CC Minutes 10-10-05
City Council Meeting – October 10, 2005
Justin Miller: I think this will be helpful for them to acquire financing and get their…
Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Any other questions for staff? If not, at this time then I
would open up public hearing on this matter and invite all interested parties to please come
forward and address the council, stating your name and address please. Nobody for this one?
Okay, without objection then we’ll close the public hearing. Bring it back to council for
discussion. Your thoughts or comments on this. I think this will be, if we can help them making
sure that we have proper conditions that need to be met before this is actually issued, if we can
help them bring in a nice restaurant to town, I think I’m all in favor of doing that and given that
the background checks came through very well, I would propose that we continue to go forward
with this as well. Any other discussion or comments? If not is there a motion to approve.
Councilman Lundquist: Motion to approve.
Mayor Furlong: Is there a second?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion?
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council
approves the request from Food for the Journey, LLC dba Jacob’s Tavern for an on-sale
intoxicating liquor license contingent upon the restaurant receiving site plan approval and
a Certificate of Occupancy. Additionally, staff will work with the applicant to provide an
insurance certificate and license fee prior to the restaurant opening. A background
investigation will be completed on the operating manager once designated. A license will
not be issued until all of the conditions are satisfied. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
LIBERTY ON BLUFF CREEK, TOWN & COUNTRY HOMES, EAST OF AUDUBON
ROAD, SOUTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD AND NORTH OF PIONEER TRAIL,
PLANNING CASE 05-11:
?
REQUEST FOR REZONING OF THE PROPERTY FROM A-2 TO PUD-R;
?
SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES OF APPROXIMATELY 91 ACRES INTO 84
LOTS, 3 OUTLOTS, AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY;
?
SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 444 TOWNHOUSE UNITS;
?
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT;
?
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF
CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT AND FOR ALTERATION TO A FLOOD PLAIN.
Public Present:
Name Address
Shawn Siders Town and Country Homes
7
City Council Meeting – October 10, 2005
Kevin Clark Town and Country Homes
Rick Janssen Town and Country Homes
Jeff Fox 5270 Howards Point Road, Excelsior
Rick Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The subject site located just south of Audubon, south of Lyman
Boulevard. Actually this project was given conceptual approval by the Planning Commission in
2002 so for the last 3 years we’ve worked on not only this project but the entire 2005 MUSA and
working with the property owners, the city engineer working through the frontage road issues,
and the AUAR. As we worked specifically advancing this project, there’s a lot of issues that
th
were refined as they moved along. Most recently at your September 29, the council wanted to
review some changes that they had directed the applicant to make, specifically the location of
units and then some architectural details which you reviewed. Again I think for the public record
the developer’s here prepared to kind of summarize those tonight. I think that’d be helpful for
the public in a summary format, and then also I just wanted to remind the council too that this is
preliminary plat approval. You will see it again for final plat. When it comes back in final plat,
although there is a long laundry list of conditions, some of those conditions will go away as they
have been met and also you will have a design booklet which will call out each unit specifically
on the site. The color and material designs so you’ll all know that ahead of time if there’s things
that you want to move, that that would be something to you also. You have that final approval of
design. So the goal with this is to give them specific marching orders that they need to finalize
to get the ultimate project. One of the things that you asked for at the last meeting was kind of a
comparison chart, which is included right behind the summary report of other projects. I just
wanted to briefly summarize looking at that. It’s a little complex but this model is what we use
tracking for our subdivisions. It’s actually a similar model that we’ve used that the Met Council
has now picked up on tracking, not only multi-family but also single family to see where we are
for net density. One of the questions that you asked at your last meeting was, how does this
compare to other similar multi-family products so we just added another column, kind of looking
at net density. When you take out some of the edges or the primary, some of those other outlots
that you may have included, now when we do a PUD, when you look at each project, while we
treat them all the same, there might be something unique to each project that may not be on
another. For example there might be a large open space that you wanted because there’s some
trees. While it may not be in the primary district that you want to save those trees and put them
in a conservation easement or an outlot, so while we try to compare, if you look at the gross
density on that medium density comparison chart, it’s very similar then to other projects that
we’ve reviewed so it’s really in line. Again going back to the goals of the primary district for
that was put in place only, we decided that instead of trying to, with the park referendum money
and trying to value the overlay district, which was at the time not only for storm water
management, erosion, we thought it was a nice amenity that we wanted to have that corridor for
the city. And instead of trying to take that referendum money and go out and try to get
appraisals on each piece, that we negotiate those as they come in and maybe the lines moves out
or back depending on what we feel is significant. So that’s how we comment on this project and
we walk each project to decide how it rings out. So again the density on this one and the staff’s
feeling is that it’s very comparable and treated the same as we have on other projects. I did want
to, I did attach the original conditions of some things that were modified, for example on Town
and Country. Additional wetland work was done by the consultant so that number was modified
8
City Council Meeting – October 10, 2005
to reflect the additional wetland work that was done on that project. And on page 4 of the cover
sheet, there was a condition of the Park and Recreation, number 31 that I think is a little loose.
We just have to tighten that up and talk about the trail. That internal trail on the private road.
That that be designed subject to staff approval. Modify that. Again there’s several motions that
are involved with the subdivision. The lots have changed and types of homes have been
modified or moved to different projects. That does require rezoning, and rezoning for the PUD.
It does require subdivision. It does require site plan review. A wetland alteration permit and a
conditional use for alteration within the flood plain. We’ve worked with the developer to resolve
all those issues to date and… So with that I’d be happy to answer any questions and I’d like the
developer again to make just a real brief presentation, kind of a summary of the changes. With
that if I can answer any questions.
Mayor Furlong: Any questions for staff at this time? Ms. Aanenson, point of clarification.
Under the recommendation on the staff report, just to be clear. The second item talks about a site
plan review with subdivision. Should preliminary be included in there? Is that appropriate?
Kate Aanenson: That’s fine.
Mayor Furlong: Just for clarity.
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other questions for staff? No? Then at this time I
certainly would invite the developer, representative from Town and Country Homes to come
forward. Good evening.
Kevin Clark: Good evening Mayor. Council members. My name is Kevin Clark. I reside at
3841 Red Cedar Point Drive and I’m here representing Town and Country Homes. A
K.Hovnanian company. I guess I would like to again review what we’ve talked about at some of
our recent meetings and touching on a few of the things, our goal here has been and it’s been
really an excellent experience working with yourselves, planning and city staff and the numerous
consultants and city engineering in what we hope to be a hallmark community for the city of
Chanhassen. Bringing together all the, boy the attract of inviting wonderful amenities that this
property offers with it’s trees, the bluffs, the creek and the sight lines that the topography offers.
We’re looking to do this and accomplish that goal by using quality trails but also building
architecture which will differentiate this neighborhood and also preserve the natural amenities to
provide a truly unique neighborhood within Chanhassen. Let me just review some of the items
that we touched on as we’ve come to this our most recent site plan design. Some of the areas
where we’ve revised the layout from previous to account for the readjusted Bluff Creek Overlay
District, that area that we had initially done a walk through over a year ago. Almost 2 years ago
now has been finally delineated spring-summer of this year, and subsequently we made
numerous adjustments to that as far as siting the product here and also along this area and in this
area here, well the flood plain down on the, what would be the southwest. The southeast area,
from our initial site plan, we had numerous retaining walls in this area. A number of other things
that we were working with, street grades and such, and upon your recommendation we went
back to the drawing board per se. Reviewed that. Adjusted our street grades and also reviewed
9
City Council Meeting – October 10, 2005
how the products were sited. We then removed some larger multi-family products to put in more
appropriately, full basement product along this creek area which allowed us to blend those
basement type products with this topography. Reduce the size of the buildings along this natural
wetland area, and in general created a nice centrally kind of grouping there with all the products
that we’re presenting in this neighborhood. By doing that we reduced the retaining walls
substantially down in the area of what was 17 to 20 feet, now to I think 4 to 6 in some cases. We
have two tiered walls so we’ve mitigated that tremendously. We’ve also represented that we will
on approval of this site plan be working with our neighbors to the east on the Peterson property
to make sure that our grades blend appropriately with them as their project moves forward in the
city process also. Throughout the process, coming out of the AUAR and the numerous revisions
to the infrastructure, specifically that main collector road that runs through the site. If you’ll
remember originally coming out of the AUAR it was intended to come out and then go at more
of a diagonal through the north corridor of the Peterson property. Upon review of other features,
whether it be flood plain, wetlands and such and crossing, it was decided that that road needed to
have a more northerly projectory on our east boundary and then working with city engineering
we’ve adjusted for all those impacts as we designed our site plan to accommodate those new
collector roads and the infrastructure that they’re currently planning on. Also, the recent public
hearing, one of the items that was addressed was the mix of units and really from the air of the
site plan as it looked, we’ve gone back and reviewed that. Looked at how the site plan and how
the buildings were sited on there. We’ve made numerous adjustments to removing what we refer
to ads the Chateau product in this area, and substituting that with a Majestic. And then I also
looked at this area up here, and then changing some of the products and creating more of a, kind
of a smaller collection with all the products in each of these four quadrants so we had a balance
of all those areas. Just to go through a number of the other areas we’ve worked with. I think
we’re looking forward to creating this neighborhood identity coming in off of Audubon with an
entry area here. Continuing through to this round about feature that’s been planned by the city in
their infrastructure. Creating a special identity for this neighborhood. The street patterns with
the main collector road progressing through here and the main intersection. We’ve been able to
site our products so there are no garages siting on any public streets. Maintaining a very
aesthetic architecturally pleasing sight lines as you drive through this entire neighborhood. As
our plan here shows, we’ve been able to preserve upwards of three-quarters or 63 acres of the 92
in open space, whether it be in bluff area or areas surrounding a building. Natural areas, so I
think we’ve done a tremendous job of working to provide and preserve this natural amenity
going forward. We’re proposing a totlot in this area. We also have a pool amenity that will be
part of the association in this area here. In response to some of the concerns in this pool area and
pedestrian crossing, we worked with city staff to make sure that in the design and planning of
this collector road there will be designated cross areas and our pedestrian pathways will be
constructed. Specifically to match up with the, to provide safe crossing to and from this planned
amenity. Parking. We have in each unit, there are 2 units covered in each parking or for each
unit and in addition to that we have about 922 additional sites. Parking. Both on street, in the
driveway and in parking clusters throughout the neighborhood. So we have 4.08 spaces per unit.
We’ve gone to great lengths again in working with the Bluff Creek overlay to preserve the trees
and probably one of the other things that evolved was there was a section of land here, the
Jeurissen parcel that we were able to incorporate so what we are able to speak to this whole area
in continuity. Those are just the summary of a number of changes we’ve made as we brought the
site plan to the condition it’s at now. I’d be glad to go through the architectural changes that I
10
City Council Meeting – October 10, 2005
know were in your packet. If you’d want me to. I’ll leave that to you. We’re looking forward to
working forward on this project with staff, engineering and with our neighbors, the Petersons and
other property owners, and look forward to advancing this project before you. I’ll stand ready to
answer any questions about architecture or anything else.
Mayor Furlong: Very good. Thank you Mr. Clark. Questions of Mr. Clark. I guess Mr. Clark
one area, and I know we discussed this, it is related to the architecture with regard to, we
discussed this at our last work session and you’ll excuse me, I forget the name of some of the
different units but they’re the four square unit. The Victorian, those styles.
Kevin Clark: I think you’re referring to the Premiere.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yes.
Kevin Clark: That one was referring to the Churchill club. It’s upside down. Alright.
Mayor Furlong: I guess I’m speaking more to the architecture versus where they’re located
within the site plan. I think we made tremendous improvement on the front and the look in
coming with the four different units. The question I have, I know this came up at our last work
session were the rear views of these units. And specifically, basically a long wall and I know
that you’ve put your money in there. Is there something we can do, or working with staff to try
to build some dimension to that between now and final to break up those long walls? From just a
visual standpoint.
Kevin Clark: I know we did talk about this area and I think again to reiterate how we’ve landed
on it from this point, one of the things we’re looking at it as I described was the really the color
palette and how working with either the walls or different materials, the colors that will come
with that, and then what we’ve shown to yourselves and it was a 3 different distinct architectural
elevations that we’ve put together. I think yes, what I would ask is that we really defer to the
architects and our color consultant to say what would be appropriate because what we want to do
is speak to the market and give us the latitude to talk with them to see what we can do to
introduce that. One of the things that as we’ve got this product sited is the way the buildings sit
together as far as…one of the items you’d like to talk about is somehow undulating them is how
we’re matching that existing Bluff Creek Overlay and basically there are two buffers that we
need to account for, so we’ve been able to, you know in the context of the whole site, make sure
everything works in that area and I’d be hesitant to try to start breaking the building up because
of how those structures lay together along those buffer areas and how the structures come
together.
Mayor Furlong: And perhaps if you could hold up and pick the maroon one here. I think that’s
the four square, just as an example. Just the rear view. I think the colors look good and I know
you’re hiring a consultant there to pick a lot of good matching colors and work together, and that
there won’t be any buildings next to each other of like color that will work together. I guess
what I’m referring to as you look across there, on the two end units there’s some articulations,
I’m learning. There’s some depth added there with, from an architectural standpoint, and is there
an opportunity, whether it’s a similar type of articulation across the back there or the addition of
11
City Council Meeting – October 10, 2005
other features to try to break up that long wall view, and again working with staff, working with
your architects to try to break it up so that it’s not just a solid. While you’ve done a little bit of
that here, I guess what I’m looking for is a little bit more.
Kevin Clark: Right, and you mentioned it in your earlier comments that certainly we focus our
energy on the elevations. On really the sides and the front because going back to the site plan,
all these, really you’ll have to stand in the woods to see the back of all these, so what we’re
looking at is where is the value from the neighborhood, both the customer and the community as
they drive through there, where will that be better suited?
Mayor Furlong: And I think you’ve done a good job there. What I don’t know from current
existing landscaping, trees and such, as you come from the, as you look at your site plan here, as
you come from the east curving in there, you’re going to see a number of these units across the
primary zone of the Bluff Creek corridor. And so something to look at if you would between
now, as I say, and final plat, as a way to improve upon what I think is, you know you’ve already
made some great improvements so I don’t want to discount this but at the same time take a look
at that if you would.
Kevin Clark: We certainly will.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? At this time. No? Okay, very
good. Thank you. At this point then I guess we would bring it back to council for comments and
discussion. Your thoughts and comments. Councilman Lundquist.
Councilman Lundquist: It’s been an interesting time through this and I would echo your
comments to the developer and staff on improvements that have been made. We’ve come a long
ways. Especially in the last couple of months on this thing, so I don’t want to discount that
either. I’m still oh, up in the air I guess I should say. We’ve had some, you know some issues
on the, this property right now is guided for a mixed use there, or do a guidance. So we’ll be
giving up some industrial here, which is kind of near and dear to my heart and when I look at
this, you know we’ve used the density transfer tool to put it all together. When you look at this,
the pads, the building pad, the area itself, being that density at 11.2, it’s a lot of, it’s still a lot of
units. It’s a lot of stuff packed into a little area. Granted it’s a difficult site to work with and
we’re preserving the bluff and the open space and all those things are all good things. We’re
doing the density transfer using the tool properly for what we’ve put it in place for. But that, it’s
still a lot of houses packed into, or a lot of units packed into a little area so. You know I guess
there’s still some things that aren’t perfect in my mind but again it’s come a long ways and I do
have confidence that the units would be, or the development might be the best high density or
medium density thing that we could put in there, but I’d be interested to hear what fellow council
members viewpoints are and at this point I guess I’m still up in the air as to next course of action.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Labatt, thoughts.
Councilman Labatt: My computer keeps locking up on me so I’ll wing it here. You know this
has made it’s full circle here. I wasn’t really happy at first when this first came up and a lot of
the comments we all exchanged about the roads and the, now that the features and the changes
12
City Council Meeting – October 10, 2005
have been made over the last several revisions have pleased me. As I look at the net density, I
don’t, thanks Todd. You know the adjusted, I’m not going to look at the adjustments. I’m
looking at the net density and this is 11.24, which is on the low side of a lot of our recent
developments in the last, my 7 years on here. And the gross is very similar to what we’ve done.
We’ve done a few lower ones. So the density doesn’t bother me. The changes that were made in
the configuration of the development and the improvements that were made are nice. I think
Mayor, your point of the idea, the Premiere homes up there on the north with, and working with
the back of those to change the monogamous look to it. I mean when you’ve got 8 windows
across the structures, it still looks like a military barracks and I think that Mr. Clark got our point
of add some features there. Make it look nicer for when you’re coming down that new road.
Other than that I think the work session last, 2 weeks ago, the questions I had and to the
configuration of the development were answered. I am pleased with the park and when you look
at some of the parking issues and especially during the winter time, and some of the other
developments of this style and the problems that has caused, obviously this developer’s taken the
time to look into that and create extra parking spots. But I like it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other comments? Councilwoman Tjornhom, thoughts.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah, I kind of wish the product that we were looking at today is
what we first saw a couple months ago. I’m beginning to become a person that is really into the
life cycling of neighborhoods and I think with the spaces that we have left we have to be wise in
making sure that we make sure we’ve covered our bases with this life cycling idea and I just
don’t see it here with this project. I don’t see the price point. 230 is starting for the Chateau and
I think, correct me if I’m wrong but for, I don’t want to say low income housing but for.
Mayor Furlong: For affordable.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Affordable housing, I think it’s like 193 or something. That’s where
it’s starting or I thought that’s what I read. And so if that doesn’t work for that, and also I
wanted, hoped to see something more for empty nesters. Something more rambler style than the
level townhouses. Maybe a blend of the whole thing mixing everything together instead of
having this one concentration of townhouses, we’ve got a stairs and so for me to change the
zoning, I had to see something better. I had to see something more unique maybe because in my
mind this is going to set the tone and set the bar for what happens for the future development in
this area and so at this point I don’t think I can vote yes.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Peterson.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah, I’ve probably struggled over this one more than I have most.
When this was before us a few years ago I was, I was very concerned about the rezoning from
industrial to anything less than industrial for all the reasons that we spoke of before. Because of
that I set the standard pretty high. I set the bar high. I think for all the right reasons too. So I’ve
been waving the flag about architectural design and distinctiveness all the way through, and I
think we have come a long way to achieve a product that is, it’s a good product. It’s, you know
if it was a straight development without a PUD, without zoning, then I would be pretty happy
with it. The things that concern me are the density. This will be one of the biggest, probably the
13
City Council Meeting – October 10, 2005
second largest development we have in the city as far as size of acreage and the number of units.
And so it’s a combination, to your point Steve, the density isn’t that different than other ones we
have but the sheer scope of the project is significant. You know it’s twice the size of the farming
community I grew up on. To add perspective I guess. You know so.
Councilman Lundquist: In acreage or in units?
Councilman Peterson: Both. Both. You know it’s a development that, I think I used the word a
few weeks ago that I wanted something that wowed me. It wows me today a lot more than it
wowed me a few months ago and I think that is, as you all have shared, that’s very
commendable. The developer and staff have worked hard to get a product that is better than it
was before, and that’s what the Planning Commission is tasked with and that’s what we’re tasked
with, to bring products that get better. But, the question I’ve been asking all the way up through
this very second is, is have they met where the bar is set for me? I think because of the
massiveness of the development and the architectural designs that I think are a little bit below my
standard yet, I’m concerned. So Mr. Mayor I’d like to hear your comments and what your
thoughts are on it even before I make up my ultimate mind but I wanted a product that is
absolutely outstanding for this area and I don’t think we’re at outstanding, but I don’t know if
I’m asking too much and I guess that’s what I’m looking for feedback on.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. I think that, and I will echo Councilman Labatt’s and other’s
comments as well and thank the staff and the applicant for getting us a proposal that we’re
looking at this evening. I think where we were back in July, it was not there. There wasn’t the
comfort there and the standard that we need to ask ourselves, are we getting the best possible?
We don’t as a council get to choose who develops property. It’s the property owner. That’s
America and I kind of like that because I own property too. That being said, I think from a
standard standpoint, are we getting the best possible out of the developer? And the comment that
I’ve used before in our work sessions is, is this going to be a development that’s going to be on
their next marketing literature? Is this what they’re going to be proud of? To say look at what
we did in Chanhassen. To me that’s a standard that, it’s a qualitative standard but nonetheless
it’s a standard that I can look to, are we getting the best? Can we do a little bit more? Earlier
tonight I was asking for some more. I think they’ve done a good job and they’ve gone the extra
step in terms of getting consultants in for color. We’re not seeing all these buildings are not the
same white or beige or gray. There’s variety, just like we have in other neighborhoods in our
city, there’s variety of colors from house to house, and there will be variety of colors here as
well. Councilman Lundquist talked about land use and that was a concern and it’s a valid
concern. It continues to be a concern of this council in terms of changing land use. In this
particular case our comprehensive plan showed a either or guiding for this development. Either
medium density or office industrial. I agree with Councilman Lundquist that our office
industrial, we’ve got to make sure if we’re going to give up some of that out of our
comprehensive plan, where are we going to get it back, and as we know at a recent work session
we sat down with staff and identified some specific properties that had the likelihood potential to
offset the 40 plus some odd acres here that will be developed and counted as medium density
going forward. So I think as, while there isn’t a desire at this point to change land use guiding,
as part of our comprehensive plan, we were able to identify specific parcels to offset that. I think
Councilman Lundquist to your point of raising that question, all of us can feel a little more
14
City Council Meeting – October 10, 2005
comfortable doing that. The comment on density, as I look at that, I tried to get a sense and a
feel of what we were looking at and in looking at staff’s comparison with regard to how the
density of this area within the building area of buildings compared to some of the other ones.
The most recent one that I looked at was in the Arboretum Village. The Pulte development.
And there, as I understand it, that, the net density on the chart is about the same, to Councilman
Labatt’s point, it’s about the same, little bit less than some of the other ones that have been done
in the city. But driving through there, one thing when I think of Pulte, my immediate thought
goes to the northeast corner of Highway 5 and 41, which is probably the most dense area.
th
Because clearly the twin homes north of West 78, but this number that we’re seeing here is the
average including the twin homes and so when you think of the area of that neighborhood, that
development that’s in that northeast corner of 5 and 41, that’s more dense than what you’re
going to see here. I drove through there. It’s a neighborhood. It’s, there are people walking
around. There are cars parked. There are people, you know it’s a neighborhood. And you had
this feel while you were there that you were in a different place than perhaps driving through
Longacres or other parts of town as well, so I think, to Councilman Lundquist’s point, what’s
creating that sense in this development is really I agree, our proper use of transferring density
from the rest of the area, the 90 plus odd acres into the middle so that we can create on the north
side, preserve the primary zone for Bluff Creek on the south side where there is developable area
along our border with Chaska, a green zone. So as you’re driving up from Chaska there’ll be a
visual break with the trees before you hit development within Chanhassen. All these things I
think we have, as a council and again with the developer and with staff, we’ve worked to push
this to move this forward over these summer months. I think we’ve made some great progress. I
think we’ve raised some good issues in terms of land use. I think the issue of density transfer is
one that we should always be checking. If we could take these buildings, push it out, but we’re
not going to change the number of units on this 90 acre parcel. What we’re going to do is we’re
going to give up part of the primary zone of Bluff Creek corridor. I haven’t seen a compelling
reason to do that and when I compare this to other developments that we have in town that are
neighborhoods, they’re homes. People live here and enjoy living there. I view it as what are we
getting from a city, and you can talk about driving through or driving to. I think what we can
look at as a council is the driving to. Are we going to see areas of green? Are we going to see
preserved areas as well as developed areas in our city? We’ve done a good job of that as a city
over the years. This is another one of those areas. We’re not clear cutting. We’re preserving the
natural features of the area and using the development tool of transferring the density, not from a
negative result but from an overall positive result. Councilman Peterson you said, you know we
set our bar. We set it high. I think are we asking too much? I think we need to ask all that we
can out of each developer individually and if we achieve that, then we’re asking enough. And
that’s what we as a council, recognizing that property owners have rights and I’m glad that we all
do. That we need to push and I’m not saying let up. There was one area that I raised earlier. I
think that we can, if there’s an area to make an improvement, we should continue to do that even
if it is on the back of the house. That’s what we should do. So I think we’ve come a long way. I
am very pleased with the progress that has been made over these last few months as everybody
has worked hard to get something. I know the council’s put in a lot of time and given the
developer a lot of feedback. I think they’ve responded to the issues raised as they were raised
and we’ve had a chance to look at this within the comprehensive plan. I think it’s a worthwhile
development. It will be an asset to our city and I support it subject to the conditions contained
within the staff report as well as the additional comments made this evening. So Councilman
15
City Council Meeting – October 10, 2005
Peterson, those are my thoughts or comments and I certainly would be happy to listen to others
or, if you have other comments to share, or Councilman Lundquist. Anyone in particular with
regard to this development.
Councilman Peterson: I don’t know if it’s a sign but my computer, on this project is locking up.
I can’t open it up.
Councilman Labatt: You need to get to 134?
Councilman Peterson: Uh huh.
Councilman Labatt: Yeah, that’s all I can get to.
Todd Gerhardt: You want to hand my report down to him.
Mayor Furlong: Other thoughts and comments from others on this.
Councilman Lundquist: Todd, we talked a little in work session about tax capacity and
generation for medium density versus office industrial. About having exact numbers. Can you
give us a feel for just in general revenue generation from a development such as this with this
kind of density versus an office industrial.
Todd Gerhardt: Well, depends on what areas you’re taking in. The 11 units per acre are going
to generate more in tax dollars. When you look more at the 6, I believe it was a push with the
office industrial zoning. But 11 units per acre will generate more, so you get a lot of open space
in here. Probably would not be able to put any office industrial in those areas in the green with
the exception of the one to the south. You do have a heavily wooded area there. You probably
are going to have a buffer area when you go up against residential so odds are you probably
wouldn’t develop in that area. So in this case I would say probably the multi-family would
generate a little bit more. But then again you’ve got to take into account a little bit more in
community service. Schools and our park system.
Councilman Lundquist: And then that’s the next question. The comp plan is used for a lot of
things like the school developments and things. This doesn’t, I guess our intention would be if
this one gets approved then we’ve got to offset that somewhere else so we don’t get too skewed
one way or the other.
Mayor Furlong: You’re saying with land use?
Councilman Lundquist: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: That was one of our work session topics. A few meetings back.
Councilman Lundquist: And our options from here, if this one gets approved, as far as
architecture and colors and all of those things, we’ve still got full control over what goes.
16
City Council Meeting – October 10, 2005
Kate Aanenson: What the condition reads now is that you will approve the color palette to
represent the direction that you’ve given but you’ll get final approval on the, you know the
buildings will be sided but they’ll be called out and then the architectural color palette and
materials, you’ll approve that…
Councilman Lundquist: So we’ve still got control over architecture and color palette.
Kate Aanenson: Yes you do. But I think just to be clear, …it’s going to be similar to what’s
here.
Councilman Lundquist: Agreed.
Mayor Furlong: Other thoughts, comments. I guess as we proceed with the possibility of a
motion here, a couple things that came up. One is clarifying preliminary within the site plan.
And then the other condition was 31 or 32.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. 31.
Mayor Furlong: 31?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: To state that the internal private trail be designed subject to staff approval.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and Mayor if we could clarify I think Councilman Lundquist…referred
to the first condition.
Mayor Furlong: Condition 1?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, design plan showing the color and architectural, and I just need to clarify
to say at the time of final plat, just to be clear that that’s our intent for approval.
Mayor Furlong: And that condition 1 addresses Councilman Lundquist’s concern Mr. Knutson?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. Based upon approval at final plat.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay, is there any other discussion?
Councilman Labatt: Condition 1 is maybe changed at the time of final plat.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Labatt: Condition 32 is going to be, instead of carefully planned it’s going to be say
designed?
Kate Aanenson: No, 31 about the trail.
17
City Council Meeting – October 10, 2005
Councilman Labatt: Or 31 is going to be changed, you’re changing here to say you carefully
planned or from that to say should be designed.
Mayor Furlong: Designed subject to staff approval to allow for convenient access.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Councilman Labatt: Is there another amendment or just those two?
Mayor Furlong: I think…that we clarify that it’s preliminary plat. Preliminary site plan.
Councilman Labatt: Right, yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Any other concerns, requests? Okay. Is there a motion?
Councilman Labatt: Mayor, I will recommend that we approve the request to rezone from A2 to
PUD-R, site plan review for subdivision of 6 blocks and 69 buildings including 444 units, 3
outlots A and B which represent the overlay district and C which is the association pool and 7
common lots of 91.02 acres, conditional uses for the development of Bluff Creek Overlay
District and alteration of the flood plain, and a wetland alteration permit as stated below and
showed on the site plans and construction plans dated 9-06-05. And the conditions as outlined in
the staff report with the noted that this is a preliminary site plan and number 1 is going to be at
the time of final plat. And number 31 is that the design is subject to staff approval. Did I hit
them all?
Mayor Furlong: Think so.
Councilman Labatt: You had number 2 highlighted there.
Mayor Furlong: No.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. Is this where we also adopt the findings of fact Roger?
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Councilman Labatt: As outlined in the staff report. Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Lundquist: I’ll second.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Made and seconded. Is there any discussion on the motion?
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve
the request for rezoning from A2 to PUD-R; site plan review with subdivision of 6 blocks
18
City Council Meeting – October 10, 2005
and 69 buildings including 444 units, 3 Outlots (A & B which represent the Overlay District,
and C which is the association pool), 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, as stated below and as shown on the site plan and
construction plans dated 9-06-05, subject to the following conditions:
Planning Recommended Conditions of Approval
1.Provide design plan that shows the color and architectural detail for each unit on the site.
2.The assessment for the AUAR will be paid at the time of plat recording. The assessment
amount, based on gross acreage of 15.5 %, plus wetland delineation and cultural resources
inventory is $22,709.00.
Engineering Recommended Conditions of Approval
3.The final plat can not be presented to City Council for approval until City Project 04-05 is
awarded.
4.Before site grading commences, the three existing buildings on the property must be razed.
5.On-street parking may be used to satisfy the parking requirement with the following
stipulations:
On-street parking is prohibited between November 1 and April 1 between the hours of 1:00
a.m. and 7:00 a.m., consistent with Section 12-16 of the City Code: Winter Parking
Regulations. Credit for on-street parking is not allowed along the curve of the public streets.
6.The developer’s engineer must work with Peterson’s Bluff’s engineer to ensure that the
proposed grading on each property matches at the property line and to eliminate and/or
decrease the height of retaining walls to the maximum extent possible.
7.Ground slopes shall not exceed 3H:1V.
8.The final grading plan must show the proposed top and bottom of wall elevations for all
retaining walls.
9.Retaining walls over four feet high must be designed by a Structural Engineer registered in
the State of Minnesota and require a building permit.
10.The existing driveway at Audubon Road must be removed.
11.All of the ponds are required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP)
standards with maximum 3:1 slopes and a 10:1 bench at the NWL.
19
City Council Meeting – October 10, 2005
12. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings must beat least three feet above the HWL of the
adjacent ponds.
13.The last public storm water structure that is road-accessible prior to discharging to a water
body must have a 3-foot sump.
14.The applicant shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump
discharge from homes not adjacent to ponds.
15.The style of home and lowest floor elevation must be noted on the final grading plan.
16.Blanket drainage and utility easements are required over all common lots; however, the
following storm sewer segments shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners
association:
a.Northeast and west of Lot 5, Block 1.
b.Within the private cul de sac to Lots 1-4, Block 3.
c.The connection between the private drives to Lots 9, 10, 11 and 12 Block 1 and the
public lateral within Street A.
d.The connection between the private cul de sac to Lots 1-4, Block 3 and the public
lateral within Street D.
e.East of Lot 7, Block 4.
f.Northof Lots 11-13, Block 5.
g.West of and between Lots 2 and 3, Block 6.
17.The plat must be signed by a Land Surveyor registered in the State of Minnesota.
18.A minimum 75-foot long rock construction entrance must be shown on the plans.
19.Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal.
20.An easement is required from the appropriate property owner for any off-site grading.
21.If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will
be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes.
22.Utility services for the buildings must be shown on the final utility plan. Sanitary services
must be 6-inch PVC and water service must be 1-inch copper, Type K.
23.Each new lot is subject to the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. The 2005 trunk
hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,955 for watermain. Sanitary sewer and
watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building
permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the
Met Council and are due at the time of building permit issuance.
20
City Council Meeting – October 10, 2005
24.Upon project completion, the developer must submit inspection/soil reports certifying that
the private streets were built to a 7-ton design.
25.All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's
latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to
enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in
the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and
the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility
improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance.
26.Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required prior to construction,
including but not limited to MPCA, Department of Health, Carver County and Watershed
District.
27.The benchmark used to complete the site survey must be shown on the grading plan.
28.Intersection neckdowns are limited to public street intersections only.
Park and Recreation Recommended Conditions of Approval
29.Full park dedication fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of requiring parkland
dedication.
30.The trails on both the north and south sides of collector road “A” are widened to 10 feet.
31.The internal or private trail north of Block 1 be designed subject to staff approval to allow
convenient access to the Bluff Creek Corridor.
32.Other internal or private trails connecting residents to amenities within the PUD be enhanced.
Wetland Alteration Permit Recommended Conditions of Approval
33.Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (MR 8420).
34.The applicant shall work with staff to address comments received from the reviewing
agencies, including conducting MnRAMs for impacted and replacement wetlands for use in
sequencing flexibility for impacts on wetlands A, D, E, J and L. Details regarding the
stabilization of areas upslope of mitigation area M2 shall be included in the replacement
plan. More detailed plans for mitigation areas M1 and M2, including cross-sections, shall be
submitted. The applicant shall consider restorations of wetlands A, F and G for new wetland
credit. The applicant must receive approval of a wetland replacement plan prior to or
concurrent with final plat approval and prior to wetland impacts occurring.
35.A five-year wetland replacement monitoring plan shall be submitted. The replacement
monitoring plan shall include a detailed management plan for invasive non-native species,
21
City Council Meeting – October 10, 2005
particularly hybrid cattail, purple loosestrife and reed canary grass. The plans shall show
fixed photo monitoring points for the replacement wetland. The applicant shall provide proof
of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland.
36.A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be
maintained around all wetlands, with the exception of Basin C. A wetland buffer 20 to 30
feet in width (with a minimum average of 20 feet) shall be maintained around Basin C.
Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s
wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of
City staff, before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign.
37.All structures shall be set back 40 feet from the edge of the wetland buffer. The wetland buffer
setback should be shown on the plans.
38.The applicant shall submit a letter of credit equal to 110% of the cost of the wetland creation
(including grading and seeding) to ensure the design standards for the replacement wetland
are met. The letter of credit shall be effective for no less than five years from the date of
final plat approval. The applicant shall submit a cost estimate for wetland creation (including
grading and seeding) so the City can calculate the amount of the wetland creation letter of
credit.
39.Clay diversions shall be used to divert runoff around the wetlands on the south side of the
development to the temporary sediment basins downslope of them.
Water Resources Subdivision Recommended Conditions of Approval
40.Bluff areas (i.e., slope greater than or equal to 30% and a rise in slope of at least 25 feet
above the toe) shall be preserved. In addition, all structures shall maintain a 30-foot setback
from the bluff and no grading may occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land
located within 20 feet from the top of a bluff).
41.No alterations are allowed within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet of the
setback from the primary corridor. All structures shall meet the 40-foot setback from the
primary corridor.
42.A copy of the LOMA shall be submitted to the City prior to alterations within the floodplain.
In lieu of a LOMA, the applicant shall obtain a conditional use permit for alterations within
the floodplain.
43.The developer shall determine the base flood elevation (100-year) to ensure that the
structures will meet all floodplain elevation requirements.
44.The grade stabilization structure at the north end of Basin A is in disrepair and shallbe
replaced. Before the development incorporates this structure into the permanent storm water
management system, the structure shallbe assessed and a plan proposed and approved by the
city for the repair or replacement of the structure, as well as long term maintenance. The
22
City Council Meeting – October 10, 2005
applicant shallwork with the property owner to the north to get permission to repair or
replace the structure.
45.Drainage and utility easements with a minimum width of 20 feet shallbe provided over all
existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water
infrastructure.
46.A complete Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shallbe in place before
applying for and receiving NPDES construction permit coverage from the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA).
47.Minimization of the amount of exposed soils on the site is needed; phasing of the
development shalllimit the disturbed areas open.
48.All emergency overflows need temporary and permanent stabilization and shallbe shown in
a detail or on the SWPPP. Energy dissipation (riprap and geotextile fabric) shall be installed
within 24 hours of installation of flared end sections and outlet structures.
49.Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All
exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round,
according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can
Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area
10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.)
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
50.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.
51.Temporary sediment basins shall be constructed and could be located in the proposed
permanent storm water pond locations. If Pond A does not get excavated prior to disturbing
the contributing area; a temporary basin shall be constructed approximately in the areas of
Street D and Lot 5, Block 3. Temporary basins shall be labeled on the SWPPP. A detail
shall be provided for the temporary outlet structures for the temporary basins. Clay berms
shall be used to temporarily divert runoff from the construction site to the temporary basins
prior to discharge. Additionally the clay diversions shall be used to divert runoff around the
wetlands on the south side of the development to the temporary sediment basins downslope
of them.
52.Chanhassen Type 2, Heavy Duty silt fence shall be used around all wetlands, streams, creeks,
bluffs and ravines; Chanhassen Type 1 silt fence shall be used around the remaining areas.
The inlet control (for area inlets, not curbside) detail shall be mono-mono heavy duty
machine sliced silt fence with 4 foot maximum spacing for metal T-posts. A rock berm
23
City Council Meeting – October 10, 2005
placed around the silt fence shall be at least 2 feet wide and 1 foot high of 1½ -inch clear
rock. Wimco-type inlet controls shall be installed in all inlets through out the project within
24 hours of inlet installation. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include
daily street scraping and street sweeping as-needed.
53.At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording, is $288,050.
54.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 (National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources (dewatering permit), and Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their
conditions of approval.
Forestry Recommended Conditions of Approval
55.Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to construction around all areas designated for
preservation.
56.A walk-through inspection of the silt/tree preservation fence shall be required prior to
construction.
57.A turf plan shall be submitted to the city indicating the location of sod and seeding areas.
58.Dedication of Outlot A and B shall be made to the city or a conservation easement shall be
established over said outlots.
Inspections and Fire Marshal Recommended Conditions of Approval
59.A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV, and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that
fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
60.There are a number of additional fire hydrants required and some will be re-located.
61.Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is requiredto 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.
62.Temporary street signs shall be installed on street intersection when construction of the new
roadway allows passage by vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4.
63.No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be
removed from site or chipped.
24
City Council Meeting – October 10, 2005
64.Submit street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for
review and approval. The Chanhassen Building Official and Fire Marshal will determine
which streets will need naming.
65.“No parking fire lane” signs will be required. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact
location of signs to be installed.
66.Submit cul-de-sac design dimensions to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for review and
approval.
Building Recommended Conditions of Approval
67.Accessibility will have to be provided to all portions of the development and a percentage of
the units may also be required to be accessible or adaptable in accordance with Minnesota
State Building Code Chapter 1341. Further information is needed to determine these
requirements.
68.Buildings over 8,500 sq. ft. in size must be protected with an automatic fire protection
system. The State of Minnesota is in the process of revising Chapter 1306 of the Minnesota
State Building Code regarding fire protection systems. It is not yet entirely clear how these
changes will affect residential construction. It is important that the developer meet with the
Inspections Division prior to final design to determine what ramifications, if any, the new
requirements will have on the project.
69.The developer must submit a list of proposed street names and an addressing plan for review
and approval prior to final plat of the property.
70.Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures on the site.
71.A final grading plan and soils report must be to the Inspections Division before permits can
be issued.
72.Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire-
resistive construction.
73.The buildings will be required to be designed by an architect and engineer as determined by
the Building Official.
74.The developer and or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible
to discuss plan review and permit procedures.”
All voted in favor, except Councilwoman Tjornhom who opposed and the motion carried
with a vote of 4 to 1.
Kevin Clark: Mayor, council. Thank you for your confidence and for staff’s continued guidance
and collaboration with us and we look forward to bringing this before you as a final plat.
25
City Council Meeting – October 10, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. We look forward to the development as well. Thank you.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Furlong: That completes our items of new business. We move now to council
presentations. Any comments or discussion?
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, just kind of a general update on Southwest Metro Transit.
We are continuing to struggle for funding with, between the State and the Feds. We’ve got a
dozen or so buses we’re struggling to find financing with. Met Council, depending upon what
day you literally ask them and who you ask, it’s been a continually ongoing challenge and saga
as to whether or not what funds are going to be there. They have buses that are literally pending
being built in an assembly line with yet to be funded so it doesn’t put us into a crisis situation but
we’ve got buses that are 2 or 3 years past their normal life cycle so we’re, we are anxiously
awaiting a formal decision from Met Council. It actually should come within the next week or
so. So hopefully by the next, by the next meeting we’ll, I’ll give you positive feedback. The
good thing and the thing you might have already presumed is that our ridership continues to go
up exponentially with gas prices and so our lot, park and ride lots are full and our buses are full,
which is a good thing because that means their cars are off the streets. So, but I look forward to
giving you better feedback hopefully in 2 weeks.
Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you.
Councilman Lundquist: So what’s the restocking fee on a bus?
Councilman Peterson: More than you want to know.
Mayor Furlong: More than 15%?
Todd Gerhardt: Is it an interim, you know a couple of months? 6 months? A year? You’re not
getting any direction probably.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah. Nobody wants to put their initial on a multi million dollar
agreement when the funding is just, everybody is trying to grab funding and that’s, it’s who’s
screaming the loudest and we’re starting to echo in the chamber now so.
Todd Gerhardt: So there was no commitment guarantee that this is part of the request right now.
Councilman Peterson: That’s correct. Funds were allocated under some of the last bonding and
some of the last decisions, but they weren’t allocated yet so the allocation that we’re dealing with
now, the funds are there. It’s a matter of whether.
Todd Gerhardt: Determining the allocation out to the different opt out communities.
Councilman Peterson: Exactly.
26