The URL can be used to link to this page

06-18 PC Minutes 5-16-06 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 16, 2006 Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Kurt Papke, Debbie Larson, and Dan Keefe MEMBERS ABSENT: Deborah Zorn, Kevin Dillon and Mark Undestad STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Lori Haak, Water Resource Coordinator; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive Vic Moravec 3821 Linden Circle Greg Greenwood 6501 Kirkwood Circle PUBLIC HEARING: SOUTHWEST VILLAGE: REQUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN APPLICATIONS WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF REALIGNED HIGHWAY 101 AND LYMAN BOULEVARD, SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT, PLANNING CASE NO. 06-18. Public Present: Name Address Len Simich SW Metro Transit Kyle Williams LSA Design Bob Worthington SW Metro Transit Jim Dahlberg Quanbeck Dahlberg Associates Jacob West The Shelard Group, Inc. Aravind Gottemukkula Wenck Associates, Inc. Gene F. Ernst Ernst Associates Doug VanOrden Klingelhutz Companies Tom Baker UHI Commercial Real Estate Chuck Peterson CM Construction Company Traci Dokken 4924 Green Valley Road, Minnetonka Don Sinniger 600 Lyman Boulevard Craig & Patty Mullen 611 Summerfield Drive Derek & Heather Benson 604 Summerfield Drive Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Thank you staff. Dan, do you want to start? Keefe: Sure. Going to the variance first in regards to, yeah it seems to be pretty well thought out site plan. A really well thought out site plan. The question that I’m kind of struggling with a little bit is, you ask for a 45 foot setback from 212 but only 10 foot setback from Lyman. It seems that the parking ramp would be maybe be the one that wants to be closer to the highway, and the setback be wider near the residential areas. So I mean like the whole thing wants to kind of, so can you speak to how it ended up the way that it did? Al-Jaff: One of the reasons why the site ended up laying out the way it did was the location of entrance into the site. Keefe: Okay. Al-Jaff: This will fit throughout working with MnDot, it was set at an early stage which basically decided what and where the residential portion was going to be located. Specifically where. How far it will be set back. You need that straight alignment and that’s what’s going to divide the site. Keefe: Okay. So if I’m looking at the 10 foot setback on that southern end right, and that’s where it is. On that southern end. I mean I presume there were a number of different configurations on the residential in terms of laying it out. Al-Jaff: It really is more than 10 but let’s, there will be pillars that will come into play and we just wanted to be on the safe side. We didn’t want to come back before the Planning Commission and that’s why the 10 feet came in. Keefe: Okay. And is there, is there, I mean I think we looked at something like this the last time we met which just seemed like a fairly intensely used parcel, and it seems like there’s a lot going on that’s being kind of put into this particular parcel. Was it ever considered to cut back on the amount of residential? Al-Jaff: I think that’s an excellent question. One of the things that, this site was guided 16 units per acre and it was one of the concerns that the neighbors had. They basically requested a reduced number per acre. This site is just over 11 units per acre, and also remember that you’ve got 100 foot buffer. This entire area is purely landscaping and it’s not being counted towards the density of this portion, so yes it might appear as if it is dense but it is substantially below what the ordinance allows. Keefe: Yeah, I mean we’re asked to consider a variance on setbacks and just you know, push and particularly that much into the variance means a 50 foot setback by ordinance and we’re talking about 40 feet. Taking up 40 feet of that setback so that’s pretty material. Okay. Can you speak a little bit to the height of the parking ramp. I read something that said I think it’s going to 2 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 be a phased parking ramp where you build two stories, and I guess my question there is, the 35 foot maximum would be per 3 stories I presume. Al-Jaff: That’s correct and… Keefe: Starting at grade level. Al-Jaff: That’s correct. Keefe: When is it expected that the third ramp, or the third story would be added? Al-Jaff: I believe that’s a question for the applicant. Keefe: The applicant, okay. Al-Jaff: I know they intend to start somewhere in October or November. But when they will add the third story. I think it’s something that will have to do with funds. When funds are made available. Keefe: Okay, so more by funds than the amount of parking that would be required. Al-Jaff: Correct. Keefe: Okay. You spoke of, is this ramp similar to the one…that this ramp would look similar to the one at, on Highway 5 in Eden Prairie? Al-Jaff: The applicant doesn’t like me to say this but I think it will look nicer. Keefe: Yeah, you mentioned that parking ramp. It’s a nicely designed parking ramp. It’s my personal opinion that parking ramps don’t look all that great in general. Al-Jaff: I think this is going to look very nice. I mean it’s the use of the trellises, the landscaping, the brick. It’s the different elements that will make this ramp look attractive. Keefe: Better than your average parking ramp, okay. The signage on the ramp, the SW is for Southwest. Al-Jaff: Correct. Keefe: But you said maybe there’s going to be some additional signage or is it just that logo? Al-Jaff: It’s the Southwest logo and there will be a sign that says Southwest Station. Keefe: And would that be on the 212? Would it be on the. 3 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 Al-Jaff: There’s one that faces the south elevation and it will be just above the entrance into the ramp. And there will be another one that will face north. Keefe: Okay. Traffic, I was looking at the level of service and a fairly low level of service. Is it contemplated that there will be a high density of traffic right when this project is completed and then sort of along with that, are we contemplating lights in this area? Stop lights. Al-Jaff: Yes. There will be stop lights in this area. There will be crossings in this area and with 212 going through, and the realignment of 101, the traffic patterns will change. There is a study that is only enclosed, the summary of the study and it is on page 7 of the staff report that looks at the levels of service. Keefe: Right. Al-Jaff: And again yes, it will increase. Keefe: And at what point is this, although as projected, is it an opening or is a stabilization or from a timing standpoint? I mean is it going to decline significantly from what we’re seeing here? What’s your take on that? Fauske: The traffic projections shown in your report on pages 7 and 8 indicated the 2011 build situation. So that would assume full development of the parking ramp. That’s what we require them to look at when we’re looking at traffic scenarios. Al-Jaff: The person that prepared the study is with us today so if you would like to direct some questions to them later on. Keefe: Okay, later on. And then one thing, just a comment. It did look like the landscaping was more than double. A lot of times we get a number of applicants in here that just sort of meet the minimums and in this case, can you speak to the landscaping just a little bit in regards to just, it looks like they put trees and bushes and would you say that it’s concentrate on that berm? Is that it or is it sort of throughout the project? Al-Jaff: Yeah, it’s throughout the project. I mean truly it’s one of those situations when you’re lucky to be working on a project like that. It makes it so much easier. Yes, there are more than double what the ordinance requires. One of the things that happens throughout the meetings was the neighbors requested that additional landscaping be put on this site and there are some existing trees in this area. Whatever can be done to save them. Those are mature trees. They are in excellent shape. And that’s exactly what the applicant has done. There will be a few trees in this, along this area that will have to come down. One row only, and they will be replaced. This portion of the site does not have any vegetation and what the applicant is trying to do is to try and meet what we already have in this area. Try and make it compatible as far as the boulevard. What the applicant has done is created a double boulevard. As you can see you’ve got two sidewalks, two green spaces, and within those green spaces you’ve got the two rows of trees, and that is true around here as well. And it’s not just the trees but the shrubs and the flowers and the trellises. 4 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 Keefe: It seems like they’ve done a really nice job… Al-Jaff: They’ve done a very, very nice job. Keefe: That’s all. McDonald: Debbie. Larson: I just have one question and it’s regarding the parking structure. Was it ever considered, or I guess it was considered to go below grade but why was the final decision made to go up rather than having a lower level? Al-Jaff: Because MnDot, the architect is here with us today so that would be a question that you can ask him as well. When MnDot finished the final grade on this lane, the bus lane, they raised it. And as such the entire site needed to be raised. Larson: Why? Why can’t you go down? I mean several parking structures…they go down and up. I just, and then well the other reason too, I’m even mentioning it is, there was something about the lights. It will help block headlights or something? Al-Jaff: If you go higher you are able to raise those, you’ll be able to raise the walls and you will be able to block off the headlights. Larson: …headlights too. I mean who’s benefiting from the higher structure? Al-Jaff: Anybody that might be able to see the ramp. The third. Larson: Okay. Al-Jaff: I should add something. Speaking of the ramp, and I think this mass model that we see here will be able to explain it further. This section of the building will actually slope down, so at this corner you’re practically looking at a story and a half. You’re really not looking at the 35 feet. Larson: Okay. Al-Jaff: And then as you get closer to the highway is when the building goes up. No one, none of the residents will be impacted by this change to the height of the building. Larson: Okay. That’s all I have then, thank you. McDonald: Kurt. Papke: One of the issues in these kind of housing developments is sometimes the back side of them, you see this long row of flat garages. I’m not sure if I’m interpreting the drawings 5 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 correctly but it looks like in most of these every other unit has an awning or something or, can you explain that, what that really is? I didn’t quite understand how that would look. Al-Jaff: Let me see if I can find a profile. Papke: Could you describe what, I mean you can see right on that, what would be right there? There’s something over the garages. Aanenson: It’s the shed roof. It’s similar to what we’ve done on the last few projects. When we looked at the design standards. Instead of just having that flat façade, trying to incorporate a shed. Papke: Okay. Aanenson: So it is on every other unit and it projects out a couple of feet. Papke: Okay. One of my concerns, I have a couple of questions on the traffic flow, and one of my concerns, if I understand correctly, obviously if you just look at the plan, there’s nowhere near enough parking for the retail, okay. So you’re assuming that many people will park in the ramp, and that’s why you have the sharing set up. But even with that, I’m just a little concerned on the very north side there, the north two units of the retail. You know they’re all quite a ways from the parking. Are there any concerns about the desirability or how that might limit the businesses that could use that? There’s just not good access to those northern units because you can’t park on the west side because that’s 101 and there’s no parking on any other side so anybody who goes to those northern most units is going to have a hike. What was the, you know as you looked at this, what was the thinking on that? Al-Jaff: In all honesty I didn’t see it as a long walk. I mean this is a transitory development. I do expect people to walk within this area. The sidewalks are wide. It is, the way it was laid out was to make it attractive for people to enjoy a walk through the area. So that’s why I wasn’t concerned with that element of it. Also there is a cross parking agreement between the retail portion and the first floor of the parking ramp. There are 75 parking spaces. Papke: Right, so are you thinking maybe you know a restaurant or something where you’re not going to get a real frequent, you know obviously a dry cleaner won’t work because you just want to hop out of your car and pick up your stuff. So is that kind of what your thinking is? Al-Jaff: My guess is a dry cleaner will be one of the interior units. I can see a coffee shop in this area before you catch your bus, you go grab a cup of coffee. Papke: Okay. Getting back to some of Dan’s questions on the setback from Lyman. The original design called for, I believe it was called an enhanced landscaping on the south side there, and there was kind of a landscaping buffer. Al-Jaff: Correct. 6 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 Papke: And now you mentioned we’ve got trees and stuff there. How, the enhanced landscaping on the south side there was for screening purposes. Have we retained enough of that with what’s going on? I know that there’s a great landscaping plan. I don’t fault the overall plan. But on that south side there, have we retained enough to the point where the sight lines and landscaping is really enough? Al-Jaff: I believe that we have been able to accomplish that. In addition to what you see before you, the applicant worked privately with the homeowners in this area to establish a landscape buffer along the northerly portion of their property. Papke: Okay. So there’ll be something on the other side as well? Al-Jaff: Correct. Papke: Okay. Al-Jaff: So we had a buffer along this section of Lyman Boulevard, and then a second buffer along. Papke: Is that what’s shown on the model over there? Al-Jaff: This puts all of the trees that… Papke: Okay, but that gives you kind of the general impression of what they’re going to do? Al-Jaff: Correct. Papke: Okay. On that same vein, one of the things that’s just caught my attention in the news lately, a lot of, maybe not a lot. Been reading about cars running off the road. People falling asleep at the wheel. They crash into the building. 10 feet away, 101 and Lyman. Okay, somebody makes a right turn northbound. What prevents somebody from just smashing into one of these housing units. 10 feet away from, yes there’s sidewalks and stuff. I know it’s not physically 10 feet from the front door to the curb, but what kind of safety. I’m just concerned from a safety perspective. The entrance to Best Buy, there’s concrete pillars so you don’t crash through the front door accidentally and smash into. What physical barriers do we have on the south side here to prevent some happenstance? Al-Jaff: Well you have the curb itself. Granted, cars can go over the curb. You’ve got the double boulevard. And then also keep in mind that true, we are requesting a, or the applicant is requesting a 10 foot setback from the property line, but the physical setback from Lyman Boulevard exceeds 40 feet. So there is a separation between the roadway and these units. So the combination of the boulevard, the trees. Papke: But is there any physical barrier in there of any kind, other than the curb? Al-Jaff: Other than, no. No concrete pillars or anything like that. 7 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 Papke: Okay. Okay. The glass block staircase. Very unusual. Very interesting architectural. Are there any safety concerns with that? You know I can’t imagine them getting shattered but you’re going to be able to see people walking up there. Are there any concerns that, from a safety perspective, oh I can see who’s going in and out of the ramp. Is it a positive or negative from a safety aspect? I don’t know. It’s just unusual that you have visibility for everyone who’s using the stairs. Al-Jaff: I think it was an interesting architectural element. Papke: It’s very interesting architecturally. Al-Jaff: That would be a question maybe to ask the applicant. Papke: Okay. Last question. On page 28 of the staff report you mentioned that the applicant must show how bus passenger vehicle conflicts will be minimized along the east/west access road. Could you speak to what sort of conflicts you’re thinking of and what kind of minimization you might be suggesting? Fauske: Good evening. The conflicts that we were looking at is, we just wanted to look at the movements coming in through, this is the corridor that we were speaking of. We just want to see some, you know beg the question of the applicant, what kind of minimization aspects are you looking at for conflicts through here? The suggestions, they do have the paver circular area in here, which is a physical barrier in the driver’s mind as far as a change in the road surface is coming about. Slow down but we just wanted to make sure that we could look at anything in, you know if there’s anything we could do to minimize those. Papke: What kinds of problems are you foreseeing? Fauske: Well we just wanted to bring it to the forefront. This is new for us too with a larger park and ride facility here. Certainly not the scale of the Eden Prairie Southwest station but just to look at, is there a way that, are we confident that there’s, with a constant flow of traffic through here, it will inhibit traffic trying to make a left turn through here. What sort of aspects can be put in through that area to make traffic flow properly? Papke: Any yield signs or any kind of traffic control at that paver circle there, or is it just, you just wing it? Fauske: They have a signage plan included in your packet here, and I apologize, I don’t know the number off the top of my head. Papke: I think there’s stop, there’s octanginal stops on the northbound, coming out of the residential there, but is there? 8 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 Fauske: They’re stopping traffic, if you look at again this is the corridor we were speaking of. They do have traffic stopping, coming out of the ramp here. Coming out of the commercial area here, so basically for free flow condition through here. Papke: Okay, so free flow east/west? Fauske: Correct, and we just wanted the applicant, just to kind of open up that discussion as far as in their experience is this enough or do we have to look at doing something more? Papke: Okay. And I think that’s all I have, thanks. McDonald: Thank you. I’ve just got a couple questions for you. Going back to the signage. You know you had talked about the signs you’re looking at putting in but in the report there’s 4 additional signs that the applicant wants. Can you identify those for me? Al-Jaff: Sure. When you said the 4 additional signs, we’re talking about the residential portion? Is that what you? McDonald: I believe so. There’s 4 additional monument signs I think. Al-Jaff: Okay. I apologize. What the applicant is requesting is monument signs that would lead into the residential portion and this is where they would be located. What staff is recommending is that, if they wanted to utilize house numbers for instance. That would be permitted, but we can’t allow continuous monument signs throughout this area. McDonald: Okay. Al-Jaff: I just think that there were too many monument signs on this portion of the site. McDonald: So what you’re recommending is more along the ways of a street sign with numbers that would point down which house numbers are down this street or kind of a direction as to where places are located. Al-Jaff: Correct. McDonald: Which is typical of other areas I think throughout the city that we’ve got those types of signs. Al-Jaff: Correct. McDonald: Okay. The other question I had was, on the retail, what types are targeted? Are we looking at to go in there? Do we have any idea of what kind of commercial? Al-Jaff: If you, when we put the permitted uses together, we looked at retail that was neighborhood oriented. And that would be a question to ask the retail developer portion of the site. 9 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 McDonald: Well I’m just wondering about it going from the 8,000 square feet up to the 8,500. If there’s something in particular planned for there that would need the extra room. Okay. The other questions I’ve got is getting back to the fact that we’ve got a lot of things in here that have been put together very nicely, but what I’m concerned about that’s missing is there’s no personal space. There are no decks. There’s no patios. There’s no yards of any type. These are townhomes, which I take it are targeted toward families with children. Would that be a fair assumption or not? Al-Jaff: I, I mean a family with children could live in these neighborhoods but I actually envision somebody who is downsizing in these areas. In these townhouses. McDonald: So somewhat similar to the clientele that’s down at Southwest Station in the condos down there? Al-Jaff: Potentially, yes. McDonald: Okay. Al-Jaff: It would be a question to ask the applicant because I’m sure they’ve done their marketing study. McDonald: Well I was just wondering if it was addressed as a part of staff’s overview of all of this is that you know throughout other developments there’s at least space for people to gather or to do things but. Al-Jaff: We did think about it and I mean I place myself in one of those units and I thought okay, what would I do? Chances are I would be in this area. I mean think of the entire development as one development. Yes, it does have a residential component. You have open spaces. Public gathering spaces. There is one here. There’s another in this area. There will be a third in this area. So if you choose to go to a public space, these spaces will be available to you. McDonald: So when you’re talking about an urban space, and as part of the variance and everything, what you’re envisioning here is more of a neighborhood that would be similar to I think St. Louis Park calls it Grand. That type of space there except we don’t have residential above retail but that’s the type of area you’re looking at. Which then begins to fit with some of your variances of what you’re asking for, of putting the house closer to the street because again what’s envisioned is this is more of an urban setting with people without a lot of children or needs to do barbeque or play softball or. Al-Jaff: Of course this is going to be substantially less dense than what you see in St. Louis Park but. McDonald: Okay. I’m just trying to get a feel for what the intent of the development is. I have no further questions for you. 10 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 Keefe: Just one additional question in regards to, on page 40, and just going back to parking. This is more of a technical question because the integrated shopping center, provide a minimum of 5 spaces per thousand or 1 per 200. And then it goes on to say, the integrated office building will provide 4 ½ per 1,000 and then for the first 49,000 and then it goes down to 4 per 1,000 for the next 50. And then 3 ½. I’m just, none of that adds up to 5 and just clarification on that. Al-Jaff: You said on page. Keefe: 40 of 48, if you want to look at it more. Aanenson: I can…per city code. There’s a different standard for each unit so… Keefe: 5 per 1,000 right? Aanenson: And then depending on the size of the office, that’s proportional to the use. And that’s pretty much what we had in parking… Keefe: So is it retail or is it office? Al-Jaff: It is retail. It’s intended. Aanenson: It could be office. Al-Jaff: It could be office. Aanenson: You’re looking at the units that are coming in under the PUD…so if it was an office use… Keefe: Okay, so let me just follow along. Is that the amount of square footage is, well how much square feet of retail is there? Al-Jaff: 18,000. Keefe: 18,000 so what, you need to get, what is it 5 times 18 is what’s required? Al-Jaff: I believe the total number is. Keefe: It’d be 90 spaces to meet retail? Aanenson: I think what you’re saying is we could probably… Keefe: Yeah, well that and I’m just you know, if it’s retail it’s about 2,000 right. If it’s office, then it’s something different and I don’t know. And if it’s cross access into the parking ramp, we just want to make sure that we’ve got enough allowable space because if you get 75 spaces, plus whatever is outside, you’re probably okay but I’m just a little confused by the wording. 11 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 Al-Jaff: Well we will make sure that whatever we have would have to match with the number of parking spaces, or parking would have to match with whatever. Keefe: The use. Al-Jaff: Yes. Aanenson: ...I believe what you’re saying, so the number put in there based on our ordinance… overshoots… Keefe: Just clarification, thanks. McDonald: Anyone else with follow up questions? Then I guess the applicant, if there’s someone here to address the commission. Len Simich: Good evening Mr. Chair, members of the commission. My name is Len Simich. I’m the Executive Director of Southwest Metro Transit. As Sharmeen mentioned, we do have a number of individuals that have been involved with this project. Either members of my team or the two developers that will be developing on site, so any questions you may have, we’d be happy to answer. What I passed out, and I won’t go through it in any detail. It’s just a little information about Southwest Metro Transit. We are the transit provider for the City of Chanhassen, as well as Eden Prairie and Chaska. This is our second transit oriented development. You did mention the Eden Prairie site. That was our first. It has been very successful for us and we have made the determination years ago that as we start to expand in terms of our park and ride needs, we would develop in such a way where we’d bring a total development together that includes both the housing, retail, on some sites where it makes sense the office. We’ve been working on this project for about 3 years now. It goes back even further than that in terms of when we did our initial demand estimates for this area in terms of what the needs would be. We identified back in late 80’s, early 90’s that this site, as well as another one in Chaska and the one we have in Eden Prairie that would be built in conjunction with the expansion of the Highway 212. Currently we have both this one and the one in Chaska moving along on dual tracks. Just to answer a couple of questions. As we set out back 3 years ago, we heard a number of things very loud and clear. One is we want a development that wasn’t your typical development that we had seen in Chanhassen. Make it unique. Make it with a lot of interest. Put a lot of amenities into it. In a sense, spare no expense. The Planning Commission for you, as well as the City Council really wanted to see this type of development, and I think we’ve come a long way in trying to provide that. We found some good partners that were willing to offer that up. Just to answer a couple questions, because we have very similar ones as we went through the process in terms of the setbacks and so forth, and I think Sharmeen did a good job when she covered the setback from Lyman, but again it’s 10 feet from the right-of-way. I just wanted to clarify that. We’re really talking about 30 feet from the roadway, so it isn’t that it’s right up top, but we did want to make sure that we pulled the houses up. We thought it would give a lot more architectural interest, especially for the neighbors to the south. You’re looking at front doors with a lot of the amenities with the parking and the garages hidden with the back side. Also the housing acts as a good buffer. That was one of the other goals. Initially when we started looking at this site we envisioned a lot of the retail, much like we have in Eden 12 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 Prairie. Again through the neighborhood meetings, they spoke loud and clear that they’d like to see housing. Owner occupied housing. Don’t intensify it to the 16 units an acre. Save our 100 foot buffer. Do a number of the things that I think you see in this plan. So we’re quite proud of what we have here. We look forward to building it out in the city of Chanhassen and again I’ll sit back and answer any questions or have members of my team any of those questions as well. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Kurt, did you have some questions? Papke: One of them was the glass block staircase. Any safety, privacy issues with that? Kyle Williams: I’m Kyle Williams with LSA Design. We’re the site plan developers and the transit architects. It’s not glass block. It’s just glass. Tempered glass, and there are advantages to having glass. In transit facilities, passive security is seeing who’s there, both in the stair tower looking out and looking in. Police drive by, they can look in and see some lighting and visibility are what we strive for. So it’s a very positive thing. And one of the reasons we are against the idea of burying the level of the deck. Initially we had about a 6 to 8 foot drop from the east/west road down to the transit facility. So there would be level access from the half level down to the bus way. MnDot picked the corner of the bus way up. Therefore the full lower level would have been underground. From an accessibility standpoint, you’d have to go up steps or an elevator to get there. It also, before we had lights that would come in about half way on the deck, so again light and visibility from a passive security standpoint is a positive thing. Once we raised the whole thing up, the deck is underground, and if we could avoid it, we would like to. Technically it’s possible. We would have to sprinkler half the deck. We’d have to put in extra security cameras and be more concerned about safety. Technically it’s very possible. From a desirability standpoint, it’s not so we would prefer to bring it up. And then from the height standpoint, as that comes up, the deck goes up. The deck floor to floor is about 11 foot 6 so the actual deck floor to deck floor is 23 feet as you have the first level grade plus two structured levels. If we add a spano panel, then we go up another minimum 3 ½ feet for safety. If we go up another couple, it helps to mitigate lights shining from that third level out towards the neighbors. I would be more concerned as a neighbor having lights, headlights shine on me than the height of a building. …in the 100 foot buffer on the easterly side of the bus way and then adjacent to the deck as well. And as Sharmeen mentioned, that is the ramp side of the deck so if you took an average height of the deck, there’d be 17 ½ feet approximately versus the 35 feet. So we think that that’s a positive thing to have it a little bit higher actually. Then we can just have some more articulation. Architectural articulation as you can look at the elevations so it’s not just one big plane or flat piece. It is a parking deck. You can’t really hide the fact that it’s a parking deck as much as you can dress it up, but some articulation of vertical height. Some articulation of the horizontal depth like with the trellises and the landscaping. We have brick bases that will articulate some of that depth, so we can do some things that will help mitigate the fact that it’s a very large building. We can’t hide the fact that it’s a large building but we can mitigate I think the impact that it has on the adjacent. Was there another question of architect? I can’t remember. On the deck. Papke: Ah no, not on the parking ramp. 13 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 Kyle Williams: We could let the retail, it is 8,500 square feet. 17,000 square feet of retail. The agreement is that the retail developer is allowed 5 cars per 1,000 or 85 cars total. Those will be signed vehicle spaces on the westerly portion of the first level of the deck. So in terms of access those will all be dedicated to retail. The rest of it will be transit, and they have agreed, the developer’s agreed that if, whatever uses they end up with, they don’t have final agreements yet. Whatever uses they have, they will maintain that maximum parking. Keefe: Follow up question on parking. What’s your build out on the parking ramp from 2 to 3 levels in terms of timing? What it depends on. I heard maybe it’s economics. Is there another driver? Len Simich: You’re correct in terms of economics. That will be the driving factor. We are bidding this with an alternate for the final level. However right now our budget projections really look at the surface plus one at this time. But we’ll design it in a way where that third level can be added, I won’t say in an easy manner but it will allow us to do so. If we, we did this the same exercise in Eden Prairie and we initially went in, we put 4 levels plus the fifth as an alternate. We were able to find a way to fund it at that time because I think it suits everybody’s needs and just works better if you can do it at once, but right now we’re looking at 2 plus 1. And until the funding becomes available… Keefe: Well and just to that point, just briefly on a quick business question. You’re the land developer on this and then the owner of the parking ramp, is that where it is? Is that kind of how it works out or how does it? Because you’ve got a separate retail developer and a separate residential developer I presume. Len Simich: Yes, Southwest Metro basically assembled the property. Did the overall plan and brought developers in to execute their portions. Housing will be a sale, so that’s total spin off of our property to the housing developer. The retail is a lease. They’ll be leasing the property. We have a 30 year plus two 10 year options. Keefe: Okay. And then you would retain ownership of the land? Len Simich: We would retain ownership. Keefe: Is it a free ramp, is that right? Yeah. Len Simich: Correct. The parking ramp is free and as Kyle mentioned, we have dedicated stalls for the retail. It will be I believe 85-90 stalls. Those are stalls that the retailer is actually paying for in terms of the construction, so it’s a little bit different. It’s not the money we’re using per se to build the transit stalls. They’ll be separate for development. Keefe: So the third level is really contingent on getting state funding for the third level, is that kind of how it works? Len Simich: Actually most of this project is being developed with federal funds. 20% state, 80% federal. 14 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 Keefe: Okay. McDonald: Kurt, were you through? Papke: I had a question on the housing. Two questions, and they’re related. You were speaking of ceilings in some. Are these standard 8 foot ceilings in these units or 9 foot ceilings? What kind of. Len Simich: I’m going to have the developer… He can answer that probably better than I can. Papke: And then a related question, what’s your price target on these? Doug VanOrden: I’m Doug VanOrden with Klingelhutz Companies. I basically do the development. As far as the housing, the first floor I believe is 9 foot ceilings, and the second floor would be 8 feet. And in today’s dollars I’m assuming it’s going to be oh roughly $220,000 to $260,000-$270,000. Papke: Okay. Keefe: Are there any additional amenities on the housing that you can speak of? I mean there’s some nice articulation on the front from particularly the south end on the Lyman Boulevard side, and the sort of walk up entrances but in terms of decking and patios. Doug VanOrden: No. One thing we do have is, I have 10 feet from the sidewalk to the building in case, in answer to the question on barbeques or whatever, and they could possibly have a patio in the front next to the door if they wanted. They could have that amenity, or as far as barbequing, if they didn’t choose to do it there, they would have to do it in the driveway. And as far as the amenities, we thought we came a long way on the architectural design of the building. When we initially started we didn’t have nearly as much stone or hard surface or our roof line wasn’t as intriguing as it is now. We went to great lengths to make this fit in to the urban type look and as far as the urban type look, I kind of compare this just somewhat to, it’s a different design but in the Eden Prairie area when you go to PetSmart on the road there, you see the townhouses that are close to the road. I kind of compare that to that. I think it’s a rather unique design. McDonald: Debbie, do you have any questions? Larson: What’s the target date to start this or does it just depend on the other two? Doug VanOrden: Right. Our target date, and Len can correct me if I’m wrong but I think we’ll be about June of next year. What we’ll do is June of next year we’d be working on our infrastructure. We hope to have one building at least up by end of October. And of course that depends on weather. Larson: October of this year or next year? 15 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 Doug VanOrden: October of next year. We’re not, we won’t be starting on, we won’t have acquisition of the land until next year. I believe next May is when we have our closing date. So immediately after that we would start on the infrastructure. Len Simich: If I could just add to that. A lot of this is going to be a phased approach. We hope to actually start beginning by the end of this year, and then for staging purposes and so forth, the retailers can’t get in til the parking ramp’s done, so on and so forth so it’s kind of a staged closing. But we’re all shooting for October of ’07 date. McDonald: Further questions? I have a question for the housing director. This is really a very, well it’s a different design than anything we’ve seen before and I like the front of it, the way you break it up and everything. My only disappointment was, I didn’t see a drawing similar to the back. I would like to know what the back looks like because all we have is just a line drawn more or less of the detail for the back of the homes. Doug VanOrden: I think the back is basically hardy plank. We went all out on the, anything that’s visible from the road as far as curb appeal. On our sides and the front. McDonald: And I guess what my question is, on the back, what’s it going to look like? I mean you’ve got a lot of detail on the front, but again from the drawing that’s shown for the back side it looks like it’s just kind of a flat surface all the way along the back of it and I’m not sure that’s exactly what it is but could you give a little bit more detail there as to what to expect. Doug VanOrden: I’m going to have to refer. McDonald: Yeah, go right ahead. Doug VanOrden: Basically what we have here is, you have kind of like the shed roof over the garage. You’re going to have planters in the back that will be appealing and the rest of it will be basically hardy plank. McDonald: Okay. Are there going to be any back doors or anything to these or is it all entrance. Doug VanOrden: All through the garage door. McDonald: Okay. Then I had a question about the parking ramp, and I want to commend you on your design. I believe that you have brought forward a real good product so I thank you for that. Doug VanOrden: Well we look forward to starting on these. This is the first type design we’ve had like this and we’re real anxious on getting started. McDonald: Well again, thank you very much. I have a question about the parking garage and the stalls for retail. You mentioned a couple of things and you talk about dedicated stalls. Is that 16 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 like with signs for each of the particular shops so there’s so many stalls per shop and if you’re going to shop there, that’s the only place you can park? Len Simich: Mr. Chair that is correct. They will be designated with signage, probably some other type of striping. We do the same thing here in Chanhassen at the market location where right now it’s a surface lot. Those are colored blue and with signage and the transit customer has to stay in that area. So we’d be doing something very similar in this location as well. McDonald: Okay, because the question I have is, as a retail customer, if I go in and slots are filled up, what’s to stop me from parking someplace else? I mean what’ the impact? Len Simich: To stop people from parking someplace generally is because we’re going to be very successful. Because my customers for the most part are in by 8:30-9:00. Both of our trips are work related trips, so most of the retail operations start later in the day. That’s what we’re experiencing in Eden Prairie as well, so if there are open stalls, they can use those stalls. The realities are, as we continue to grow those stalls probably will be taken. McDonald: Okay. And again from your experience at Eden Prairie, is there a lot of drive in traffic or is it more walk in traffic from customers riding the bus or people within the neighborhood so parking doesn’t really become a big issue. Len Simich: We’re seeing quite a bit of the drive in, drop off as well as the walk up. Much more than we have seen in the course of the last 5 years. So we’re seeing more and more of that occurring. In terms of the actual percentage, it’s still relatively low. Most people are coming in and parking but we have seen an increase in that and that’s part of the reason this one I believe will have more of that because there’s going to be more households in close proximity than what we have in Eden Prairie. McDonald: Okay. And can you speak to the types of retail? Are there any plans at this point as to what we’re looking at for the retail space types? Len Simich: If I could I’ll bring up the retail developer. Mr. Baker or I don’t know how much you’re going to be able to share. Tom Baker: My name’s Tom Baker with UHI Commercial Real Estate and at this time there are no retailers that have committed. We haven’t even started marketing the project. McDonald: Okay. So at that point everything is wide open as far as what it is you’re looking for, coffee shops, quick food stores. You’re open to whatever is within the plan at this point. Tom Baker: Whatever’s been an approved use. McDonald: Okay. Do you have a follow up you wanted to ask? Larson: Well just out of curiosity, do you have any thoughts as to what kind of price you’re going to be asking for square foot on these? 17 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 Tom Baker: Still developing it based on what construction costs are doing. But I would guess it’s in the mid 20’s. McDonald: Does anyone have any questions for retail, go ahead. Keefe: I don’t necessarily have retail. McDonald: Okay. Tom Baker: Okay, thank you. McDonald: Thank you. Keefe: Just a question in regards to ownership and maintenance, particularly with parking areas and if you have separate owners for the retail and the residential, how is the property, overall property maintained? And what is the strategy for that, that we don’t end up with. Len Simich: That is a good question because that is one of the things that generally these deals blow up on. And we’ve learned a lot with our Eden Prairie development. We had in terms of our overall covenants and our declarations, also because we are going to own the property that the retail sits upon, we, Southwest Metro will be taking responsibility for the maintenance. Charging it back through a CAM…maintenance charge. We also have already discussed the housing and will be partnering a lot but since the housing will be a separate association, they’ll probably be handling most of that themselves, but we may use similar contractors and so forth, so we’ll work hand in hand with the housing but from a retail standpoint, Southwest Metro will actually be taking the lead. Keefe: And the private streets that go through the residential area, is that maintained then through the residential association or? Len Simich: Correct, and that’s probably one of those classic examples of where we would park. Because our customers do start arriving early, we need to make sure that the playing is done and things like that. So it just makes sense. Plus we’ve opened up to move into the residential as well. Keefe: Okay. McDonald: Alright, thanks. I think that’s all the questions we have for the applicant. Thank you very much for coming up and giving us all this good information. At this point then what I would do is open the meeting to the public and anyone wishing to address this, if you would step up to the podium. State your name and address and address your comments. Okay, I guess everybody’s here for something else. Oh! Don Sinniger: Good evening. My name is Don Sinniger and I’m a resident at 600 Lyman Boulevard. I actually have my house on the plan right here, next to the 100 foot berm on the 18 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 eastern side of the development. Today I spent a good part of today calling and talking to several people at the City of Chanhassen. I became a resident of Chanhassen in the summer of 2004 so unfortunately I wasn’t able to attend the neighborhood meetings that talked about a lot of this and trying to get the input from the neighbors. And I’ve just recently learned of a regional trail that is being proposed, that’s on the plan to go on the Lyman side of the development and then going east down Lyman and to a small road, Quinn Road, which I can actually show you from this road here. Let’s see here. Right over here, like this? Okay. Okay, so right in this area is my lot. This is a kind of a drainage pond area right in here, and my lot goes right like this. There’s one other lot behind me here and then there’s a lot next to us here and then there’s Quinn Road which goes this way and it dead ends up here and there’s residents along here also. I just recently learned last week at a neighborhood meeting that there will be a regional trail, which I haven’t been able to get a lot of details regarding this, that will go along the front of the development here. And then will cross the entrance here. Go across the front of the berm area here, and then go through my front yard. I understand there’s a city easement, right-of-way easement. I have not been able to find out how far that is that goes through right here, and I have also not been able to find out a right turn lane that is being proposed into here, if it will also take any of my lot for the easement here. And these are the questions that I’ve been trying to find out through the neighborhood meeting last week and then through phone calls today and I’m hoping that by me coming here tonight I can start some dialogue to see what we can find out on this. I’m especially interested in knowing this soon because I’m planning to have irrigation installed in my yard, and if I had that done within the next month, like I’m planning to, if this trail comes through in 6 months to a year, I have to pay for this again. So that’s my question right now. McDonald: Kate. Aanenson: Do you have the overall…? This is the gentleman’s home right here. So at this time with this project we’re recommending a sidewalk be placed across here, as shown on the site plan, across this property. It’s proposed at some time in the future to take a sidewalk all the way over to Quinn Road. Ultimately Quinn Road will tie back up, when that property develops, all the way over towards North Bay, and as you’re aware Lakeview Hills will be in for redevelopment here shortly, so ultimately it’s open to the opportunity for those people also, if they want to ride their bikes or walk on that sidewalk, shown on this plan. It’s a little harder to see. There is right-of-way and we’d be happy to meet with you and show you exactly where that right-of-way is. Any future sidewalk again is not being built on this gentleman’s property with this project. We just identified that there will be a trail in the future. When that gets put into a capital improvements plan to go across, all the way across here to Quinn Road. And that will allow also people from Summerfield to cross here too, or…so it’s not being proposed to be built any time soon. If you wanted to talk to Park and Rec’s department, to Todd Hoffman to find out what he would be putting that in the capital improvement budget. Al-Jaff: I believe that Mr. Hoffman did speak to you…this morning. Don Sinniger: Yep, I spoke to him briefly today. Yep. I guess I was curious to know if there’s, any kind of time line here. If we’re looking at a year? If we’re looking at. 19 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 Aanenson: Mr. Chairman, unfortunately that really is not part of this application but we’d be happy to meet with him separately and try to answer his questions. McDonald: Okay, if you all could go ahead and do that, then, does that answer your questions concerning this particular project then? Don Sinniger: Yes it does. McDonald: Okay. Don Sinniger: Thank you. McDonald: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to come forward and address this plan that’s before us? Okay, seeing no one, I close the public meeting and I bring the issue back before the council for discussion. Who would like to start? Kurt, you get to start. Papke: Well I think the planning group and the applicant, and the neighborhood, Springfield and surrounding neighbors I think have, there’s been a tremendous community effort in refining this. It’s certainly a lot different from the preliminary proposal that we first looked at. And I think the results show it. This is, you know considering we’re talking a parking ramp, retail, and housing here, this is an incredibly complex project and to have it, you know granted there’s a lot of conditions here in the staff report but to have it come through with so few controversial issues, to not have any city residents stand up and pound on the table you know angry about something I think is a major accomplishment so I’d like to commend the city staff for bringing this, and the applicants and the residents for working together on this, so I think this is a great development. McDonald: Okay. Debbie. Larson: Well everything that Kurt said. I mean it’s beautiful. The city of trees remains. Quadrupling I think what the minimums are, which is lovely. The design. The materials. I think everything is great. Be interesting to see Chanhassen have urban development. That to me is very different than from what we’ve seen before, but it’s inevitable and I think it’s a nice application. McDonald: Thank you. Dan. Keefe: I think it’s a really well designed project. I think they’ve put a lot of thought and effort into the site plan and I’m in full support of this project. McDonald: I guess the only comments that I would have is also to kind of echo what my fellow commissioners have said. This has been a rather unique approach that’s been brought before us, I think as far as the planning and the amount of work that’s gone into it, and you know it would appear that any problems have already been taken care of so things look pretty easy as far as our job at this point. With that I guess what I’d like to do is talk about motions and because of the way that this is broken up, I guess I’d like to suggest that we vote on each one of these 20 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 independently, with maybe the exception of 1 and 2 since the variances are tied together. I’ll open for discussion is anyone would like to just lump them all together. Keefe: Just a point of clarification. I’m comfortable that the hardship concerns have been satisfied in regards to the variance for setbacks and is everybody comfortable with the conditions for the rationale for hardships that are outlined in the staff report and those appear on page 11, or page 12. I’m just concerned in terms of the variances that we grant. Papke: I almost don’t look at these as hardships. And the terminology almost begs to be refined a little bit. They’re almost opportunities here. I think we’re going for a certain look. A certain design. A certain architecture, and I think the variances make sense in light of that so to try to justify in our own brains here a hardship, you know I don’t know. What the other commissioners think about it. Keefe: Well I tend to agree with you. I don’t see them as real hardships. I mean that’s why some of the questions I think were asked. You’re trying to achieve a certain look and feel with all of this, and I think based upon that, what we’ve done, we’ve made the plan accommodate that and we’ve done a good job. A lot of the questions I think I asked, and hopefully what the commissioners asked again to address some of those things, especially about the variance. I don’t feel that there’s a problem with that particular variance based upon the design and plus the fact houses are still 30 feet off the road. 30-40 feet off the road itself. So I’m not sure that again I would see that as a hardship that needs to be proved. It’s, I think they made their case for the design and the development and kind of move on from there. The reason I suggested independent voting on these was, yeah. I had some issues with a couple of them but what I’m sensing is pretty much you know a consensus on these and if you want to propose them all at once, we can vote on them all at once so. Papke: Even if we put them all to one vote, we could still propose friendly amendments to the individual ones so, you know and unless somebody feels there’s something. I haven’t heard any controversy about any of the issues so far so I’m not expecting a high probability that any one of them is going to get voted down. McDonald: Okay. In that case then I’d be open for a motion. Papke: Alright, I’ll give this a shot. It’s going to be long winded. Mr. Chair, I move that the Planning Commission, number one, the Planning Commission recommends City Council approve the Planned Unit Development Amendment for South West Village clarifying setbacks, signage and retail building size as follows, as stated in staff report. Number two, the variance. I move that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve variance request #06-18 to allow 10 foot setback from Lyman Boulevard, a 20 foot setback from Highway 101, and a 45 foot setback from Highway 212 as shown on the plans dated Received April 13, 2006. Number three, the subdivision. I move that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the preliminary plat for Planning Case 06-18 for South West Village as shown in plans dated Received April 13, 2006, subject to the conditions 1 through 19. And then number four, I move that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the site plan for two 8,500 square foot retail buildings for Planning Case 06-18 for South West Village as 21 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 shown on plans dated Received April 13, 2006 subject to conditions 1 through 8. Then I move that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the site plan for phases 1 and 2. Not 1 and 1 as shown in the staff report, but phases 1 and 2 of the parking ramp and transit station for Planning Case 06-18 for South West Village as shown in plans dated Received April 13, 2006, subject to conditions 1 through 8. Keefe: On page 44, the residential. Papke: Ah! And then number 4(b). Residential. I move that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve a site plan for 33 townhouses for Planning Case 06-18 for South West Village as shown on plans dated Received April 13, 2006 subject to conditions 1 through 14. McDonald: Okay. And isn’t there a 4(c)? Page 46. Keefe: He did (c). McDonald: Okay. Is there a second? Keefe: Second. McDonald: Okay, the case we have before us, motions recommending that we accept motions 1, 2, 3, 4A, 4B and 4C. Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development amendment for SouthWest Village clarifying setbacks, signage, and retail building size as follows (amendments are shown in bold): PUD DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a Mixed Use PUD including a Transit Oriented Development, Neighborhood Commercial and Residential. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive development. Each structure proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. b. Permitted Uses ? The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to appropriate commercial and service uses consistent with meeting the daily needs of the neighborhood and the transit facility users. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the Community Development Director shall make that interpretation. The type of uses to be provided on these lots shall be low intensity neighborhood oriented retail and 22 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 service establishments to meet daily needs of residents. Commercial and transit uses shall be limited to the area located north of the access point off of Highway 101. Residential uses shall be located south of the Highway 101 access. ? Small to medium sized restaurant-not to exceed 8,000 square feet per building (no drive-thru windows) ? Office ? day care ? 8,500 neighborhood scale commercial up to 8,000 square feet per building footprint ? convenience store without gas pumps ? specialty retail (book store jewelry, Sporting Goods sale/rental, Retail Sales, Retail Shops, Apparel Sales, etc.) ? personal services(an establishment or place of business primarily engaged in providing individual services generally related to personal needs, such as a tailor shop, Shoe Repair, Self-service Laundry, Laundry Pick-up Station, Dry Cleaning, dance studios, etc). ? Park-and-Ride not to exceed 800 spaces. ? Residential High Density (8-16 units per acre). c. Prohibited Ancillary Uses ? Drive thru Windows ? Outdoor storage and display of merchandise d. Setbacks The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The following table displays those setbacks. Boundary Building and Parking Setback 10 Lyman Boulevard 50 feet 20 Highway 101 35 feet north of the Highway 101 access and 50 feet south of the 101 access 20 Highway 212 excluding transit shelters and ramps 50 feet Easterly Project Property Line 100 Feet Internal Project property lines 0 Feet Hard Surface Coverage 50 % Commercial and Transit Facility Hard Surface Coverage 70 % Maximum Residential Building/Structure Height 35 feet or 3 stories, whichever is less Maximum Commercial Building/Structure Height 1 story 35 Maximum Park-and-Ride Ramp excluding the elevator shaft 25 feetor 3 stories, and stair well whichever is less 23 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 e. Non Residential Building Materials and Design 1. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. The intent is to create a neighborhood and transit friendly development. 2. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Major exterior surfaces of all walls shall be face brick, stone, glass, stucco, architecturally treated concrete, cast in place panels, decorative block, or cedar siding. Color shall be introduced through colored block or panels and not painted block or brick. Bright, long, continuous bands are prohibited. 3. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face. Exposed cement (“cinder”) blocks shall be prohibited. 4. Metal siding, gray concrete, curtain walls and similar materials will not be approved except as support material to one of the above materials, or as trim or as HVAC screen, and may not exceed more than 25 percent of a wall area. 5. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure. 6. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material. Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc., are to be fully screened by compatible materials. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building. 7. The buildings shall have varied and interesting detailing. The use of large unadorned, concrete panels and concrete block, or a solid wall unrelieved by architectural detailing, such as change in materials, change in color, fenestrations, or other significant visual relief provided in a manner or at intervals in keeping with the size, mass, and scale of the wall and its views from public ways shall be prohibited. Acceptable materials will incorporate textured surfaces, exposed aggregate and/or other patterning. All walls shall be given added architectural interest through building design or appropriate landscaping. 8. There shall not be underdeveloped backsides of buildings. All elevations shall receive nearly equal treatment and visual qualities. 9. The materials and colors used for each building shall be selected in context with the adjacent building and provide for a harmonious integration with them. Extreme variations between buildings in terms of overall appearance, bulk and height, setbacks and colors shall be prohibited. f. Residential Standards 24 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 1. Building exterior material shall be a combination of fiber-cement siding, vinyl siding, stucco, or brick with support materials such as cedar shakes, brick and stone or approved equivalent materials as determined by the city. 2. Each unit shall utilize accent architectural features such as arched louvers, dormers, etc. 3. All units shall have access onto an interior private street. 4. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building or landscaping. 5. A design palette shall be approved for the entire project. The palette shall include colors for siding, shakes, shutters, shingles, brick and stone. 6. All foundation walls shall be screened by landscaping or retaining walls. g. Site Landscaping and Screening The intent of this section is to improve the appearance of vehicular use areas and property abutting public rights-of-way; to require buffering between different land uses; and to protect, preserve and promote the aesthetic appeal, character and value of the surrounding neighborhoods; to promote public health and safety through the reduction of noise pollution, air pollution, visual pollution and glare. 1. The landscaping standards shall provide for screening for visual impacts associated with a given use, including but not limited to, truck loading areas, trash storage, parking lots, Large unadorned building massing, etc. 2. Each lot for development shall submit a separate landscaping plan as a part of the site plan review process. 3. All open spaces and non-parking lot surfaces, except for plaza areas, shall be landscaped, rockscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material. Tree wells shall be included in pedestrian areas and plazas. 4. Undulating berms, north of Lyman Boulevard and east of Highway 101 shall be sodded or seeded at the conclusion of grading and utility construction. The required buffer landscaping may be installed where it is deemed necessary to screen any proposed development. All required boulevard landscaping shall be sodded. 5. Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways. Wing walls may be required where deemed appropriate. 6. Native species shall be incorporated into site landscaping, whenever possible. 25 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 h. Street Furnishings Benches, kiosks, trash receptacles, planters and other street furnishings should be of design and materials consistent with the character of the area. Wherever possible, street furnishings should be consolidated to avoid visual clutter and facilitate pedestrian movement. i.Signage The intent of this section is to establish an effective means of communication in the development, maintain and enhance the aesthetic environment and the business’s ability to attract sources of economic development and growth, to improve pedestrian and traffic safety, to minimize the possible adverse effect of signs on nearby public and private property, and to enable the fair and consistent enforcement of these sign regulations. It is the intent of this section, to promote the health, safety, general welfare, aesthetics, and image of the community by regulating signs that are intended to communicate to the public, and to use signs which meet the city's goals: (1)Establish standards which permit businesses a reasonable and equitable opportunity to advertise their name and service; (2)Preserve and promote civic beauty, and prohibit signs which detract from this objective because of size, shape, height, location, condition, cluttering or illumination; (3)Ensure that signs do not create safety hazards; (4)Ensure that signs are designed, constructed, installed and maintained in a manner that does not adversely impact public safety or unduly distract motorists; (5)Preserve and protect property values; (6)Ensure signs that are in proportion to the scale of, and are architecturally compatible with, the principal structures; (7)Limit temporary commercial signs and advertising displays which provide an opportunity for grand opening and occasional sales events while restricting signs which create continuous visual clutter and hazards at public right-of-way intersections. 1. Project Identification Sign: Two s One project identification sign shall be permitted for the The total area of both development at the entrance off of Highway 101. Project identification signs shall not exceed 80 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight feet in height. The sign shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. 2. Monument Sign: 26 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 One monument sign shall be permitted at the entrance to the development off of Lyman Boulevard. This sign shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than five feet in height. The sign shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. 3. Wall Signs: a. The location of letters and logos shall be restricted to the approved building sign bands, the tops of which shall not extend greater than 20 feet above the ground. The letters and logos shall be restricted to a maximum of 30 inches in height. All individual letters and logos comprising each sign shall be constructed of wood, metal, or translucent facing. b. Illuminated signs that can be viewed from neighborhoods outside the PUD site, are prohibited. c. Tenant signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant’s proper name and major product or service offered. Corporate logos, emblems and similar identifying devices are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band and do not occupy more than 15% of the sign area unless the logo is the sign. d.Signs along the sides of the retail buildings are prohibited unless the actual entrance into a tenant’s space is located at the side of the building. e.Wall-mounted signs along Highway 101 shall be limited to either above the storefront windows when a shared entry configuration exists, and for an unshared configuration, the signage shall be located above the entry or above the tenant’s specific storefront windows, but not both. f.On the east elevation, signage shall be permitted above the storefront only as well as small-scale pedestrian level decorative signage, perpendicular to the wall (projecting signs). The size of the sign shall not exceed 9 square feet. g.A “SW” logo on the elevator shaft of the parking ramp building shall be permitted. The size of the logo shall not exceed a 4 foot diameter along the north elevation. This logo may be back lit. h.A “SouthWest Transit” with a “SW” logo not to exceed a 4-foot diameter along the west elevation shall be permitted. This sign may be back lit. 27 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 i.A “SouthWest Transit” sign with letters 36 inches high shall be permitted along the south elevation. This sign may not be illuminated. 4. Festive Flags/Banners a. Flags and banners shall be permitted on approved standards attached to the building facade and on standards attached to pedestrian area lighting. b. Flags and banners shall be constructed of fabric or vinyl. c. Banners shall not contain advertising for individual users, businesses, services, or products. d. Flags and banners shall project from buildings a maximum of two feet. e. Flags and banners shall have a maximum area of 10 square feet. f. Flags and banners which are torn or excessively worn shall be removed at the request of the city. 5. Building Directory a. In multi-tenant buildings, one building directory sign may be permitted. The directory sign shall not exceed eight square feet. 6. Directional Signs a. On-premises signs shall not be larger than four (4) square feet. The maximum height of the sign shall not exceed five (5) feet from the ground. The placement of directional signs on the property shall be so located such that the sign does not adversely affect adjacent properties (including site lines or confusion of adjoining ingress or egress) or the general appearance of the site from public rights-of-way. No more than four (4) signs shall be allowed per lot. The city council may allow additional signs in situations where access is confusing or traffic safety could be jeopardized. b. Off-premises signs shall be allowed only in situations where access is confusing and traffic safety could be jeopardized or traffic could be inappropriately routed through residential streets. The size of the sign shall be no larger than what is needed to effectively view the sign from the roadway and shall be approved by the city council. 28 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 c.Bench signs are prohibited except at transit stops as authorized by the local transit authority. d. Signs and Graphics. Wherever possible, traffic control, directional and other public signs should be consolidated and grouped with other street fixtures and furnishings to reduce visual clutter and to facilitate vehicular and pedestrian movement. A system of directional signs should also be established to direct traffic within the commercial area and away from residential areas. 7. Prohibited Signs: ? Individual lots are not permitted low profile ground business sign. ? Pylon signs are prohibited. ? Back lit awnings are prohibited. ? Window Signs are prohibited except for company logo/symbol and not the name. Such logo shall not exceed 10% of a window area ? Menu Signs are prohibited. 8. Sign Design and permit requirements: a. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect the quality of the development. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material and height throughout the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. b.All signs require a separate sign permit. c.Wall business signs shall comply with the city’s sign ordinance for the Neighborhood business district for determination of maximum sign area. Wall signs may be permitted on the “street” front and primary parking lot front of each building. j. Lighting 1. Lighting for the interior of the development shall be consistent throughout the development. High pressure sodium vapor lamps with decorative natural colored pole shall be used throughout the development parking lot area for lighting. Decorative, pedestrian scale lighting shall be used in plaza and sidewalk areas and may be used in parking lot areas. 29 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 2. Light fixtures should be kept to a pedestrian scale (12 to 18 feet). Street light fixtures should accommodate vertical banners for use in identifying the commercial area. The fixtures shall conform with (Figure 36 – Chanhassen Lighting Unit Design). 3. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 candle at the project perimeter property line. This does not apply to street lighting. 4.Lighting for parking areas shall minimize the use of lights on pole standards in the parking area. Rather, emphasis should be placed on building lights and poles located in close proximity to buildings. k. Non Residential Parking 1. Parking shall be provided based on the shared use of parking areas whenever possible. Cross access easements and the joint use of parking facilities shall be protected by a recorded instrument acceptable to the city. 2.The development shall be treated as an integrated shopping center and provide a minimum of one space per 200 square feet of commercial/retail area. The office/personal service component shall be treated as an integrated office building and provide 4.5 space per 1,000 square feet for the first 49,999 square feet, four per thousand square feet for the second 50,000 square feet, and 3.5 per thousand square feet thereafter. . l. Residential Parking shall comply with city code requirements” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approvevariance request #06-18 to allow a 10-foot setback from Lyman Boulevard, a 20- foot setback from Highway 101, and a 45-foot setback from Highway 212, as shown in plans dated received April 13, 2006. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approvethe preliminary plat for Planning Case 06-18 for SouthWest Village as shown in plans dated received April 13, 2006, subject to the following conditions: 30 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 1.Full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected for the .95-acre commercial property and the housing units only as a condition of approval for SouthWest Village. No fees will be collected for the transportation component of the development. The park fees shall be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. 2.The preliminary plat must be revised to include a 25-foot wide drainage and utility easement over the sanitary sewer and watermain along Highway 101, south of the SouthWest Station entrance, and a 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement over the storm sewer in the northern portion of the property. 3.A catch basin must be installed at the ingress at Highway 101 and the storm sewer adjusted accordingly. 4.The developer must submit written confirmation with the final plat application indicating that the MNDOT pond located in the south loop of the Highway 101 ramp has been sized to accommodate runoff from this development. 5.Hydraulic calculations must be submitted with the final plat submittals and must include storm sewer inlet capacity analysis to verify that 100% of the runoff from a 10-year event can be captured. 6.The utility plan must be revised to show the following: a.Show the proposed water service to the bus station. b.Due to differential settlement, the three valves and the sanitary sewer manhole must not lie within the proposed paver-block circle at the intersection of the access road at the western private driveway intersection. The valves can be relocated outside of the paver- block circle. Sanitary sewer manhole 503 can be installed to the north of the paver-block circle and an additional manhole can be installed to the west of the paver-block circle. c.Sanitary sewer manhole 501 must not lie within the sidewalk. d.Eliminate the 90-degree bend in the watermain at the Highway 101 intersection and replace with two 45-degree bends. e.The final utility plan must show the sewer and water services to the townhome units. f.The lowest floor elevation of each unit must be shown on the utility plan. 7.MNDOT will be invoicing the City for a portion of the utility improvements for this development. The developer must pay for 100% of the invoices that the City receives for this work. 8.Each new lot is subject to the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. These fees are collected with the building permit and are based on the rates in effect at the time of building permit application. The party applying for the building permit is responsible for payment of these fees. 9.The applicant shall provide an additional connection between the residential sidewalks and the trail along the intersection of Highway 101 and Lyman Boulevard. 31 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 10.Encroachment agreements are required for the two drainage and utility easements due to the extensive landscaping and sidewalk proposed. 11.The applicant should show emergency overflow paths for storm water. 12.The Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan (Sheet C-03) should be revised to include a legend. 13.The applicant should work with the City to develop a plan that outlines storm water and snow management related to the parking deck structure for this and future phases. 14.Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area 10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.) Flatter than 10:1 21 days These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 15.Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. A rock construction entrance should be shown on the plans. 16.Curbside inlet control details are needed. Wimco-type inlet controls should be used and installed within 24 hours of installation. 17.Typical building lot controls should be shown on the plan. These controls should include perimeter controls (silt fence), rock driveways, street sweeping, inlet control and temporary mulch after final grade and prior to issuing the certificates of occupancy. 18.Water Quality and Quantity Fees: Water Quality Fees Parcel Size (ac.) Zoning Rate Per Acre Total Retail 0.955 Commercial $12,100 $11,556 Parking Ramp 6.292 Commercial $12,100 $76,133 Housing 2.769 High Density Residential $3,400 $9,415 TOTAL Qual $97,104 Water Quantity Fees Parcel Size (ac.) Zoning Rate Per Acre Total 32 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 Retail 0.955 Commercial $6,400 $6,112 Parking Ramp 6.292 Commercial $6,400 $40,269 Housing 2.769 High Density Residential $6,400 $17,722 TOTAL Quan $64,103 At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $161,207. 19.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Site Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Army Corps of Engineers, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Department of Health) and comply with their conditions of approval.” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approvethe site plan for two 8,500 square-foot retail buildings for Planning Case 06-18 for SouthWest Village as shown in plans dated received April 13, 2006, subject to the following conditions: 1.Applicant shall include overstory deciduous trees within the parking lot plantings for the retail area. 2.A revised landscape plan shall be submitted before final approval. 3.Building Official Conditions: a)The buildings are required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. b)The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. c)Accessible routes must be provided to commercial buildings, parking facilities and public transportation stops. d)All parking areas, including parking structure, must be provided with accessible parking spaces. As submitted, the retail buildings must have a minimum of 4 accessible parking spaces, one of which must have an 8-foot access aisle. e)The location of property lines will have an impact on the code requirements for the proposed buildings, including but not limited to, allowable size and fire-resistive construction. The plans as submitted do not have the information necessary to determine compliance at this time. 33 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 f)The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss property line issues as well as plan review and permit procedures. 4.The grading plan must show proposed contours, minimum two-foot contour intervals and proposed retaining walls, including the top and bottom of wall elevations. 5.Spot elevations must be shown along the east curb of the commercial area to ensure that the parking and drive aisle area meets the minimum slope requirement. 6.The sidewalks and trails shown within the public right-of-way shall be privately owned and maintained. 7.The developer must verify that the proposed eight-inch watermain will provide sufficient flow for the proposed residential, commercial and sprinkling uses on the site. 8.Fire Marshal Conditions: a)Submit proposed street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. b)A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. c)Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 501.4. d)Temporary street signs shall be installed at street intersections once construction of the new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota State Fire Code Section 501.4. e)Yellow curbing and “No Parking Fire Lane” signs will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of yellow curbing and locations of signs to be installed. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.3 and 503.4. f)Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire code Section 503.2.3. g)Regarding the residential area, two hydrants will need to be relocated. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. 34 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 h)Submit radius turn designs to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.2.4. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approvethe site plan for 33 town houses for Planning Case 06-18 for SouthWest Village as shown in plans dated received April 13, 2006, subject to the following conditions: 1.Four additional overstory, deciduous trees shall be planted parallel to the offstreet parking area within the residential district. 2.A revised landscape plan shall be submitted before final approval. 3.Building Official Conditions: a)The buildings are required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. b)The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. c)Accessible routes must be provided to commercial buildings, parking facilities and public transportation stops. d)All parking areas, including parking structure, must be provided with accessible parking spaces. As submitted, the retail buildings must have a minimum of 4 accessible parking spaces, one of which must have an 8-foot access aisle. e)The location of property lines will have an impact on the code requirements for the proposed buildings, including but not limited to, allowable size and fire-resistive construction. The plans as submitted do not have the information necessary to determine compliance at this time. f)The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss property line issues as well as plan review and permit procedures. g)The applicant shall meet with the building official as soon as possible to discuss details of building permit plans. 4.On-street parking is not permitted on the private streets. 5.The private street design must be adjusted to accommodate the turning movements of a fire truck and a moving van. 35 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 6.The grading plan must show proposed contours, minimum two-foot contour intervals and proposed retaining walls, including the top and bottom of wall elevations. 7.Note the lowest floor elevation of the proposed townhome units and include a grading detail showing hold down information. 8.The first 30 feet of each private street extending from the access drive must be minimum 3%. 9.The sidewalks and trails shown within the public right-of-way shall be privately owned and maintained. 10.The developer must verify that the proposed eight-inch watermain will provide sufficient flow for the proposed residential, commercial and sprinkling uses on the site. 11.The four monument signs along the private streets are prohibited. 12.The monument sign at the entrance to the development off of Lyman Boulevard shall not exceed 5 feet in height (including the logo). 13.Fire Marshal Conditions: a)Submit proposed street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. b)A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. c)Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 501.4. d)Temporary street signs shall be installed at street intersections once construction of the new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota State Fire Code Section 501.4. e)Yellow curbing and “No Parking Fire Lane” signs will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of yellow curbing and locations of signs to be installed. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.3 and 503.4. f)Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire code Section 503.2.3. 36 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 g)Regarding the residential area, two hydrants will need to be relocated. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. h)Submit radius turn designs to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.2.4. 14.The trellis at the intersection of Lyman Boulevard and Highway 101 shall be eliminated.” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the site plan for Phases I and II of the parking ramp and transit station for Planning Case 06-18 for SouthWest Village as shown in plans dated received April 13, 2006, subject to the following conditions: 1.Building Official Conditions: a)The buildings are required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. b)The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. c)Accessible routes must be provided to commercial buildings, parking facilities and public transportation stops. d)All parking areas, including parking structure, must be provided with accessible parking spaces. As submitted, the retail buildings must have a minimum of 4 accessible parking spaces, one of which must have an 8-foot access aisle. e)The location of property lines will have an impact on the code requirements for the proposed buildings, including but not limited to,; allowable size and fire-resistive construction. The plans as submitted do not have the information necessary to determine compliance at this time. f)The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss property line issues as well as plan review and permit procedures. 2.The applicant must show how bus-passenger vehicle conflicts will be minimized along the east-west access road. 3.Bus routes through the site must be clearly shown on the plans. 4.The grading plan must show proposed contours, minimum two-foot contour intervals and proposed retaining walls, including the top and bottom of wall elevations. 37 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 5.The grading plan must identify the proposed grades on each level of the parking ramp 6.The sidewalks and trails shown within the public right-of-way shall be privately owned and maintained. 7.The developer must verify that the proposed eight inch watermain will provide sufficient flow for the proposed residential, commercial and sprinkling uses on the site. 8.Fire Marshal Conditions: a)Submit proposed street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. b)A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. c)Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 501.4. d)Temporary street signs shall be installed at street intersections once construction of the new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota State Fire Code Section 501.4. e)Yellow curbing and “No Parking Fire Lane” signs will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of yellow curbing and locations of signs to be installed. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.3 and 503.4. f)Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire code Section 503.2.3. g)Regarding the residential area, two hydrants will need to be relocated. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. h)Submit radius turn designs to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.2.4.” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. 38