your statement on what you would like to see the staff come back with. Giving them some, and make it independent of this motion I would say. Are you comfortable with that? Councilwoman Ryan: Sure. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. So state what you would like to see staff. Councilwoman Ryan: I would like staff to look at the option of either an acceleration lane headed south on Great Plains or the median on the south side of the intersection looks a little bit thicker than on the north side and maybe there would be space to do something there so if we could just look at an option for a safe zone or somewhere for people to turn into I’d appreciate it. Mayor Laufenburger: Including options, feasibility and costs? Paul Oehme: Absolutely we can put all that together. We have something similar to that already drawn up so. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay. Paul Oehme: So it won’t be hard to put some numbers together. Mayor Laufenburger: And if you don’t mind I think it’d be worthwhile for us to bring that back in a work session so we can talk in greater detail. Less formally about that. Are you okay with that? Councilwoman Ryan: That would be great. Paul Oehme: Absolutely. Councilwoman Ryan: Thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Any other discussion, comment or motion? Councilwoman Ryan: Mr. Mayor I’ll make a motion. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright Councilmember Ryan. Councilwoman Ryan: I think it’s a great project. I’d like to propose that the City Council approves a planned unit development amendment to the existing standards, Mission Hills PUD. 27 Chanhassen City Council – May 8, 2017 A site plan approval for the construction of a 136 unit multi-tenant senior housing apartment building, 8 twin homes, 16 independent living units, and a daycare center, and a preliminary plat rd approval to replat 8.64 acres into Lot 1, Block 1, Mission Hills 3 Addition. And resolution approving a Limited Use Permit with MnDOT for a trail connection on property zoned planned unit development PUD and located at 8600 Great Plains Boulevard, Outlot E, Mission Hills, and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright, thank you Councilmember Ryan. We have a motion. Is there a second? Councilman Campion: Second. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Campion. Any further discussion on this motion? Councilwoman Ryan moved, Councilman Campion seconded that 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 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 28 Chanhassen City Council – May 8, 2017  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; 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 29 Chanhassen City Council – May 8, 2017 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 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. 30 Chanhassen City Council – May 8, 2017 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. 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. 31 Chanhassen City Council – May 8, 2017 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 4 to 0. Councilwoman Ryan moved, Councilman Campion seconded that the City Council approves the preliminary plat to replat Outlot E, Mission Hills into Lot 1, Block 1, Mission rd Hills 3 Addition, as shown in plans dated received March 17, 2017, including the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation, and 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. Unit Type No. of Units Amount Total Independent Apartments 100 $3,800/unit $380,000 Assisted/Memory Care 36 $500/bed $18,000 Apartments Rental Twin Homes 16 $5,000 each $80,000 Total $478,000 32 Chanhassen City Council – May 8, 2017 Engineering Conditions: 1.The estimated Surface Water Utility fees are $125,691.69. 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 applicant must enter into a maintenance agreement with the city and record that agreement against the property. 4.The applicant must dedicate public drainage and utility easements over the BMPs. Planning Conditions: 1.Approval of the subdivision request is contingent upon approval of the PUD amendment and Site Plan application. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Councilwoman Ryan moved, Councilman Campion seconded that the City Council approves the site plan consisting of a 136-unit senior housing apartment with a childcare center and eight twin homes, Planning Case 2017-07 as shown in plans dated received March 17, 2017, including the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation, and 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 bufferyard requirements. 2.Additional planting may be required along the southern half of the east property line. 3.Park grade trees are not acceptable quality and will not meet landscape standards for the City of Chanhassen. Item #12 of the General Notes shall be deleted. 4.The applicant shall consider locating landscaping along the rain garden near the corner of th 86 St W and 101 to block headlight glare from turning vehicles. 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: http://www.dli.mn.gov/CCLD/PlanConstruction.asp 33 Chanhassen City Council – May 8, 2017 2.Buildings must be protected with automatic fire suppression systems. As required by Minnesota State Building Code and /or Minnesota State Residential Code. 3.An accessible route must be provided to all buildings, parking facilities, public transportation stops and common use facilities. 4.Parking areas, including parking garages, must be provided with accessible parking spaces dispersed among the various parking areas and 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.A three-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. 2.“No Parking Fire Lane” signs and yellow painted curbing will be required. Contact Fire Marshal for specifics. 3.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. The current street names proposed on the plan are Oriole Drive and Oriole Lane. The name Oriole has already been used within the City of Chanhassen and may not be reused within this development. Alternative proposed street names must be submitted to Chanhassen Fire Marshal and Chanhassen Building Official for review and approval. 4.Fire hydrants shall be installed and made serviceable prior to combustible construction. 5.Prior to combustible construction fire apparatus access roads capable of supporting the weight of fire apparatus shall be made serviceable. 6.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. 7.Provide to Chanhassen Fire Marshal radius turn dimensions for accessing the building. The concern is the center islands for getting fire apparatus to the front doors. Engineering Conditions: 1.The low area where filtration basins #1 and #2 discharge shall be modeled or the discharge pipes shall directly tie-in to the MnDOT drainage system. 2.Plans must show the location and elevations of the Emergency Over-Flows (EOFs) on the project, specifically for Filtration Basin #1, #2, #4 and #5. 3.Plans must show the style of home for the twin homes. 34 Chanhassen City Council – May 8, 2017 4.The stand-alone SWPPP document shall be submitted to the city for review with the final plat documents and will be required prior to any earth disturbing activities. 5.An NPDES construction permit must be granted to the applicant prior to any earth disturbing activities. 6.Stockpile locations shall be shown on the plans. 7.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. 8.Walls taller than six feet shall not be constructed with boulder rock. 9.Any wall taller than four feet must be designed by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Minnesota. 10.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. 11.The developer’s engineer must submit documentation that the street pavement meets a 7- ton design. 12.The developer shall incorporate the recommendations from the traffic study into their plan set. 13.The parking lot aisles must be a minimum of 26 feet wide and the parking spaces must be 18 feet long. 14.Pedestrian ramps shall meet ADA requirements. 15.If required by MnDOT, the applicant shall obtain a LUP for the trail connection on MnDOT right-of-way. 16.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. 17.The plan shall use 2017 Chanhassen standard detail plates, which are available on the city’s website. 18.This parcel has paid the city for one (1) water and sanitary service hook-up. The additional twin home units (7) 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. 19.The hook-up fees for the main building are due with the building permit. 20.All work within the MnDOT right-of-way must be approved by MnDOT. 35 Chanhassen City Council – May 8, 2017 21.This site will need to be compliant with the City of Chanhassen’s MS4 permit. 22.The applicant’s engineer will continue to work with the Watershed District to update their permit and meet requirements. 23.City staff will evaluate the design based on the requirements above until the city receives confirmation from the Watershed District that this project will be evaluated under a different requirement. The annual reduction by the proposed BMPs (Best Management Practices) are 67% removal for TSS and 60% removal for TP. This does not meet the requirements for TSS, so the design must be revised. The current design removes only 20% of the required 1.1” of impervious run-off volume. The design must be revised to meet the 1.1” volume removal. 24.The applicant shall evaluate the practicality of implementing, to the “maximum extent practicable,” volume reducing practices including re-use. 25.The P8 model submitted shows an anticipated infiltration rate of 1.0”/hour, this is contrary to the MN Stormwater Manual’s estimation for Type D soils: 0.06”/hour and shall be revised. 26.The construction plans shall include filtration basin cross sections and call out information about the iron filings. 27.The infiltrometer testing results for each basin shall be submitted to the city to verify the infiltration rate prior to release of the security for the filtration basins. 28.Pretreatment shall be provided for all filtration basins accepting water from driving and parking surfaces. 29.In areas where storm water is directed to the basin through a catch basin, a sump manhole, at least three feet in depth should be used, four feet is recommended. 30.The plans shall label the sump catch basins. 31.The proposed BMPs will be privately owned. 32.Erosion control blanket shall include the swales in their entirety. 33.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. 34.A planting plan for the filtration features will be required before recording the final plat. 35.Staff strongly recommends using plantings rather than seed, as seed can take up to three growing seasons to establish. The city will not release security until the vegetation is established. 36 Chanhassen City Council – May 8, 2017 36.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. Approval of the Site Plan application is contingent upon approval of the PUD amendment and Final Plat Approval. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Resolution #2017-32: Councilwoman Ryan moved, Councilman Campion seconded that the City Council approves the Limited Use Permit (LUP) resolution with MnDOT for a trail connection that requires grading within Highway 101 right-of-way with the following conditions: 1. Approval of the Limited Use Permit (LUP) is contingent upon approval of the PUD amendment, Site Plan Permit and Final Plat Approval. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you very much council. And thank you Mr. Hoagberg. Best of luck to you on your development. Todd Gerhardt: We can bring this back for final plat approval. Mayor Laufenburger: That would be great. Okay. Alright. ADOPTION OF UPDATE FOR ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW FOR AVIENDA. Mayor Laufenburger: Is this your’s Ms. Aanenson? Kate Aanenson: I’ll start, yeah. I’ll introduce it here if you give me just one second. Mayor Laufenburger: And you’re going to give us some history on how this has been handled so far, is that correct? 37