Loading...
CC Minutes 6-12-06 City Council Meeting - June 12,2006 Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? For the motion to approve staff's recommendation on 3(a), (b), (c), and (d). Resolution #2006-43: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approve the resolution accepting the bid and awarding a contract to S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc., in the amount of $4,448,083.38 for Bluff Creek Boulevard Improvements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approve the Assessment Agreement Waivers for Bluff Creek Boulevard Improvements, Project No. 06-05. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 toO. Resolution #2006-44: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approve the attached resolution establishing a no on-street parking zone along Bluff Creek Boulevard from Audubon Road to Powers Boulevard. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approve a consultant work order with Kimley-Horn and Associates in the amount of $489,600 for construction phase services for the 2005 MUSA ExpansionIBluff Creek Boulevard Improvements, City Project No. 06-05. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O. Todd Gerhardt: Paul, the final assessment hearing on this, are we going to consider this probably in December? Paul Oehme: November 13th it's scheduled. Mayor Furlong: Very good. Let's move on to the next item. SOUTHWEST VILLAGE, NORTHEAST CORNER OF REALIGNED TH 101 & LYMAN BOULEVARD, SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT: REQUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, A SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN WITH VARIANCES. Public Present: Name Address Len Simich Doug VanOrden Kyle Williams Bob Worthington Southwest Metro Transit Klingelhutz Companies LSA Design Southwest Metro Transit 19 City Council Meeting - June 12,2006 Toni Baker JimD. Patty Mullen Southwest Village, LLC Southwest Village, LLC 611 Summerfield Drive Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The subject site, Southwest Village is located at the new State Highway 101 and Lyman Boulevard. Way back on February 18th of 2004 the City of Chanhassen with Southwest Metro Transit worked to develop...a PUD for this specific site. At the time of that review there were numerous things that were asked for by the neighborhood and Southwest Metro put together and that was an analysis of the impact of the proposed park and ride. Environmental assessment looking at noise, air quality and that and then ultimately a traffic study. Through that process ultimately the Planning Commission and the City Council, back on June 23rd, 2004 recommended approval of the PUD standards, so that's what this project now has advanced and with the standards in place and proposing to get approval for tonight. So in summary what they're asking for tonight is the PUD amendment. Some of the things that they had proposed in the PUD, they wanted some flexibility. A variance to the PUD itself, and then site plan approval and subdivision approval. The PUD itself, when it was approved, contemplated housing on the front portion of the site. One of the issues that the neighbors adjacent to the site had is that they didn't want to see apartments. They wanted to see more owner occupied type housing, so as we talked about that, some of the flexibility, the changes that Southwest Metro and you'll see how that evolved. And then the commercial was actually kind of sandwiched between the park and ride and the housing itself, and as that evolved too there were some changes so those were the PUD amendments that I'll go through now. For this particular application the Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 16th to review this and they voted 4-0 to approve all three requests. So with that we'll move forward with the actual application. Again there's a couple different things that they're requesting. The first is the PUD amendments. So as I stated, a couple years ago we built that framework in place and the first request is actually to look at the commercial. What I showed you before had the commercial in the middle between the housing and the park and ride. The commercial has now moved adjacent to 101. One of the conditions that we put in the original PUD was to limit to 8,000 square feet for single use. So these separate buildings, these two buildings would have been 8,000. What they're requesting is additional 500 feet per building. Again staff recommended approval. Is recommending approval to that PUD amendment. The second amendment is for the height of the buildings. Again because this is a PUD, the amendment just would affect what we put in place from the very beginning. The design standards, that we put the 50 foot from Lyman Boulevard, which would be this street here and then also 50 feet, again because there's residential there, and then also the setback along 101 is the 50 foot. In looking at the type of housing the applicant wanted to move the residential so it had a more urban feel. Again that was.. .move the residential so it had a more urban feel. Again that was.. .and they went through their own process of selecting a builder. Again staff was included in that process as they worked through selecting a developer, looking at the product type and how that worked so what they actually wanted to do is pull that forward. While the plan says, or the request is for 10 feet, right now they're showing 15 feet from the property line. There's additional setback from the street itself. That allows some flexibility if they change the stoop and those sort of things and I'll go through that in a little bit more detail when we look at the design of the project itself. So that would be more of the changes too. Again it says 10 feet but right now they're showing 15 feet from the property line. So the houses would be 40 feet from the actual edge of 20 City Council Meeting - June 12,2006 the curb. Again the same setback they're requesting on the retail commercial to get that urban feel. Push that closer to the street. And in both instances there's heavy landscaping along that urban edge and if you look at the model, you can see how that relates to, and I'll show you that a little bit more too on the site plan. There's another request for variance on the 50 foot here in the transition. There's a little comer of this retail building that encroaches about 5 foot. Again staff is recommending approval of the variance on that little piece that affects it. The third amendment would be for signs. If you look at the sign location on the project, there's a sign here. It might be a little harder to see. Can you zoom in just on the sign portion? Thank you. There is signs that they proposed internally. Staff had felt that that might be a little excessive. They will be assigned, queuing as you come in. This will be the main entrance from residential. That's off of Lyman Boulevard, and then there's two large signs. When I say large I mean as far as length. Then again these both meet the sign ordinance. It's just a request for an additional POO which we didn't have the project in front of us. There'll be two signs identifying those two entrances of Southwest Village. Again staff would recommend a second... So again the POO ordinance, you've got the one sign so the request is to get two. Then the other request is the wall signs. There is some on the commercial itself. The dimensional letters being backlit. And they're also, for the retail. On the retail itself, we gave them an opportunity to put the banners in place. The other thing, because the retail moved from the internal portions, they want more visibility, a lot more signage. The concern that we had was whether it was facing the residential side so the retail will be along both sides. If you look on the site plan, there's access to both sides. You can come in from the back from the park and ride, so there'll be signage allowed there. And then also signage allowed on this, and that's always proportional to the wall area that's used, so if you've got two tenants, or one tenant and two spaces, that sign area be proportional to that facia that they, so again while it's consistent with the sign ordinance, it needs to be amended in the POO because that's the scrip that they're following. So again staff does support that. Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry for the interruption. This is along 101? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: And then also if you'd allow for the projecting signs which we hadn't anticipated before. Mayor Furlong: On the internal street? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Correct. Well, actually.. .on the commercial too. So if you look on, for example, I don't know if you can see. Mayor Furlong: We can't see, but those protruding sides would be on either side of the building? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. That's an option. Correct. That's for the commercial portion of it. Okay. So with that, I'm on page 10. I did provide findings for all the POO amendments. We 21 City Council Meeting - June 12,2006 went through that. So those would be the summary of the PUD amendments. Then also for the variance again, the variance strictly, now this is separate from the PUD amendment. It'd be for the setbacks from the street. The PUD says 50 foot so this would be amendment just from that PUD section. That says you have to have a minimum of 50 feet so this would be a little bit different. So this would be stricter variance. Under the PUD amendment, these are the variances. Again looking at the type of product that they want to put on. It'd be a more urban feel on that pulling the buildings forward. Giving that street presence, and then to pull the commercial forward too instead of sign age in that between, you get that visibility. They wanted that urban feel to walk up that transit oriented, pedestrian friendly feel. So with that again, the variance on the 50 foot on this. The City and Southwest Metro preserved those trees along the eastern edge of that to provide that buffer. So we are replacing a significant amount of those trees. But it would just be these two sides then would be the request. So then the next action that they're requesting is the actual subdivision itself. So the situation of 35 lots. So this is Lyman Boulevard. This would be the buffer area. 101. Lyman. So this provides the mechanism to create the different uses on there. The two retail spaces. The 35 lots and then the park and ride itself, so in the staff report again on page 13, there's the breakdown of the different lots. The lot areas and then again the findings of the subdivi~ion. Again staff is recommending approval of that. Any questions on the subdivision portion of that? Okay. And then finally, it's the site plan request and I'll go through the three different uses. First would be the bus station itself. And this is very similar to what was proposed originally when we talked about materials. In front of you here, some of the materials from the other parts. The Southwest Metro station itself. Highly articulated building. One of the changes that did occur, in order to, we had a 25 foot high, and I think I missed that in one of my variances but 25 foot high. We went up to the 35 foot height on the back of the building. Originally, we made that change to the grading on that in order to accommodate that they'd have to go lower with that lower level parking which would make it all underground. For the safety reason they felt it better to raise the building, as did staff. And in looking at the site plan, the townhouse units on the front looking from Lyman across would block your view so you will not see across from the Lyman side, you will not see the park and ride ramp, so the units in front are tall enough to block that view. If that makes sense. So with that, the building itself, the park and ride again, brick and smooth face block. There's a stairwell you can see on here that's glass, and I'll show the plan of that injust a minute. And then trellises are a theme throughout the entire site. Again that shows up really well on the model itself. So if there's any questions about the first phase. It's the 500 stalls ultimately. They're going to be one story, which maybe I can show this a little bit so if you can zoom in a little. This would be Phase I. Phase II is the second story. So they're adding, going from 530 to the 800 stalls, so this would be Phase I and then the second story... so the footings would be built in at the beginning. Large enough to accommodate the second story. I think the.. .so we wanted to disclose to the neighbors the ultimate height... the 35 foot in that back comer. Mayor Furlong: And which back comer is that? South? Kate Aanenson: Facing that slip off lane. Mayor Furlong: So northeast? Northwest? 22 City Council Meeting - June 12,2006 Kate Aanenson: Northwest. Northwest corner is the highest. And the other thing I wanted to point out, there are some signage on here. This would be typical of what they have at their other transit hub. The Southwest logo. I didn't point out there.. .and then this is the internal location of a driveway. So access to the site, now this was determined when we did the original PUD, coming through this, we've got the, and then this would be the main entrance so as you see that Southwest logo over the top of that, the entrance to the park and ride. Some of the things the Planning Commission was just talking to make sure that people are queued property, and I think having that Southwest Metro over the top of that sign, over this entrance, that makes a lot of sense and that's back to this one that says Southwest Metro. Any questions on the park and ride itself? The site plan. Mayor Furlong: Is that, I assume it's an elevator tower, that highest point to the northwest. Is that going to be built initially regardless of whether they go with one or two ramps? Or would that be increased with the addition of the second ramp? Kate Aanenson: It'd be increased. So here's the tempered glass look... And that's one of the sight lines. The next site plan, that'd be the retail... that I just briefly spoke about. The retail space... These would be the two buildings. Parking would be accommodated in the parking ramp, and then.. .immediately behind it there is some parking and they also will provide parking in the ramp. So for that again same materials as the park and ride. The brick. The trellis, wood trellises. . . picture of that. The one feature again that this has, there is a plaza between the two buildings with a fountain. Again that's kind of an urban space and kind of a landscaping around there. If you look at the site plan, that's certainly accomplished and that was one of the things that we looked for in the design. Had some of those outdoor seating opportunities or benches or something like that between.. .shop or catch a bus or the like. So again that was the only change really from the, well two changes from the original PUD. One was the location. Creating that urban feel. Putting along 101 and then adding the 500 feet for each building. Again architecturally all brick matching the Southwest Station itself. So other questions on that part of it? Mayor Furlong: Quick question with the addition of 500 feet, we're not changing, were there limitation on the maximum footage for a single user? Single tenant? Kate Aanenson: No. No. Mayor Furlong: There was no limitation there? So you could have one tenant at 8,500? Kate Aanenson: No, that's kind of what we put in originally. Is that...concern that based on the parking, that we would have that kind of a single user on the 8,000, 8,500. Mayor Furlong: Were we okay with that or not? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Yes, we were okay with that. If they put one single tenant. There's office and retail mix too, so it could be a single office user... So we were okay with having one single tenant in there. 23 City Council Meeting - June 12,2006 Mayor Furlong: What was the restriction that we put? There was a limitation. Kate Aanenson: 800. Mayor Furlong: On the west side? For the Sand Company. Kate Aanenson: Correct. I think that was 800. That's kind of typical. That's where that number came from. It's pretty standard what we've done in some of those neighborhood PUD's. Again recognizing that this probably is a little bit maybe bigger draw for the neighborhood but so. It's kind of hard to.. . open space between the two buildings here. That green space... Again we went through the architecture. Parking and all that too. And then the final, that location or site plan that's before you then would be for the townhouses. There's one sixplex. Three fiveplexes and three fourplexes. Again this is where they spent some time getting proposals from different developers and what type of product and again responding to what the neighbors wanted and that would be something not quite as vertical, which would be maybe more condo or townhouse, but certainly based on the zoning, this is one unique zoning we have in the city that is a mixed use, which allows commercial and residential and at a higher density than what was proposed on the site. So driving that.. .1'11 show you the product itself. There's some colored lines on that. Let me just back up and say, the first phase would obviously be the park and ride itself and the commercial, and once they get that done, the staging would be to move over to the townhouses itself.. . Planning Commission and that's really the mobilization and able to get on and off this site. Because this is just one of the buildings, and I'll show you a color. Highly articulated. Some of you know the stone. The shed roof over every other garage door. The window boxes under the back. And then one of the changes that we did ask them to make was on the backs of the units. To actually look at providing green space on the back. One of the concerns that the Planning Commission had was, gathering spots. Green space. They did provide some additional green space on the back. With trees on the backs of all those parking areas to address that request. And I'll go through the color rendering itself. So this would be the entrance coming off of Lyman. This is that tree preservation area. So that would be the main entrance and that's the sign we talked about.. .longer one that would be off of 10 1. So this would be coming off of 101. There's the two longer signs for park and ride and the builders and that's what... was saying from the Lyman side. Now you're looking up from the Lyman side you're really, the view of it is blocked by the townhouses themselves to see that parking ramp. The height of it. This would be the streetscape. This would be facing Lyman Boulevard. What you're not seeing here is the actual sidewalk that would connect to here. To this sidewalk here. Councilman Peterson: So you're about how many feet from. Kate Aanenson: Right now this is about 15 feet, if you added something else, what they're requesting is the 10 here. So you have 15 feet to the sidewalk and then 40 feet to the edge of the curb. And this is the additional landscaping that they put on the back of the garage, is that area we're showing you that and...landscaping, kind of helps to heat island and the like so that was a request to the south and the back that the Planning Commission had. So with that, that's again the proposed, the variance, the site plan and the plat. So again there's findings for each of those. The subdivision, the variances, the PUD and that and with that we are recommending approval 24 City Council Meeting - June 12,2006 and that approval starts on page 33 of the staff report. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mayor Furlong: Questions for staff. Kate, what's on the west side of 101? Is that the Sand's Company? Kate Aanenson: They're just a little bit north of that. This has actually been bought by the Shelard Group. They're looking at, that was given, really the underlying. They're pretty similar zones, as we just spoke about. Some apartment, there was an apartment building approved when Sand came in. Shelard is probably going to come in and ask for a couple tweaks on their PUD too. Councilman Lundquist: So you're not worried about having retail signage facing west and that building? Kate Aanenson: No, because more than likely, they have, we know one of the uses that wants to go in there is a gas station. And so that works in this area here. And that's why we looked at the retail oriented over here. We didn't see that as a problem. Again we wanted to, and as we move towards. Councilman Lundquist: You don't want the Lake Susan people looking, staring at a Mattress Factory sign? Kate Aanenson: Correct. That's an issue. We just amended that and the last Planning Commission we talked about LED intensity, but over here where we're adjacent to the neighbors, you can't really see that. This portion over here. That's where we looked at more of an office use as we get to those neighbors, something that's less intense, and that does need a certain kind of signage... Councilman Lundquist: And then the same on the south side of Lyman. Kate Aanenson: Well that was approved for a townhouse, twin home project. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Yep. It hasn't been. Councilman Lundquist: No, right over here... Yeah, directly south of the apartments. Is that the comer of Springfield? Mayor Furlong: Directly south of this site? Is it the Springfield neighborhood? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Yes. Yeah, and this would be the Springfield neighborhood and then over here you approved, which is, yeah we did that comp plan amendment. Because we're upgrading this intersection and we did approve a twinhome project. Again that was one of the, while we 25 City Council Meeting - June 12,2006 put the residential here, we looked at, you know we told the other group that we wanted to see something office. Not quite as intense to make that transition. Councilwoman Tjomhom: And where is the gas station? Kate Aanenson: Up in this area. That was when we originally did the PUD, at the interchange, I can actually show you better on the original. Sorry. The original site location. If you look at this piece right here. This is where you recently approved the Sand project. The Gateway. That was called Gateway, and then this piece right here is also owned by the same company. They looked at an apartment here. This project is contingent upon getting 101 moved. They can't go forward until the old 101 is vacated so they're anticipating a 2007 date. And there is utilities, then they need the road to move, and then when we put that, we did anticipate a gas station up in this intersection. Working with that and then office and some other smaller retails, similar to what would be across the street. And really those zoning districts were kind of figured the same way, and like I said, they'll probably come in and want a few modifications. So one thing we... was the fast food drive in. Some of those sort of things. That we don't normally have in the neighborhood business district. Councilwoman Tjomhom: So besides the Southwest station retail center, that's probably the only retail centers that will be out there? Kate Aanenson: No, they looked at a strip center here too. Councilwoman Tjomhom: By Sands, yeah. Kate Aanenson: Yep. Yeah, they looked, yeah. Who's now with Shelard Group. They have a retail center. A gas station and then probably some office. Councilman Lundquist: Back on, are you concerned then Kate about the, the variance on the townhouses being that they're that close to Springfield and that residential piece? Kate Aanenson: You know they had a neighborhood meeting with them. We both have been working closely with the neighborhood and because they, really what drove this layout is the product success that they had, and looking to the designs. They've actually had someone from the neighborhood working through their design issues themselves, so I think they felt comfortable with it, and we felt comfortable, because really it's 40 feet back from the street, and again if you look at the landscape plan, it's heavily landscaped along that street too so, I think it should work. Again it'd different than what we've seen on a collector street. While it's a collector street, it doesn't quite function on that. Once you get kind of around the comer, obviously we'll have more traffic once they bring in the lakeside development. You know we'll have more some trips going that way but it doesn't have the same impact of wanting to go the other way. Like going to the west. About the same number of trips. And I think too we really tried, you know if you look here, you push that one building back. Here's.. . additional space because this is a busy comer and I think they're working hard to put those buffers on all four comers. 26 City Council Meeting - June 12,2006 Mayor Furlong: Couple follow up questions to Councilman Lundquist on the signs along the retail. Illumination. Do we have any limitation on the hours of operations for any illuminated signs? Kate Aanenson: That's a good question. That's something we just looked at at the Planning Commission which you'll be seeing at your next council meeting. We just went through and talked about illumination and what we're going to require for specs. We actually even put that in, the LED and we did, what you approved tonight on the Chapel Hill request, that they actually shut it off at a certain time, so I think that's something you'll be seeing... Mayor Furlong: .. .I'm not necessarily proposing but obviously it's something that we're looking at. If they change, the PUD terms don't over ride regular ordinances and something like that, is that correct? Right now to use an example, and again not advocating but asking the question. If there's no ordinance with regard to hours of operations for an illuminated sign in the city, and we change that, is that going to cover everyone within the city regardless of whether they build as part of the PUD or build just a regular ordinance zoning? Roger Knutson: That's true unless for example the PUD had specific provisions and if it says you can have illuminated signs, say 24 hours a day and that specifically was called out on the PUD, and that specifically would control over more general provisions but that'd be unusual to see. Mayor Furlong: So if a PUD is silent on an issue, then the ordinance is. Roger Knutson: The ordinance would apply. Mayor Furlong: So are we silent on this with regards to hours of operation on signage? Kate Aanenson: Yes, and that does apply city wide. I think what we're trying to look at is the intensity. I think setting aside that you're going to have this, they want it well lit for safety purposes. Obviously we don't want to over light it so we're a nuisance to the neighborhood, so it's finding that balancing but I think that if you look at lighting the signs, I don't think that'd be the worst part, but again we are looking at that and have made recommendations to you regarding intensity and brightness of sign. Mayor Furlong: And I think that's, from a temporary basis here, until this development on the west side, this will be visible to the neighborhood to the northwest. Chanhassen Hills. Kate Aanenson: That is correct. Mayor Furlong: And so, safety is one thing. We've got some pictures of some lighting units that are not down lit units. They're going to be for the street lamps. But so a combination with non- down lit street lamps plus storm... Kate Aanenson: Those pictures may not show it clearly but they are capped and they will be down lit. I'm not sure if that clearly... 27 City Council Meeting - June 12, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Okay, I'm looking at the one on page 20. Kate Aanenson: I did clarify that today with Sharmeen, and they are downcast. Mayor Furlong: Okay, all the lights will be down lit then? Kate Aanenson: Correct, and that is a city requirement. All signs. I mean all lights. I'm glad you brought that up but that, I meant to clarify that but they will all be down lit so. Mayor Furlong: So lighting you can control in terms of directing the lights for safety purposes. Kate Aanenson: Correct. You know we had the same issue when Villages on the Pond, we had a lot of street lighting and not a lot of buildings and there was a lot of, so we kind of worked to identify those areas that we needed to keep well lit intersections, that we actually reduced some of the other lighting until we got the buildings in place. And I think we can work with them too to make sure that, since there isn't that buffer, that we can work on that. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Okay, so that, okay. Just a follow up question I had with regard to the change, the variance request and the change in setback. Specifically outlined I think on 101 it's not as bad and most of that's retail. I guess the challenge I'm still having when you're allowing a 10 foot setback, that's 10 feet to the property line, and granted there is some grass inbetween the property line and the trail and then the trail to the curb but it's still 10 feet off the right-of- way, which you know most homes when they're built, if they're not on a collector, if I'm not mistaken is 30 feet from the right-of-way, which might be 45 feet from the curb but still it's 30 feet. If this was a different type of building, such as an apartment building or something like that with a limited access, where that access was internal and to the development, it might be a lot easier to do that. I'm concerned about somebody, whether it's Todd or anyone, coming out off Lyman and being that close to cars and trails. So I guess my questions, do we ask at all, or can we ask what options might be to increase that? Kate Aanenson: Oh absolutely it's a PUD and I think, that was kind of the challenge that the Planning Commission spent some time on too, besides the green space. Certainly the one you know there's guest parking and one thing that we as staff always look at, is we don't want to do something that would already prejudice a project to be inferior. So reducing the parking, maybe you could take a few parking spaces out. I'm not sure that's going to be able to push any of the product back. They are asking for the 10. I'm not sure...they say they're not going to put a stoop on these and go with the 15 so that.. .15 now instead of 40.. .45. Mayor Furlong: And that's still, that would be a normal house on a normal city street or cul-de- sac which is different than Lyman. Kate Aanenson: Sure, sure. And I'll let them address some of those challenges. We went through that too and again, they're trying to address through their working with the neighbors to get a product that they wanted, and because you have to park behind, that's some ofthe challenges too but they didn't want to look at garages cape so again. 28 City Council Meeting - June 12,2006 Mayor Furlong: I don't want to get into counts. There's numerous quality features that have been built into the design and layout and such like that. This was the one, and unfortunately we spent our time with the ones that catch our eye, and this is the one that really caught my eye so 1... Kate Aanenson: No, the Planning Commission... Mayor Furlong: I know they did. Any other questions for staff at this point? There may be some others after we hear from the applicant. Anything at this point? Councilman Peterson, you're good right now? Great. Applicant's here I see. Any comments or things that you'd like to address with council? Len Simich: Mayor, members of council. My name is Len Simich. Executive Director of Southwest Metro Transit. I think Kate did a wonderful job of providing a summary of the overall plan that we'd like to implement. To your comments, yes we did work real closely with the neighborhood. Part of the thing that they wanted was some architectural interest and a number of things that we looked at tried to, in terms of the density. It was approved at 16 units an acre. We brought that down to 11, so this is kind of what we were trying to do to maximize the site. Give it a lot of interest and hence the setback. I will say, you know we looked at it primarily with the concern, especially in a suburban area, and this is kind of an urban type product, but we feel pretty comfortable at what's been proposed. I'd be happy to answer any questions on the plan that you may have. There's members of our team here. From the retail. From the housing. The landscaping and so forth so. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any questions? Councilman Lundquist: So Len, what is the trade-off, if you want to call it that, to pushing that, pushing those units back further away from the road and increasing the setback? What do you have to give up to make that happen? Len Simich: I think the most logical is you're going to give up units. Because you have to keep a level of parking, both for the residents as well as the guests so the trade off in a sense would be the number of units. We're kind of at the low land right now where we're talking 33 units on this site. That was one of the challenges when we went out to try to find a developer. A lot of the bigger developers, it just wasn't a big enough site. They have that point of no return so to speak and dropping down some units may cause them some issues with the developer. Mayor Furlong: Is there any flexibility? We've got some good parking spaces there for guests, which you mentioned, which we deal with with other developments. Other developments don't have a big parking ramp right there. I mean is there any possibility to leverage some of the parking there so that you don't have to lose units but you could still increase that setback? Or maybe not units. It could be either, hopefully none. Maybe singular. I mean is that something you can look at? 29 City Council Meeting - June 12,2006 Len Simich: We will definitely look at it. I will say, with housing, the difference between housing and whether it's a retail or office complex with our use, transit use, is my customers are coming in at 5:00 in the morning, and if a guest is utilizing those stalls, and it's all on a weekend, guess who's in those stalls when my customers start coming in so it does, it's not the perfect shared use as it would be with the retail or office. I won't say it's impossible because it has been done in other areas, but it's just not the perfect match. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions at this point? Councilman Peterson: Len, why don't we hold up the rendering of the actual model, just to get some sense. Kate Aanenson: I'm glad you asked him to hold it up. Councilman Lundquist: Did you build that Craig? Councilman Peterson: No I didn't. I like it though. Len Simich: I'd like to ask our architect Kyle Williams to come up and address the overall site plan. Kyle Williams: Did you have some specific questions? Councilman Peterson: Well I think one thing I wanted to just kind of visualize is look at Lyman. Actually if you can switch it this way so that the rest of the council people can see Lyman Kyle Williams: This is Lyman and 101 is here. So as Craig suggested, and as Kate identified there's landscaping on this edge. Southwest has planted landscaping along the edge from neighbors as part of the original, I guess it was a year or so ago. Part of that discussion of the visual buffer so two issues. One was the visual buffer and two was, as you suggested Mr. Mayor, the safety edge along Lyman. The visual buffer I think was well addressed by the previous plantings along Lyman on the south side and proposed plantings along the northerly side. The issue of safety is well taken. I might ask the developer to discuss their expectations of the people I expect here and the type of people they expect to live here and any concerns they have because that will be a concern of their's as well. But we think that given there are stoops. There are lots too in trail, and people are walking along the trails. Kids are going to be on the trail. Bikes are going to be on the trail. If it's safe for those people, I would hope it would be safe for the residents as well, so we didn't have a significant concern about the proximity of the housing to the roadway because kids on a bike are going to go and they're going to be in, I don't want to say harms way but they're going to be in the public realm even if they're 10 more feet or 20 more feet back from the actual road. So it wasn't a concern of our's as we worked with the developer to develop the entire site. There are areas within the property where little kids can go. ...parks in areas. They can certainly run about in here but there are areas where small kids can certainly be safer. And there is access on both sides. The garage doors, like for this unit would say he's on the north side. So to go out and barbeque and have space not on the street is certainly possible in the units. 30 City Council Meeting - June 12,2006 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. Any follow up questions then for staff? Ms. Aanenson, on the west side, and then this goes back to the size of the user. Why on this side of 101 do we feel comfortable that there's no limitation on the user for the retail side now? And on the other side we want to put that 800 square foot limitation? Kate Aanenson: Well, again the challenge is I think that you've given me too is to try to find those opportunities where we can put additional square footage and fit into the neighborhood where it's appropriate. Where we had it put between the park and ride and the housing, less visibility I think. It probably would be limited the uses you've got in there because of the visibility and how to find to get in there, and because there wasn't the opportunity to provide, there wasn't enough square footage to make that work and still create that common space inbetween. We felt it was appropriate to maximize that and if it puts an extra 500 feet in there, it seemed to work. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, and I'm not talking about the extra 500 feet. I'm talking about limitation on square footage per user. There's none on this development, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: And we have some across the street on 101. On the west side of 101. On the Sand Company. Or am I mistaken? Kate Aanenson: Yes, it's my understanding we, I wrote the Sand Company one and this is very, very similar. But they will probably come back and I know in meeting with the Shelard Group, they'll probably ask for a couple tweaks on their's too. It wouldn't be the same one for the similar use. The reason we did that is sometimes people try to go under the radar screen and get a use, a square footage approved and then bring in a single tenant whereas our goal is to provide those uses that go with the neighborhood and working with Southwest Metro has worked with the neighborhood. What sort of things would you like to see, and sometimes putting in a single tenant, while we put that in there is, even if you have two 800 buildings, if they were attached, you might get one single tenant or something less desirable. Furniture showroom. A large, large, that sort, or different type of use. What we really want is. Mayor Furlong: But that could go in here? Kate Aanenson: No because we've got two 800's you know. I guess. Mayor Furlong: 8,000 right? Kate Aanenson: 8,000, sorry. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: So, in looking at that we've always tried to put that square footage cap in to take that variety, to fill those needs...neighborhood so that's why we put that in place. And we 31 City Council Meeting - June 12, 2006 see it pretty typical in most of the PUD's that we've done. Even on Villages on the Pond, we put that in there because you have some of the buildings on the first floor, for the more retail space, that could be one large single user. Again the intent is that you're providing a service to those people that live in Presbyterian Homes and if you had one single user, that might draw outside the area and still provide as we put in our city code, those uses that meet the daily needs. Mayor Furlong: Wouldn't it make sense to do the similar thing here then or not? I'm curious why not do it here? Kate Aanenson: You know if they're comfortable with it, we can live with that. I guess what we've normally capped it at is around 8,000, but if they're comfortable with that, that's fine. Councilman Lundquist: .. .8,000 we're worried about how much per user, right? Kate Aanenson: Correct. That's what I'm hearing. Mayor Furlong: No, yeah I'm not, the 8,000 or the 8,500, that's not the issue. What I understand what on the west side we limited it to 800 per user. And maybe I've got my numbers wrong. I'm just going.. .no limitation on per user and I'm just, and maybe that's okay. I'mjust trying to understand why. Kate Aanenson: It's 8,000. Mayor Furlong: On the west side it's 8,000? Kate Aanenson: I'm sorry, they're both 8,000. Yeah. Mayor Furlong: Okay, I heard... Kate Aanenson: I'm sorry, that was a slip of the tongue. Mayor Furlong: So reverse the tape.. .let's move. If they're both the same, that's fine. I heard 800... Okay, no. Then if they are the same on both sides, then that's great. That's great. Alright. Any other questions that are pertinent to the discussion? Alright, if there are no other questions, at this point let's open it up for council discussion. We have a number of issues here. There will be multiple motions, if everything goes forward. We can handle them as one but let's start with discussion on the overall project and then if we want to go down under any of the particular items, we can do that too. Who'd like to start? Councilman Lundquist: I think overall happy with the project. We've got kind of a model to look at if you will on the Eden Prairie station, which I think is well done. Obviously this one is a smaller version than that. I would like to see a larger setback on that Lyman side but I'm encouraged that Southwest and the developer took the time to meet with the neighborhood and you know the e-mail box hasn't been inundated so that must mean that that was a successful endeavor and so I guess that makes me feel good enough about it to not make that a deal breaker. You know we go through enough of these that it's never perfect so I'm not going to not fall on 32 City Council Meeting - June 12,2006 my...so overall I think it's well done and in a great spot. It will make a great addition, additional park and ride and.. .success that we've had with the other ones we have, that it's just in a great spot and look forward to seeing that as well so, I'm overall in favor of moving forward. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I agree with Councilman Lundquist. I'm in favor of moving forward. I think the plans are well.. . and a good development was proposed and.. .doing that I think and also Southwest had to be a good neighbor to the neighborhoods around it. I'm hoping that it will be a good relationship that will continue... blend together and make use of each other. My only concern is with Lyman and the front doors, but there is a back door.. . small children, I'm sure most parents are responsible and if they have small children, you probably wouldn't want to live there anyway so. I think about bikes and kids and trails and my child rides on 101, that trail every day and that's in pretty close proximity to cars and you know I think people are pretty responsible so I think it will be alright. It will work out so I just welcome Southwest to Chanhassen. I think it will be something that our community doesn't have. Asset to our community and I think we're all going to really enjoy. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Peterson. Councilman Peterson: I agree, and just to clarify. We already are in Chanhassen so. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well. Councilman Peterson: Not with a ramp but soon to have two hopefully. You know I've been picking and prodding on this project for a number of months now with my role as a commissioners, and to the point of the neighborhoods and the neighborhood, particularly Springfield working with Southwest Metro and development team. We started a year and a half ago, two years ago with the first meeting and there was probably 60 or 70 people there. Mostly protesting just the idea of it, so that journey has been one that has been with I think misunderstanding and I think through a period of many discussions and evolutions, and with the help of the residents, I think one Patty Mullen is here. She is representing the neighborhood and has done a fine job representing them and it has been a wonderful turn. The project itself I think that, is going to be a nice asset and if you drive by the other facility, I think you can certainly hold the standards up as being the same, and certainly the development team has made that commitment to meet that standard and hold that standard high and we'll certainly do that. With regard to the setback, would I prefer having a larger setback? Yeah, but it's also a change. I mean we're going with an urban feel, and that, would I prefer that urban feel being downtown? Yeah, but you know you can't always have everything you want and I think that it is going to be a change but I think it's an interesting change. Part of what we talked about before is we want new stuff to come in and this is different. So hopefully it's a good different and I think that I believe that it will be a good different. So again I applaud what Len and his development team and everybody who's participating has done and I'm proud to move ahead with it. Mayor Furlong: Thank you and Councilman Peterson, I appreciate your summarizing the story of this development, which did start with a large turn out from a number of residents that, the 33 City Council Meeting - June 12,2006 first. After that first meeting, back in concept plan, I received phone calls, e-mails and just talking to people that were at the meeting. They said this thing isn't going forward. No chance. And through Mr. Simich and others with our staff, Sharmeen AI-Jaff and others, after a few meetings not only did it go forward but when it went to the Planning Commission, there were no objections, and again here this evening it's coming forward. It just took Kate, I'm not sure how long. Probably one of your longest presentations to the council for a single project because of the complexity of the project. I think to everyone's credit, if the main issue that we're talking about is a setback, we've done a pretty dam good job. Now I do have reservations still, not so much from the people that might use the trail, or any trails. Generally those are going to be teenagers or pre-teens. My concern is the toddler walking out the door without the parent knowing about it, and those things do happen. And that is my concern. And I guess I would challenge the developer to take a look at if they're right now at 15 feet, what else could they do and are there some options that could be done to try to increase that setback. We're still going to have the same feel if it's another 5 or 10 feet and if that can be done, I think from a safety standpoint we should do it. So as a request I would ask to do that. Is that worth delaying it at this point? Probably not, but it certainly would be something if it's something that the developer would consider, if Southwest Metro Transit would consider doing and looking at that. Challenging them and seeing how that could be done. Working with staff. If it can be done, do it. But again, I like what's being done with the retail. Now that I understand it better. Kate Aanenson: Can Ijust make one point of clarification, as long as we're on that topic, really quick. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: The original proposal had a 1,600 square foot retail center. Mayor Furlong: A single one? Kate Aanenson: Correct. And that's where the 8,000, no single use 8,000, so we could get one tenant in there. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Now, if you look on page 33 of the staff report. Mayor Furlong: And that's fine. Kate Aanenson: And then they can be one user but they still, it follows the original premise which just said it was one building... Mayor Furlong: And I think that's fair because the one thing we need to look at is, I mean this is, part of this developer is being part of the city of Southwest Metro Transit along with Eden Prairie and along with Chaska, and if we were providing restrictions on property owners across the street, I wanted to make sure that they were the same and I'm comfortable now that they are. And so I think this layout I think is an improvement over the concept plan in terms of how it's 34 City Council Meeting - June 12,2006 laid out and where the buildings are aligned. I think it will be an asset clearly and you know I'm looking forward to moving forward with this project. The articulation and the look of the buildings and the ramp is the types of looks that we've been looking for, to Councilman Peterson's point and I think when we have developers come in here and building these types of townhouses, it's going to be something that we can point to and when other developers come to town and they're looking at their developments and saying, you know if we can do it here, we can do it there too. So, overall I'm comfortable going forward and with my request noted because I think it's an issue that we all looked at but I don't think it should stop everything from moving forward at this point, with the commitment that they'll look at it and see what can be done. And if something can be done, let's do it. Any other comments or discussion? If not, motion starts on page 34 of the staff packet. 363 of the electronic. There are multiple motions here for a planned unit development amendment. Staff includes the changes, the variances, the subdivision and the site plan I believe. Is that correct? Those four. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Do we need those separate for any particular reason? Roger Knutson: No Mayor you don't. You should also concurrently adopt the findings. Mayor Furlong: Some day I'm going to get that. Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor I'd move that we approve the planned unit development amendment, the variance, the subdivision and site plan retail, site plan residential, the site plan parking ramp, subject to the findings of fact with particular note to the Mayor's comment about trying to move the setbacks back as a physical note. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Or request for clarification. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approves the Planned Unit Development amendment for SouthWest Village clarifying setbacks, signage, and retail building size as follows: 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 35 City Council Meeting - June 12,2006 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 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 . neighborhood scale commercial up to 8,500 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 Lyman Boulevard 10 feet Highway 101 20 feet Highway 212 excluding transit shelters and ramps 20 feet Easterly Proiect Property Line 100 Feet 36 City Council Meeting - June 12,2006 Internal Proiect property lines o 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 Maximum Park-and-Ride Ramp excluding the elevator shaft 35 feet or 3 stories, and stair well whichever is less 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 HV AC 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. 37 City Council Meeting - June 12,2006 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 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. 38 City Council Meeting - June 12,2006 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. 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. 1. 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. Proiect Identification Sign: 39 City Council Meeting - June 12,2006 Two project identification signs shall be permitted for the development at the entrance off of Highway 10 1. The total area of both 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: 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 40 City Council Meeting - June 12,2006 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. 1. 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 Directorv 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 41 City Council Meeting - June 12,2006 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. 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 42 City Council Meeting - June 12,2006 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. -.;-.v- 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). CeaIDI Pod: Serioo Foot Model CP 12111-GVB1t 121'lH1 10 JD<Il a.. . AmidU8 StrefIt r.atnnll IDe. 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. Ft&un 3'. 0.."- U&bdD& UDil n.Ip 41 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. 1. Residential Parking shall comply with city code requirements." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve variance request #06-18 to allow a 10-foot setback from Lyman Boulevard, a 20- foot setback from Highway 101, and a 4S-foot setback from Highway 212, as shown in 43 City Council Meeting - June 12,2006 plans dated received April 13, 2006". All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve the preliminary plat for Planning Case 06-18 for SouthWest Village as shown in plans dated received April 13, 2006, subject to the following conditions: 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 ofthe 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 10 1 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 lO-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 10 1 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 44 City Council Meeting - June 12,2006 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. 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 Steeper than 3:1 10:1 to 3:1 Flatter than 10: 1 Time 7 days 14 days 21 days (Maximum time an area can remain open when the area is not actively being worked.) 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 45 City Council Meeting - June 12,2006 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 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 IT 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 O. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve the 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. 46 City Council Meeting - June 12,2006 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. 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 lO-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. 47 City Council Meeting - June 12,2006 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." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve the 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. 48 City Council Meeting - June 12,2006 5. The private street design must be adjusted to accommodate the turning movements of a fire truck and a moving van. 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 lO-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. 49 City Council Meeting - June 12,2006 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. 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 O. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that 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. 50 City Council Meeting - June 12,2006 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. 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 lO-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 O. 51