Loading...
CC Minutes 8-8-05 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Councilman Lundquist: Then the others have been stated already. I would propose at this point that I would be willing to support the 30 foot building height for Lots 5 and 6. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Lundquist: Whereas the rest would be left as in the design standards. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Labatt. Any specific direction or information requested of staff? Councilman Labatt: No, you guys hit them all. I support the 30 foot on…5 and 6 and that includes the parapet. And everything else was hit so. Mayor Furlong: Yeah. The only other thing was just working with the developer to evaluate the, with the lowering of the building on Lot 1. What is the effect of traffic within there and we may lose some opportunity if we have a right-in/right-out there and a public street, but we might pick up on the, anything to save trees on the east side we might lose because we have to put a public street in there so that’s, but what the effects would be in terms of traffic flow internally if there are opportunities there on where the balancing points are. Is the other issue. Okay, anything else? If not, with that direction to staff is there a motion to table. Councilman Lundquist: I move that we table item A, B and C. Councilman Labatt: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to table the request for rezoning of property from Agricultural Estate (A2) to Planned Unit Development (PUD), Preliminary Plat and Wetland Alteration Permit on property located on the northwest corner of Lyman Boulevard and Galpin Boulevard, Chanhassen West Business Park, Planning Case 05-23. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. (The City Council took a short recess at this point in the meeting.) REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM A2 TO PUD-R; SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES OF APPROXIMATELY 91 ACRES INTO 84 LOTS, 3 OUTLOTS AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY; SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 459 TOWNHOUSE UNITS; WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ALTERATION OF THE FLOOD PLAIN; AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT LOCATED EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD, SOUTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD, AND NORTH OF PIONEER TRAIL, LIBERTY ON BLUFF CREEK. APPLICANT TOWN AND COUNTRY HOMES, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-11. 48 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Public Present: Name Address Ed Hasek Westwood Professional Services Larry Martin 2707 Spy Glass, Chaska Jeff Fox 5270 Howard Point Road, Excelsior Rick Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard Mary S. Ranum Fredrickson & Byron Kevin M. Clark Town & Country Homes Dean Held 2230 Stone Creek Lane East Kate Aanenson: Thank you. I’m going to use the computer in order to put the project on why I think it would be crisper to follow along. We’ve got a lot of different slides here. Again as you indicated this is Liberty on the Bluff Creek. There are several actions. I’ll just continue here looking at the site plan. There are several actions being proposed with this approval project tonight. Okay, there are several actions tonight before you. One is the rezoning from PUD. From A2, excuse me, to PUD Residential. This also includes the subdivision. There are no variances. It was noticed with a variance but there are no variances. Site plan review. Wetland Alteration Permit and the conditional use for alteration within the flood plain and also work within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. So in summary the staff is recommending approval of this. It does take action by the City Council, just a majority of the City Council. I want to clarify that. I’d like to go through a little bit of the history of this. This item we’ve been working on for a number of years. When you originally looked at this project it required the AUAR. Environmental assessment document. Actually it required an EA and as part of the environmental assessment document, instead of doing just this piece we looked at the entire piece so kind of what I’m going to do is go through how this project frames up with the larger piece. So as part of the environmental assessment document there were certain framework issues that were put in place, specifically the Bluff Creek Overlay District and the Resource Management Plan and kind of tying in the trails. So, what we did is looked at how to preserve the primary district. Okay, so. I’m sorry. So with the overlay district, looking at this piece…because what’s driving this development, this whole, in this whole 600 acres AUAR area is the primary, the primary district which we’re trying to preserve. So this project in and of itself incorporates that as the other projects. The other main thing driving this was the fact that 212 is being built and we wanted to coordinate the timing of this project in the AUAR to look at how that incorporated into the 212 project. So we began looking at you know after the AUAR was approved, and that was a year long process, we worked on designing the road as, City Engineer went through with the City Council before the meeting tonight in their work session, reviewed the alignment of the road as proposed because before any development can occur, the road has to be approved in order for them to tie into it, so all the projects have to match that. So this project in and of itself has gone through 3 iterations. So what you’re seeing tonight is kind of the final design based on the final location of the road. So they have accommodated that and that’s the driving force, the road has to be, for projects to go forward, they’re kind of tied together. For this project to advance they need the road. And for us to build the road, the city to invest in building a road, we need projects to advance so the two things are tied together. So this item actually had conceptual approval over a year ago and actually the fall of 2002 when it received a 49 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 conceptual approval. At that time this started the whole AUAR process. Most recently it appeared before the Planning Commission over a series of, those 2 years working through the design of the project itself. Meanwhile the city also worked through the design, multi family design standards and then in anticipation of multi family coming forward. So most recently this appeared before the Planning Commission in April and July. And at that time the Planning th Commission made, between the April the 19 meeting, excuse me, the April and July meeting there was a big lag time because there was another iteration of the design. Relocation of the road and also some significant features regarding grading and drainage so that significantly affected the layout of the project itself. So with that iteration the plan you have before you tonight is again the third evolution that incorporates the road. Again I want to frame this up, the road itself. This is the road that you saw earlier tonight with Kimley and Horn, so this is the property that we’re talking about right here. Originally in the AUAR the road swung…significant environmental features. Crossing the creek at the appropriate place. So with that, the design was redone to incorporate, the significant change then was this design which you have in your packet, was to accommodate down in this area here where there was some substantial retaining walls, that we wanted to eliminate. So these were changed to walkout units right here and the retaining wall was eliminated in some places and only 3 to 4 feet. The first iteration had retaining walls of 20 feet which didn’t set well with staff and then we were also concerned about how we’d run the neighborhoods together which relates back to the Sever Peterson property which you’ll be seeing later, so we want to make that transition smooth. The other thing that we’re requesting now that we have the…all these units up here which are coming onto the collector road, also have access onto the collector road, so there’s two ways to get onto that neighborhood. That was an issue that took off on the subdivision itself was looking at this neighborhood besides the retaining wall, making this connection and… Back to the staff report on page 2, one of the issues that first came up under the concept was whether or not this is guided industrial or residential. In going back and looking at why we gave it both zoning districts at that time, there was another interchange proposed at this location. If you go back and look at this one here, Mr. Peterson’s property has a significant taking for right-of-way in anticipation of a possible other interchange at this location…the land uses at that time, it was thought that maybe industrial might be appropriate land use. Unappropriate land use there. Industrial or residential so both were given and in looking at how the roads come about and trying to look at traffic calming and the concerns that the residents on the Chaska side had regarding industrial and possible additional trip generations, staff had recommended at that time that this go to residential and understood that the City Council was concerned about replacing that industrial somewhere else and we are working on there’s about 15, working on that now to replace that. There are some other sites that we need to be looking on there to find a replacement. Again the installation of this road is part and parcel to getting this project to go forward. So as we sit today this is the site, most recent site plan that we are looking at for approval. This does relate to the subdivision of itself which in your staff report talks about the total number of units. It’s 91 acres of gross acreage and 67 net, so it comes out to 6.6 units an acre net. Kind of go through, this was the last iteration that this development, this also had the units, still had significant retaining wall of 10 feet. This is a previous one so they changed that. Kind of go through the architecture. In the design standards I mentioned between the time we did the AUAR, the Planning Commission spent some time. Gave them all a camera and went out and took photos. Put together some design standards which since the City Council has approved and, so I want to go through this and I’m starting on page 5 of the staff report. I’m starting out on page 6 where we talk about the design standards, architectural style. 50 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 So the thing that’s unique about this project which you challenged the staff on, the applicant’s introduced four different products. And because modifications have been made to the home, introducing additional brick, not all products have the 20% but they are, they will have when they come back for final plat. Just as of today the one project that we were concerned about has been resubmitted with the quick materials but because you had already received this, I didn’t make that change. One additional comment we had was the color gray to be removed. Then going down further on the land use where again we talk about the four different styles of homes, use a broad variety. There is a neighborhood association pool. This is the only project of multi family of that size that will actually have an association swimming pool. A unique feature. And then a future public park which we talked about earlier, this would be the Degler property and there’s trails connecting that. The primary view from the collector streets, including Audubon will be the narrowest part of any housing, when you look at the… You can see that the units split from this side to that side so when you go down, you’re not looking at the same side of any one building. So you can see that this has the roof line over it. This is a different perspective, so as you drive down there’s no garages facing any of the major collector streets, and there’s also a different perspective on each. I apologize I had all these open before. Councilman Peterson: Pardon me but is that going down Lyman, is that what we just looked at or? Kate Aanenson: That would be Audubon. This is Audubon again. This is the back side of the units where the retaining wall was. They changed those units to walkouts as opposed to the different type of product. So reduced their grading. This is now facing the Peterson property so that has been moved. Go back up to the building elevations. So this is the part that we saw that’s facing Audubon, again with the different look. This is the perspective with the landscaping. This is the Chateau product. Again the four different products which we had shown you before but you also got included in your review packet. That was the color brick that we had the issue with. This is a product that has the garage on the back and so…so again there’s no garages facing the street itself. So I’ll show you that again on the site plan. So if you’re coming down this side of the street, the narrowest part of the building, which I was talking about on the site plan, faces the street. So you’re not looking at a sea of buildings. You’re looking at the narrowest part of any building. Now these again would have the, that’s the blue building I just showed you that has the patio so the garage is on the back side, so the patio is facing the front. The most active part of the building. When it came before the Planning Commission in April, some of the big changes there, we were concerned about parking and all the buildings have been provided large enough driveways for on street parking. If you look at some of the similar projects that you see in Chaska, Shakopee, there’s all different sizes of driveways but we want to provide what we feel is a successful project and that has adequate parking on the driveway. All of these projects, all of these products also have two car garages which is different from a lot of the other multi family. This is the first one that we have that’s all two car garages. So I’m still on page 8 talking about the design itself. The round abouts we talked about. Traffic claming. That was a concern that people would use this as cut through. We talked about this round about here. There’ll be another one further up somewhere close to the park property, but again providing that those be a landscaped median. The interior roads, the major roads will all be public streets. There will be some private streets between the units themselves. And then again the integration of the natural features. One of the assets again was the fact that we’re 51 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 preserving all of the green space, if I can find that. If you look at the entire project again we look at the Bluff Creek Overlay District, this area down in the south side of the creek, there was two homes in this. The 2 ½ acres since we saw it the first time that they did pick up and incorporate within this little remnant piece left in there, but there is buildable area when we first walked with the developer 2 years ago, and that was one of the areas we said we want to preserve so all these woods adjacent to the Chaska, providing that transition will be preserved. And then we had the area, the prominent part of the Bluff Creek so this trail will tie into the road itself. Now this is the earlier design so this doesn’t have the road with the round about over here but similar look with the trail. The other comment was, again typically we don’t like to take the, where you have higher density and put it into the lower densities but we would look at some other type of trail connection, maybe through there, emergency access but there will be single family which we’ll be talking about in a minute. So as part of the design standards itself we believe that it’s really completely different than anything we’ve seen before in the city as far as the style, the look, the variety of the units. Again going down the street, facades you’re seeing the different style and different color pallets and again as part of the PUD which is on the next page where we go through, they have to incorporate the design standard. That would be a story book that they put together calling out the different color pallets that would be required as part of each project that comes in. And as I indicated this also requires a subdivision on page 12 it calls out exactly how many buildings and how many outlots they would have. The three outlots are predominantly the primary district to the north, the wooded area to the south, which again this does have development. There are some slopes in the north that may not be developable but this is developable here on the south, and then the third is the pool area here. One of the issues that the Planning Commission had was the concern about crossing the street to get to the pool area. Amenity you’re trying to capture as you come in here is looking across. This is a large wetland… storm water pond is to create this kind of combine with open space and make that an attractive amenity. And it gives you kind of a buffer too for the pool and for the noise and for that kind of activity occurring on the far side of the street. There are existing wetlands. A number of them on the site. They have and are doing their due diligence on the wetland replacement plan. The other thing I wanted to comment on the overall, with the AUAR going back to the goals of that. One of the replacement areas that will be the wetlands is the Jeurissen property so there’ll be wetland replacement on that property and then the part that it’s crop will actually part of the goals of that is to actually bring that back to a wildlife area. So what this doesn’t show is the entire corridor itself but again that’s one of the goals that we had is to re- establish that with the trail. Make it a signature piece as you’re crossing down the trail itself. The flood plain, there’s a little creek you can see right through here, this blue line. They are mapping that through FEMA. We’ve done that on other projects getting it, it got blocked as it crosses here so they’re doing the paperwork on that and that’s where those two houses sat that had to be incorporated. Again staff believes we’ve worked really hard on this the last 2 years to get the design where we want it to be. Reducing kind of the friction points regarding the product. Those retaining walls again starting off with very significantly. The developer incorporating numerous iterations on the part of the frontage road. Trying to provide those transitions between the neighboring properties. Again the extraction from this will be taking park and trail fees and then applying them to the larger community park which we think is the kind of again the major gathering point for this, in the entire community. That collecting point. The one thing that we are still working on, it’s not just a requirement of this development but we’d like to see if there’s a place to do some slip off lanes similar to what we did up on 52 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Arboretum Village to provide some transit slip off lanes. Maybe a little opportunity for, and maybe that might be closer to a park where there’s a bus shelter for people in this area that may want to take mass transit. So again Outlot A we would take in the name of the City, and that’s just this area and this area. Be conservation easements again just to make sure that the association and that was a little bit different than came through when it went to the Planning Commission. And then also there’s a requirement in here regarding the FEMA fees required for reimbursement of the AUAR. So with that I did go through a lot of stuff. I apologize for the…but I’d be happy to take any questions that you may have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Do we want to start? Councilman Peterson: Kate, as you compare the scope and size of this development, would this be our largest in the city? Or is Pulte bigger from the housing standpoint? Kate Aanenson: Well when Lake Susan came in as a PUD, that one had probably almost 1,000 units. 1,000 plus and that had single family, apartments, twins, quads, across the street so that was bigger. Yeah. I think Pulte’s just sort of 400. 375. 390. Mayor Furlong: Question on the site plan. When this came to council work session a couple meetings ago, walk me through what’s changed in terms of layout, location. I mean you talk more about from one development to the other. Are all those applicable to what we saw? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I think the major change was incorporating the road design itself. Mayor Furlong: Which was fluid. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: We were trying to… Kate Aanenson: …the changing of, and they lost some units. Well from when they started originally they’ve lost quite a few units. I think it started in excess of 500. Incorporating, reducing the grading on that southern end down by Mr. Peterson’s property. Mayor Furlong: Did that affect units or they created. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: They made the walkouts. Kate Aanenson: Yep, they lost some units there. I didn’t show this perspective but this was the other one that you would see. This is the other building so the front is facing. So yes, they did lose some units there and reduce those walls so they’re pretty insignificant. Again trying to make instead of individual communities, tie those together and again I think making a trail. Looking at a trail connection somewhere through there. Maybe on the south side. 53 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Mayor Furlong: You’re not recommending a road connection. There’s a cul-de-sac there in the southeast. Kate Aanenson: No, and the reason being is if you look at the overall, the AUAR required another collector road to go between Pioneer Trail and connecting with the new collector road. The staff’s concern is in this area here, you may have people that would want to cut through. So you would have cut through traffic that would maybe come up from Pioneer. Cut through the single family and go to this neighborhood, so and it’s close enough I think that these two roads that you know, typically we want to connect neighborhoods. Definitely. That’s always our…but in this circumstance I think you’re over burdening these 3 or 4 single family homes that would be in this area. We’ve talked, we’ll talk about this one here when we get done but that was really the concern there with, because I think there’d be a lot of short cut traffic right through there so I’m not sure if these people benefit, but it would certainly be to all these residents benefit. Mayor Furlong: And part of that is, it would eliminate, keeping traffic on the main roads. Kate Aanenson: And I think…that it keeps it on the, there’s not a long dead end per se on this. This would be the longest portion right here. Mayor Furlong: And what’s that distance? 3 units. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, couple hundred feet probably. Mayor Furlong: You mentioned that trail connection. Is that something that’s currently in this plan or is that being recommended? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, that’s this trail connection. Actually the Park and Rec Director recommended that trail and we saw that on the aerial. The color aerial that actually ties up back into the frontage road. Mayor Furlong: That’s on the north side. Kate Aanenson: Correct. There’s also an interior trail shown down in this area, around the pool. That would be another internal trail. And there’s sidewalks, internal sidewalks too along the entire, on all the public streets for this purpose. Mayor Furlong: And parking on the public streets, what are the widths of those streets and it’s on street parking? Kate Aanenson: Yes. All the public streets. Again it would be similar ordinance that we would require for any other public streets as far as how you could park and the hours of operation in the winter and the like. Mayor Furlong: Is there any indentation in the curve or something to get the cars out of the main road? 54 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: It’s hard to see closer. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, so you can kind of see it but there is, and this is one of the things that the, it might be better to look at the overall site plan too but that was one of the, yeah. One of the goals that we looked at, the Planning Commission recommended in looking at this was to provide that on street parking. It certainly was a product that’s over here. That had the step up. The front steps. The underground parking, which is different. That you would park in front of, and there is provided parking so. Mayor Furlong: And I guess my question is a normal street width, 30 plus or minus. Paul Oehme: 31 feet. Mayor Furlong: 31. You know you park a car there, a car on each side it’s going to be difficult for traffic to go through. Is there, is the curb widened there so that the parked cars can get out of the main lanes of traffic? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, what there was is, we had this mix. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, that’s true. Kate Aanenson: Yes, there’s adequate right-of-way to get through it’s also another point of traffic calming but what’s provided is these, thank you. That’s the engineering term, bump outs. Mayor Furlong: What are they? Paul Oehme: Just bump outs. Mayor Furlong: Bump outs. Okay. Kate Aanenson: So if you look at this, and it’s hard to see at this scale but there are similar like this. They’ve got those provided. Mayor Furlong: Okay, and that I think, that’s what I was asking about so. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. So there will be on site, and then there is, between the products parking. Private parking on these long driveways. That would provide access so at the end of it there would be parking. Mayor Furlong: I’ve got some other questions unless anyone else has some here? Paul Oehme: That type of design has been used on other streets, specifically in Chaska has used successfully so we’re amenable to look at it I guess. 55 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Yeah I think my sense is that it provides thru lanes and allows the parking on street but to get out of the way of traffic. Kate Aanenson: This is the one predominantly that’s been used in the parking in front of the building. It has some additional guest parking because all the parking for this one is that you have two car garage underneath so this would be where you’d park in front. And again accommodations are made in the street and it’s designed for that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Peterson: Kate, at our work session I kind of changed my opinion on the architectural design. I didn’t have the opportunity to compare the previous pictures and renderings. Other than the brick, are they, did the architecture change on, I think I was specifically talking about the Chateau and the engineers…concept has changed? Kate Aanenson: Well additional brick. I think we’ve introduced, I think one of the things that when we do multi family we tend to get the same pale kind of over time they kind of all blend to be the same muted color. Whether they’re all gray or beiges so actually we challenged them to do some stronger color pallets, specifically in the Premiere which is this last one. And so in getting away from those grays so these colors are different than what you see in the iterations. I think if you look at that last slide that showed the buildings from the back that I showed you where the retaining wall was, you can see those stronger colors. And I think that’s kind of where we’re moving a little bit bolder so over time they aren’t all washed and appear the same. So that more brick. Additional landscaping. One of the things you see that’s different about these too and which is why we tried to show these pictures is the landscaping. Even though the driveways, if you look at some of the other projects, they actually have block inbetween these little narrow so we pushed to get landscaping and trees so it’s not just rockscape, so those little things like that. And again we’re commenting mostly the larger stuff, there’s a lot of under plantings that would be incorporated in here too, so that was the goal to push those little things between. There’s also some other open areas on the north side that kind of between the little bit larger things that we’ve challenged them too to come up with some other little gathering places in that neighborhoods whether they’re on the north side. Look at the site plan. Councilman Peterson: Single family, is there an option they can integrate in or is that something we just didn’t want to do? Kate Aanenson: No. It was guided for the either or and they chose to go with the higher. The other project that’s coming in request a land use amendment to go lower. So it’s industrial or medium. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Kate, this is guided medium density and it looks like a lot to me. What would be high density? Kate Aanenson: 12 units an acre. Up to 16. Mayor Furlong: But apartment buildings would be high density or? 56 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Kate Aanenson: Well we haven’t seen anything, we haven’t seen anything like that. I think we always try to push, let them. Sure we could do condos. Actually you had one that you in Lake Susan Hills. The last one, building that went in actually went condo and that’s 3 stories vertical, so they anticipated some of that on Villages on the Pond actually too when we put that project together, we did 3 stories vertical. That question came up when we had the last work session you know, did you want something more vertical or you know, what was the goal. To see some of the feedback was to see more one story type unit. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Life cycle, yeah. Kate Aanenson: Yep, and then the other thing that we challenged them was on that Premiere unit, the last unit that’s got the walkout, that they actually can provide that with a bedroom on the first floor, so the second story can be guest or so that kind of challenge them too. That was some of the questions that you brought up could they have some other type product because you thought that maybe that was all too up and down. Councilwoman Tjornhom: But still how do they access the building? I mean I’m still. Kate Aanenson: That’s at grade. That’s the product that’s at grade. This one right here, so you come, so this would be, it could be an office. It could be guest housing, so the bedroom would be on the first floor so, and then some of these will be walkouts and some of them may be just slab on grade so they would have a basement or a walkout. So 3 stories in the back, or 2 stories. So the bedroom could be on the main floor. That’s one of the options they’re having in their project. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Going back to the exteriors and the brick, the 20%. Can we ask for more? Kate Aanenson: Sure. PUD. That’s the ordinance. So with that we were recommending approval, I don’t know if I got to that part or not. Mayor Furlong: Couple of other questions, and these are questions for clarification I think within the conditions. Condition number 2 speaks about the AUAR cost. Does this include the additional cost that was conducted or additional analysis that was conducted on this property as part of the AUAR? My recollection is that the overall AUAR dealt with all the acreage but that additional analysis was done for this property in particular as part of that same study. Is my recollection correct? There was some specific work done because of this property that we incorporated with the AUAR as a cost savings measure. Kate Aanenson: I’ll verify that. It was wetlands was the additional issue and I’ll check on that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. I thought we kind of drilled down a little bit to use a non-technical term on this property in particular. Kate Aanenson: We did. 57 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Mayor Furlong: But did the overall AUAR then we in addition we did some work here. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, wetlands. Correct. I’d have to double check if that included, because this is based on gross acreage and so I will check on that. Mayor Furlong: Alright. And then let’s see. Condition 33. My computer’s locking up so. Well I’m sorry. Councilman Labatt: You need a hard copy Tom. 33? Mayor Furlong: That’s what I had but I just saw 32. Councilman Labatt: What’s 33 on there? The internal and private trail? Mayor Furlong: No. Excuse me. Why don’t we keep going here. Condition 25 speaks about the hook up charges for sanitary sewer and watermain. This one from reading this correctly, it says that the watermain hook up charges may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of the building. And it’s given an earlier discussion. Is there, or we’re establishing rates here. Is it at the time of building permit. When the plat gets approved that those hook-up charges take those. Kate Aanenson: The rate in charge at the time right, is what it says. Todd Gerhardt: It’s the time of permit. Mayor Furlong: And they’re due at the time of building permit and so I guess my question is. Kate Aanenson: At that rate. Mayor Furlong: Okay, and that’s the question. At the rate existing at the time, are due and payable at the then current rates or something like that. At the time of the building permit. Todd Gerhardt: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: Bear with me. In terms of the, yeah it is 33 with regard to the private trail north of Block 1. It says be carefully planned to allow convenient access. Would it be beneficial to have that be planned subject to staff approval? Kate Aanenson: That’s fine. Mayor Furlong: Assuming that we will make sure that it’s used, or staff will make sure it achieves their goals in terms of connecting up rather than carefully planned. Kate Aanenson: Right. And it’s about tree loss and without, so maintain certain grades. 58 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Sure. And the developer is putting that trail in, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: That’s something I think that, I think it’s a condition of this one. I was going to say, the main trail going through the primary zone is a city trail. Mayor Furlong: From the north/south but this connector trail if you will from this development down to the main trail. Kate Aanenson: Is a requirement of this, correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. And so if the timing of the main trail is different than the timing of when this trail goes in we would collect escrow I assume or something. To ensure that gets done. …under condition 60, dedication of Outlot A and B. 60. Or a conservation easement will be established over the outlots. Given what we just talked about, I guess my sense is, is there a reason why we wouldn’t just prefer the dedication? Kate Aanenson: That’s what we would prefer. Unless there’s an issue and we haven’t heard back from the developer if they’re opposed to dedication to the city. Mayor Furlong: Alright. And then I didn’t see a condition, and maybe it will come with the site plan but there was an issue about the location of the connector street relative to this property, the property line and the future property and I thought staff report said that right now this layout shows the east/west connector on the property to the east. Kate Aanenson: Correct, and that’s a minor modification but you’re right. Mayor Furlong: So, but the intent there would be that that right-of-way is shared equally between the two properties? Kate Aanenson: Correct. I think it shows up on here. Mayor Furlong: This is the north/south section there. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and you can see right through here. The, they don’t quite match. The developer showed it a little bit in Mr. Peterson’s favor. It needs to swing back this way so it will affect, again some of these folks so they lose some. So that would come back for final plat. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So that’s an additional condition or something that we just. Kate Aanenson: Did I have that in here? Mayor Furlong: Maybe you did, I didn’t see it and that’s possible. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I think it’s number 4. The engineering had that information that they incorporated it into. But ultimately it does affect the… 59 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Good, thank you. Any other questions at this time for staff? No? Is the developer here? Would you like to make a presentation to council? Kevin Clark: Good evening Mayor, council members. My name is Kevin Clark. Director of Land Development of Town and Country Homes… With me tonight, part of our development team is Ed Hasek, Senior Landscape Architect with Westwood Professional Services and Mary Ranum with Fredrickson and Byron. I want to thank you and many people of whom I won’t mention all of them, that have been instrumental to the plan that you have before you this evening, including yourselves, the city staff, consultants, neighbors, park board, and earlier city councils and planning commissions. Especially Kate and her team who have been pivotal in the evolution of not only our plan but also the entire AUAR area. Kate has given you a thorough overview of the history of our application and the many milestones that have been achieved since those earlier meetings in 2002. And a lot has happened since we received that initial concept plan approval in the fall of 2002. At which time we were approved for a medium density residential use of approximately 540 units. This was pretty much the driver of the subsequent AUAR. We have all participated in many meetings, workshops and site tours. The entire 2005 MUSA area has been studied and numerous feasibility studies, engineering assessments and forward planning have been undertaken. In addition the State has begun the Highway 212 improvements and now other properties in the area have initiated planning with the city on other developments in this area. We can agree, a lot of energy and resources have been invested in the planning of this project and the entire 2005 MUSA area. Town and Country is before you this evening requesting preliminary plat approval for our plan that represents 446 multi family units. We are in agreement with the staff’s report and recommendations and believe that we have respectfully addressed all the concerns that have been noted since the beginning of this process. These include protecting natural resources, elevating our architecture, accommodating public infrastructure improvements, and enhancing the community at large. A few of the items we have refined include meeting all the Bluff Creek Overlay District requirements. Establishing grading plan that fits the existing topography. Adjusting our plan to accommodate the alignment of the main collector road. We had asked, touched Mayor on your comment regarding the road alignment. We had asked that the criteria used to site the road as it’s currently going be used at the same time when they site or locate the road rather than splitting the baby down the middle. That…sensitive to the trees, of Bluff Creek, the wetland at that termination point at the north. All the same criteria that led engineering and the consultants to that narrow crossing that now is the focal point for the main collector road. …overlay district creating a central focus for the neighborhood with the pool amenity and other open space areas throughout the site, and most of all we’ve been careful and deliberate to preserve the woods, the bluffs, the wetlands and the flood plain to ensure that these areas are protected for future generations to come. These are all individually very positive developments. When taken collectively create a very exciting and environmentally conscience neighborhood and desire addition to the community. A few of the other attributes include the amount of tree preservation, enhancing and increasing the amount and quality of the wetlands. The pedestrian friendly planning, connecting the bluff areas primarily corridor to the park and… View sheds throughout the site. The fact that Kate mentioned no garages facing city streets. Offering affordable housing. Neighborhood identity. Elevated architecture. Life cycle housing where units have a first floor master bedroom. All these factors add up to a very well thought out plan. We’re committed to making this neighborhood a success story for the city, our neighbors and ourselves. We thank you for your 60 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 consideration of our proposal and we look forward to our continued partnership with the city on this and future opportunities and we would try to answer any questions you may have and I thank you very much for your consideration this evening. Mayor Furlong: Thank you Mr. Clark. Questions for Mr. Clark. Question in terms of timing. What’s your anticipating in terms of beginning construction, both at the site and also the length of time for full build out. Kevin Clark: As far as starting, we’ve been certainly over this a period of time and working with staff and primarily working with Paul as he thinks, gather any more intelligence on projects in general and as a design has been coming together. I don’t know how far in the workshop you got on the information that were shared with us on Thursday as far as how it’s progressing. The concept of having a couple different bid lettings and how that would progress. In light of that it was always understood that we would try to get out ahead of that process so the collector road, on at least the west side of the project could be graded so that that utility infrastructure could come through on a sub-graded area and build that right-of-way. That would still be our intent. There’s I guess a lot of meat on the bone yet to be worked out. Just last Thursday gotten the last alignment for the street. Our engineering has really been waiting for a lot of that stuff to happen and also a pipe design hasn’t taken place so if possible, maybe get some grading done this year. That would be ideal. That would really I think lend itself to the plan at Kimley-Horn that is working through. So that’s kind of a starting point. The build out, we anticipate probably at this point a couple, 2-3 phases and working that through. I could see it easily 3-4 year build out period. Mayor Furlong: With the schedule right now would that build out begin in the first phase next year then? Kevin Clark: Building construction potentially to start, understandably it’s going to be depending on services and things like that, if we could start models in May. Potentially be in the market for next fall, as is for builders, those two key dates. Whether it be spring preview or fall parade so then we can bring that, the buying public to a finished model. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, thank you. Any other questions of Mr. Clark? Comments? No? Okay, thank you. Kevin Clark: Thank you. Kate Aanenson: I just want to point out too, Paul and I did challenge to work with the consultants and get the road design. We did ask the property owners if they did have plans, we try to accommodate their needs and looking at where those access points were. Some people are further along than others and where we have the road…we can still accommodate some of those changes specifically the eastern side, but those people…certainly want to incorporate that and that’s one of the different areas and meetings that we’ve had with property owners… Trying to get them so we’re working together to get the best alignment. 61 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Okay good, thank you. At this time I know that there was listening to the Planning Commission there was a public hearing. There was a public hearing I believe looking at the meetings. Nobody spoke at that time, if that’s correct but if there is desire for public comments at the City Council, we certainly would entertain at this time. If you’d come forward to the podium, state your name and address. Rick Dorsey: My name is Rick Dorsey. 1551 Lyman Boulevard and I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak Mayor and council representatives here. Really the concerns I would have are just again coordination of this development with the rest of what will be coming on line. It is the first project coming on line and that you consider what other projects are going to be coming on line and the mix with those right now there’s nothing there but there are projects that are in the works and being talked about and so that hasn’t been discussed as far as how they interact with each other. Couple other things that would be just concerned about. As a neighboring property, just looking at the plan, is if the open space, I went and visited a project in Maplewood that they had and concern I have is just the ones in the middle there. The people who end up owning those in the middle, it’s, they’re very tight feeling as far as your front door opens up to the driveway of the other one. And it’s just, you know if it can be twist and turned, it makes a development. And in the long run from the standpoint of tax value and things in the long run, you know it can maybe be of help. Maybe it’s past that point looking at it but interest wise that would be something that just the open space within the development. Within that and looking at it there’s also the concerns of snow removal because, and I guess I should ask, is the project in Maplewood pretty close as far as distances between properties? In the middle. Kevin Clark: …that neighborhood has…private garages so it would be a different contact. Rick Dorsey: The ones that go into the driveway? Okay. Concerns were just there as far as servicing garbage trucks going up and down when they’re dead ends like that. Maybe it works, I haven’t experienced them but something to think about. Just again open space for kids in the neighborhood. You know a place for them to go. Pedestrian issues would be just the safety issue. The one spot they do have a pool. You know being able to get access to that and I think that’s been talked about already. The other again thing is just looking at the impact of the properties around it, certainly are an issue or concern. I shouldn’t say an issue necessarily. The other things, just a point I noticed on page 17. Just dealing with fees. It talks about 48 acres for the water quality fees. I don’t know if that’s an error or not but a number that’s not anywhere else I saw. Mayor Furlong: Which number was that? Rick Dorsey: On page 17. Talking about the fees for, based on acreage. Like water quality fees. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Anything else? Very good, thank you. Appreciate your comments. Kate Aanenson: Comment on the street thing real quick. You know in surveying their other product, that was, if we talk about the major changes that came between April and July, one of 62 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 the ones that we’re shaping in the primary zones because the units were too close. The setback was that we actually had them moved up for parking. Because they did have some units that, other communities then do similar, Eden Prairie and Chaska, very narrow driveways but they park in the street. We found that less desirable long term that they should have provide adequate, these again would be public streets. The sidewalk so there’s adequate snow removal and parking. The only place that would be, that’s private would be these to get it to the…so we should have adequate parking in front of the units. And while they are further separated than they are in other communities, again we have a different standard in that we believe that there is adequate guest parking and snow removal and enough area for placing of the day that the garbage man comes, to put those out. And these are some of the areas I talked about where we, other open areas that we’ve challenged the developer to come up with some other opportunities to provide some gathering spots. Whether it’s a gazebo or something like some of those areas… There is guest parking at the end but these buildings, because we made a foot longer driveway than, different than other products you would in other communities. So again the challenge was to make it look different, to meet our standards which we did, and they did. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anybody else who would like to comment, public comment on this matter. Issue. Very good. Certainly Mr. Clark. Kevin Clark: When you look at that picture, what that represents the areas north and south is about 34% of the total land. So when we talk about open space and other areas providing not only the pool amenity and the trail section and like that, don’t want to lose contacts in the areas that we’ve been working to preserve and that was really our focus of really the first challenge given to us. I just want to highlight that. Mayor Furlong: You’re referring to Outlot A and B? Kevin Clark: A and B, correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Alright. I’ll try to keep moving on this. Let’s bring it back to council. Any follow up questions for staff at this point or discussion points, thoughts. Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: Thoughts overall I guess. I’m glad that we’ve made some progress on some of the architecture and some of those things. The things still, a couple of things that don’t overly thrill me. It still feels like, when I’m looking at it on the plan and when I’m looking at it up there and if I think I’m driving around is I feel like I’m driving through a military barracks. Although you know Kate you talked about that building as being you know no two views the same and some of that stuff, but one of the things is you know they’re all lined up. They’re all essentially the same footprint. There might be a door on this side or that side or those type of things but I get the military barracks feeling. And the common area with the pool, I’m not overly enamored with those things to begin with and private things like that. And especially this one. As you put it across the collector road, you’ve got a lion share of the development that’s going to have to cross that road to get there. That was talked about I think at the Planning Commission too. I mean I put myself in that spot being you know would I want my kids to cross Kerber Boulevard to go to the swimming pool, and I’m not sure that even with the round about at 63 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 15 miles per hour that you’re, that’s a great solution. I realize that that’s kind of the you know, you’re putting a major roadway through the middle of the development. I don’t know what the solution there is necessarily but something that I’d like to see talked about or addressed or something if we go forward with this between now and final to work on that a little bit. So the use, it’s a good. The zoning I guess it’s a medium density. I’m at a toss up there with the industrial piece. I think we need to work real hard at not letting that go. We’ve had several, or a couple of other things in this area where we’ve looked at, had the option of going one way or the other and we’ve always kind of held that industrial sacred as well so we’ve got to search out other spots in here to, or throughout the city to kind of offset that as we go forward too so we don’t give up those opportunities, but I think we’ve made some progress so that’s a good thing but I feel like we’ve still got some work to do here before we’re done. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. You want to respond quickly on that issue of the, that Councilman Lundquist brought up in terms of the industrial. Other opportunities. Kate Aanenson: No, again I spoke to that a little bit in the beginning with the over at Mr. Peterson’s property who, a lot of right-of-way was taken for the possible future interchange across the new 41 interchange so in looking at the industrial, the reason that it was given that at the time was that was anticipated. This is before we did the frontage road. This is way back looking at the comp plan. Why we gave it two different designs. Looking at if the interchange did go there, then maybe this would be suitable. As it turns out, that interchange got pushed so far back, we don’t even know if that’s where it’s going in, so looking at the suitability and the cut through traffic, did it make more sense or on a different somewhere else is kind of what we struggled with, and what the neighbors across the street wanted. How that all blended in, so. Councilman Lundquist: I just want to make sure that we’re not double standard on ourselves. You know we’ve had other times when we’ve looked at things that are very similar to this and said we’re not going to go there because we value that. We don’t have a lot of industrial space and we value that so let’s hold ourselves to the same standard there as well. But understand where you’re at. Kate Aanenson: Yep, yeah. And I just want to comment too on the barracks comment because it’s, if you look at any multi family from an aerial view, you’re going to see that and you looked at a lot of different versions of moving those around and you can try to reorient it and it gets too busy or you can try to make it streamline and do a straight line. I think that was really why we tried with these perspectives was to, gave up, is to try to look, what are you going to see going down the street. Zooming in towards the pool and all those amenity. You know how’s it going to feel coming in and what are you going to see? Again with the color pallet and the orientation, then you’re looking at narrow. I think that takes away from that top down view of all orientated and the landscaping trying to soften that and that’s why we really put the challenge to them with color…and materials and the landscaping to soften that top down view look. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Other comments or discussion. Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: You know I think we have 91 acres of opportunity and I don’t know if we’re necessarily making the best of the opportunity that we have. I think that what I see is 64 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 the same design over and over again. I just think it has so much more potential for what it could be. Multi family housing is something we need in this city, but I think we have one opportunity to do this right and I think, I don’t think we’re doing it right. I think it’s just too much of the same thing. Too much repetition and when I talked about life cycle and yes, there is a, some units with one story master bedrooms, but that’s not really what I meant. There are townhouses or there are condos that really do fit that life cycle and I just don’t think that these did it. That’s all I have. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Peterson. Councilman Peterson: 4 years ago when we, 4 or 5. I lose track after a while, when this was in front of us for conceptual approval I was reticent at the time to change it from industrial. I can’t even recall whether I voted for it or not but I know I’ve articulated my concern about moving anything from, out of industrial into anything else. And as I usually state, it needs to be a real compelling reason for me to do it. I’ve already articulated some concerns I’ve got about is this that different. A couple products I really think are different and add something new to Chanhassen… Being the Majestic is an architectural interesting building. The Regency’s architectural interest, you don’t see that in Chanhassen. The other which is the majority of the development is the Chateau and the Premiere which we can see that anywhere… So that in and of itself doesn’t present me with a compelling reason to say we should move forward with this. It gives me the feeling of big and boxy, you know both in design and in layout. Whether it’s a barracks. It’s just big. I don’t know whether I’m articulating that…big developments as much as if it’s going to be big, I really think it’s got to be dramatic change in look and feel throughout the acres. Whether it’s 91 or 60 something that are usable. …work with the developer. Give them the task of following the comprehensive plan. I think they’ve done that. I think they’ve done some great things with the areas…working with the bluff. A lot’s been accomplished but yet at the end of the day I want to be able to look at it and say, I like this development. This was what we need in Chanhassen and it’s going to make people driving by and driving through it feel good about living in Chanhassen. We’re not there from my perspective. Moving it from industrial, I want to have a higher standard and we’re not there. It’s just too big and boxy and there’s not uniqueness for me to vote for it. I’d like to say otherwise but I’m obligated to represent what I believe the people want is something different. This is the same old multi family and again we’re halfway there. So it’s a big enough development where I think we can ask for all of it… Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Labatt. As I look at this and try to compare it from stuff in the past and I may be close. You always can’t compare it exactly. I guess I don’t disagree with Mr. Lundquist’s visual interpretation of barracks. Or Bethany’s best use of 91 acres. I’m not, it definitely, there’s a need for a development like this in the city. But I’m not too hung up on the industrial, losing that point. But when you look at, you know it just seems to be like they’re just trying to put too much in the area. And I’d like to see more open space. You know Pulte I think did a nice job with creating some more common areas. Park areas. I think Brian had talked about the pool on the south side of the collector with the vast majority on the north of that. Maybe a second pool up north. Granted we’re just at preliminary here but it’s, it’s getting there but is it perfect? No. So I’m not sure but I’ll stop. 65 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Labatt: We’re not there yet though. Mayor Furlong: Well I can certainly, I think in terms and along with Councilman Lundquist and Labatt in terms of comfort with going forward with the medium density zoning. I can certainly do that. The reason that there are dual uses provided to land is obviously to provide flexibility and also in the property owners as well as for flexibility with the city in terms of land use. I know when this came through as a concept, Councilman Peterson you’re absolutely right. You did make a point of saying if this goes this way we’ve got to find it somewhere else. Maybe that’s some comfort that would help in terms of what those other opportunities are and where they are. In terms of the way out and it’s not there yet, I think as a council it would be incumbent upon us perhaps to provide some direction to the developer and staff to say what’s it going to take to get there. And we’ve done that a little bit in terms of what’s not there but you know if there’s, while we may, I mean where are there opportunities? I think overall from what I hear is there are elements in this development that don’t exist in other developments in neighboring cities. Whether that’s the on street parking and when they visit a friend, relative, parking in these type of developments is very difficult. And that’s why I was asking the question about the on street parking. It’s out of the normal public streets. Having public streets through these developments I don’t think is a given either, and I think there’s benefit to having that and not just a series of private streets, so I think there are a lot of elements there that say that this is better than what we’ve seen, so to the extent that as a council we think there needs to be more, I think we need to articulate that. My sense is that we’ve got kind of the different levels of comfort here, in terms of this and so how do we gain enough comfort to try to come up with something that works and to give some good direction to staff and to the developer. You’ve got a collector road going right through the middle of this development. It’s going to be difficult, unless we duplicate all the amenities on both sides not to have access, so is that pedestrian crossings at the public streets or something that provides some safety elements there, and let’s give them that information. And are we willing from a PUD standpoint, and I’m not recommending but I’m saying, what are the elements here that we’re willing to give up in the PUD so that we can gain other aspects? Now if the question is, you know the amenities of the pool and the recreation area, if that’s something that we don’t think is necessary, we’d rather use that space and spread them out a little bit, if that’s something that we’re looking for, let’s give them some of that. That feedback to help them get them to where we think they need to be. So I would throw that back to my fellow council members to give perhaps some more direction here. I don’t see this coming to terms tonight, and that’s fine. I’ve got no problem with that but I think there are some very good elements here and I think this can be an asset to the city in terms of the development and so I’m not, I certainly don’t think that this is in such a state that we need to say no. I think that would be a wrong position to take. But a right position would be to give some feedback and some direction if necessary so I guess I would throw it back to my fellow council members and maybe provide some direction or what are some of the give and takes that we’re looking for? What are some of the things that we want to get that development to where as a council we want it to be? Thoughts? Comments. Councilman Peterson: I’ve already articulated some of them. We’ve got 16 buildings of one design and a dozen of the other and half dozen or almost a dozen of another one. From my 66 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 perspective I think we need different kinds. Not as many of the same thing. Break it up. Move it around. Councilman Lundquist: Reorient. Councilman Peterson: Reorient and in other words…I just feel like I’m in too tight of a neighborhood and the architecture that we’ve already talked about. It’s less big and boxy. Councilman Lundquist: It is an opportunity to mix up the different, instead of grouping them by architectural style, that helps mix them up with the different architectural styles. Different size buildings. Takes away that, gives it some more point of difference in there rather than you’ve got these blocks of 7 or 8 of the same building in one area. Maybe they’re the same size building. Maybe there’s different sizes, mix and match in there. And the pool open space thing. It’s not, that’s not a reason for me to say yes or no. It’s just something that I’m raising to say, that’s something that we need to be aware of. That we need to have a solution or an idea for. Whether it’s a crosswalk or a flashing yellow light or whatever it is, if we’re going to have that amenity that’s going to attract people, they’ve got to be aware that there’s a major hazard going through the middle of that thing. So I guess I don’t know what the answer is there but it’s something that we’ve got to be aware of and come up with something for it. Mayor Furlong: Fair enough. Other thoughts or direction. Councilman Lundquist: And I’m comfortable with the designation of the PUD and that. Again it’s not to losing the industrial is not a reason for me to say no. I’m comfortable with that. I think it probably fits better with the neighbors across the street in Chaska there so, I think this is where we want to go. But there’s some opportunity here that you talked about so I’m very comfortable with the direction. Just not the final product yet. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other thoughts or direction? Councilman Labatt: You know as I look at, I’m going to take this a little bit. North of the collector road, you know, mix and match up there a little bit and move stuff around to get a little flow through it rather than rows. But in all honesty guys, and Bethany. I’m really lost south of the road. I mean as I’m looking at the zoom, you have one cul-de-sac coming down a bunch of little spur streets, or private streets. And you’re missing some flow and some continuity down there. It looks like it’s just kind of. Kate Aanenson: Well here’s an example of when we try to mix it up. Here’s where we try to mix it up so you’ve got. Councilman Labatt: Yeah but there’s no road going there. It’s a dead end right? Kate Aanenson: But you have to have this driveway here because these have underground parking so this driveway accommodates underground parking. So and you have to match the grades of some of the products so that’s the complexity of doing an overall design. So in this area, these are all mixed up and that was the goal we were trying to accomplish so. 67 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Councilman Lundquist: I like, personally I like that piece. More the piece that I have an issue with is this on the north where it’s. I feel like I’m at Fort Snelling. Councilman Labatt: What’s on the Audubon side? I’m looking at it upside down so. Kate Aanenson: I’m sorry. Councilman Labatt: On the Audubon side of that lower, or the southern section then. Kate Aanenson: So again the goal here was to have no garages facing the street so they have some of the other, so you’ve got the narrower side of one product here so it’s not all the same product going down the street, which was the goal. We go back to the forms she had, so the goal is that you don’t look at the same. So the goal was that you didn’t look at the entire, so you’ve got a different look here. A different look here. Again these units in this area here are the front where the porches are. The active side. The most active articulated, the porch side of the building. The garages are to the back so they’re oriented that way. Then you’d have that same product here and then it’s mixed up so that was the challenge. Again we put the narrower side here so again along this street you’re not looking at the same product along this street. Again not the garage side so you’re looking at the narrowest part of those buildings. That was kind of the framework that we started with to kind of do the edges. We saw, we worked with a lot of different iterations. The first one actually that came in actually had facing the street, you couldn’t have individual driveways coming off a collector road before we knew that was going to be a collector road, so we really worked hard to kind of develop these edges first and then kind of do the infill. Now that’s set in motion by grading, matching grades with similar types and you have to share a driveway or that sort of thing, so that’s a drawback. But there is a similar one along the edges to look at. So I’m assuming this was more you’re getting into the. Mayor Furlong: Is that the boxy area there? So angling or looking at that area. Councilman Lundquist, you have. Kate Aanenson: If that’s helpful. Mayor Furlong: Yep. Councilman Lundquist: And then the area right behind it seems to be, to the east of it there, yeah. Seems to be all the same thing too. Mayor Furlong: Just in rows. Councilman Lundquist: Okay, and if those are different buildings and different, you know just as the same footprint, then I guess that’s my misinterpretation but. Kate Aanenson: Well yeah, there’s a different color pallet. Councilman Lundquist: Right, but it’s essentially the same box. 68 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Kate Aanenson: Correct. Some of them are sixes and some of them are fours. Todd Gerhardt: Same product. Kate Aanenson: Same product, yeah. Councilman Peterson: Is there a possibility of adding a fifth or sixth type of home? Another option that changes the economics. Kate Aanenson: Well they built two products that they hadn’t done before so we’ve introduced two. Councilman Peterson: Those were the two that I liked. Kate Aanenson: They are the two? Councilman Peterson: Thought you could… Kate Aanenson: Lucky me. So yeah, I think everybody’s got a different idea so you know that’s the challenge here is trying to respond to you know is it 6… I think part of it is maybe this was helpful for the Planning Commission. They actually went to the site and I turned on the computer and looking at. We don’t have anything else in the city that has this much variety and I am concerned about making it too busy. You know if you look at most projects, as other developers learn, it’s pretty much more of the same. Even if you look at the apartments that we have in town, they’re the same. I just don’t want to make it too loud. Trying to find that balance so I’ve got other feedback now looking at the orientation… Kevin Clark: Could I just answer a question? Mayor Furlong: Certainly Mr. Clark. Kevin Clark: I think one of the products you mentioned Councilman Peterson is a traditional townhome and that’s as close as you can get to like a single family home and provide that type of housing. Yet it’s limited in some of it’s architecture because you come into a garage, you have an entryway and then your living space is on the back. But I think that’s a key piece in the mix of housing in here and so what we talked about is working to a color pallet and again accentuating that. And I think the other thing when you talk about mixing it up is, we are sensitive too of having some critical mass. If we’re going to come in and merchandise, build models and all this other stuff, you throw too many potential products in there, that’s not a good economic model and it’s not a good economic model for anybody to drive you forward because you want to be successful. You don’t want to have products that aren’t selling so I caution you I guess on getting it too busy by introducing or looking to have a whole variety of products. Kate Aanenson: We can look at it. 69 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Any other thoughts or direction? Councilwoman Tjornhom, anything to add? Councilwoman Tjornhom: I think I said… Mayor Furlong: Alright. Is there anything else at this point? Kate Aanenson: I think I’d like to point out that, just ask Town and Country. We’re at the end. They keep extending it because we’ve been making a lot of different changes but I’m at like the th 15 is their last extension so if we can just ask for them to give us additional time. Mayor Furlong: Do we need that in writing this evening? Kate Aanenson: …so I’m not sure what they’re, you know I’m assuming it will be with 3 or 4 weeks at least before we get a plan back. Todd Gerhardt: That’s our first meeting in September. Kate Aanenson: Probably. Todd Gerhardt: Good thing you have your attorney here to review it tonight. Mayor Furlong: Provide us with sufficient time I think is, which would be, what is 45? I don’t know. We could ask for 45 or 60 days. Does that give us, that gives us until the second meeting in September? Mr. Miller? How many days to get us to the second meeting in September for sure. We’ve got a three week in there. Justin Miller: Yeah, that will get us to the second meeting in September. Mayor Furlong: And how many days after that? Todd Gerhardt: You want to pick a date or days? Kate Aanenson: If we can get additional time, I’m sure we’ll get it. Mayor Furlong: I mean we’re making progress in the right direction so I think. (Staff and the applicant clarified the length of time extension.) th Mayor Furlong: September 30. Okay. Alright. Seeing that…waiting to receive the paper th back. Okay, so we’re good til September 30? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. thth Mayor Furlong: So we’ve got the 12 and then 14 after that, so the 26. Okay. th Councilman Lundquist: I would move that we table this item until September 26 meeting. 70 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Kate Aanenson: On or before. Councilman Lundquist: Or before. Mayor Furlong: On or before. If they’re ready to come back earlier. th Councilman Lundquist: On or before the 26 of September. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Is there a second to that motion? Councilman Labatt: Second. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council table the request for rezoning from A2 to PUD-R, site plan review with subdivision of 6 blocks and 69 buildings including 446 units, 3 Outlots A, B & C which represent the Overlay District and 7 common lots of 91.02 acres, conditional uses for the development in the Bluff Creek Overlay District and alteration of the Flood Plain and a Wetland Alteration Permit, Liberty on Bluff Creek, Planning Case No. 05-11. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1600 PIONEER TRAIL; PETERSON BLUFF; J. EDWIN CHADWICK, LLC; PLANNING CASE NO. 04-20. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. This subject property is 71 acres and they’re requesting a PUD. Obviously noting what’s happening to the west of them, want to tie into that. Again this property also has dual guiding. These are medium density, or industrial. The applicant is requesting a low density zoning which would require a land use amendment. Again this is concept approval. I’m not going to go through all of the issues in here. It does require a 4/5 as per city code vote. The concept doesn’t have legal standing. What the applicant is looking for is they would like to again proceed at a relatively fast time track to develop this property. The project you have in the packet reflects what they submitted probably 6 to 8 weeks ago but it doesn’t reflect the current layout as proposed with the new road. As shown on this. They’re proposing to do some twin homes and predominantly single family. Again they’ll be a tie into the collector road to the north and then as I indicated the AUAR requires this connection down to Pioneer with single family. So when you’re looking at this site plan, we haven’t looked at it to scale it. To look at it. That will be the next level. Really what we’re here to discuss is the land use itself and if we were to stay with industrial, over here we have this little remnant piece here. Again we looked at that with the change in grades, connecting to so really you’re into this area right here. From the very beginning Mr. Peterson’s requested residential but this isn’t showing it here. What does show up on the overall flood plain, it is a significant amount of property in the flood plain. If you look at the computation that’s in your report here, Mr. Peterson’s property would be, as I indicated 70 acres. Quite a bit of it is in the Bluff Creek Overlay District. Actually approximately 29 acres and quite a bit of it was bought or acquired by MnDot. Approximately 43 acres so of his entire piece that goes all the way over, it’s encumbered by 71